# Schoenberg's String Quartet



## jurianbai

I have this Schoenberg String Quartet cycle from my very beginning listening time. I dismissed his works mostly because I am not familiar with modern sound. But lately of course time change and 'improved', now I listen to Schoenberg's SQ no.1 and indeed it is a tonal works bearing D minor key. I also quite surprise how easy the piece come to my ear now, it is like a sequel of Beethoven's or Schubert's.

Then come the nos 2, which is must be most interesting piece. The 3rd and 4th movement have a soprano storming all over. The piece is heavier a lot, but still listenable and the soprano indeed a powerful addition.

The nos 3 and 4 I need more comments. Much heavier, again different sound from the previous two.

see Wikipedia Schoenberg String Quartets


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Which version do you have? There appears not many versions around. Naxos hasn't done one yet, although they have many other of Arnie's works recorded.


----------



## jurianbai

And that's exactly the question I can't answer. My MP3 didn't record the name of performer. I only pay the attention on who is doing the job lately. This set already with me from the time where I begin to listen classical music. I will check which group had done a complete set.


----------



## Head_case

Crikes.

You listen to classical music via MP3s?! 

The Wihan Quartet version of the Schoenberg string quartet no. IV (backed with the Pfizner) is the version I've had for the past decade. I started with his last string quartet, hoping to move forward into his past catalogue (or backward, into his more interesting catalogue  ), however never really took to it. His earlier tonal works are less bland and more emotionally involving than the cogitating exercises of the late quartet.










I have probably listened to it as much as Jurianbai and appreciate it far less than the soaring sonorities of Schubert's late string quartets, or less than the emotional expressivity of Pfizner's string quartet, and far less than the agitating Krasa, or sublime Hartmann or Eisler's Teutonic masterpieces. No doubt some Austrian professor out there will really appreciate and enjoy Schoenberg's late string quartets. If they could enlighten the masses, as to why Professor Schoenberg deserves such an audience, over the magical string quartet works of his suppressed colleagues, the German Entartete composers (Haas; Krasa, Eisler etc), I'd really appreciate it.

As it is, to me it seems that Schoenberg's grip on modern music, relies as a function of his promotion of the avant-garde, as a quality, over and above, the experience of music through the extensity of its musical expressivity. The theory and pursuit of the avant-garde itself, is an insufficient quality to grip me when it comes to appreciating music. Sure - I love hearing novel and original music, however that is not to say with respect to Schoenberg's string quartets, any will stand the test of time, other than being curious historical momentoes; a souvenir legacy of the 'development' of the atonal technique in its master proponent. Sure ~ Schoenberg's contribution to the atonal technique and serialism is indubitable, however his successors' works, have amplified and refined his techniques to make more interesting music than their founding father.

The lack of recordings in some string quartet genres can be traced to suppression (like the Entartete music of the Jewish-German composers); eclipse due to context (for example - Szymanowski, following the second world war); the loss of seminal manuscripts and musical scores (for example - Jongen; Rogister). These are examples of works which have been unjustly neglected.

However when it comes to someone as notorious and famous as Schoenberg, who occupied a pivotal and charismatic role in the avant-garde and in Berlin in his own chamber group; held a professorial role in a prominent conservatory - it is hard not to ask oneself, whether his string quartet music is less popular, because in all fairness it is _justly_ neglected due to the very limitation and calibre of his music and the musical techniques which he imposed on it


----------



## jurianbai

Yes, some of my old recording only left in MP3 format, that's why I only listen to chamber music in a worry to missed out a piccolo sound in orchestra .

Like always, I am not sure are you saying the Schoenberg are good or average. But I begin to feel it is much better listening now than ever, just say I still likely to pick him out over my misunderstood Enescu, Faure or Milhaud SQ. 

The 4th is perhaps most interesting to you, or if you like the 2nd with soprano over it.


----------



## Sid James

Just reading Norman Lebrecht's _The Companion to Twentieth Century Music _(1992). He writes that Schoenberg's marriage was on the rocks when he composed his second quartet, a breakthrough in atonality (or pantonality, as the composer liked to call it).



> ...The second quartet provoked a riot at its first performance (21.xii.08, Rose Quartet with Marie Gutheil-Schoder as soloist) and Schoenberg was destined for a life of notoriety. What made musicians murmur was not so much the sounds themselves but an intuition that these works masked a phenomenal, dangerous capability to undermine the easy pleasurability of music for all time...


I have not heard any of the man's string quartets, but I am interested in later acquiring them, as they are definitely seminal works in the genre in the C20th. Lebrecht concludes:



> ...He remains, and will probably always remain, anathema to easy listeners. His music demands an effort of concentration and, like all great art, a certain suspension of disbelief. That it was great art cannot be denied. 'As a composer, I must believe in inspiration rather than mechanics,' he said. His music may have suffered from the mechanism of ascetic interpreters but its composer was one of the most passionate and imaginative creators of music at any time. You do not have to like his music in order to recognise the essential rightness of almost every stance he took. Schoenberg walked with the angels while his reactionary opponents danced with the very devil...


----------



## Quartetfore

I would think that the String Sextet (" Transfigured Night") in the long run will be thought of as his most important work. As for his later Quartets--- I pass. I see the name Hans Pfitzner noted. There are two mature quartets composed 40 years apart. I like the op. 13 (1902), but both are rewarding. Best, Quartetfore


----------



## Quartetfore

For you Piano Trio "Fans" there is a version. I have not heard it myself, but it might be interesting. Quartetfore.


----------



## Aramis

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Which version do you have? There appears not many versions around. Naxos hasn't done one yet, although they have many other of Arnie's works recorded.


What, you're looking forward for some self-torture?


