# Cage vs Schoenberg



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Me and my friend on Friday morning were discussing the works of Cage and Schoenberg. Thus came the question who has more of a global impact and who was the bigger "genius?" Schoenberg in my opinion has made far superior music to Cage while he was alive, yet Cage never wrote second drafts of his music. It was perfect the first time. Here are my questions to see others opinions.

1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?
2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?
3.) Who has had more of a global impact?

P.S. No arguing in this thread. This is to hear others opinions. I can name a specific thread where arguing opinions has happened too much, and it was getting rather annoying.. :devil:


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

While I don't know enough about Cage's music to answer 1 and 2, I think Schoenberg definitely had the larger impact on other composers. Many composers of the 20th and 21st century wrote works in Schoenberg's serialist method, and even of those who didn't, many made use of some of these techniques, such as using tone rows in an otherwise tonal piece of music. In addition, his idea of the "emancipation of dissonance" has remained very influential. The kind of music that is considered "neo-romantic" now still contains dissonances that would have been completely out of place in the romantic era, but now are accepted in any music. I do not think that John Cage has had anywhere near the same amount of influence.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

As to question 1, I think Schoenberg was the bigger genius, taking the music which existed in his time and turning it a new direction with a new vocabulary, thereby impacting his two contemporaries and eventually a ton of composers up into the '60s. It is arguable that minimalism arose as a reaction to what he had accomplished. In contrast, Cage was more of an experimenter; he dealt more with concepts. 

As to question 2, after 100 years, Schoenberg has produced a score of pieces which are considered masterpieces and have been accepted into the repertoire, despite Norman Lebrecht's declaration that "It is a measure of the immensity of the man's achievement that, 50 years after his death, he can still empty any hall on earth." John Cage, though becoming more accepted, is still not as widely known for his pieces outside those for prepared piano and 4'33". 

As to question 3, Schoenberg had a greater "impact" on Western music, coming at the end of the Western tragectory towards tonality beginning in the 1600s, because he was working within and breaking down the established framework of the tonal tradition. Even if he was indecipherable at times, he was still relatable to the bigger picture. 

But Cage made people think of music in terms of sound and space, which was a new concept, at least in Western music, so it was slower to catch on. It seems like Cage will have more impact on the future than Schoenberg. 

Just my two cents, however.


----------



## laurie (Jan 12, 2017)

Eddie! :lol: 
I see what you did here ...


----------



## JamieHoldham (May 13, 2016)

Your just asking for trouble... Schoenberg vs Cage is like Wagner vs Hitler -- it's only going to end badly!!


----------



## JohnD (Jan 27, 2014)

I'm going with Arnie. I think JC was more of a conceptual artist.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

JamieHoldham said:


> Your just asking for trouble... Schoenberg vs Cage is like Wagner *vs Hitler* -- it's only going to end badly!!


Just out of interest, how many operas did Hitler compose... between all those other issues keeping him busy?


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

eugeneonagain said:


> Just out of interest, how many operas did Hitler compose... between all those other issues keeping him busy?


I also did not realize that Hitler was an acclaimed composer


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Cage is far more interesting, Schoenberg was only the guy who coined 'serialism', not the master of it


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I have mixed feelings about Schoenberg. I don't like the direction he took music (I feel atonality works fine within the context of larger tonal pieces - this had already been accomplished by composers as far back as the Baroque era). Atonality systematized for composing entire pieces I just don't think generally yields very good results, the second Viennese school essentially turned the tables and created atonal music with occasional flashes of tonality. 

I think the 12 tone system essentially lead music down a very dark path, one that I think glorifies disharmony. This said I still think Schoenberg was a highly gifted composer and artist, and I like some of his music.

Cage was unquestionably a highly intelligent man, whether or not he had much compositional skill is debatable.

I think Schoenberg had a bigger impact on music, but his impact was mostly in terms of his systematization of atonality which I think over all was a negative impact on music.


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

This is an interesting thread. It's the reluctant radical (Schoenberg once described himself as "a conservative who was forced to become a radical") vs the ultimate radical.

1. I don't think it is too controversial to say that Schoenberg was the greater musical genius. As others have noted Cage was more conceptual. Once he came up with a concept he'd usually just let his chosen process play out with little to no creative input on his part. One might even say he was an "anti-genius", which I don't mean pejoratively. His approach was to remove the composer from the process of composition as much as it was possible to do so. This could be seen as the opposite of how you would expect a conventional musical genius to go about composing music.

