# How to approach Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra?



## PicklePepperPiper

The simple answer is "don't", I know, but I would like to give it one more go. I attempted a full listen a few months back, and I just didn't get it. Hardly surprising, really, but I really want to broaden my appreciation. So... how do I listen to this piece and discern any sense of order, or something that my ears can latch onto? Do I listen carefully for the timbres, structure, something?

Somebody help me!
-PPP


----------



## Weston

I too am trying to get into this piece. I had it playing as background music at work in headphones this week. I found it very effective at masking my chatty co-worker's annoying voice.


----------



## Sid James

I haven't heard that particular work, but with some of the works coming out of the Second Viennese School triumvirate (Schoenberg and his pupils Berg & Webern), it has taken me several months to come close to deciphering and understanding them. Some works, like Berg's _Wozzeck_, I could connect with straight away. Others, like his _String Quartet_ took me 15 years to understand, & others, like his _Lyric Suite _ for string quartet, I'm still grappling with after all of that time.

With Schoenberg, I bought Hilary Hahn's interpretation of the _Violin Concerto_, and it took me about 6-12 months to "hear" what he was doing with the themes in that work. I don't usually listen to works of this intensity repeatedly over a short span of time. I might go away and think about it, and listen to it on (say) a monthly basis. There is some truth in that this music is more music for the head than the heart (in some ways this can be argued, in others, not). So go away and think about it, talk about it to friends if they are into classical & especially if they know Schoenberg, then return to it. It's also a good idea to listen to a wide range of "atonal" music, just as you would with "tonal" music. There's alot out there, not only from the triumvirate, but from many others who came after them, right until today...


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

.
H. H. Stuckenschmidt says,

"The first performance (2 Dec. 1928) of the Orchestral Variations with Furtwängler in Berlin led to stormy disturbances among the audience present, followed by violent attacks in the (proto-)fascist press.

This exquisite work is scored for large orchestra including celesta and mandoline. 
Its form consists of Introduction, [IX] Variations, and Finale.

The theme (a twelve-note series) is presented by the solo cello. 
The theme is used in its three mirror versions (retrograde, inverted, and retrograde inverted), as well as in several transpositions. 
Towards the end of the Introduction, the B-A-C-H (Bb-A-C-B) motif is inserted and later recrus twice. 
These are developmental variations, each expressing a particular character: 
the lyrical II has a chamber music character; 
III stormy; 
IV waltzlike; 
V as complex (consisting of many "boxes") as I; 
VI (andante) lyrical; 
VII (langsam); 
VIII rapid; 
IX mirror canon.

In the Finale the B-A-C-H figure recurs.

The wealth of fine points of the motifs and the contranpuntal artistry which this score contains will only be fully evident after repeated hearings." 
.
Edit: OOP disc features x-ray piano transcription of Op. 31 which clearly reveals its structure:
http://www.amazon.com/Chamber-Symph...=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1280923988&sr=1-9


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

PicklePepperPiper said:


> The simple answer is "don't", I know, but I would like to give it one more go. I attempted a full listen a few months back, and I just didn't get it. Hardly surprising, really, but I really want to broaden my appreciation. So... how do I listen to this piece and discern any sense of order, or something that my ears can latch onto? Do I listen carefully for the timbres, structure, something?
> 
> Somebody help me!
> -PPP


Just listen to it over and over until you "get it". It's actually adaptation / getting used to it. Works over any type of music.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Also you'll want Karajan/BPOs realization of the Variations.

(No one else _really_ gets 'em--not even Boulez nor Solti.)

Try:
http://www.amazon.com/Schoenberg-Be...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1281290561&sr=1-2

or

http://www.amazon.com/Arnold-Schoen...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1281290561&sr=1-3

(Had this on LP in the '70s.)


----------



## Ukko

PicklePepperPiper said:


> The simple answer is "don't", I know, but I would like to give it one more go.
> -PPP


Amazing. Nobody has responded "Very Carefully", so I suppose it's left to me.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Just listen to it over and over until you "get it". It's actually adaptation / getting used to it. Works over any type of music.