----------



## Head_case

jurianbai said:


> Yes, some of my old recording only left in MP3 format, that's why I only listen to chamber music in a worry to missed out a piccolo sound in orchestra .
> 
> Like always, I am not sure are you saying the Schoenberg are good or average. But I begin to feel it is much better listening now than ever, just say I still likely to pick him out over my misunderstood Enescu, Faure or Milhaud SQ.
> 
> The 4th is perhaps most interesting to you, or if you like the 2nd with soprano over it.


Yeah I guess that figures....

I was just thinking of the irony ... of you listening to 'old recordings' left in MP3 format...and here I am...listening to "new" recordings on vinyl LP 

Well as with most composers' and their string quartets, I guess I tend to view statements as 'good', 'average' or 'bad' as unhelpfully simplistic. That is - they refer to the listener, rather than the music mostly. With Schoenberg, his legacy has never been as straightforward as others for instance, like Enescu, whose violin skills and symphonic skills, overshadow his chamber music quartets, particularly the two unusual string quartets he wrote, which are plaintively gypsy-esque, but hard to grasp.

Take for example Andre's quote from Norman Lebrecht on Schoenberg:



> ..He remains, and will probably always remain, anathema to easy listeners. His music demands an effort of concentration and, like all great art, a certain suspension of disbelief.


This kind of condescending dichotomies which Lebrecht deliberately trades on, in order to elevate his own taste into a form of elite, draws on arguments which can be applied in principle; and not specifically to Schoenberg.

Thus, we find that Shostakovich, Szymanowski; Myaskovsky; Shebalin; Salmanov; Ginastera - all demand an effort of concentration; and a suspension of disbelief (that is - equally true for 'expectations' of one's favourite kind of ditties). The most offensive part about Lebrecht', is his stereotyping of others as 'easy listeners' - an argument, which many pro-baroque; pro-romantic music listeners find uncomfortable. Anyway, Lebrecht meets his timely demise in the form of David Hurwitz who comments on his fallacy of thought (referring to his stereotyping of a record label in this instance):



> _Schoenberg paraphrased by Lebrecht:_. 'As a composer, I must believe in inspiration rather than _mechanics_,' he said.


Oh? So serialism is the product of 'inspiration'? Oer. Or the inspiration of his music, surpasses the mechanics, of serialism? Oerrrr!!

We remember Schoenberg.... not for his inspiration, but for his serialism. It is precisely his method and mechanics, which forces us to remember him in 21st century music is it not?



> _Lebrecht summarised by Hurwitz:_ Classical music's prophet of doom has, at last, met his own demise. Spontaneous human combustion is a rare and controversial occurrence, but it has been known to happen even if the exact _mechanism_ remains a mystery.


Well you can read more about the opinionated and ubiquitous Lebrecht in a eulogy by Hurwitz 
http://www.classicstoday.com/features/021009-Lebrecht.asp

There will always be some obscure dilettante academician or music journalist or professor out there who will champion Schoenberg. Then there are the sceptical listeners, who spin his CDs and find it interesting in a kind of reasoned (non-emotive way). If the dissonance between the experience of his music in the string quartet form, wasn't so terrific, that this alone...requires a 'suspension of disbelief', ultimately we would have to accept that Schoenberg relies on inspiration, in the same form that Tracy Emin claims, that she relies on inspiration to make her bed, without servitude to a form of mechanics to lay the very same bed.

Ludicrous claims for the father of serialism aside, his string quartet work is exactly the kind of music which we are more likely to find in a 25th century museum collection, of music originating in the 21st century: theoretically determined, but barely ever played at homes. Maybe once or twice a year; rediscovered now and then, but ultimately indispensible, because nothing else could quite possibly compete for the most clinically abstract piece of music ever heard - not even the soundtrack to E.R. or Casualty.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Aramis said:


> What, you're looking forward for some self-torture?


Not really because I haven't yet listened to any of your music, Aramis.


----------



## Sid James

I am not an academic or music journalist, yet I really like Schoenberg. All that crap that he destroyed tradition, & that his music lacks emotion or structure is (of course) untrue. He always said he was continuing the long line of musical development, the Austro-German tradition, from Haydn & Mozart on. I can't stand people who single out Schoenberg as some kind of anti-Christ, as a number of other composers around that time (the 1900's) had come to similar conclusions regarding tonality, like the Russians Scriabin & Roslavets & the American Ives. Not to speak of how Liszt used melodies that incorporated 12 tones into a number of his works. Schoenberg was not an aberration, he was clearly responding to (and refining) things that had gone on before in music. I disagree that if I enjoy his music, I must belong to some kind of "elite." I'm just a humble listener, nothing more. & I have friends who are the same who like his music. It's easy to make stereotypes of composers, but when it all boils down to it, these prejudices often have more to do with the ultra-conservatism of some listeners, than the inherent values of Schoenberg's music. I mean, we're talking about music that's virtually 100 years old, and the composer died more than half a century ago. Just get with it...


----------



## Earthling

Head_case said:


> We remember Schoenberg.... not for his inspiration, but for his serialism. It is precisely his method and mechanics, which forces us to remember him in 21st century music is it not?


Is this is a really fair comment to make, though? Tonal music has _plenty _of rules regarding four-part writing, modulations, etc. The only difference is that listeners take this more "traditional" music for granted (they would rather not know about the the many volumes of "esoteric" books on harmony). Tonal music is just as _methodical _as serial music, and has just as many "rules," if not more.