2. I honestly can't choose which composer I prefer. I enjoy both of them. I'd say right now if I was forced to choose between a specific Cage piece or a specific Schoenberg piece I would probably go with a Cage piece (I've recently become obsessed with his "number pieces"), but that is just how I feel at this moment.

3. I'm going to go with Cage on this one. Schoenberg introduced the 12 tone technique, but I think a lot of credit also has to be given to Webern on how much his ideas have influenced later composers. I think it was Boulez who criticized Schoenberg for not realizing the true potential of the technique he invented. It should be noted that the concept of pantonal music had been around for a while before Schoenberg, and another composer, Josef Hauer, was working on a pantonal compositional technique independently of Schoenberg around the same time. Schoenberg did not invent the concept of pantonality.

I also think it is easy to underestimate the impact Cage has had on music. Even if his compositional techniques have not been widely adopted by other composers, the "anything goes" approach to composition has had a major impact on all composers since. Every composer since Cage has had to make some very basic decisions about their works that were mostly taken for granted before Cage. It has become acceptable for composers to incorporate chance elements and what would have previously been considered unmusical sounds into their compositions.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

My answer to no.s 1 and 2 is Schoenberg easily over Cage. Schoenberg had real musical talent, where Cage didn’t. As Schoenberg said, Cage is more an inventor than composer. In terms of impact I think Cage’s music is more relevant now in the music scene than Schoenberg. The 12tone system had its place in history, but is not used anymore, but his influence is far-ranging indirectly. Schoenberg was a true modernist while Cage was a true postmodernist.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> My answer to no.s 1 and 2 is Schoenberg easily over Cage. Schoenberg had real musical talent, where Cage didn't. As Schoenberg said, Cage is more an inventor than composer. In terms of impact I think Cage's music is more relevant now in the music scene than Schoenberg. The 12tone system had its place in history, but is not used anymore, but his influence is far-ranging indirectly. *Schoenberg was a true modernist *while Cage was a true postmodernist.


No he wasn't, the only modernist thing about him was his pitch collection system. His music is way too romantic(in melody, form, harmony, phrasing, development, everything!), to even for a second take the idea of him as a modernist seriously. He was a romantic, end of story.

Daniel


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Daniel Atkinson said:


> No he wasn't, the only modernist thing about him was his pitch collection system. His music is way too romantic(in melody, form, harmony, phrasing, development, everything!), to even for a second take the idea of him as a modernist seriously. He was a romantic, end of story.
> 
> Daniel


No, he wasn't merely a romantic. To refer to his music after 1910 as 'romantic' is nonsensical and approaching the realm of fantasy.

Let's also be clear - to address some remarks in other posts above - that Schoenberg was NOT indulging in 'atonalism'. Also that serialism or perhaps 12-tone composition has certainly not disappeared from music and is very much still being employed in some form or other.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

tdc said:


> I have mixed feelings about Schoenberg. I don't like the direction he took music (I feel atonality works fine within the context of larger tonal pieces - *this had already been accomplished by composers as far back as the Baroque era*). Atonality systematized for composing entire pieces I just don't think generally yields very good results, the second Viennese school essentially turned the tables and created atonal music with occasional flashes of tonality.
> 
> I think *the 12 tone system essentially lead music down a very dark path*, one that I think glorifies disharmony. This said I still think Schoenberg was a highly gifted composer and artist, and I like some of his music.
> 
> ...





Phil loves classical said:


> My answer to no.s 1 and 2 is Schoenberg easily over Cage. *Schoenberg had real musical talent, where Cage didn't*. As Schoenberg said, *Cage is more an inventor than composer*. In terms of impact I think Cage's music is more relevant now in the music scene than Schoenberg. The 12tone system had its place in history, but is not used anymore, but his influence is far-ranging indirectly. *Schoenberg was a true modernist while Cage was a true postmodernist*.


...............


----------



## Timothy (Jul 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> No, he wasn't merely a romantic. *To refer to his music after 1910 as 'romantic' is nonsensical *and approaching the realm of fantasy.
> 
> Let's also be clear - to address some remarks in other posts above - that Schoenberg was NOT indulging in 'atonalism'. Also that serialism or perhaps 12-tone composition has certainly not disappeared from music and is very much still being employed in some form or other.