Trouble is that once you make some sense of it, you'll not know how much more there is to go. some works are inherently too difficult to 'get' unaided. Just try deducing the tone row from which _Gruppen _is made, the precise starts and stops of the 160 or so groups, to say nothing of being able to hear how each interval of the basic row modulates each group in turn...

No, there's nothing to be done but get a book, and the score, and study the work. Luckily there are innumerable books on the second Viennese school. A casual glance at my own collection reveals Ethan Hanno's _Schoenberg's serial odyssey_ (Clarendon Press) which includes 20 page analysis of op 31 with lots of exx.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Jeremy Marchant said:


> _Ethan Hanno's Schoenberg's serial odyssey (Clarendon Press)_


I'm not finding this on Amazon.com

Little help?


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> I'm not finding this on Amazon.com
> 
> Little help?


It may be out of print. Try second hand book sites.
But it really isn't the only such book. Indeed, you might find a more generalised book more useful for setting the work in its context.


----------



## lgt

Just heard the beginning of the Variations, and without having the scores before me, I have a question: 

In the very beginning, doesn't the repetition of B flat - E (at least this is how it sound like in the Boulez's CSO performance on YouTube) in the clarinet and the answer G - C sharp in the bassoon violate Schoenberg's own laws of 12-tone music, that no note is to be repeated within a set of 12 notes?

Thanks.


----------



## Argus

lgt said:


> Just heard the beginning of the Variations, and without having the scores before me, I have a question:
> 
> In the very beginning, doesn't the repetition of B flat - E (at least this is how it sound like in the Boulez's CSO performance on YouTube) in the clarinet and the answer G - C sharp in the bassoon violate Schoenberg's own laws of 12-tone music, that no note is to be repeated within a set of 12 notes?
> 
> Thanks.


How so?

G-C#-E-Bb are all different tones. No note is repeated. It's just two tritones a minor third apart. The other 8 notes will sound next. I haven't got the score but from the info you gave he's done nothing against his 12-tone method. Good ears, though.

As for the OP, just listen to it. If you don't like it, then listen to it again in a few years, and if you still don't like it, wait another few years. Repeat ad infinitum. Don't think because something is supposed to be 'good' that you have to like it.


----------



## lgt

Argus said:


> How so?
> 
> G-C#-E-Bb are all different tones. No note is repeated. It's just two tritones a minor third apart. The other 8 notes will sound next. I haven't got the score but from the info you gave he's done nothing against his 12-tone method. Good ears, though.
> 
> As for the OP, just listen to it. If you don't like it, then listen to it again in a few years, and if you still don't like it, wait another few years. Repeat ad infinitum. Don't think because something is supposed to be 'good' that you have to like it.


Ok, I guess you didn't quite understand my post. First, listen to the Variations, here's a link:






As I said before, in the beginning (from 0:07 to 0:12) there is a repetition of Bb-E in the clarinet, i.e. not played just once, but repeated like a very slow trill (Bb-E-Bb-E-Bb-E), which is answered in the same manner by the bassoon, using G-C#. These repetitions continue further, involving the strings (listen to 0:35 - C#-B-C#-B-C#-B-D-C-D-C-D-C-C#-B-C#-B-C#-B-D-C-D-C-C#-B-C#-B-D-C), etc... This seems in total contradiction with Schoenberg's own rules of 12-tone music. However, since I don't think he made a mistake, I am trying to understand these lines. If they are trills, then it would make perfect sense, since trills and tremolos are exceptions of the rules. However, they don't sound like trills at all. Hope you understand my point now.

I didn't quite get the purpose of your second paragraph, I never mentioned anything about like or dislike of Schoenberg's music, and regarding your mentoring tone how I am supposed to listen to it, just save it, because I am a professional composer and one of my interests since grad school (where I was accepted with a full-tuition scholarship based on my music) is serialism.

Just don't have the scores before me to see what's going on, and hoped someone could've given me an expert opinion, because as I said before, the lines I mentioned contradict with his theory.