----------



## Head_case

Recall that we are discussing the string quartet form - not making global sweeping statements about a composer and his complete oeuvre:

Try reading again - 


> f they could enlighten the masses, as to why Professor Schoenberg deserves such an audience, over the magical string quartet works of his suppressed colleagues, the German Entartete composers (Haas; Krasa, Eisler etc), I'd really appreciate it


Do you listen to the Entartete composers? Have Schoenberg fans even ever heard of them? Why privilege Schoenberg, over Haas, Krasa, Hartmann, Eisler, or even Bartok for that matter?

Just neglect, versus unjust neglect?

Sure tonal music has plenty of rules. For a writer listening to music, this is no different than using the English alphabet along conventional semantic and syntactical rules, in order to create moving literature, or for a painter, to use the known colours of the light spectrum to paint. The distinction between modern tonal works (like Myaskovsky, Szymanowski) versus serial music, may very well be that the tone method tradition, has a superior heuristic, than the limitations of the narrowly conceived serialism as shown by Schoenberg in his later string quartets no. III & IV in particular. He has not succeeded in spawning the richness of repertoire from his theory driven approach, compared to Haydn and the Teutonic-Viennese tradition, which is one mere axis of the string quartet form, and not its overarching corpus. Contrasting emotion with method is a rich theme in the wider development of the string quartet - it did not 'arrive' with Schoenberg, or suddenly enlighten the world with the advent of his early string quartet no. II: if anything, he managed to show us how emotion was bypassed, despite the worrying situation, that he as a composer, had to 'remind' himself, to insert emotion into music, over and above his mechanics.

Again, to phrase directly to you: do you remember Schoenberg's string quartet music, because of the emotional power is so directly visceral? Or did you come to Schoenberg, because you were intellectually curious about what serialism, duodecaphony and atonal theories might sound like, when translated into music? If you are fluent with the atonal music and tone-free methods of eastern oriental music as well as that of the Eastern European folklore, the method itself is inconsequential, and instead, the listener focusses on the music itself as the determinant, of whether it is worthwhile listening to - not its historical baggage and controversy. This is one reason, why for me, George Antheil's string quartets are anathema. His reputation preceded him, and in the string quartet medium, the one medium where a composer cannot easily fake sensation and effect for substance, his contribution to the string quartet medium is primarily 'historical' or 'of interest', rather than being emminently 'listenable'.

And again, I would counter that if you have not heard many string quartets, such as the 'Carillon' quartet by Hartmann (Prix de Geneva, 5 years after Bartok's fourth string quartet), and looked at the wider repertoire of unjustly neglected music, then there is in all likelihood, Schoenberg is being trumped up and overrated, because of his historical status and link with founding serialism, rather than being justly remembered for the calibre of his string quartet works.


----------



## Sid James

Ok, this means that if we have not heard 1000 string quartets like you, by 1000 different interpreters, we have no right to like Schoenberg's music, or for that matter those by Webern or Berg? This is ridiculous. Just because I may not have heard all of the string quartets of Haydn or Mozart, it doesn't mean I can't enjoy those by Beethoven, and recognise that he was a great innovator in the medium. For me, classical music is not necessarily about knowledge (eg. how many cd's you own), it's more about perception, and taking each composer on his/her own terms. Yes, it is important to make connections and comparisons, as you suggest, but this is not an end in itself. I can enjoy the works of the Second Viennese School, same as I enjoy those by Hartmann, Szymanowski, Bartok, etc. One does not cancel out the other. I've had enough of critics making snap judgements of composer's music which are just meaningless stereotypes, eg. Schoenberg was "technical," Webern "cerebral," Carter "too complex." Honestly this is a bunch of simplistic drivel. & often it's done to describe the composers of the last 100 years, because (as I said above), these listeners and critics are just using euphemisms to hide their ultra conservatism...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andre said:


> Ok, this means that if we have not heard 1000 string quartets like you, by 1000 different interpreters, we have no right to like Schoenberg's music, or for that matter those by Webern or Berg? This is ridiculous. Just because I may not have heard all of the string quartets of Haydn or Mozart, it doesn't mean I can't enjoy those by Beethoven, and recognise that he was a great innovator in the medium. For me, classical music is not necessarily about knowledge (eg. how many cd's you own), it's more about perception, and taking each composer on his/her own terms. Yes, it is important to make connections and comparisons, as you suggest, but this is not an end in itself. I can enjoy the works of the Second Viennese School, same as I enjoy those by Hartmann, Szymanowski, Bartok, etc. One does not cancel out the other. I've had enough of critics making snap judgements of composer's music which are just meaningless stereotypes, eg. Schoenberg was "technical," Webern "cerebral," Carter "too complex." Honestly this is a bunch of simplistic drivel. & often it's done to describe the composers of the last 100 years, because (as I said above), these listeners and critics are just using euphemisms to hide their ultra conservatism...


Andre, I would say I agree with member Head_case regarding the following point I quoted from his/her paragraph. I'm no more musical literate than you, and knowing where my comfort zones are, and thanks to some encouragement from your posts about Arnie in general, I must admit that I am willing to listen to Arnie's music from precisely the point of view as summarised below by member Head_case when it comes to atonal music. (Yes, I am fully aware not all of Arnie's music is atonal).

I am planning to buy some of Arnie's music on CD (yes, I am curious enough to want to spend money on it), to give it a go, to dedicate money and time to try and know some of these more difficult pieces. I agree with you that it is all part of building one's listening experience over the last few hundred years of music in order to broaden one's musical perception. However, I have to agree with Head_case too in his/her closing paragrapgh that it seems Arnie's music has been remembered much more for its "_historical status and link with founding serialism, rather than being justly remembered for the calibre of his string quartet works_". Sometimes I do get a little suspicious of folks who declare they enjoy that type of music as much as standard repertoire, without further qualifying what is meant by enjoyment or indeed how they went about to discover that type of enjoyment that other classical listeners struggle with (and who are no less musically imperceptive due to having much listening experience with classical music in general).