Not at all, it has more sense than calling him a 'modernist', as that is much more nonsensical. Besides from the 12 tone system (which is irrelevant to his music anyway, unless you're a music analyser), there is very little to do with modernism in his music at all. His "Five Pieces For Orchestra", "A Survivor From Warsaw" and "Violin Concerto" have tiny moments of modernism, but this is the extent. Webern is more relevant to call a posterboy for this, or Henry Cowell.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Daniel Atkinson said:


> No he wasn't, the only modernist thing about him was his pitch collection system. His music is way too romantic(in melody, form, harmony, phrasing, development, everything!), to even for a second take the idea of him as a modernist seriously. He was a romantic, end of story.
> 
> Daniel


I would love to think of him as a Romantic, but even his earlier music has modern elements. Some even call Bach a modernist


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

'Modernism' is entirely relative; one could argue that Bach and Schoenberg are the same degree of modern, just during different time periods.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I'd answer "Schoenberg" to the first two questions; I can't answer the third, since the "impact" of Cage strikes me as being of a different sort - more philosophical than actually musical - than that of Schoenberg (and I have no sense of how "global" is the impact of either). But the question of whether Schoenberg is more Romantic or Modern, though peripheral here, is interesting. I think he's both, but in different dimensions of his work. And the dimensions differ in their importance.

"Modernism" isn't an artistic style or unitary aesthetic but a loose collection of movements arising from a complex of cultural developments around the turn of the 20th century. It's absurd to deny that Schoenberg's work initiated and represented one of those movements. This isn't negated by the fact that his music retains formal features common to the German tradition, and exhibits an "espressivo" sensibility, a striving after emotional extremes, clearly in the lineage of Wagner, Mahler, and Strauss. He's obviously a Romantic in early works like _Verklaerte Nacht_ and _Gurrelieder, _but less unambiguously one in Expressionist works such as _Erwartung_ and _Pierrot Lunaire;_ these express subjective feelings in a free, "Romantic" manner, but explore realms of weirdness and horror which are un-Romantic in implying no presumption of a rational or moral order, and which thus represent a new era in artistic sensibility. The new quality of expression in these works is natural to a harmonic idiom from which clear tonal anchoring has been eschewed in favor of continuous, "free-floating" dissonance. But besides the music's sheer sound and expressive intent, the uniquely original thing in Schoenberg's work - the assumption, underlying the 12-tone method, that a template for musical organization whose fundamental principle is an abstract concept can function in perception like a syntax arising from a subjective sense of the relationships between tones - is a thoroughly Modernist idea, as Modernist as cubism in painting, to which it's sometimes compared.

To call the whole body of Schoenberg's 12-tone works "Romantic" is to emphasize his personality over the most radical and important aspect of his art, an aspect that distinguishes him from a large number of early 20th-century composers who are certainly more Romantic than he.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Timothy said:


> Not at all, it has more sense than calling him a 'modernist', as that is much more nonsensical. Besides from the 12 tone system (which is irrelevant to his music anyway, unless you're a music analyser), there is very little to do with modernism in his music at all. His "Five Pieces For Orchestra", "A Survivor From Warsaw" and "Violin Concerto" have tiny moments of modernism, but this is the extent. Webern is more relevant to call a posterboy for this, or Henry Cowell.


So what you're saying is the 12 tone system is irrelevant to Schoenberg, unless one is analyzing the music. So what method have you used then to deduce that he was not a modernist? Did you do it by _not_ analyzing the music?

I think whether or not one analyzes anything it is pretty clear by just listening to Schoenberg's more innovative works that his music is a radical departure from the music that came before it. Much more so than Bach's music or Brahms music was. In that sense I consider him a 'modernist'. If one decides to use the term 'modernist' in some other way that differs significantly from the accepted definition, it seems like just an attempt to confuse the issue.

The arguments in posts #16 and #18 are not based on logic, but obfuscation.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

laurie said:


> Eddie! :lol:
> I see what you did here ...


:lol: Glad someone picked it -this is much better tban Beethoven vs Mozart


----------



## laurie (Jan 12, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> :lol: Glad someone picked it -this is much better tban Beethoven vs Mozart


 :lol:, haha; I guess you & I were the only ones reading about them,  !
(where are those copy-cat smilies when I need them?!) :devil:

Sorry to interrupt, Cage & Schoenberg fans; carry on....


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> in implying no presumption of a rational or moral order, and which thus represent a new era in artistic sensibility.


Are you talking about the texts here or the music or both or neither?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Timothy said:


> Not at all, it has more sense than calling him a 'modernist', as that is much more nonsensical. Besides from the 12 tone system (which is irrelevant to his music anyway, unless you're a music analyser), there is very little to do with modernism in his music at all. His "Five Pieces For Orchestra", "A Survivor From Warsaw" and "Violin Concerto" have tiny moments of modernism, but this is the extent. Webern is more relevant to call a posterboy for this, or Henry Cowell.