P.s. I have a perfect pitch since birth, thanks


----------



## Argus

lgt said:


> I didn't quite get the purpose of your second paragraph, I never mentioned anything about like or dislike of Schoenberg's music, and regarding your mentoring tone how I am supposed to listen to it, just save it, because I am a professional composer and one of my interests since grad school (where I was accepted with a full-tuition scholarship based on my music) is serialism.


My second paragraph was responding to the OP (original post). It was unrelated to you.

I see what you mean now about the repeated notes. I'll leave it for someone with a score and more knowledge on the method to answer your question.


----------



## 4'33"

People seem to want to make it harder than it needs to be to "understand" Schoenberg, or any non-tonal music. There is nothing to understand - just listen to it as music! Schoenberg was one of the greatest composers in history, and he imbued many of his works with a sensuality that is both beautiful and dangerous. If the music doesn't strike you yet, I would try immersing yourself in the art and culture of the early 1900's europe, especially the painters of the time. Getting the background helps, because the music is very closely tied to the expressionist painters of the era, especially Kandinsky (Schoenberg's soul brother).

Anyway, stop trying so hard and just enjoy it!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

4'33" said:


> People seem to want to make it harder than it needs to be to "understand" Schoenberg, or any non-tonal music. There is nothing to understand - just listen to it as music! Schoenberg was one of the greatest composers in history, and he imbued many of his works with a sensuality that is both beautiful and dangerous. If the music doesn't strike you yet, I would try immersing yourself in the art and culture of the early 1900's europe, especially the painters of the time. Getting the background helps, because the music is very closely tied to the expressionist painters of the era, especially Kandinsky (Schoenberg's soul brother).
> 
> Anyway, stop trying so hard and just enjoy it!


I like your screen name


----------



## norman bates

4'33" said:


> especially Kandinsky (Schoenberg's soul brother).


why kandinsky? If i have to say a famous artist with a similar "scientific" approach to that of schoenberg i'd say mondrian. Kandinsky paintings reminds more of free jazz to me


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Jeremy Marchant said:


> _Ethan Hanno's [sic] Schoenberg's serial odyssey (Clarendon Press) which includes 20 page analysis of op 31 with lots of exx._


The author's name is Ethan *Haimo*.
http://www.amazon.com/Schoenbergs-S...-Paperbacks/dp/0198163525/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2


----------



## toucan

Schoenberg's *Variations* op 31 are the best place to start on twelve note composition. The theme is stated clearly and simply at the start of the second movement. Once you grasp it, recognizing the modified forms of it in the later movements is no more difficult - and no more easy - then to recognize variations on - say - a theme by Diabelli or Huttenbrenner

It might be helpful to read the essay Schoenberg wrote on his method of "Composition with Twelve Tones," available in *Style and Idea*. There he singles out the theme (13 notes, not 12, as he does repeat the penultimate note), which allows you to analyse it & see for yourself it subdivides itself into three parts. Once you have grasped that, just listen to it on your CD player - and see what a difference the chords make! Without them the series may seem arbitrary, with them it is harmonious. Be that as it may, it really is just a simple melody that happens to contain 12 notes


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Kandinsky*

Kandinsky is the perfect parallel to Schönberg music as Stravinsky is with Picasso.
I love the variations...Just listen to it SEVERAL times.

Martin


----------



## jhar26

4'33" said:


> People seem to want to make it harder than it needs to be to "understand" Schoenberg, or any non-tonal music. There is nothing to understand - just listen to it as music!


Karajan said to the Berliner when they recorded it: "Play it as though it's piece from Beethoven."


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Karajan?*



> Karajan said to the Berliner when they recorded it: "Play it as though it's piece from Beethoven."


Karajan wasn't the best conductor for Schönberg...he was good enough for Richard Strauss....He was nazzi, Schönberg was jewish....maybe he conducted Schönberg with rage.

