# Violin Concertos: Schoenberg vs. Berg



## Dim7

Let's see how many of you get this right. Do not vote if you haven't heard both concertos (duh).


----------



## Heliogabo

I usually prefer Schoenberg's music over Berg's. But for this concerto Berg is the guy to me. His violin concerto is one of the greatest concerts ever written.


----------



## ptr

Impossible choice, why can't I have both!

/ptr


----------



## elgar's ghost

I like both a lot but Berg edges it on the spurious grounds that being his final completed work made it all the more poignant.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I like Berg more than Schoenberg in general but Webern better than both. Oh, if only Webern had composed a violin concerto.....

Berg's violin concerto is a masterpiece.


----------



## Triplets

I listen to the Berg a lot and have several recordings. I had one recording of the Schoenberg years ago and hated it. Perhaps I should try again.


----------



## The nose

It's a tough one... I voted Schönberg only because it deserves more visibility than it had.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I'm the weirdo here. I connected with the Schoenberg immediately. The Berg, it took a couple years.


----------



## Dim7

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm the weirdo here. I connected with the Schoenberg immediately. The Berg, it took a couple years.


My first reaction to Schoenberg: Starts ok, not quite as interesting and appealing on its own as the first bars of Piano Concerto, but works as a dramatic, anticipating introduction... Some cool moments, some annoying pointless squeaking... Do not hear much structure, a bit aimless sounding. In fact the initial reaction was very much similar to what is my initial reaction to most romantic era Violin Concertos.

After a while I start getting incredible heavy metalish / horror music-like thrills from this concerto. I often complain about how annoying and squeaky violin virtuosity can be, but if I pretend that the violin is more like an electric guitar, or an electric guitar and a violin at the same time, it sounds more enjoyable. But also I start to hear lyricism and beauty that I didn't pay much attention before. The second movement in particular starts like a lullaby.

Berg so far my reaction has been: Boring... booring... But admittedly I probably shouldn't dismiss it yet at this point.


----------



## joen_cph

The Naxos recording of the Schoenberg work can be recommended to anyone looking for a very engaged, romantically coloured and grand version. Am inclined to Schoenberg mostly; for Berg recordings, Kogan or Mutter for example, with the same overall characteristics).


----------



## mmsbls

Berg's violin concerto was the first work I learned to enjoy of the 2nd Viennese school, but at this point I enjoy Schoenberg's works more than Berg's. Still the Berg concerto is stunningly beautiful, and I would say it's my favorite work of Schoenberg. Berg, or Webern.


----------



## Guest

I voted Schoenberg, on the understanding "of course" is ironic, because patronising is not a good look.


----------



## Dim7

dogen said:


> I voted Schoenberg, on the understanding "of course" is ironic, because patronising is not a good look.


Yeah sure, OF COURSE the "of course" is like _totally_ ironic


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> Yeah sure, OF COURSE the "of course" is like _totally_ ironic


OK.

But not in a postmodern way?


----------



## Dim7

dogen said:


> OK.
> 
> But not in a postmodern way?


The irony itself seems ironic, but only if you take it at face value.


----------



## Guest

I eschew social constructionism.


----------



## Mahlerian

I voted for the Schoenberg Concerto, though I think both are masterpieces. For the Schoenberg, I enjoy Hahn and Barenboim the most. Older recordings of the piece contain too much squeaking because of poor intonation.


----------



## Dim7

“My music is not modern, it is merely badly played” said Schoenberg. And indeed Schoenberg's Violin Concerto is one of the rare works I'm actually fairly picky about the performer/recording.


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> "My music is not modern, it is merely badly played" said Schoenberg. And indeed Schoenberg's Violin Concerto is one of the rare works I'm actually fairly picky about the performer/recording.


I think I've got the same as someguy - LSO / Amoyal / Boulez. Sounds good to me.


----------



## Dim7

dogen said:


> I think I've got the same as someguy - LSO / Amoyal / Boulez. Sounds good to me.


Hilary Hahn for me!


----------



## Art Rock

I like the Schoenberg. I love the Berg.