Head_case said:


> Again, to phrase directly to you: do you remember Schoenberg's string quartet music, because of the emotional power is so directly visceral? Or did you come to Schoenberg, because you were intellectually curious about what serialism, duodecaphony and atonal theories might sound like, when translated into music?


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Sometimes I do get a little suspicious of folks who declare they enjoy that type of music as much as standard repertoire, without further qualifying what is meant by enjoyment or indeed how they went about to discover that type of enjoyment that other classical listeners struggle with (and who are no less musically imperceptive due to having much listening experience with classical music in general).


Haha. My goodness. So cynical. I mean...what is meant by enjoyment? Seriously? I enjoy it in exactly the same way as I enjoy Bach, Beethoven, or Wagner. And just as I enjoy each of them for different reasons, so too with Schoenberg.

I know that personally a big part of my "discovery" of the enjoyment of Schoenberg and many other 20th century avant-garde composers came naturally from my exploration of 20th and 21st century non-classical musicians and genres. Which makes sense considering popular culture always follows on the heels of avant-garde ideas. After listening for years to the likes of Ornette Coleman, Sonic Youth, Aphex Twin, etc., etc., it was not only logical to seek out these composers, but their approaches to composition and their overall musical "language" already made complete sense to me. So I guess that amazingly enough, like anyone, my own musical listening background and aesthetic tastes had a lot to do with it.

And to answer Head-case's question, no, I wasn't intellectually curious in hearing how the theories were translated into music. The question in itself just seems so silly to me. I honestly have never heard of and can barely conceive of anyone approaching music in that way. Not even the evil, crazy intellectual musical scholars.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Poppin' Fresh said:


> I know that personally a big part of my "discovery" of the enjoyment of Schoenberg and many other 20th century avant-garde composers came naturally from my exploration of 20th and 21st century non-classical musicians and genres. Which makes sense considering popular culture always follows on the heels of avant-garde ideas. After listening for years to the likes of Ornette Coleman, Sonic Youth, Aphex Twin, etc., etc., it was not only logical to seek out these composers, but their approaches to composition and their overall musical "language" already made complete sense to me. So I guess that amazingly enough, like anyone, *my own musical listening background and aesthetic tastes had a lot to do with it.*


So it comes down to your own listening background and aesthetic tastes then. Obviously not everyone who listens to _Sonic Youth_ or even Justin Bieber are going to like Schoenberg, even though they are all 20th or 21st century.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Obviously not. Looking back on the development of my own musical tastes, I think I've always been drawn to slightly more esoteric forms of aural expression. I mean yes, I've liked an do like many widely renowned musicians as well. But a good portion of what I've always listened to, especially in regards to popular or non-classical music genres, has been stuff that's usually slightly more off the beaten path. Why? Of course it's hard to say, but I enjoy hearing creative means of expression, and ultimately celebrate sound's potential to live on beyond conventional confines. I can also confidently claim that my exposure to such a large array of styles and approaches to music meant that composers like Schoenberg weren't such a shock to the system when I came around to them.

What I'm as certain of as I can be is that it wasn't born out of any sort of need to be different, or to appear intellectual. I find those kinds of suspicions about the true motivations of others in regards to what they enjoy to be strange, to say the least.


----------



## arcades project

Just dipping into this thread, as a first post , & not looking to get into a polemical exchange, but some thoughts:

Surely, Schönberg's music was Entartete too ... I don't see why appreciation of Schönberg's III & IV quartets precludes appreciation of KA Hartmann's fine 1st quartet (I assume that's the one referred to) or Pavel Haas's quartets. Or that Bartók's marvellous scores need to be set in opposition to Schönberg's (the attempt to derive 'formal principles' from Bartók's practice I think had a life in Eastern Europe, as an attempt to construct a popular modernism. I'm not sure many of the resultant works were all that interesting, or that many of the composers who are now remembered - like Ligeti - persevered long with that).

Nor do I think the Schönberg III & IV ever had an especial avant-garde or institutional prestige: his adherence to/obsession with sonata form I'd guess sounded perverse/redundant to a post-war avant-garde. Nor have those concerns influenced what - IMO - are the most interesting string quartets of the past 30/40 years: by Luigi Nono _Fragmente-Stille, an Diotima_ , Helmut Lachenmann, Matthias Spahlinger, Heinz Holliger (his extraordinary 1st quartet), Maurizio Kagel's I & II, Morton Feldman, Brian Ferneyhough.

Brilliant Classics have licensed the LaSalle Quartet's great Schönberg 'cycle' - a wonderful bargain. Really shouldn't be missed.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Obviously not. Looking back on the development of my own musical tastes, I think I've always been drawn to slightly more esoteric forms of aural expression. I mean yes, I've liked an do like many widely renowned musicians as well. But a good portion of what I've always listened to, especially in regards to popular or non-classical music genres, has been stuff that's usually slightly more off the beaten path. Why? Of course it's hard to say, but I enjoy hearing creative means of expression, and ultimately celebrate sound's potential to live on beyond conventional confines. I can also confidently claim that my exposure to such a large array of styles and approaches to music meant that composers like Schoenberg weren't such a shock to the system when I came around to them.
> 
> What I'm as certain of as I can be is that it wasn't born out of any sort of need to be different, or to appear intellectual. I find those kinds of suspicions about the true motivations of others in regards to what they enjoy to be strange, to say the least.


Good on you. Are there any pieces by Schoenberg that you dislike? If so, why? (For the sake of not getting too off topic, let's pick Schoenberg).