Martin


----------



## jhar26

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Karajan wasn't the best conductor for Schönberg...he was good enough for Richard Strauss....He was nazzi, Schönberg was jewish....maybe he conducted Schönberg with rage.
> 
> Martin


Karajan's recording of the Variations for Orchestra is highly regarded. I don't think he meant that it should sound like Beethoven (which wouldn't be possible anyway) but that they should play it with the same attitude as they would with Beethoven.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I am not...*



> Karajan's recording of the Variations for Orchestra is highly regarded. I don't think he meant that it should sound like Beethoven (which wouldn't be possible anyway) but that they should play it with the same attitude as they would with Beethoven.


I am not a musician, I am not smart enough probably...but I consider this ridiculous....You cannot have the same approach...What about Stockhausen then?

Monteverdi = Luigi Nono????????

Beethoven was a romantic, Schönberg was not!
Beethoven was from the IXX century, Schönberg from the XXth.

Beethoven was 100% tonal, Schönberg was not.

Are these good reasons? No, when people are stubborn...

Ask to any musician here used to playing *very tonal melodies *how do they feel playing Schönberg....

Martin


----------



## jhar26

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I am not a musician, I am not smart enough probably...but I consider this ridiculous....You cannot have the same approach...
> 
> Martin


The same attitude as in not treating it as some weird curiosity but playing it with (for lack of a better word) soul. Not just treating it as only an intellectual exercise, but also putting some heart into it. That's my guess anyway, but I'm not Karajan.


----------



## Manxfeeder

jhar26 said:


> Not just treating it as only an intellectual exercise, but also putting some heart into it. That's my guess anyway, but I'm not Karajan.


I think Pierre Boulez would agree with that. Comparing his first Webern recordings with his second set, he now has more heart.


----------



## Webernite

This is the first time I've ever heard someone accuse Karajan of being a Nazzi.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

> The same attitude as in not treating it as some weird curiosity but playing it with (for lack of a better word) soul. Not just treating it as only an intellectual exercise, but also putting some heart into it. That's my guess anyway, but I'm not Karajan.


Karajan was old fashion, I THINK.

He was Nazi. This is KNOWN!!!!!! Schönberg was Jewish....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_von_Karajan

_In 1929, he conducted Salome at the Festspielhaus in Salzburg and from 1929 to 1934 Karajan served as first Kapellmeister at the Stadttheater in Ulm. In 1933 Karajan made his conducting debut at the Salzburg Festival with the Walpurgisnacht Scene in Max Reinhardt's production of Faust. It was also* in 1933 that von Karajan became a member of the Nazi party,* a fact for which he would later be criticised.[1]_ from wikipedia...


----------



## Schnowotski

lgt said:


> Ok, I guess you didn't quite understand my post. First, listen to the Variations, here's a link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, in the beginning (from 0:07 to 0:12) there is a repetition of Bb-E in the clarinet, i.e. not played just once, but repeated like a very slow trill (Bb-E-Bb-E-Bb-E), which is answered in the same manner by the bassoon, using G-C#. These repetitions continue further, involving the strings (listen to 0:35 - C#-B-C#-B-C#-B-D-C-D-C-D-C-C#-B-C#-B-C#-B-D-C-D-C-C#-B-C#-B-D-C), etc... This seems in total contradiction with Schoenberg's own rules of 12-tone music. However, since I don't think he made a mistake, I am trying to understand these lines. If they are trills, then it would make perfect sense, since trills and tremolos are exceptions of the rules. However, they don't sound like trills at all. Hope you understand my point now.)


This is old post, I know, but there's a serious misconception that has to be clarified: the rule that no tone shall be repeated until all others have been used applies only when forming the row itself. On the surface of the music the row may be manipulated many ways and themes varied in a musical way so that on the surface notes are repeated before all have sounded.

Even in the strictest serial pieces by Webern this happens when he "links" or "combines" row forms so that a few notes may be "missing" (this could be done to eg. create passing chords between stable harmonies). And of course even in Webern's serial music there are a couple palces where he uses the row "incorrectly". These instances have been documented by Kathryn Bailey in her book "Old forms in a new language". I don't have any documentation to back this up, but I believe, that that kind of instances are more common in the music of Schönberg and Berg.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

This one is elusive to me, too. Definitely one for further study.



lgt said:


> Just heard the beginning of the Variations, and without having the scores before me, I have a question:
> 
> In the very beginning, doesn't the repetition of B flat - E (at least this is how it sound like in the Boulez's CSO performance on YouTube) in the clarinet and the answer G - C sharp in the bassoon violate Schoenberg's own laws of 12-tone music, that no note is to be repeated within a set of 12 notes?
> 
> Thanks.


