# Schoenberg Will Not Die!



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Even after Beethoven has become obsolete, Schoenberg will be remembered as the founder of a new music. Don't take my word for it, Glenn Gould himself (who is greater than anyone on this forum) has said it. I can't quite recall the exact phrase, but it was something to effect of, "were I betting man I would place my chips on Arnold Schoenberg as the composer with the greatest prospects of immortality."


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Klassic said:


> Don't take my word for it, *Glenn Gould himself (who is greater than anyone on this forum)* has said it.


He's not greater than me. I'm the King of Everything, that automatically makes me greater than Glenn Gould.

Apart from that, I'm not sure I understand the thread. I do enjoy Schoenberg's music, especially the expressionist period.

Also, welcome back, Klassic. I look forward to the threads you'll create.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Glenn Gould (who is greater than anyone else who ever lived, don't ya know) also said that Mozart died too late rather than too soon.

Enough said?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Of course, Norman Lebrecht gave a more interesting statement as to the greatness of his achievements: "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."


----------



## LarryShone (Aug 29, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Glenn Gould (who is greater than anyone else who ever lived, don't ya know) also said that Mozart died too late rather than too soon.
> 
> Enough said?


Well thats a second statement that he made that is wrong.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Schoeberg wasn't as important as Weern.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

From a 1981 NY Times report on an interview with Glenn Gould:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among other things, Mr. Gould says that ''Chopin, Schubert and Liszt had no idea of how to write for the piano.'' He reserved his most cutting criticism, however, for Beethoven, asserting that ''Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip.''

''The middle Beethoven,'' he added, ''represents a supreme example of a composer on an ego trip.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is absolutely no doubt that Glenn Gould had opinions. Many of them.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/27/n...d-vs-chopin-schubert-liszt-and-beethoven.html


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Was this said before or after Gould started taking his still frightening and jaw-dropping cocktails of twenty-plus conflicting and badly interacting medications?

oh, and Schoenberg's immortality in no way depends on Beethoven being forgotten...as is already being demonstrated


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

LarryShone said:


> Well thats a second statement that he made that is wrong.


That was my point. I guess you couldn't see my ironic facial expression.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Crudblud said:


> Schoeberg wasn't as important as Weern.


Could "b." ..........


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Of course Gould may be entirely right. As a critic said (of a different composer),

"His music may be dead, but Schoenberg will live forever."


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I came to this thread to read about Schoeberg. Very disappointing.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Found this at glenngould.com. Thought it was interesting.
-------------------------------------------------
Gould owned a motorboat that he called Arnold S. He discovered his love of the father of twelve-tone music at a very early date, and it never wavered. New music? When Gould played Schoenberg, listeners suddenly understood why the leading light of the Second Viennese School saw himself as one of Brahms’s successors. Schoenberg was the only composer about whom Gould never uttered a critical word. He recorded practically all of Schoenberg’s works for or with the piano, and the only book he ever published was devoted to Schoenberg, who was also the subject of several radio series: Arnold Schoenberg – The Man Who Changed Music. Even in Moscow and Leningrad, where Schoenberg was effectively banned in 1957, he did what he could to promote the composer’s music. For Gould, Schoenberg was the first contrapuntalist after Bach and “we will some day know that he was one of the greatest composers who ever lived”.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> oh, and Schoenberg's immortality in no way depends on Beethoven being forgotten...as is already being demonstrated


You by definition can't demonstrate the immortality of something. All you can say is they haven't been forgotten yet.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

There's a really good article by Glenn Gould on Webern, mostly focusing on the saxophone quartet op 22 and variations for piano op 27.

http://www.uv.es/~calaforr/Webern/gould.htm

He mostly talks about how Webern creates both an emotional and cerebral musical world through the associations between small bits of the tone rows: pitch, interval, chord, sigh, motif, and Klangfarben. He talks about how the result of this can either be a stasis, or an extreme dynamism.

I only wish that he emphasized a bit more the importance of pitting of opposite textures running together at the same time. Sometimes Webern does this, sometimes he does not, but when he does, it provides a certain subtle energy. In op 22, there's a contrast in the exposition between the irregular lyricism of the saxophone, and the ostinate, undulating, and percussive stasis of the other instruments' inversion canon, and similarly in the recapitulation between the violin/clarinet/saxophone's lyricism with the piano's percussive stasis.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Dedalus said:


> You by definition can't demonstrate the immortality of something. All you can say is they haven't been forgotten yet.


What I was "demonstrating" is that Schoenberg's stock rising (or merely lasting) doesn't depend on Beethoven's stock going down.
Sure, I've got no way of knowing if both will be completely disregarded a generation from now.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

As it is very well my friends, do tell, in whose direction does ALL contemporary classical music lean, that of Beethoven or that of Schoenberg? I rest Gould's case.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

As it is very well my friends, do tell, in whose direction does ALL classical music that people actually enjoy lean, that of Beethoven or that of Schoenberg? I agree Gould is a real case.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Found this at glenngould.com. Thought it was interesting.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Gould owned a motorboat that he called Arnold S. He discovered his love of the father of twelve-tone music at a very early date, and it never wavered. New music? When Gould played Schoenberg, listeners suddenly understood why the leading light of the Second Viennese School saw himself as one of Brahms's successors. Schoenberg was the only composer about whom Gould never uttered a critical word. He recorded practically all of Schoenberg's works for or with the piano, and the only book he ever published was devoted to Schoenberg, who was also the subject of several radio series: Arnold Schoenberg - The Man Who Changed Music. Even in Moscow and Leningrad, where Schoenberg was effectively banned in 1957, he did what he could to promote the composer's music. For Gould, Schoenberg was the first contrapuntalist after Bach and "we will some day know that he was one of the greatest composers who ever lived".


Well it definitely is interesting.

Why is Gould making such a great deal about it? Is he for real, or is this just a way to show off, make himself visible, stand up from the crowd?

There definitely is something strange in Schoenberg's music, and I personally cannot define what is it. The more I listen to it, more it kinda draws me to it. The problem is that I don't know if it's the musical quality, or is just all in my head, which would make it a form of religious thinking. Maybe that's all the strangeness there is, who knows? Maybe it's just back of the musical tricks (the greatest of all: new, completely subjective way to experience music)?