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Hmm. Not that I've heard his entire oeuvre, but I can't think of anything of his offhand that I really _dislike_. I like some compositions more than others. I really love the pairing of surging restlessness and gorgeous, exotic expressionism that is present in his music, and some of his later 12-tone works strike me as being a little awkward in that regards. Almost like his romantic gestures were struggling against the order he attempted to bring to his work. But again not always, his Piano Concerto written in the 12-tone system is sweeping, sumptuous, while full of a kind of nervous energy.


----------



## Head_case

Nothin' polemical about this thread lol. We're just exploring why

a) some of us dismiss Schoenberg (those of us who own recordings or have heard these)
b) why on account of his duodecaphonic serialistic atonal post-modern legacy, others overrate him according to the merits of his music 

Quite with Poppin' Fresh here - nothing really to dislike about Schoenberg's music. There is more to dislike in plenty of other modern composers 

Every composer has a reference point: his work does not fall into a vacuum. Taste and preference for one, does not preclude another. Thus, it would be great if others listened to Hartmann, Eisler, instead of crabbing on about Schoenberg and duodecaphony, no?  Thus, Schoenberg's elevation, above the Entartete composers who stayed in Germany, rather than flee on Hitler's ascension - like Schoenberg - composers of Jewish or Catholic persuasion, such as Toch or Krenek - represent a genre of Entartete music, which is not our cultural reference point until we consider: "why are these particular string quartets are ignored, but composers like Mahler, Mendelssohn or Schoenberg, are not?".

Surely it is evident to most on this board, that the latter three, are of a different plane of modern day popularity, than Streker, Krenek; Krasa, Toch (winner of the Pulitzer Prize), Hartmann (Winner of the Geneva Chamber Prize), Korngold, Wellesz, and countless others...... - is it really plausible, that Schoenberg's rather unremarkable four string quartets, merit the acclaim lauded on them, when others ... have not even come across so many of the Entartete composers?

Sure - the German Nazis dismissed the Entartete composers: that in itself should render sufficient warning for us in contemporary society to pay *more* attention to the Entartete composers: why they were dismissed, and the very music which they created, which was seen as such a threat to the Nazis. We're done exploring atonality and serialism as a heuristic of aesthetics, and we can like the curiosity around Schoenberg, and to some extent, enjoy the string quartets which he has graced us with. However let's not pretend, that modern 20th century repertoire owes much to him. Time to move on and enjoy George Rochberg's post-Schoenberg string quartets; roll in Moshei Vainberg (Weinberg) or countless other more works. For the more conventional among us, we can stick with Bartok, who described 'Entartete' as a badge of honour or the Soviet world view of Shostakovich.

Strangely only a forum like this could bring in everything and nothing to comment at the same time


----------



## Sid James

You can never overrate Schoenberg, IMO. He was a pivotal figure in C20th music. The others you mention - like Hartmann, Eisler, Toch, Krenek, etc. were also significant, but their legacy has only been re-discovered relatively recently. In many ways, those kind of composers could only do what they did as a response to Schoenberg's pioneering efforts in the early C20th. I don't know why you have a gripe against Schoenberg. Despite all of your high-falutin' intellectualisations, you just sound like you are regurgitating some of the tired cliches re Schoenberg that are made by ultra-conservatives, eg. that he's overrated, etc. 

It's funny how every thread on these classical music boards on Schoenberg descends into an argument as to whether he has merit or not. Can't the conservatives simply accept that he is a great figure in C20th music and leave it at that? No, because they are highly discomfited by the fact that they cannot understand his music. It hasn't happened here, but there was an thread on another website about Schoenberg (started by our very own some guy), and one of the members there repetitively said his music was "rubbish," "decadent," "degenerate," and the like (I couldn't believe I was reading this drivel in 2010 - sounded like something Goebbels would have said in the Nazi era). Needless to say, that thread was locked. I'm glad that this thread has not descended to the level of the apes like that one.

I'd like to thank the new member above arcades project, who has mentioned a new cycle on Brilliant Classics of Schoenberg's string quartets. These are now on my to-get list...


----------



## arcades project

Hello Andre . The Brilliant LaSalle Quartet box is a reissue (a licensed, authorised, reissue) of the Deutsche Grammophon recordings, made in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Their Zemlinsky quartets (which are in the larger DG box I have) are also now on Brilliant; as are their fine performances of the 'late' Beethoven quartets, op. 127-135. 

In my view you can't do better for the Schönberg (I'm not sure the Arditti Quartet are at their best here). If you get the chance to hear them, the recordings made by the Kolisch Quartet in 1937 (they gave the 1st performances of III & IV), privately in California, are fascinating - made under the composer's supervision. (Interestingly, they go easy on the vibrato. But that's another topic).


----------



## Sid James

Yes, thanks again arcades project. Posts like yours are one of the reasons I'm a member of this forum. I will definitely order that Brilliant Schoenberg string quartets set. It's too late to get their Beethoven set, because I have already ordered some of the budget "EMI Encore" cd's of his late quartets played by the Alban Berg Quartet. I don't like to duplicate. As for Zemlinksy, I might possibly get that one too down the track. I've just been beginning to get into this genre in the last year or so. I will be going to a recital later on in the year where our very own Flinders Quartet will play string quartets by Berg and Richard Mills, as well as the _Clarinet Quintet_ of W.A. Mozart. So I want to go to more string quartet recitals as well...


----------



## arcades project

Glad to be of help, Andre . Enjoy the concert - looks good.

I know Australia is a large country , but do you know the Elision Ensemble? They are very good.

http://www.elision.org.au/ELISION_Ensemble/ELISION_Home.html


----------



## Sid James

No, I've not heard of Elision, but I just looked at that linked, and all of their concerts seem to be overseas! They look like a really interesting group, though, similar to our own Sydney-based Ensemble Offspring, who play contemporary classical music...