----------



## Autocrat

Love them both, so I'm not voting. Hahn plays the Schoenberg wonderfully well for mine (and Sibelius just as well). I might go and have a listen to a popular Berg and see if I have a preference at this point in time.


----------



## Weston

I heard and appreciated the Berg first, but after hearing the Hahn version of the Schoenberg I am currently taken with it. Those double, triple or quadruple stops with pizzicato! Holy guacamole! 

But music isn't entirely an athletic event. There are other factors too. I'm now enjoying music I previously though less accessible and the Berg is easier on the ears. I may need to give it another listen tonight.


----------



## Dim7

Weston said:


> I heard and appreciated the Berg first, but after hearing the Hahn version of the Schoenberg I am currently taken with it. Those double, triple or quadruple stops with pizzicato! Holy guacamole!
> 
> But music isn't entirely an athletic event. There are other factors too. I'm now enjoying music I previously though less accessible and the Berg is easier on the ears. I may need to give it another listen tonight.


Berg's harmonies are certainly gentler, but Schoenberg is on the other hand actually more "tuneful". So I wouldn't say that either of them are more "accessible" than another. As for virtuosity, I can't even appreciate that really, I don't really know anything about playing violin. I'm in general suspicious of post-Classical non-piano concertos because I tend assume they are largely about technical show-off which doesn't even sound good. Schoenberg's violin concerto may have some "virtuosic" parts that do not sound terribly musical to me but the better parts more than compensate for that.


----------



## Dim7

As far as I understand Schoenberg's violin concerto is a very challenging work to perform. But what are these technical challenges specifically? At least it doesn't seem to have any ridiculously fast parts.


----------



## starthrower

I've listened to the Berg concerto several times, but I can't seem to remember any of it. Hilary Hahn's recording of the Schoenberg concerto keeps my ears riveted to the music. So I guess I'm not really hearing the Berg piece yet.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Berg's prettier but these days I find his romantic brand too 'sexual' in a bad kind of way, I don't know if that's the term. So I go for the still crazy but more classical Schoenberg. 

I actually like Berg's style polyphony better, its much more fluid and true, but the overall spirit is a bit too much for me at the moment.


----------



## starthrower

I revisited the Berg concerto this afternoon, but I couldn't get into it. Schoenberg for now.


----------



## Lord Lance

Schoenberg for me. Haven't heard the Berg.

Not that I quite understand the fuss over it.


----------



## Autocrat

Autocrat said:


> Love them both, so I'm not voting. Hahn plays the Schoenberg wonderfully well for mine (and Sibelius just as well). I might go and have a listen to a popular Berg and see if I have a preference at this point in time.


Sorry to quote myself. I listened to both a couple of times, end to end. I voted for Schoenberg. While the Berg is a superb work, it lacks the depth and sophistication of Arnie's concerto. IMO.


----------



## SONNET CLV

These two violin concertos, Berg's from 1935, Schoenberg's from 1936, are near exact contemporaries, both premiered by the same violinist, Louis Krasner (who commissioned the Berg and actually recorded both concertos).

Schoenberg's tone row: A, B♭, E♭, B, E, F♯, C, C♯, G, A♭, D, F

Berg's tone row: G, B♭, D, F♯, A, C, E, G♯, B, C♯, E♭, F.

That there might be some similarities in the works goes without saying. Yet ....

That the Berg has entered the standard repertoire and remains one of if not _the_ best loved pieces of the second Viennese School's music (and one of the most popular pieces of 20th century music) does not surprise me. I have long cherished the Berg concerto and have heard many interpretations, including Krasner's, and can't recall ever being dissatisfied. The Schoenberg has never struck my heart. I always sense it as more an experiment in twelve-tone music than as "music" itself. I'm probably way off base and perhaps my opinion will change someday, but I certainly love the Berg and find the Schoenberg bland.

I listened to both concertos just last week while surveying Pierre Boulez music from the SONY and ERATO boxes. The Schoenberg is performed by Pierre Amoyal in the ERATO recording; the Berg by Pinchas Zukerman in the SONY.

Still, I agree that both works are masterpieces. I just happen to prefer the Berg.