In any case, I believe there definitely is also objective quality in Schoenberg's music. Not sure though if enough to qualify him as the greatest of all... But maybe Gould knows it.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Klassic said:


> As it is very well my friends, do tell, *in whose direction does ALL contemporary classical music lean*, that of Beethoven or that of Schoenberg? I rest Gould's case.


What does that mean?


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

KenOC said:


> As it is very well my friends, do tell, in whose direction does ALL classical music that people actually enjoy lean, that of Beethoven or that of Schoenberg?


People don't enjoy classical music.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

serialism isn't ded


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

KenOC said:


> As it is very well my friends, do tell, in whose direction does ALL classical music that people actually enjoy lean, that of Beethoven or that of Schoenberg? I agree Gould is a real case.


Then you must be making the argument that Justin Bieber is greater than Beethoven.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> As it is very well my friends, do tell, in whose direction does ALL classical music that people actually enjoy lean, that of Beethoven or that of Schoenberg? I agree Gould is a real case.


YES, THE POWER OF "THE PEOPLE" (whoever that is now)!!!!!!!111

Sorry, but this thread and a huge number of posts on the forum recently are low-effort and nonsensical. so I might as well...


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

KenOC said:


> As it is very well my friends, do tell, in whose direction does ALL classical music that people actually enjoy lean, that of Beethoven or that of Schoenberg? I agree Gould is a real case.


Um... Well... (awkward pause) I don't particularly _enjoy_ Beethoven... 
It's more like a "discreetly-and-somewhat-embarrassedly-avoid-Beethoven-at-all-costs" listening relationship...

Hey, but I like Schoenberg! Half-credit? Heh...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mstar said:


> Um... Well... (awkward pause) I don't particularly _enjoy_ Beethoven...
> It's more like a "discreetly-and-somewhat-embarrassedly-avoid-Beethoven-at-all-costs" listening relationship...
> 
> Hey, but I like Schoenberg! Half-credit? Heh...


I should have been more tolerant in my remarks, more broad minded. It's OK for somebody not to like Beethoven, and even to like Schoenberg. It's the price we pay, after all, for our freedom! Though sometimes the price seems a bit steep...


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

He is dead, thank goodness for small mercies .


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Pugg said:


> He is dead, thank goodness for small mercies .


You know, I talked about precisely this in another thread just today, funnily enough.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Klassic said:


> Even after Beethoven has become obsolete, Schoenberg will be remembered as the founder of a new music. Don't take my word for it, Glenn Gould himself (who is greater than anyone on this forum) has said it. I can't quite recall the exact phrase, but it was something to effect of, "were I betting man I would place my chips on Arnold Schoenberg as the composer with the greatest prospects of immortality."


Speculating on a composer's "prospects for immortality" is silly/pretentious in that extraordinarily Gouldian way - that combination of puppyish enthusiasm, hyperintellectual preciousness, and hermetically sealed perversity that made him unique. Whether Gould thought that Schoenberg would be more likely to be "immortal" because his music is superior, or because it still seemed like the best "modern" thing, he doesn't say. Gould died 34 years ago, and no doubt made his prediction some time before that. Maybe people felt unsure about the status of Schoenberg then, but this is 2016 and we've been through minimalism, neoromanticism, spectralism, and a bunch of other isms that make Schoenberg's "new music" old news to anyone paying even casual attention.

When a composer's work has been intensively studied, performed and recorded for a century - particularly the 20th century - his "stock" isn't likely to fluctuate by much. Schoenberg was an original phenomenon who made a strong impact on the course of music, but even that impact - in the form of composers who have utilized his techniques - has by now acquired a settled, understood, "historical" status. He is one of the "old masters" of music, no more puzzling in relation to music's present and future than such earlier composers as Bach or Wagner. The significance of his "new music" has been pretty well explained and grasped by those with an interest in such things, while those interested only in listening to music for pleasure don't much care whether the music is new or old. How much listeners have been liking it, or will like it, has by now as much, and as little, to do with Schoenberg's survival as the increased popularity of Berlioz or Mahler in the 20th century has with theirs. Those who understood the merits of their music always knew that they would find their audience, and Schoenberg's music will likewise be sought out by those who enjoy its distinctive qualities. There is no other useful definition of "immortality."

As far as popularity is concerned, recordings have brought new recognition to, and created an interest in, many composers not easily encountered before they were revived by enterprising performers and recording companies. That, and the globalization of the classical music world, have also ensured that composers formerly less known beyond their native cultural soil - such as Berlioz and Mahler - have received wider appreciation. Schoenberg has been too famous (or infamous) to be among the obscure or forgotten, but no doubt he has benefitted somewhat from these trends. People everywhere can hear his works now whenever they wish, and can form their own opinions at their leisure.

In the age of recording, mass culture, and global commerce, almost any decent composer can be made "immortal." The interesting question is not _whether_ a composer is still around, but _why._ What would Gould say about Schoenberg's - or Beethoven's - presence among us in the 21st century? Would he still say that ''Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip''? What would he say Schoenberg's is based on? His answers might not be useful, but they'd certainly be entertaining.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DiesIraeCX said:


> You know, I talked about precisely this in another thread just today, funnily enough.


That "like" is just perfect...


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

I also used to fear things I didn't understand. It was easy to call Bach "Beautiful" and Schoenberg "Ugly". Both terms, like all terms being objective to the individual only. We don't fear Pythagoras so why Arnie? Discussion sites are like life. People coming together on common interest and then trying to prove to themselves and everyone how different they are. Does this make us any different than Schoenberg? Understanding numbers led me to understanding Schoenberg. Schoenberg was trying to understand also. I was completely happy with my personal beautiful music until I fell for the music of Wagner. Then change overwhelmed me and I returned to a child-like state of asking the ONLY question that matters. WHY. Children ask why, to the point we either shut them up or ask ourselves also. When we shut them up we settle for how, when, where, who, and how much. My Schoenberg experiment was my attempt at asking WHY as an adult. My life has led me to this. Why do we kill? Why do we lie? Does a chameleon lie by changing? Does a lion lie by stalking prey? Why? 