----------



## Head_case

> You can never overrate Schoenberg, IMO. He was a pivotal figure in C20th music. The others you mention - like Hartmann, Eisler, Toch, Krenek, etc. were also significant, but their legacy has only been re-discovered relatively recently. In many ways, those kind of composers could only do what they did as a response to Schoenberg's pioneering efforts in the early C20th. I don't know why you have a gripe against Schoenberg. Despite all of your high-falutin' intellectualisations, you just sound like you are regurgitating some of the tired cliches re Schoenberg that are made by ultra-conservatives, eg. that he's overrated, etc.


You can always overrate a composer - except the underrated 

Schoenberg is never in danger of being underrated: in terms of discursive form, no one here has made any of those bizarre statements that Schoenberg is terrible. He's just boring and lacking in emotional expressivity at times. That's all *shrug*. No one here has levied any of those bizarre hysterical outbursts which you've referred to about Schoenberg. His music is not really offensive enough to muster up such energy...whereas Debussy's needle-threshing debut on the string quartet form was enough to do that. This view... is with respect to his string quartet works: you're deeply mistaken if you think Schoenberg forms the cornerstone of 21th century string quartet repertoire. He might very well do in orchestral or other forms which we don't care for in this corner of the forum. However his disappearance from the 20th century string quartet oeuvre would leave a breach in the continuity of the the Second Viennese school.....which itself is only one branch of the 21st string quartet repertoire....

In any case, the Alban Berg set is worthwhile duplicating with the Wihan Quartet, or the LaSalle Quartet


----------



## Quartetfore

What do you mean by "needle-threshing" debut for the Debussy quartet? Quartetfore.


----------



## Head_case

Debussy's biographers tell us that when his premier quatuor was first played, the reaction of the classical romantic audience was one of mixed shock and horror as well as adulation. Some of his mentors struggled with it and referred to it as music 'sur la pointe d'aiguilles' - literally, heard like stabbing needles. Others like Saints-Saens were less kind  

Although Debussy's quartet is written in the full classical sonata form, the shock of the dissonance and harmonic textures caused tremendous controversy, polarising the audience....not because of some clever theoretical device or other: because of its undeniable emotional expressivity and impact on a sedate turn of the century audience. 

Debussy must have been aware of this, playing capricious with his audience and peers alike. When he approached his second string quartet, he proclaimed that he would "restore dignity to the string quartet form". He never finished it and destroyed any trace of it, thankfully leaving us his wonderful shambles of a solitary string quartet in G minor, none other than a masterpiece and the most famous French string quartet ever to have been penned


----------



## Quartetfore

Here is a bit of history. There was, and still is a concert series in New York City called "The Peoples Symphony Concerts". The cost of the ticket than was $1.00! One Saturday evening I was in the area, and I saw a group of people waiting to buy tickets for a concert. I thought why not, put down my 1$ and went in. So that was my first Chamber Music concert. It was the Budapest String Quartet and the program--Mozart, Schumann, and of all things --the Debussy Quartet. I was told by a friend that the Debussy was not "their thing", but it sounded good to me! I am now on my 5th recording of the music, and it still sounds good to me. Quartetfore


----------



## Head_case

That's quite a rich experience lol. You're making me envious about not being older 

Now was $1 in that time, the equivalent of a sterling £1 in the pre-decimal era, where a new house would cost something like £60 

If you saw the Budapest String Quartet play....that makes me really jealous  The Quatuor Debussy recorded Bonnal's seminal string quartets - I think the rest of their repertoire is more romantic and equally moving. They also play the Debussy string quartet in G minor, although I've devoutly adhered to three versions of the Quartetto Italiano recordings (LP; original CD and remastered CD); the Vlach Quartet recording for Supraphon and the modern digital recording by the Quatuor Ebene (best modern new version I've heard) and the Chilingirian Quartet. I binned the Chilingirians and countless others. They lack the finesse of these other legendary recordings. 

The one version which I'm itching to hear is the Dante Quartet's version. It's not exactly value for money being coupled solely by the Ravel Quartet: the Quatuor Ebene CD is the best value ever: this is the recording to get if you want authoritative versions of the most popular French string quartets by Debussy, Ravel and Faure.


----------



## Quartetfore

I`m not sure about the exchange rate in those days. I should add that a reserved seat cost $2.00. Speaking of the Quartetto Italiano, they made their American debut at the Peoples Symphony Concerts and I`m sorry to say I was not there. I own the Belcea Quartets recording and am happy with it. I watch the Internet each week if the Debussy Quartets recording of the Bonnal works are available for downloading and so far no luck. I have heard the recording, and its beautiful. As for Faure, I like the first two movements but the last leaves me cold. Quartetfore.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Head_case said:


> ... It's not exactly value for money being coupled solely by the Ravel Quartet: the Quatuor Ebene CD is the best value ever: this is the recording to get if you want authoritative versions of the most popular French string quartets by Debussy, Ravel and Faure.


Debussy, Ravel and Faure SQ all in one CD? That's very good value. My versions on Naxos are split on two CDs, with the Ravel SQ recorded twice by two different groups. CD 1 contains the Debussy SQ, Ravel SQ and Ravel _Introduction and Allegro for Harp, Flute, Clarinet and String Quartet _ (all by Kodaly SQ), and CD 2 contains the Ravel SQ and Faure SQ (all by _Ad Libitum_ Ensemble). But I purchased both CDs on a Naxos price special, which were cheapy CDs to begin with!