No, it clearly doesn't have more sense to call Schoenberg a romantic. Woodduck has hit on the point that romanticism was merely part of Schoenberg's musical personality and early history. Since he was a trailblazer in the sort of music he wrote it's patently obvious that he is a transitional figure; it's not as if he's going to be a romantic composer one day then a modernist the next day!

It really shouldn't have to be pointed out because it's just common sense.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think two of the figures that muddied the waters in relation to Schoenberg were Carter and Boulez (and to a certain extent Schoenberg himself in his writings). Carter claimed Schoenberg was like Brahms and Boulez claimed Webern, not Schoenberg was the true modernist. However, considering both Carter and Boulez were using systems that were an offshoot of Schoenberg's school in much of their music, it would benefit all 3 composers (in terms of public perception of their music) to put the idea out there that Schoenberg's music was conservative and traditional. I don't buy it.


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

In order to call Schoenberg a modernist or a romantic, we have to define these terms, as I think not everybody here is using the same definitions. I am not qualified to do this, so I am just going to offer my point of view on the topic. The purpose, to Schoenberg, of his twelve tone method was to divorce music from the formal elements of romantic music. He felt that music was constrained unnecessarily by the compositional rules that had been applied to it. However, he did not feel the need to move away from using music to express emotion, and moreover, his goal was simply to use a different musical language to express many of the same emotions that tonal music had been used for. This sensibility of using music for the purpose of emotional expression is certainly a very romantic idea. However, elements of romanticism abound in modernist music, and just as modernist music can make use of romantic harmonies or forms and yet remain modernist, there is no reason it can't make use of romantic ideals and still remain modernist in other ways.

The best way to explain this is to compare Schoenberg's music with the neoclassical works of Stravinsky. While Schoenberg rejected the formal elements of romanticism (tonic dominant relationships, cadences, etc.), he retained the emotional aspects. Meanwhile, Stravinsky was doing the opposite. Stravinsky's neoclassical works reject to an extent the overt emotionalism of romanticism in favor of classical restraint, while his musical language retains many of the same tools that romantic composers used, albeit with his own modern twist. Thus, both composers retained aspects of the romantic era, but yet are composers of modernist music. Also, in comparing composers to the eras that came before them, would you call Brahms or Tchaikovsky "classical" composers simply because they used forms of that era?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Manxfeeder said:


> As to question 1, I think Schoenberg was the bigger genius, taking the music which existed in his time and turning it a new direction with a new vocabulary, thereby impacting his two contemporaries and eventually a ton of composers up into the '60s. It is arguable that minimalism arose as a reaction to what he had accomplished. In contrast, Cage was more of an experimenter; he dealt more with concepts.
> 
> As to question 2, after 100 years, Schoenberg has produced a score of pieces which are considered masterpieces and have been accepted into the repertoire, despite Norman Lebrecht's declaration that "It is a measure of the immensity of the man's achievement that, 50 years after his death, he can still empty any hall on earth." John Cage, though becoming more accepted, is still not as widely known for his pieces outside those for prepared piano and 4'33".
> 
> ...


Thanks for that intelligent post. You make the (in my opinion) important distinction between impact in the sense of immediate fame or notoriety and/or quickly creating a school of disciples or followers, and in the sense of a more subtle but perhaps more profound influence over the much longer term. One could also distinguish between music narrowly defined and art more broadly defined or even our culture or society generally. Also, I think it's difficult to make a direct comparison, because Schoenberg belongs to an earlier era than Cage, and because Schoenberg's artistic personality seems to have been more in the zealous reformer category, where Cage was more the subversive provocateur / revolutionary.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Daniel Atkinson said:


> No he wasn't, the only modernist thing about him was his pitch collection system. His music is way too romantic(in melody, form, harmony, phrasing, development, everything!), to even for a second take the idea of him as a modernist seriously. He was a romantic, end of story.
> 
> Daniel


What definition of romantic are you using?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Are you talking about the texts here or the music or both or neither?


The whole work of art and its meaning: the texts explicitly, the music in its suitability to those texts.