Then I started asking the questions I couldn't answer for myself. I realized why I had drown myself in mind altering substances. Why did I stop asking why? Wagner led me to studying numbers, colors, sounds, rhythms, polarity, change, evolution, astro-biology, geometry, physics. Why our calendar? Why leap year? Why did the scientists swear the atom was the smallest building block until it wasn't? Then these same intelligent men then declared the next level in the smallest, until it wasn't again. Now, we once again have a "smallest" particle of matter? Aren't we just universal students? Blinded what we believe to be true. Truth becomes change and history becomes legend. Fear of straying too far from center, until we realize just how extreme our views really were. WHY?

When you stop asking why you settle for your current truth. When my current truth didn't make sense I ignored it. Closed my eyes. But the things I couldn't explain were screaming back at me. My mind started operating like the amazing machine it always was, and a six year old opened my eyes when I stopped shutting his mouth. My opinions are now my own, as are my fears and my shame, and I've released them into the universe to make beautiful music. Confess your perceived sins to anyone you choose, as silence is truly golden. I've decided to confess only to those I feel I've wronged, and often my perspective was skewed. I now know why I hated Schoenberg. He was a child asking why and it was easier to shut him up than to ask why. Schoenberg was a student of the universe and he was screaming WHY at the top of his lungs. Dodecaphonic scale is an attempt to explain the universe through musical tones. My mind is more mathematical than musical but I understand the attraction and the polarity of each. I didn't stop with numbers. 

So Beethoven vs Schoenberg now, huh? Would you choose an encyclopedia or a novel? A Piano or an album? Beethoven was my personal gateway to classical music because it suited my internal rhythm, but my rhythm changes, as do my tastes. My Schoenberg month was a failure because I cheated throughout. Why? I know. Schoenberg wrote some beautiful music and some music that doesn't suit me currently. Since the only things equal are opposite, by nature we bump into things to see what feels good but we also find out what doesn't feel good. All relative and all degrees of everything. Subject to change. Schoenberg had the benefit of every single thing which came before him and became exactly what he choose to become. Wagner literally willed himself to become a great composer and steamrolled everything which got in his path. I didn't have to log on and write any of this but I understand COR vs HOR. And I did it in my basement. A few people here, by nature, will understand this. There's a mathematical formula to tell you exactly how many of you, but then, your truths are yours alone. 

One is the loneliest number
Two is looking in a mirror. What you see is what you get.
Three is where choice begins. There is no true choice before this number. Only the illusion of it.

If this seems crazy, cool. I made peace with that before I started typing. The more and more I learn, the more people call me crazy. Even in my immediate family. I guess they preferred a fat, drunk, racist, bigoted, scared little boy. Me, I'll take 3 people who ask why over 10 who attack you our of fear. Those I feel I've wronged here, this is my universal apology.

The site is a platform. A universe if you will. The rules of nature still apply here. We have the choice to stay, run, type, read, listen, learn, and most importantly share. The moderators run this universe and by nature, establish their own rules. Banning people only bans them from this universe. It DOES NOT change the rules. Rules are not written and never will be. Choice and change my friends. Stay with the rhythm of the universe of get run over by change. People create other sites. Other platforms. Other universes to discuss music. When you put a human in a cage, they create their own universe. The less materials you give them to work with, the simpler their answers come to them. Hating Schoenberg is fearing Schoenberg. Fearing Schoenberg is fearing yourself. Fearing yourself is hating yourself. I used to think I hated myself because of everything I was not. Now I know I love myself because of everything I can be. I used to walk with canes (literally). Now I hang them from rafters and do pull-ups (also literally). Anyone who choose between Schoenberg and Beethoven choose between a book and a tree. Only when they realize why they consider Schoenberg to be one of the greatest universal composers will they ALSO realize why it's so difficult to make others see. It's currently impossible. Tomorrow however, we shall see.

Now if this is too long for some to read, I will release a small chuckle. It only goes away if you close your eyes.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

People wouldn't worry about what other people think about Schoenberg if they realized how rarely they do.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Speculating on a composer's "prospects for immortality" is silly/pretentious in that extraordinarily Gouldian way - that combination of puppyish enthusiasm, hyperintellectual preciousness, and hermetically sealed perversity that made him unique. Whether Gould thought that Schoenberg would be more likely to be "immortal" because his music is superior, or because it still seemed like the best "modern" thing, he doesn't say. Gould died 34 years ago, and no doubt made his prediction some time before that. Maybe people felt unsure about the status of Schoenberg then, but this is 2016 and we've been through minimalism, neoromanticism, spectralism, and a bunch of other isms that make Schoenberg's "new music" old news to anyone paying even casual attention.
> 
> When a composer's work has been intensively studied, performed and recorded for a century - particularly the 20th century - his "stock" isn't likely to fluctuate by much. Schoenberg was an original phenomenon who made a strong impact on the course of music, but even that impact - in the form of composers who have utilized his techniques - has by now acquired a settled, understood, "historical" status. He is one of the "old masters" of music, no more puzzling in relation to music's present and future than such earlier composers as Bach or Wagner. The significance of his "new music" has been pretty well explained and grasped by those with an interest in such things, while those interested only in listening to music for pleasure don't much care whether the music is new or old. How much listeners have been liking it, or will like it, has by now as much, and as little, to do with Schoenberg's survival as the increased popularity of Berlioz or Mahler in the 20th century has with theirs. Those who understood the merits of their music always knew that they would find their audience, and Schoenberg's music will likewise be sought out by those who enjoy its distinctive qualities. There is no other useful definition of "immortality."
> 
> ...