----------



## jurianbai

Debussy and Ravel is almost always in one CD. The rest space usually by Faure or Franck.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

jurianbai said:


> Debussy and Ravel is almost always in one CD. The rest space usually by Faure or Franck.


I will get the Franck SQ soon. Naxos has a CD of it released last year, which is paired with the Franck _Piano Quintet in F minor_.


----------



## Head_case

Yesss....forever twinned 

The same goes for the Debussy and Ravel piano trios - these seemed to be twinned in the same way! 

My late CD of the Debussy & Ravel & Faure string quartets are all joined at the hip ... as are the Debussy & Ravel & Faure piano trios. This one comes from the Solomon Trio on Pickwick Masters. I bought it on the strength of a review by the Penguin Guide way back then. Unfortunately I found it rather bland...compared to the Perlman/Ashkenazy/Harrell supergroup, but never really satisfied with that either. 

The Naxos range is pretty good value although they did release a horrible version of the Debussy/Ravel quartet some time ago (is it still in print?) by the Kodaly Quartet and the playing was average and the acoustics pretty grim 

The ad Libitum Ensemble are first rate though. 

Say ... talking of 2 CD sets ...does anyone remember the EMI box set containing the complete chamber works of Gabriel Faure? I had it once ...bought the whole set just for the version by the Quatuor Parrenin. They really convey the organic expansion of the Faure' quartet like they know how to pick their vegetables


----------



## Head_case

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I will get the Franck SQ soon. Naxos has a CD of it released last year, which is paired with the Franck _Piano Quintet in F minor_.


Oooh....! No no no...get this one:

by the fabulous Dante quartet (they won numerous awards for this disc):










....and then tell me what it's like, since I'm not buying it just for the Franck quartet (well...not quite yet..)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I already have the Faure SQ, hesitate to double up on these works.

I guess we need to find another sucker around here. Anyone?


----------



## Head_case

quartetfore said:


> I`m not sure about the exchange rate in those days. I should add that a reserved seat cost $2.00. Speaking of the Quartetto Italiano, they made their American debut at the Peoples Symphony Concerts and I`m sorry to say I was not there. I own the Belcea Quartets recording and am happy with it. I watch the Internet each week if the Debussy Quartets recording of the Bonnal works are available for downloading and so far no luck. I have heard the recording, and its beautiful. As for Faure, I like the first two movements but the last leaves me cold. Quartetfore.


How come there's no fabulous events like that where I live? 

The last chamber ticket I paid about £22 just for a seat!
I like the idea of a People's concert. There's something uncannily Soviet about it - just ironic that it's in the USA 

I'm not a huge download fan - the MP3 quality gets to me. I still shock people by whipping out my archaic Sony mini-disc player which I prefer for the higher quality digital amp on the trot. The Bonnal Quartets are delightful and very moving too; I rank it alongside the Ravel/Rogister/Ropartz/Jongen pastoral works of great beauty. The Faure quartet is a little unusual; it doesn't reveal its glorious beauty easy. Its taken me longer to like than the rest.

I'm amazed you get to hear music like this. I find the classical radio channels pretty dire. Mostly they're playing something awful which leaves me pining for Schoenberg


----------



## Head_case

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I already have the Faure SQ, hesitate to double up on these works.
> 
> I guess we need to find another sucker around here. Anyone?


Lol. It isn't quite *that* bad..!

I have a number of versions of the two Janacek string quartets going back to skool. The Smetana Quartet (very comical playing - I don't know how they get away with it!); the Hagen Quartet (my neurotic fav); the Gabrieli Quartet (the long in tooth version I've had) in vinyl LP and CD .....and now the Dante Quartet.

The Dante Quartet is superlative: it just wipes the competition off the ground. Admittedly I like the edgey Hagen Quartet but the Dante Quartet really ascribe a phenomenally nuclear beauty to these works. The classic by the Janacek Quartet (Czech Supraphon) is the one that eludes me. That has to be the worse value CD ever: just the two Janacek Quartets on that disc.

Different interpretations by different strnig quartets really opens up a recording for me


----------



## Quartetfore

Head Case, Sad to say, but the Golden Age of ticket prices is long gone. We pay the same price for a concert in New York as you might pay in London or any big city world wide. The tickets have gone up to $12 or 15$ per concert--still very low if you think about it. Among those that will appear this season are the Skampa, Juillard and Ebene Quartets. In the past 10 years , Toyko, Keller,Panocha, Juillard and Takacs Quartet have been a part of the series. The Peoples Symphony Concerts have been around for 110 years! Best, Quartefore.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

arcades project said:


> _ The Brilliant LaSalle Quartet box is a reissue (a licensed, authorised, reissue) of the Deutsche Grammophon recordings, made in the late 1970s/early 1980s. *Their Zemlinsky quartets are also now on Brilliant; as are their fine performances of the 'late' Beethoven quartets, op. 127-135.*_


I dunno: although Amazon doesn't have *everything*, it offers *most things* and I haven't been able to find Brilliant re-releases of the LaSalle's Zemlinsky.
Could you provide links?
(There is a Brilliant re-release of Zemlinsky's lieder:
http://www.amazon.com/Songs-Zemlinsky/dp/B0026MJKD8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1279807264&sr=1-2 )

The LaSalle really was a great ensemble and all their work is top-flight; their Second Viennese School set has scarcely been surpassed, although the Aron Quartet (in residence at the Schönberg Institute in Vienna) has a really nice complete Schönberg quartet cycle:
http://www.amazon.com/Arnold-Schnbe...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1279807745&sr=1-1

The original LaSalle Zem :
http://www.amazon.com/Zemlinsky-Str...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1279807840&sr=1-1

Brilliant re-release of LaSalle's Beet:
http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Lat...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1279807919&sr=1-1


----------



## Head_case

quartetfore said:


> Head Case, Sad to say, but the Golden Age of ticket prices is long gone. We pay the same price for a concert in New York as you might pay in London or any big city world wide. The tickets have gone up to $12 or 15$ per concert--still very low if you think about it. Among those that will appear this season are the Skampa, Juillard and Ebene Quartets. In the past 10 years , Toyko, Keller,Panocha, Juillard and Takacs Quartet have been a part of the series. The Peoples Symphony Concerts have been around for 110 years! Best, Quartefore.