Even if this were true, Schoenberg was known for frequently breaking his own "rules" when he felt it was called for. Contrary to popular belief, he didn't see 12-tone as a Perfect Mathematical System You Must Abide By as much as an experimental guide to new melodic and harmonic realizations that worked for him.


----------



## Vazgen

4'33" said:


> People seem to want to make it harder than it needs to be to "understand" Schoenberg, or any non-tonal music. There is nothing to understand - just listen to it as music!


I agree.

There's an unfortunate level of suspicion among listeners regarding Schoenberg, a sentiment that his music is some arcane puzzle that needs to be deciphered to be appreciated. Why not just enjoy it and leave the analysis to the music theorists?

-Vaz


----------



## jonathanchapmancook

lgt said:


> Ok, I guess you didn't quite understand my post. First, listen to the Variations, here's a link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, in the beginning (from 0:07 to 0:12) there is a repetition of Bb-E in the clarinet, i.e. not played just once, but repeated like a very slow trill (Bb-E-Bb-E-Bb-E), which is answered in the same manner by the bassoon, using G-C#. These repetitions continue further, involving the strings (listen to 0:35 - C#-B-C#-B-C#-B-D-C-D-C-D-C-C#-B-C#-B-C#-B-D-C-D-C-C#-B-C#-B-D-C), etc... This seems in total contradiction with Schoenberg's own rules of 12-tone music. However, since I don't think he made a mistake, I am trying to understand these lines. If they are trills, then it would make perfect sense, since trills and tremolos are exceptions of the rules. However, they don't sound like trills at all. Hope you understand my point now.
> 
> I didn't quite get the purpose of your second paragraph, I never mentioned anything about like or dislike of Schoenberg's music, and regarding your mentoring tone how I am supposed to listen to it, just save it, because I am a professional composer and one of my interests since grad school (where I was accepted with a full-tuition scholarship based on my music) is serialism.
> 
> Just don't have the scores before me to see what's going on, and hoped someone could've given me an expert opinion, because as I said before, the lines I mentioned contradict with his theory.
> 
> P.s. I have a perfect pitch since birth, thanks





Schnowotski said:


> This is old post, I know, but there's a serious misconception that has to be clarified: the rule that no tone shall be repeated until all others have been used applies only when forming the row itself. On the surface of the music the row may be manipulated many ways and themes varied in a musical way so that on the surface notes are repeated before all have sounded.
> 
> Even in the strictest serial pieces by Webern this happens when he "links" or "combines" row forms so that a few notes may be "missing" (this could be done to eg. create passing chords between stable harmonies). And of course even in Webern's serial music there are a couple palces where he uses the row "incorrectly". These instances have been documented by Kathryn Bailey in her book "Old forms in a new language". I don't have any documentation to back this up, but I believe, that that kind of instances are more common in the music of Schönberg and Berg.


Indeed, doing any amount of listening to the music of Schoenberg after he began employing his method of composing with twelve tones it is clear that he used this method in many ways. Very often he creates accompanimental patterns that repeat using trichords or tetrachords, or even just two notes. These are still part of the row, he is simply applying his method in a much broader way than the uninitiated understand. Most explanations I have heard of Schoenberg's methods are misconstrued and basically wrong. Schoenberg himself called his process of composing with twelve tones a "method" and not a "system." As Schnowotski pointed out, one may find "holes" in the actual music, and one might assume that in many of these cases the composers were aware of this and were taking artistic liberty. The composers of the Second Viennese School were not slaves to their method in the same way that American composition students of the 60s and 70s often were forced to be.