O dear, Mr. Woodduck has called Gould silly. Just who do you think you are? The amount of music inspired by Schoenberg (which continues to be inspired by Schoenberg) is hard to fathom. Not to mention, the new generation of rising-classical-music-fans does not have an antipathy to the composer, when they absorb him they do so organically. Music has drastically changed precisely because of Schoenberg.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

If all Schoenberg ever wrote was his Piano Concerto Op.42, he would never be forgotten.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

scratchgolf said:


> I also used to fear things I didn't understand. It was easy to call Bach "Beautiful" and Schoenberg "Ugly". Both terms, like all terms being objective to the individual only. We don't fear Pythagoras so why Arnie? Discussion sites are like life. People coming together on common interest and then trying to prove to themselves and everyone how different they are. Does this make us any different than Schoenberg? Understanding numbers led me to understanding Schoenberg. Schoenberg was trying to understand also. I was completely happy with my personal beautiful music until I fell for the music of Wagner. Then change overwhelmed me and I returned to a child-like state of asking the ONLY question that matters. WHY. Children ask why, to the point we either shut them up or ask ourselves also. When we shut them up we settle for how, when, where, who, and how much. My Schoenberg experiment was my attempt at asking WHY as an adult. My life has led me to this. Why do we kill? Why do we lie? Does a chameleon lie by changing? Does a lion lie by stalking prey? Why?
> 
> Then I started asking the questions I couldn't answer for myself. I realized why I had drown myself in mind altering substances. Why did I stop asking why? Wagner led me to studying numbers, colors, sounds, rhythms, polarity, change, evolution, astro-biology, geometry, physics. Why our calendar? Why leap year? Why did the scientists swear the atom was the smallest building block until it wasn't? Then these same intelligent men then declared the next level in the smallest, until it wasn't again. Now, we once again have a "smallest" particle of matter? Aren't we just universal students? Blinded what we believe to be true. Truth becomes change and history becomes legend. Fear of straying too far from center, until we realize just how extreme our views really were. WHY?
> 
> ...


I for one enjoyed many things in this post. I will always applaud the Free Spirit. Thanks for being yourself my friend, thanks for sharing something original.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Klassic said:


> O dear, Mr. Woodduck has called Gould silly.


Saying that something a person said is silly doesn't mean that the person who said it is silly. For instance, if I say that the statement, '_Then you must be making the argument that Justin Bieber is greater than Beethoven._ is silly, that doesn't mean that the person who said it is silly. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Saying that something a person said is silly doesn't mean that the person who said it is silly. For instance, if I say that the statement, '_Then you must be making the argument that Justin Bieber is greater than Beethoven._ is silly, that doesn't mean that the person who said it is silly. But I could be wrong.


O, you mean what was _implied_ was not actually applicable? You mean to say (or I should say, you mean to say _for_ Woodduck) that Gould did a silly thing even though Gould is not silly? So you are correct, Woodduck did not literally _say_ that Gould was silly, he simply _implied_ it. (Thank goodness the moderators of this forum do not persecute people for implications). I for one, think that if Mr. Woodduck says that Gould did a silly thing, then how could it not be the case that Gould did a silly thing? If greatness does not matter then why make any distinction at all between composers and their compositions? As for "speculating on immortality," what could be more important if one, is in fact, trying to discern what matters? Woodduck can go on and on with his rhetoric, but it will not change the fact that 1) Gould's ear is still superior to his (and for that matter always will be) and 2) Schoenberg, like it or not, will forever remain the father of new music.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

mstar said:


> If all Schoenberg ever wrote was his Piano Concerto Op.42, he would never be forgotten.


Wow, I just realized that I've never heard that piece.  I guess I would be the one who forgets.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> People wouldn't worry about what other people think about Schoenberg if they realized how rarely they do.


Evidently not the case here!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Chronochromie said:


> Evidently not the case here!


Yeah, funny, but I just spent a little while notating sketches Schoenberg provided for the themes of the Chamber Symphony No. 1, seeing how his initial ideas morphed into the themes in the final work.

In response to Scratchgolf's post, you may be nearer the mark than you realize. Schoenberg thought of himself not as a theorist but as an explorer of new musical territory, and if you asked him how his music worked, he would have told you that he didn't know. He only knew that it did work, and he felt compelled by the laws of nature to write the way he did.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> Yeah, funny, but I just spent a little while notating sketches Schoenberg provided for the themes of the Chamber Symphony No. 1, seeing how his initial ideas morphed into the themes in the final work.
> 
> In response to Scratchgolf's post, you may be nearer the mark than you realize. Schoenberg thought of himself not as a theorist but as an explorer of new musical territory, and if you asked him how his music worked, he would have told you that he didn't know. He only knew that it did work, and he felt compelled by the laws of nature to write the way he did.


Mahlerian, is in fact, making the same point as Scratchgolf. Schoenberg, in the way he knew how, was simply trying to achieve the act of total freedom in music. This is also true of Beethoven, if one contrasts the music of his time. The difference is that what Schoenberg did went further. Now... do we not see that Beethoven, even if he had the gumption, could not have composed Schoenberg's Piano Concerto? "Why" you ask? because it literally would have been too far ahead of his time (the world would not receive it). The existence of a Schoenberg must be preceded by the existence of a Beethoven, even as the music of the future must be preceded by the existence of a Schoenberg. It is not that the music of Beethoven will not be appreciated in the future, it's simply the case that Schoenberg happened to create a _greater space_ than that of Beethoven. What does this mean? It means that Schoenberg is a kind of Super-Axiom for the future.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Klassic said:


> O dear, Mr. Woodduck has called Gould silly. Just who do you think you are? The amount of music inspired by Schoenberg (which continues to be inspired by Schoenberg) is hard to fathom. Not to mention, the new generation of rising-classical-music-fans does not have an antipathy to the composer, when they absorb him they do so organically. Music has drastically changed precisely because of Schoenberg.


Have you ever said anything silly? Are you therefore a silly person? You really must read more. You might find that your idol Mr. Gould (who you have already proven scientifically to be greater than all of us), said a number of things that many people have found to be silly. But far from regarding Mr. Gould as a silly person, most of us regard him as an extraordinarily talented person who had a peculiar mental world out of which energed quite a few brilliant things and also a number of silly things. Both his statements about music and his musical performances fall into both categories.

It's unfortunate that you want to make this a contest between Mr. Woodduck and Mr. Gould. I don't play in his league. I merely call the plays as I see them. I believe I should be permitted to do this without being asked "who I think I am."