$12 - 15 is still very reasonable yes. It's about the same as the cost of a CD.

If only performers could live like that. I guess chamber musicians can...

That's a really impressive alumni from the People's Symphony Concerts. I can't think of anything that comes even a hair's breath within reach in the UK, particularly at that price.

Well it's summer - no concerts at the main London venues of note. Maybe the Parisian open air concerts in the Ile de Paris would be worth a visit


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Here's an interesting upcoming release next month in September 2010 for those interested. I think Naxos is doing some project to record all/most of Schoenberg's entire/significant _oeuvre_.


----------



## Head_case

All of the Schoenberg string quartets I've ever come across are exceptionally well played and recorded. I guess it isn't the kind of music that any amateur group would immediately wish to play. 

The Fred Sherry String Quartet is incredibly fluent for its playing. I really like their previous albums even if the repertoire isn't to my taste.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> _Here's an interesting upcoming release next month in September 2010._


Wow!--that looks good. Will definitely try to pick that one up: *Schönberg's SQs No. 3 & 4*!


----------



## Selby

Head_case said:


> The one version which I'm itching to hear is the Dante Quartet's version. It's not exactly value for money being coupled solely by the Ravel Quartet: the Quatuor Ebene CD is the best value ever: this is the recording to get if you want authoritative versions of the most popular French string quartets by Debussy, Ravel and Faure.


That Quatour Ebene recording is one of my current favorites. I think it is the best Fauré (String Quartet in E minor, Op 121) I have heard. All of the interpretations are great but that Fauré is a revelation. Brilliant.


----------



## Selby

I have been enjoying this recording, although I am not well versed in these works so I do not have much to compare the performances to.

I think his second string quartet is wonderful (String Quartet No. 2 in F sharp minor, Op. 10). When I first heard it, and that soprano came in on the third movement, oh lordy; moments like that are why I love music.

Like another poster, I am not generally "into" atonal music but I do like these quartets.


----------



## millionrainbows

"Oh? So serialism is the product of 'inspiration'? Oer. Or the inspiration of his music, surpasses the mechanics, of serialism? Oerrrr!!...We remember Schoenberg.... not for his inspiration, but for his serialism. It is precisely his method and mechanics, which forces us to remember him in 21st century music is it not?"

It is not. Referring to Schoenberg as the father of serialism cuts both ways, and is neither totally good nor bad for critics or proponents. Silvina Milstein's book _Arnold Schoenberg: Notes, Sets, Forms_ reveals Schoenberg as a tonalist to the end, even into his twelve-tone period. He used the syntax of tonality in the 12-tone context, and this is precisely why Boulez rejected him in preference to Webern.

Some specifics:

1. Schoenberg broke his 12-note rows down into hexads, and 2, 3, and 4 note motives. He was a thematic composer to begin with, and remained so.

2. Although the strict twelve-tone works do not function tonally, they have "harmonic functions" nonetheless; these areas of "tone centricity" are produced by "boundary" notes of the hexads, various ways of emphasizing notes by phrasing and rhythm, and by the pitch content of the hexads themselves. It's a mistake to think that Schoenberg used the twelve-tone method in a mechanical way; he was always "musical" in his use of it.

Yes, the inspiration of his music surpasses the mechanics of serialism, because Schoenberg was an old-school thinker connected firmly to the earlier tradition of late Romanticism. After all, he never wrote a book on the twelve-tone method, but he did write a book on tonal harmony, his _Harmonielehre._

Schoenberg did not want to "reveal" his 12-tone method, and did so only because he felt he had to, in response to Hauer's publication of his 12-note book and "trope" method (tropes were like scales, unordered).

Schoenberg would have rather just continued writing music without this "system" ever being mentioned. Not out of "secrecy" or fear of misunderstanding (which turned out to be a valid fear), but for "musical" reasons: he saw his music, even the 12-tone stuff, as being a continuation of chromaticism, plain and simple. This is how he thought: as a musician, not a theorist. No wonder he felt misunderstood!

Schoenberg in fact never discussed the 12-tone method with anyone other than his "special" students, Berg & Webern, maybe a few others.

The point I'm making is that Schoenberg saw his music as continuing the "chromatic" way of thinking, a late version of tonality, which he was already using before he developed the "system." Bartok, Stravinsky, and others were already thinking this way as well. So for me this reinforces the view of Schoenberg as a tonalist.

Which brings me to my penultimate point: What is really meant by the term "chromaticism"? The gradual addition of non-diatonic notes happened anyway, so we see a direct connection to tonality. In Strauss'* Metamorphosen *and Schoenberg's *Pelleas,* we see more chromaticism, but the functional meanings of the harmonies becomes more ambiguous, or having multiple functions/meanings, or no function at all in the CP tonal sense. So "chromaticism" means not simply "more notes", but also a lack of functional clarity in a CP tonal sense.

For Schoenberg, the notion of "function" never went away. His division of the row into A and Eb areas still "functioned" as areas of tone-centricity. Is it fair, or accurate, to say that a tritone relation like this is "non-functional," since Schoenberg used it in "tonal" ways?

...


----------