On another note, Schoenberg continued to complete unfinished pieces of his earlier years that were unabashedly tonal (he wasn't afraid to write tonal music and as we know was one of its greatest masters). Take for instance the Chamber Symphony No. 2. Also, for kicks, listen to the Cello Concerto, which he wrote for Pablo Casals knowing that Casals wasn't interested in his post-tonal work. It's a freely transcribed version of a Harpsichord Concerto by Monn, with a lot of the original piece gutted and restuffed. With further exploration and open ears, Schoenberg proves to be a much more diversified composer than most people understand. This is because the ratio between "talk about" Schoenberg and "listening to" and actually studying his music are way out of proportion. So keep listening!


----------



## Headache

Listening to the Variations right now, played by Berliner with von Karajan. My first exposure was in a version with Bruno Maderna as conductor. I've always loved this piece. I feel I'm not half as musically talented as some of you but the piece has always struck the right chord with me. 
I always feel odd when people are talking about 'getting a piece', especially with a piece like this. Maybe there's something deep and important that I'm missing, when I say I like it lot? Does it mean I'm really only a superficial listener? A bit confused.


----------



## starthrower

The deep and important part is the fact that you the listener are deriving pleasure and satisfaction from the music. 

The other stuff is for the musicians to worry about.


----------



## violadude

starthrower said:


> The deep and important part is the fact that you the listener are deriving pleasure and satisfaction from the music.
> 
> The other stuff is for the musicians to worry about.


Ya but knowing about how the music works can make the music more pleasurable for some.


----------



## Curiosity

My enjoyment of classical was enhanced massively once I developed a greater technical understanding of music. I do think it's important to know what to listen for. Would you be able to enjoy, say, any given sport or board game if you had no understanding of the rules that define it?


----------



## starthrower

I suppose, but for myself, I'm not interested in music as an intellectual exercise. I never studied composition or anything advanced, so I'll always have a very limited understanding of the technical side of music. To keep listening is the key to my enjoyment. I can think of many pieces of music that sounded quite alien to me at first, but with repeated listening I constantly hear the music coming together and making sense.


----------



## violadude

No no, I'm not talking about something as intellectual as roman numeral analysis or something like that. When I say understanding how a piece works, I mean understanding what the themes are, how they relate to each other, what the arch of the piece is...I don't think those things are too technical or intellectual are they? That is all part of "knowing how the music works" as I stated above and it is a large part of enjoying music for me.


----------



## dmg

PicklePepperPiper said:


> How to approach Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra?


With a very sharp, pointy stick at the ready. :tiphat:


----------



## starthrower

violadude said:


> No no, I'm not talking about something as intellectual as roman numeral analysis or something like that. When I say understanding how a piece works, I mean understanding what the themes are, how they relate to each other, what the arch of the piece is...I don't think those things are too technical or intellectual are they? That is all part of "knowing how the music works" as I stated above and it is a large part of enjoying music for me.


Yeah, I understand what you mean and I do take an interest in this to a certain degree. I like to read an explanation of the piece I'm listening to, usually found in the liner notes, so I have some idea about how it was constructed. I don't know if I'll ever understand how Schoenberg's music is constructed, but I don't seem to have a problem with the sound of it. I remember the first time I listened to 5 Pieces For Orchestra, and I liked it right off. This stuff actually sounds melodious to my ears, so I could never understand all of the trepidation about approaching this music.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> Also you'll want Karajan/BPOs realization of the Variations.
> 
> (No one else _really_ gets 'em--not even Boulez nor Solti.)
> 
> Try:
> http://www.amazon.com/Schoenberg-Be...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1281290561&sr=1-2
> 
> or
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Arnold-Schoen...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1281290561&sr=1-3
> 
> (Had this on LP in the '70s.)


Just a question: are you sure the old nazzikajan could understand Schönberg? If I were you I wouldn't be so sure.


----------



## jdavid

*Listening to Schoenberg Variations*

I am of the same opinion as many who have posted 'just listen to it', but I would add: best for me is when there are no distractions and I can turn the lights down or off and put on the earphones and soak in it. Schoenberg is a great composer and he will convince you, I believe.


----------



## Sator

Sorry to necro-post on ancient dead threads, however, I just had to chime in with my 2 cents worth.