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Have you ever said anything silly? Are you therefore a silly person? You really must read more. You might find that your idol Mr. Gould (who you have already proven scientifically to be greater than all of us), said a number of things that many people have found to be silly. But far from regarding Mr. Gould as a silly person, most of us regard him as an extraordinarily talented person who had a peculiar mental world out of which energed quite a few brilliant things and also a number of silly things. Both his statements about music and his musical performances fall into both categories.
> 
> It's unfortunate that you want to make this a contest between Mr. Woodduck and Mr. Gould. I don't play in his league. I merely call the plays as I see them. I believe I should be permitted to do this without being asked "who I think I am."


But _you_ pit yourself against Gould the moment you struck bold enough to imply that he was "silly." I didn't do this, you did it to yourself. Are you the only one allowed to "call plays as you seem them?"

Also, you were quite specific, you were talking about those who speculate on a composer's immortality. Isn't music the kind of thing that (hopefully) lives beyond one's death? Further, as Gould raised this idea he raised it in the context of _influence_ on future music, the way it, _a composer's music_, would shape the world. And as it seems, regarding Schoenberg, so far from being "silly," Gould was correct.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Klassic said:


> But _you_ pit yourself against Gould the moment you struck bold enough to imply that he was "silly." I didn't do this, you did it to yourself. Are you the only one allowed to "call plays as you seem them?"


I think silly is a bit mild for the asinine statements of Gould's quoted above thread. I'm surprised he didn't add Prokofiev to the list of composers who didn't write well for the piano, since the principal criterion he used seems to have been those he couldn't play well.  Listen to his interpretation of Prokofiev's Seventh Sonata on youtube and you'll see what I mean. I'm not sure about his ear, but his memory was not so good. He misremembers critical passages in the slow movement. Pretty second rate.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> I'm not sure about his ear, but his memory was not so good.


Hahahaha, Glenn Gould had a poor memory! This has to be one of the most igno.......... Did it ever occur to you Mr. EdwardBast that Gould was in fact an artist and played things in his own way? Further, your objection here is that Gould did not play every piece he ever played at first rate quality, this is far from a serious criticism. My friend, your objections cannot stand in the presence of men like Gould or Adorno (who were both geniuses and called such by some of the greatest minds of their time). All you have done here is display your prejudice. And yet, Schoenberg stands at the foundation of all modern music. I do say, place that in your pipe and smoke it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Klassic said:


> Schoenberg, like it or not, will forever remain the father of *new music.*


New music? What music is that?

Music is not monolithic. Music is a plurality, it was a plurality during and after Schoenberg's lifetime, and it's an ever-expanding plurality now. There is and always was plenty of _new_ music - music as good as, and maybe better than, his - which has had little or no use for Schoenberg.

"Newness" is relative; it quickly becomes "oldness." Music is always new, and it's always changing. It's a process without beginning or end. To call anyone "the father of new music" shows a perspective both parochial and frozen in time, as well as a propensity for Romantic hyperbole which is anything but new. Are you old enough to remember "Beethoven, The Man Who Freed Music"? Who talks like that any more?

Fascinating, isn't it, that when people suggest that Schoenberg's abandonment of tonality was something radically new, certain of his admirers rush in to tell us how traditional he was and how his harmony is just a natural development of late-Romantic chromaticism. Evidently that is not your view, and really it can't be, lest you end up having to concede that the father of new music might really be Wagner. Of course, we might go back to Wagner's sources of inspiration and name Beethoven as new music's papa. It appears to be a question of when and where we think "new music" was born - or of which child we view as legitimate.

New music is not a child that anyone can father. It is an endless proliferation of children, fathered by its composers, many of whom do not trace their lineage to a German post-Romantic who liked to indulge a messianic fantasy that the music of the future would issue from his loins.

It sounds to me as if you've bought into the fantasy.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Schoenberg belongs to a different tier of composer assessment compared with Beethoven as far as history is often concerned. They wrote different types of music centuries apart. Atonal belongs to an idiom quite different to Beethoven's.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> New music is not a child that anyone can father. It is an endless proliferation of children, fathered by its composers, many of whom do not trace their lineage to a German post-Romantic who liked to indulge a messianic fantasy that the music of the future would issue from his loins.


(A) "New music is not a child that anyone can father."

(B) "It is... children fathered by many composers."

(C) Which means music is a child that anyones father. These many are ones, and one of these anyones (who was an anyone), was the exceedingly important German composer Arnold Schoenberg.

All you have done is affirm what I have said. 

It should be clear from my post above that I do not deny the importance of Beethoven for the existence of Schoenberg. While I agree with your logic, I do not lose sight of the individual in crowd.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Klassic said:


> But _you_ pit yourself against Gould the moment you struck bold enough to imply that he was "silly." I didn't do this, you did it to yourself.


O Klassik! I am not against Mr. Gould! I am in fact very fond of Mr. Gould. He is without a doubt one of music's most entertaining personalities. Who could be against a man who so succinctly distinguishes German silence from French silence?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> O Klassik! I am not against Mr. Gould! I am in fact very fond of Mr. Gould. He is without a doubt one of music's most entertaining personalities. Who could be against a man who so succinctly distinguishes German silence from French silence?


But you do think he was "silly" for talking about the immortality of Schoenberg?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Schoenberg belongs to a different tier of composer assessment compared with Beethoven as far as history is often concerned. They wrote different types of music centuries apart. Atonal belongs to an idiom quite different to Beethoven's.


Well, Schoenberg didn't write any atonal music, and his first compositions were less than 70 years after Beethoven's death, so...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Klassic said:


> (A) "New music is not a child that anyone can father."
> 
> (B) "It is... children fathered by many composers."
> 
> ...


I have not affirmed anything you have said. Reread, rethink.

I do not lose sight of the forest for a single tree.


----------



## George O (Sep 29, 2014)

While I wouldn't call Karlheinz Kloppweiser the father of new music, I will say that his music is new to me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Klassic said:


> But you do think he was "silly" for talking about the immortality of Schoenberg?


"I would place my chips on Arnold Schoenberg as the composer with the greatest prospects of immortality" is, on its face, a silly statement.

However, I've just noticed, to my embarrassment and horror, that you claim not to remember his exact words. So how do I know that it isn't _you_ who are responsible for that statement? Should Gould have been left out of this from the start? Are you lauding him for something you misremembered or made up?