----------



## Mahlerian

SONNET CLV said:


> I always sense it as more an experiment in twelve-tone music than as "music" itself.


This is not true of any of Schoenberg's works. All of them are conceived and developed entirely based on their musical value.

His Violin Concerto is marvelously tuneful, beautiful, dramatic music. Who cares about how it was written?


----------



## SONNET CLV

SONNET CLV said:


> I have long cherished the Berg concerto and have heard many interpretations, including Krasner's, and can't recall ever being dissatisfied. The Schoenberg has never struck my heart. I* always sense it as more an experiment in twelve-tone music than as "music" itself. *I'm probably way off base and perhaps my opinion will change someday, but I certainly love the Berg and find the Schoenberg bland.
> 
> Still, I agree that both works are masterpieces. I just happen to prefer the Berg.





Mahlerian said:


> This is not true of any of Schoenberg's works. All of them are conceived and developed entirely based on their musical value.
> 
> His Violin Concerto is marvelously tuneful, beautiful, dramatic music. Who cares about how it was written?


Of course, Mahlerian, you are absolutely correct. Note that according to my original post, I even mistrust my own "sense" of the Schoenberg piece.

As you already recognize, I'm sure, I'm a huge fan of Schoenberg, the 2nd Viennese School, and of modern/contemporary music in general. Twentieth and Twenty-first Century music remains my primary listening arena, though I do indulge greatly in Bach, Beethoven, and the Romantics as well.

Just this afternoon I returned to a performance of the Schoenberg Violin Concerto. I listened attentively and enjoyed it. It was darkly beautiful and powerful. Yet I know it simply doesn't reach me as does the Berg. Or even as does Schoenberg's Piano Concerto, which I tend to enjoy much moreso than the Violin Concerto. Yet, I wonder if the Violin work is not the greater masterpiece.

One thing I do notice when I listen to the Violin Concerto, is that I become too conscious of the tone rows and the various techniques and manipulations. For some reason they seem clearer to me in that piece than in most other twelve-tone works I know, with the possible exception of perhaps Webern's Piano Variations where the row is starkly outlined. I play that piece over in my head quite regularly. It's stark, but beautiful. But there is much piano music and even many piano variation pieces that I prefer.

Still, I know I shall return to the Schoenberg concerto, and I will not cease attempting to hear new interpretations. Some music has to grow on you; not all music is acquired at first hearing (which is how I acquired the Tchaikovsky "Capriccio Italien", the piece which brought me into classical music). And I'm content to remain patient. There is much music to hear, so I won't fret over a non-preference for one work by Schoenberg.

And I do agree the Violin Concerto is a great work. I would wish everyone could hear it, and savor its beauties and strengths.


----------



## Dim7

Am I the only one who would like to hear an electric guitar arrangement for the Schoenberg VC? lol.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Dim7 said:


> Am I the only one who would like to hear an electric guitar arrangement for the Schoenberg VC? lol.


That's quite possible.


----------



## Dim7

Describe each concerto with one adjective!

Berg: Mushy.
Schoenberg: Badass.


----------



## Art Rock

Berg: Heavenly.
Schoenberg: Earthly.


----------



## Blancrocher

Berg: mountainous
Schoenberg: pretty mountainous


----------



## Mahlerian

Berg: Hymn-like
Schoenberg: Song-like


----------



## micro

Berg's: very good but not lovable
Schoenberg's: crap


----------



## starthrower

micro said:


> Schoenberg's: crap


One man's crap is another man's ode to joy! Give me Arnold's magnificent concerto!


----------



## Pugg

micro said:


> Berg's: very good but not lovable
> Schoenberg's: crap


How about I don't like both?


----------



## Mahlerian

micro said:


> Berg's: very good but not lovable
> Schoenberg's: crap


I love the Berg and agree with Stokowski that the Schoenberg is a masterpiece. I think I break your scale there.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

I voted for the anti-modernist choice because of the greater integration of violin and orchestra. I really can't think of any pre-1950 concerto that ties the solo instrument and orchestra so well. At one level, it's a concerto, but at another, the soloist sounds like the first violinist of a string quartet, integrated as a leading voice (or sometimes subsidiary voice) in a hymn as Mahlerian points out.