The Romantic era was deeply concerned with values and human aspiration, with discovering new understandings of human life and human destiny as old religious, political and social structures were giving way to a humanist, secular culture. The popular idea that Romanticism is about "emotion" is superficial, meaningful only to the extent that the human individual felt free to assert himself and his inner life as matters of importance. The microscopic examination of subjective feelings, free of any moral or metaphysical contextualization, such as we see in _Erwartung_ and _Pierrot_, might be described as Romanticism in its "decadent" phase, but I see in it a qualitative change from the spirit that animated the Romantic age.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2017)

David OByrne said:


> I also did not realize that Hitler was an acclaimed composer


Wasn't he the guy what wrote 'Greensleeves'?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The whole work of art and its meaning: the texts explicitly, the music in its suitability to those texts.
> 
> The Romantic era was deeply concerned with values and human aspiration, with discovering new understandings of human life and human destiny as old religious, political and social structures were giving way to a humanist, secular culture. The popular idea that Romanticism is about "emotion" is superficial, meaningful only to the extent that the human individual felt free to assert himself and his inner life as matters of importance. The microscopic examination of subjective feelings, free of any moral or metaphysical contextualization, such as we see in _Erwartung_ and _Pierrot_, might be described as Romanticism in its "decadent" phase, but I see in it a qualitative change from the spirit that animated the Romantic age.


Thanks for such an interesting reply. I must say I find symbolist poetry very challenging. Pierrot is like of trip, a hallucination, the sort of thing Rimbaud was looking for in poetry when he wrote Le Bateau Ivre. Is it amoral? To think that the poet's job is to liberate himself from constraints and conventions?

Pierrot is so different from Moses and Aaron. I'm going to have to think some more about Schoenberg!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Thanks for such an interesting reply. I must say I find symbolist poetry very challenging. Pierrot is like of trip, a hallucination, the sort of thing Rimbaud was looking for in poetry when he wrote Le Bateau Ivre. Is it amoral? To think that the poet's job is to liberate himself from constraints and conventions?
> 
> *Pierrot is so different from Moses and Aaron.* I'm going to have to think some more about Schoenberg!


Yeah, M and A is the "other" Schoenberg! His decision to contain his "free atonality" with a new concept of structure is always talked about as a musical necessity; he described it that way himself. But I think it was as much a matter of him trying to balance the two sides of his temperament - call them the "libertarian" and the "monarchist." Personally, I much prefer the libertarian.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The microscopic examination of subjective feelings, free of any moral or metaphysical contextualization, such as we see in _Erwartung_ and _Pierrot_, might be described as Romanticism in its "decadent" phase, but I see in it a qualitative change from the spirit that animated the Romantic age.


This is an interesting comment, and I'm glad you made it, but do you think it applies equally well to Schoenberg's work as a whole? I suppose your characterizing him as a decadent romantic and me calling him a reformer rather than a revolutionary are making similar points, though possibly with different value judgments attached. I didn't mean to attach a value judgment to my comment, however (I can't speak for you). I just think Schoenberg and Cage had such profoundly different artistic approaches and played such different roles in western culture that they are hard to compare in the way the OP seeks. Cage stands apart, as the King's Singers so aptly illustrate in a performance that deftly sums up many of the threads here, including this one:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Yeah, M and A is the "other" Schoenberg! His decision to contain his "free atonality" with a new concept of structure is always talked about as a musical necessity; he described it that way himself. But I think it was as much a matter of him trying to balance the two sides of his temperament - call them the "libertarian" and the "monarchist." Personally, I much prefer the libertarian.


I've been listening to Von Heute Auf Morgen, and I keep thinking of Strauss, through composed music by Strauss in things like Intermezzo and Capriccio.

I wonder if Strauss is "free of any moral or metaphysical contextualization" -- in The Domestic Symphony for example. (sorry, I'm being a bit naughty! Ignore) I can't remember what happens in Intermezzo -- I can just remember the game of cards! I saw Flott in it, it was good.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> This is an interesting comment, and I'm glad you made it, but do you think it applies equally well to Schoenberg's work as a whole? I suppose your characterizing him as a decadent romantic and me calling him a reformer rather than a revolutionary are making similar points, though possibly with different value judgments attached. I didn't mean to attach a value judgment to my comment, however (I can't speak for you). I just think Schoenberg and Cage had such profoundly different artistic approaches and played such different roles in western culture that they are hard to compare in the way the OP seeks. Cage stands apart, as the King's Singers so aptly illustrate in a performance that deftly sums up many of the threads here, including this one:


I wouldn't call Schoenberg as a whole a decadent Romantic. I only meant that certain works, those Expressionist middle-period works, might be described that way. I'd be more inclined to apply the term to Mahler and Berg than to Schoenberg as a whole. He was a complex and contradictory character, and I think we see this in the development of his music, in his thinking about it, and in the way he talked about himself. No label - "Romantic," "neoclassicist," "reformer," "revolutionary," "traditionalist" - is adequate.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I would pick Schoenberg just because of the Gurre-Lieder. It is a piece of such a great beauty and meaning that can only be compared to something like Strauss' "Antichrist" Alpensinfonie. I think the two works share a similar message too - man rebelling against God.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Seeing Schoenberg (post early period) associated with the term 'romantic' reminds me of how far outside the Bell curve some people like to wander. Okay, Schoenberg is romantic; now let's come up with a new term for the period of 1820-1900.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I wouldn't call Schoenberg as a whole a decadent Romantic. I only meant that certain works, those Expressionist middle-period works, might be described that way. I'd be more inclined to apply the term to Mahler and Berg than to Schoenberg as a whole. He was a complex and contradictory character, and I think we see this in the development of his music, in his thinking about it, and in the way he talked about himself. No label - "Romantic," "neoclassicist," "reformer," "revolutionary," "traditionalist" - is adequate.


Agreed. I was using the zealous reformer v. subversive provocateur labels only for purposes of contrasting him with Cage. Those are simplistic labels. But if you read some of the things each of those composers wrote about music, and their own music in particular, I think it's fair to say those descriptions aren't far off from how they saw themselves.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Seeing Schoenberg (post early period) associated with the term 'romantic' reminds me of how far outside the Bell curve some people like to wander. Okay, Schoenberg is romantic; now let's come up with a new term for the period of 1820-1900.


Schoenberg's early music was highly influenced by the music of Wagner-Strauss-Mahler the latter was an early supporter of Schoenberg; this is not controversial history it's well-known.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Seeing Schoenberg (post early period) associated with the term 'romantic' reminds me of how far outside the Bell curve some people like to wander. Okay, Schoenberg is romantic; now let's come up with a new term for the period of 1820-1900.


Did you know Mozart was actually baroque?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Improbus said:


> Did you know Mozart was actually baroque?


Yes. He was a terrible businessman.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> Schoenberg's early music was highly influenced by the music of Wagner-Strauss-Mahler the latter was an early supporter of Schoenberg; this is not controversial history it's well-known.


Notice that I specifically referred to Schoenberg 'post early period'.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I would pick Schoenberg just because of the Gurre-Lieder. It is a piece of such a great beauty and meaning that can only be compared to something like Strauss' "Antichrist" Alpensinfonie. I think the two works share a similar message too - man rebelling against God.


Where did you get the idea that the Alpine Symphony has this sort of idea in it?


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

I'd say John Cage, sometimes I'll put 4'33" on repeat for hours on end.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Where did you get the idea that the Alpine Symphony has this sort of idea in it?


From Richard Strauss of course.

_...I shall call my alpine symphony: Der Antichrist, since it represents: moral purification through one's own strength, liberation through work, worship of eternal, magnificent nature..._


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

arnerich said:


> I'd say John Cage, sometimes I'll put 4'33" on repeat for hours on end.


Thats probably to give him a break from Strauss and stop him from being baroque like Mozart


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Notice that I specifically referred to Schoenberg 'post early period'.


I did not, because I should have been in bed.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> I did not, because I should have been in bed.


I'm glad I'm not the only one this dratted forum keeps up past bedtime.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one this dratted forum keeps up past bedtime.


It's not always pleasant, is it?

It never happened when I was married. I always had someone justifiably nagging me to come to bed. The question I ask myself now is: what the dickens was so interesting on the internet that it prevented me from climbing into bed with a lovely woman?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> From Richard Strauss of course.
> 
> _...I shall call my alpine symphony: Der Antichrist, since it represents: moral purification through one's own strength, liberation through work, worship of eternal, magnificent nature..._


That's fabulous, thank you. Years ago I caught the last two minutes of a Radio 3 programme where someone was arguing that the Alpine Symphony was inspired by religious/philosophical ideas, but I had missed the justifying argument. It's been at the back of my mind ever since.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> That's fabulous, thank you. Years ago I caught the last two minutes of a Radio 3 programme where someone was arguing that the Alpine Symphony was inspired by religious/philosophical ideas, but I had missed the justifying argument. It's been at the back of my mind ever since.


There are no words to it so you can make it to whatever you want.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

A trolling post along with responses has been removed.


----------