Well, it doesn't matter. I consider the statement absurd, no matter who made it, and I've explained why.

If you had been satisfied with saying that you thought Schoenberg the most important influence on the course of classical music in the 20th century, a reasonable discussion might have ensued.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I have not affirmed anything you have said. Reread, rethink.
> 
> I do not lose sight of the forest for a single tree.


Right, so Schoenberg was a father of new music.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> "I would place my chips on Arnold Schoenberg as the composer with the greatest prospects of immortality" is, on its face, a silly statement.
> 
> However, I've just noticed, to my embarrassment and horror, that you claim not to remember his exact words. So how do I know that it isn't _you_ who are responsible for that statement? Should Gould have been left out of this from the start? Are you lauding him for something you misremembered or made up?
> 
> ...


This quote does not come from an essay by Gould (even though, if you had read through this thread you would see that others provided a citation affirming my point) this quote actually comes from a video. Maybe someone has seen it, younger Gould, black and white, where he begins by saying something to the effect of, "were I a betting man Henry, which for reasons of my strict upper Canadian upbringing I am not...." Ring a bell?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

To paraphrase: Arnold Schoenberg's music is music of the future -- and always will be.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Klassic said:


> ..I do say, place that in your pipe and smoke it.





Klassic said:


> (C) Which means music is a child that anyones father. These many are ones, and one of these anyones (who was an anyone), was the exceedingly important German composer Arnold Schoenberg.


I'd like to have in my pipe what you're smoking.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

KenOC said:


> To paraphrase: Arnold Schoenberg's music is music of the future -- and always will be.


Only if you're living in the past.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Klassic said:


> Hahahaha, Glenn Gould had a poor memory! This has to be one of the most igno.......... Did it ever occur to you Mr. EdwardBast that Gould was in fact an artist and played things in his own way? Further, your objection here is that Gould did not play every piece he ever played at first rate quality, this is far from a serious criticism. My friend, your objections cannot stand in the presence of men like Gould or Adorno (who were both geniuses and called such by some of the greatest minds of their time). All you have done here is display your prejudice. And yet, Schoenberg stands at the foundation of all modern music. I do say, place that in your pipe and smoke it.


Not only is my criticism serious, it has the added benefit of being accurate. There are wrong notes in his performance of the Prokofiev that are clearly the result of faulty memory, not mechanical issues (the latter I would not mention because they can happen to anyone). And then there are the nearly identical passages of the slow movement in which he just failed to notice or remember the crucial differences, thus pretty much missing the essence of the movement. I've had students in my conservatory classes who could play the finale of that sonata better cold. And what can you say about someone who thinks it's alright to skip the repeat in the finale of Beethoven's Op. 31 #2? Whether Gould was a "genius" or not doesn't interest me, the mystery of why so many people seem to think he was a great pianist does.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Only if you're living in the past.


 That's much better than living in the future. Tried that once, it was a disaster. Voltages were all wrong, none of my plugs would fit anything, I had no idea what people were talking about half the time, and some of the customs -- yekkk! Much better in the past, I assure you.

BTW, yes, Gould was silly. Incurably, irredeemably silly. Among his friends, he was was known as "Silly Goose Glenn". You can look this up.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Whether Gould was a "genius" or not doesn't interest me, the mystery of why so many people seem to think he was a great pianist does.


1) Gould had a poor memory.

2) Gould was not a great pianist.

I rest my case. You are either a truly radical revolutionary in music, or an ivory tower academic.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Glenn Gould was a highly intelligent man and an extremely accomplished pianist, but IMO his eccentricity made it hard to nail down whether he was a genius or not. Of course, eccentricity has not gotten in the way of all geniuses, but Gould marched to such a different drummer that it is hard to pin down his place in piano music history. For instance: His retiring from public performing prematurely, his humming even during recording sessions which challenged the sound engineers and bothered some listeners and his playing fast and loose with tempos (an attraction for some, a turn-off for others).

Fwiw: I heard Gould give several lectures on music and they were always excellent and afaik, I'm the only one here who saw him perform live.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Gould "playing fast and loose with tempos"? I'm most interested in Gould as a Bach performer, where there is really nobody I'd place above him. But in Bach, did he really play "fast and loose" with tempos?

Bach often didn't bother specifying tempos at all. Where in Bach did Gould disregard Bach's tempo markings, or was he just playing it differently from other pianists? I'm actually quite curious to hear answers to this from anybody who has some information.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

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


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Gould "playing fast and loose with tempos"? I'm most interested in Gould as a Bach performer, where there is really nobody I'd place above him. But in Bach, did he really play "fast and loose" with tempos?
> 
> Bach often didn't bother specifying tempos at all. Where in Bach did Gould disregard Bach's tempo markings, or was he just playing it differently from other pianists? I'm actually quite curious to hear answers to this from anybody who has some information.


Perhaps saying that his tempos were controversial would be better than 'playing fast and loose'. Of course, the most famous example is the 1951 vs 1981 Goldberg Variations recordings. Gould himself said that the 1951 recording was 'too fast for comfort'. Others found the 1981 too slow. Another example was the 1962 Brahms 1st Concerto with Bernstein that Gould intended to play so slowly that Bernstein disavowed it to the audience beforehand.

You are correct that one can't say what the correct tempo is of a number of Bach's works, but the controversy of Gould's interpretations remain.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Klassic said:


> 1) Gould had a poor memory.
> 
> 2) Gould was not a great pianist.
> 
> I rest my case. You are either a truly radical revolutionary in music, or an ivory tower academic.


I have pointed out memory lapses which anyone who knows Prokofiev's Seventh Sonata can't fail to miss. Do you want measure numbers? It is possible he had a good memory but just didn't care, I suppose(?)

Gould was great at performing the piano music of composers who wrote no piano music and composers who wrote no idiomatic piano music. 