Yes, it's extremely sexual tertian harmonic goo. But that goo has such integrity and character! It's such powerful exa-romanticism, but yet it actually isn't self-indulgent because its sexual power transcends self-indulgence. Aren't sexual yearning and "spiritual" yearning two sides of the same coin, not for any deep philosophical reason, but for a physiological reason?


----------



## Mahlerian

SeptimalTritone said:


> I voted for the anti-modernist choice because of the greater integration of violin and orchestra. I really can't think of any pre-1950 concerto that ties the solo instrument and orchestra so well. At one level, it's a concerto, but at another, the soloist sounds like the first violinist of a string quartet, integrated as a leading voice (or sometimes subsidiary voice) in a hymn as Mahlerian points out.
> 
> Yes, it's extremely sexual tertian harmonic goo. But that goo has such integrity and character! It's such powerful exa-romanticism, but yet it actually isn't self-indulgent because its sexual power transcends self-indulgence. Aren't sexual yearning and "spiritual" yearning two sides of the same coin, not for any deep philosophical reason, but for a physiological reason?


The true anti-modernist response would be to trash both pieces (without any real reason, or with absolute nonsense like calling them tuneless or atonal). At any rate, I feel both are masterworks of the highest order, and though I prefer Schoenberg, I certainly wouldn't describe the Berg concerto as "goo" or "self-indulgent" by any means.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Mahlerian said:


> The true anti-modernist response would be to trash both pieces (without any real reason, or with absolute nonsense like calling them tuneless or atonal). At any rate, I feel both are masterworks of the highest order, and though I prefer Schoenberg, I certainly wouldn't describe the Berg concerto as "goo" or "self-indulgent" by any means.


Yeah, I should have put "anti-modernist" in air quotes. There's a sizeable chunk of people (even a music performance student I met in real life) who, out of the second Viennese school, like the Berg violin concerto because it's "tonal" and not much else, and I was just trying to be cheeky. I really should have put the air quotes.

Of course the real deal is that both Schoenberg's and Berg's 12 tone music, whether strongly tertian or not so strongly tertian, is a powerful heightening of romantic classicism paradigm by taking it to greater extremes of contrast between tension and stability, made possible by the larger degree of harmonic and melodic malleability provided by the tone row anchor.

The goo/self-indulgent thing was just a response to Richannes on the earlier page about the Berg being to sexual and too romantic. I was sort of being half-joking by humoring him. Richannes doesn't like Schoenberg's op 9 because it's "toon". His musical tastes are kind of a source of amusement for me.


----------



## Dim7

I disagree that Schoenberg's and Berg's 12-tone music takes romantic classicism paradigm "to greater extremes of contrast between tension and stability" because of the constant use of the 12-tones, where as the former can alter between very diatonic and very chromatic.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

I want to add one technical point.

Sonnet CLV, I'm looking at your old post about being really conscious of the tone rows in Schoenberg's violin concerto or Webern's piano variations. If you're still here, I am really happy that you enjoy second Viennese music, but that doesn't quite make sense to me. I've never been conscious of the whole tone row while listening to any second Viennese piece, and have never been able to figure out the tone row without looking it up. And that's okay, and that's the whole point.

I'm conscious of similarity in harmony, line, motif, and interval. Yes, there are a good number of cases where the whole tone row is played linearly as the Haupstimme: the opening of the wind quintet and string quartet 4 come to mind, but even then, you don't need to, nor should you, consciously order those notes in your head or remember their note names. It should just be heard as the exposition of a melodic line with harmonic accompaniment i.e. as one would in romantic era music.

And while I don't know the analysis of Schoenberg's violin concerto, I know for a fact that the tone row in the Webern op 27 isn't obviously presented. Yes, in the third movement the tone rows are played one by one, but there is so much registral variation, counterpoint, motif-interval highlighting, rhythmic identity, and chords as vertical simultaneities, that one cannot easily figure out the tone row. Even in the initial thema of the third movement, the difference of rhythm and register make it hard, and not really desirable, to trace out the row.