I'm not in an ivory tower. I'm here with my ears pointing out obvious musical failings. It doesn't take an academic or a genius to realize one can't leave out the repeat in the finale of Beethoven's "Tempest" Sonata, which is like reciting a quatrain with a line missing and thinking it is complete. All it takes is a sensitivity to musical structure. Nor is it academic to believe that playing the notes a composer wrote, rather than playing "things in his own way," as you so euphemistically put it, is a minimal expectation for a performance.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> Perhaps saying that his tempos were controversial would be better than 'playing fast and loose'. Of course, the most famous example is the 1951 vs 1981 Goldberg Variations recordings. Gould himself said that the 1951 recording was 'too fast for comfort'. Others found the 1981 too slow.* Another example was the 1962 Brahms 1st Concerto with Bernstein that Gould intended to play so slowly that Bernstein disavowed it to the audience beforehand.*
> 
> You are correct that one can't say what the correct tempo is of a number of Bach's works, but the controversy of Gould's interpretations remain.


Example of Gould's eccentric tempos are numerous. One I found particularly startling is in the Brahms _Piano Quintet_ he recorded with the Montreal Quartet. The slow movement, marked "andante, un poco adagio" (the Italian means, roughly, at a relaxed, walking pace - i.e. slowish) is so fast that it becomes a sprightly little waltz. Emmanuel Ax and the Cleveland Quartet play it in 8:37, a fairly standard tempo; Gould and company take only 6:36. They seem to have taken the fact that the work as a whole is one of the most driven and intense in all of Brahms's output as an indication that we need a few moments of levity. The key to this movement is its delicate balance of gentleness and passion; its hemiola-dominated rhythms need to be felt as an inner ambiguity, not thrust at us, their effect being actually lessened when the movement sets out to make us dance. The quintet as a whole has, to me, an oddly militant aspect in the Gould/Montreal performance - but then, when we get Gould into the central Romantic repertoire, we can usually depend on curious things happening.

As one more example, he recorded Wagner's _Siegfried Idyll_ twice, as both pianist and conductor, and in both cases his tempo is probably the slowest on record. On the piano, with every note analyzed and subtly inflected, the piece becomes an absorbing personal meditation, but as played by an orchestra it verges on rigor mortis. Had Cosima Wagner heard this wafting up the stairs that morning she'd have thought she was hung over and would have gone back to sleep.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Nor is it academic to believe that playing the notes a composer wrote, rather than playing "things in his own way," as you so euphemistically put it, is a minimal expectation for a performance.


I don't think that Gould shared that "minimal expectation." I think he thought that he should be creative with all aspects of the score. At least, that's the impression I get from Kevin Bazzana's book, who interestingly links these ideas to Baroque conceptions of the role of the performer.

The other question you raised in another post, about why people think Gould is a great pianist (or something like that) is one that's really interesting, and I suspect that an answer would take us into the world of marketing and public relations.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I don't think that Gould shared that "minimal expectation." I think *he thought that he should be creative with all aspects of the score.* At least, that's the impression I get from Kevin Bazzana's book, who interestingly links these ideas to Baroque conceptions of the role of the performer.
> 
> The other question you raised in another post, about why people think Gould is a great pianist (or something like that) is one that's really interesting, and I suspect that an answer would take us into the world of marketing and public relations.


Whatever we may think of his music-making or his ideas about music, Gould definitely _had_ ideas. He was always, and emphatically, creative. I wouldn't want my criticisms of him to give the impression that I'm not fond of him, despite holding views often diametrically opposed to his. He was always his own peculiar self, and hearing him articulate that self (maybe more in words than in music) is at least unique and classy entertainment. I think he'll be as immortal as Schoenberg.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I am constantly amazed and amused by the hubris which is so extant on the internet. People who once wallowed in obscurity now have the power to be "international stars" and give us their opinions on the already-established proving ground of history.

Yes, Schoenberg will live on, and so will Glenn Gould. That is because they were pre-internet, so the liner notes that Glenn Gould wrote are engraved in the granite hard-disc of history. All the rest of this stuff here will go up in smoke.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I don't think that Gould shared that "minimal expectation." I think he thought that he should be creative with all aspects of the score. At least, that's the impression I get from Kevin Bazzana's book, who interestingly *links these ideas to Baroque conceptions of the role of the performer*.
> 
> The other question you raised in another post, about why people think Gould is a great pianist (or something like that) is one that's really interesting, and I suspect that an answer would take us into the world of marketing and public relations.


Hmm. Interesting suggestion. Of course, extending the freedom expected of baroque performance to 20thc music would be the - uhm - opposite of genius. I've never been interested in Gould, perhaps because I am instinctively skeptical of mass deification. The gods are always so depressingly flawed and overstuffed.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Gould is that friend who ends up being the life of the party, but who you feel the need to warn the others about before he shows up.

There is an important place in life for those people!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> *I am constantly amazed and amused by the hubris which is so extant on the internet. People who once wallowed in obscurity now have the power to be "international stars" and give us their opinions on the already-established proving ground of history.*
> 
> Yes, Schoenberg will live on, and so will Glenn Gould. That is because they were pre-internet, so the liner notes that Glenn Gould wrote are engraved in the granite hard-disc of history. All the rest of this stuff here will go up in smoke.


What are you talking about? Is there any reason why people otherwise "obscure" - which includes most of us, including you - should not exercise their "power" to express their opinions on anything under the sun? Isn't that what you're doing, by the way? Or are you just an emissary from "the established proving ground of history" (a fallacious notion which you've been repeating endlessly over on the 4'33" thread)?

What _I_ find established and proven is this: everyone here has a right to be here, and to shoot your idea of history, or anyone else's, right between the eyes. Some of us are even pretty smart doing it. So please try to overcome your amazement and amusement - or direct it at yourself first.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> Gould is that friend who ends up being the life of the party, but who you feel the need to warn the others about before he shows up.
> 
> There is an important place in life for those people!


Just so, isorhythm. Just so. :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The thread title is “Schoenberg Will Not Die!” I can’t help being reminded of Glenn Close in that bathtub. Arnold comes up once again, clutching that knife. Maybe it’s just me… 

Or maybe my avatar, Rasputin, who also was very hard to kill.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> The thread title is "Schoenberg Will Not Die!" I can't help being reminded of Glenn Close in that bathtub. Maybe it's just me…


I'd prefer not to see you in that bathtub.

Or Schoenberg.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

LarryShone said:


> Well thats a second statement that he made that is wrong.