One rather should focus on the motifs and counterpoint, the harmonic simultaneities, the differences and similarities between variations, and the almost sequential, even classical, voice leading between the measures. I actually think you already do this, but I want to make it clear that pointing out and picking out the notes of the tone row is not a central thing to do. In fact, just as one doesn't need to know the band theory of transistors to write a computer program, one can understand and comprehend a second Viennese piece _completely and fully without knowing the tone row at all._


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> I disagree that Schoenberg's and Berg's 12-tone music takes romantic classicism paradigm "to greater extremes of contrast between tension and stability" because of the constant use of the 12-tones, where as the former can alter between very diatonic and very chromatic.


But the former only measures stability against a single harmonic type, the triad. Post-common practice music can have any number of levels of stability and maintain tension on the level of harmony alone at a higher level. It's not as if diatonic elements are completely excluded in practice from 12-tone music, either. The Berg Concerto more obviously, of course, but the Schoenberg concerto uses hexachord subsets of its row very often to act as harmonic regions.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Dim7 said:


> I disagree that Schoenberg's and Berg's 12-tone music takes romantic classicism paradigm "to greater extremes of contrast between tension and stability" because of the constant use of the 12-tones, where as the former can alter between very diatonic and very chromatic.


But the grouping of the 12 tone row(s) provides greater outward contrasts. The tension/stability doesn't come from diatonic triad or diatonic seventh chord v.s. some more "out there" chord, but in the totality of the counterpoint. Tension/stability can come from other ways, not just in acoustic dissonance v.s. acoustic consonance.

Consider the constant 12 tone ostinate figures in the Schoenberg op 25 gigue, and how the groupings of notes as simultaneous, held, in different rhythyms with different motivic and strong beat emphasis produce very different feelings, some neutral, some unstable, and some resolutely stable.


----------



## Stavrogin

For me the best violin concertos of the '900 are (in no order):

Prokofiev 1 & 2
Shostakovic 1
Berg
Stravinskij
Bartok

Schoenberg's is great too but not in this tier. 

EDIT - Obviously Sibelius belongs in the list, even if I always forget it's a XX century work.


----------



## Mahlerian

Stavrogin said:


> For me the best violin concertos of the '900 are (in no order):
> 
> Prokofiev 1 & 2
> Shostakovic 1
> Berg
> Stravinskij
> Bartok
> 
> Schoenberg's is great too but not in this tier.
> 
> EDIT - Obviously Sibelius belongs in the list, even if I always forget it's a XX century work.


I have yet to discover whatever it is in the Shostakovich A Minor Concerto which makes people rate it so highly. The others on your list are all works I love.


----------



## Autocrat

SeptimalTritone said:


> I want to add one technical point.
> 
> Sonnet CLV, I'm looking at your old post about being really conscious of the tone rows in Schoenberg's violin concerto or Webern's piano variations. If you're still here, I am really happy that you enjoy second Viennese music, but that doesn't quite make sense to me. I've never been conscious of the whole tone row while listening to any second Viennese piece, and have never been able to figure out the tone row without looking it up. And that's okay, and that's the whole point.
> 
> I'm conscious of similarity in harmony, line, motif, and interval. Yes, there are a good number of cases where the whole tone row is played linearly as the Haupstimme: the opening of the wind quintet and string quartet 4 come to mind, but even then, you don't need to, nor should you, consciously order those notes in your head or remember their note names. It should just be heard as the exposition of a melodic line with harmonic accompaniment i.e. as one would in romantic era music.
> ...
> [/I]


The only time I've been able to pick a tone row is in the last movement of Mozart's G-minor Symphony. Well, near enough anyway.


----------



## Stavrogin

Mahlerian said:


> I have yet to discover whatever it is in the Shostakovich A Minor Concerto which makes people rate it so highly. The others on your list are all works I love.


Well I'm not good at describing music given my lack of theoretical knowledge but all I can say for myself is that the Passacaglia is one of the most harrowing pieces of music I've ever heard, with the effective contrasts between hefty and thin textures and then the cadenza and how it flows into the burlesque.


----------