Also known as the Second Viennese Statement.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Schoenberg's not dead yet, he's getting better.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> Schoenberg's not dead yet, he's getting better.




I've got proof otherwise, do you?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> Schoenberg's not dead yet, he's getting better.


No he's not, he'll be stone dead in a moment.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> What are you talking about? Is there any reason why people otherwise "obscure" - which includes most of us, including you - should not exercise their "power" to express their opinions on anything under the sun? Isn't that what you're doing, by the way? Or are you just an emissary from "the established proving ground of history" (a fallacious notion which you've been repeating endlessly over on the 4'33" thread)?
> 
> What _I_ find established and proven is this: everyone here has a right to be here, and to shoot your idea of history, or anyone else's, right between the eyes. Some of us are even pretty smart doing it. So please try to overcome your amazement and amusement - or direct it at yourself first.


I must stop short at "de-geniusing" Glenn Gould in the light of revelatory new Dr. Phil "sociopathic/OCD/biploar" revisions of history. After reading about his touring, I have faith in the older historical notions of hard work. And after seeing Itzhak Perlman live in concert from 20 feet away, I know that "genius" is something quite palpable when you are in its presence.

To question Schoenberg's genius? Wow, that's tantamount to all these people on the internet declaring that they are atheists. Somehow, some way, I think their hubris will be tested.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I wouldn't question Gould's or Schoenberg's genius, though I sometimes question their ways of exhibiting it. But that atheist thing... Will the hubris test be essay or multiple choice? (I'm better at essays, Lord).


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> To question Schoenberg's genius? Wow, that's tantamount to all these people on the internet declaring that they are atheists.Somehow, some way, I think their hubris will be tested.


Praise the Lord for making me an atheist. I already wrote my hubris test and passed with flying colors.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Praise the Lord for making me an atheist. I already wrote my hubris test and passed with flying colors.


Slip me the answers at recess and I'll buy you some Dubble Bubble Home Run Baseball Bubble Gum Gumballs.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Slip me the answers at recess and I'll buy you some Dubble Bubble Home Run Baseball Bubble Gum Gumballs.


Ooh, my favorite! Deal.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> The thread title is "Schoenberg Will Not Die!" I can't help being reminded of Glenn Close in that bathtub. Arnold comes up once again, clutching that knife. Maybe it's just me…
> 
> Or maybe my avatar, Rasputin, who also was very hard to kill.


Let me guess: one day you walked into your kitchen and found your favourite tonal system bubbling in a pot on the stove.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

He will be remembered as a past music theorist and educator.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Bruckner Anton said:


> He will be remembered as a past music theorist and educator.


And of course as one of the greatest composers of the 20th century. The rest is unimportant.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Bruckner Anton said:


> He will be remembered as a past music theorist and educator.


The problem with this is that, in the case Schönberg, the practice preceded the theory - unlike Rameau, who really was remembered mostly as a theorist and educator for a while after the French Revolution made his operas unfashionable, until Wagner and the Franco-Prussian War (probably in that order) made the French go digging in their archives for great musical ancestors and they discovered just how great he was.

Just think - if Schönberg had given up music and opened a hotel after writing the three piano pieces, Op. 11, the five orchestra pieces, Op. 16, and Erwartung, - so before he wrote his harmony treatise, before any school hired him - then nobody could made the "theorist" label stick to him, and he'd _still_ be the inventor of atonal music, and still be the composer of arguable the single greatest atonal work.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I finally decided to take the plunge and check out this thread. I already regret it.

Problems:










Turns into another let's bash Schoenberg thread. :scold: If one does like Schoenberg do not listen to him. If one does not like him I do not need to know why. A simple I hate him will suffice. 

Liking or dislike Schoenberg does not make one an idiot. Also does not make one a genius. (In anticipation of those who will claim that I am against people expressing an opinion. One of the above posters has accused me of that several times before. I will be so disappointed if he does not.)

Members misrepresenting OP.



Good news:

Reinforces who is on my ignore list.

Klassic is off my ignore list.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> I finally decided to take the plunge and check out this thread. I already regret it.
> 
> Problems:
> 
> ...


Huh. I can't find _a single post_ on this thread that bashes Schoenberg. Maybe it's really a "let's imagine we're under attack and get defensive in advance" thread.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Magnum Miserium said:


> ...if Schönberg had given up music and opened a hotel after writing the three piano pieces, Op. 11, the five orchestra pieces, Op. 16, and Erwartung, - so before he wrote his harmony treatise, before any school hired him - then nobody could made the "theorist" label stick to him, and he'd _still_ be the inventor of atonal music, and still be the composer of arguable the single greatest atonal work.


No, not quite. This will be revealed after SEPT. 30. (CLUE)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> And of course as one of the greatest composers of the 20th century. The rest is unimportant.


No, they are here to question this, just like they question John Cage. Are you asking us to bow down before the altar of history, and relinquish our defiantly ignorant, internet-driven opinions?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Magnum Miserium said:


> The problem with this is that, in the case Schönberg, the practice preceded the theory - unlike Rameau, who really was remembered mostly as a theorist and educator for a while after the French Revolution made his operas unfashionable, until Wagner and the Franco-Prussian War (probably in that order) made the French go digging in their archives for great musical ancestors and they discovered just how great he was.


Schoenberg could not, or did not want, to continue making "freely atonal" music; the existing practice necessitated a new theory to control it. The totally chromatic music and path of musical thinking that Schoenberg was pursuing necessitated, to his way of thinking, a new way of controlling and unifying totally chromatic music.

Tonality, in this freely-atonal chromatic context, was now meaningless and ineffective. Tonality depends on what is not there, as well as what is, and with 12 notes all the time, there is no way of establishing tonality.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Schoenberg could not, or did not want, to continue making "freely atonal" music; the existing practice necessitated a new theory to control it.


Sure. My point is just, if he'd retired after Erwartung, before he contributed anything to theory, he'd still be a very major composer.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Sure. My point is just, if he'd retired after Erwartung, before he contributed anything to theory, he'd still be a very major composer.


Possible, I agree. But music history never should really assess based on what could have been. What if Mozart lived till he was 65 years old? Would Romanticism have taken a greater turn? Interesting discussion, that's about it.


----------