The first thing with the VfO is to ask yourself whether you really are ready for it? That is, are you actually at the point of development where you are actually able to listen to Schoenberg?

One of the things that nobody really tells you is how to learn to listen to music. In fact, there is much skill in listening to music. It would take an immensely well educated and cultivated ear to be able to comprehend absolutely any unfamiliar music thrown their way - from Monteverdi, to Obrecht, to Nono, to contemporary, to jazz, to world music etc etc.

The first thing is that you must admit to yourself that your ability to listen will always be finite. If you are familiar with one idiom/style/language/epoch then there will be music in the vicinity that will be a good stepping stone to new discoveries and learning experiences. You should also accept that some music is easier to understand and that some music will be hard for you.

If you have just discovered _Für Elise_ then neither the _Hammerklavier_ nor _die Grosse Fuge_ are very good next steps - there is an easier path to walk. The _Moonlight Sonata _or _Pathetique_ would be much more suitable. Likewise, if you enjoyed the Sibelius _Karelia Suite_ then don't jump into the Fourth Symphony. If you enjoyed Mahler's _Lieder eines Fahrenden Gesellen_ then the earlier symphonies are the place to start. Late Mahler (9th Symphony, and _das Lied von der Erde_) is much harder listening, and is actually a good stepping stone towards Alban Berg. There too, if you liked the Berg Violin Concerto don't rush into the Webern _Piano Sonata_. Never go leaping into the deep end as you will find the experience alienating and off putting.

Next thing is never fall into the trap of thinking that _Für Elise_ is "better" than _die Grosse Fuge_ just because you find it easier for your beginner's ears to grasp. Generally, people think that music that is easier to comprehend is "better" than music that is harder to grasp. So most people in this world think that the Strauss Blue Danube waltz is "better" than the Beethoven _Grosse Fuge_ because it is easier to grasp. In many cases, this uneducated way of thinking becomes so ingrained into people that they spend their whole lives thinking that their beloved sweetmeats are "better" than all sorts of more difficult, complex and challenging works, which are all dismissed as being "bad music" . These types often vent their frustration at being unable to comprehend a work by vilifying the composer as being a writer of "bad music" ("Strauss is so much better than Brahms"). You will hear people of various levels of ability to comprehend music dismissing composers from Bach, Mozart, Beethoven to Reger and Boulez as being "bad composers" in this manner.

I have a few tips for trying to make sense of a new and unfamiliar work:

1. Listen carefully to the opening of the work
If you can't make sense of the opening, the chances that a passage later on will grab your fancy are highly remote. So don't sit there suffering through a work that is totally going over your head.
2. Listen repeatedly to the opening
Until you can make sense of it. In difficult cases, you may have to listen to the opening a seemingly ridiculous number of times before it starts to make sense.
3. Leave it and return to it later
If you just can't make sense of it, don't torture yourself by forcing yourself to listen to something you are not enjoying. You will only make yourself hate it. Sometimes, just leaving it until the next day is all you need. At other times, you may have to admit defeat and put a work into the "too hard for me" basket. Usually, it just means that the work is too difficult for your level of music comprehension skills. Try to slowly increase the level of difficulty rather than painfully drowning yourself in the deep end. Sometimes you may have to leave certain works or even whole composers in the "too hard" basket for years until your listening skills are developed enough to enjoy them.
4. Have Rests
Where you reward yourself by listening to easier music that you are familiar with already and enjoy. Most of us find it tiresome listening to a constant stream of unfamiliar music because of the extra concentration this demands.
5. Try different interpretations
A good interpreter of a score is a guide and advocate to the work. A bad one is a poor advocate of the work. The trouble is that some rarely played music is sometimes only available on recordings by advocates who are worse than enemies! At times, a good advocate may help open the portals that turn an incomprehensible work into a thing of great beauty.
6. If you learn to enjoy something do it often!
If you suddenly discover an insane passion for, say, Elliot Carter, Jacob Obrecht or Engelbert Humperdinck revel in it. Let your love for the music bloom and grow. The more music by the same composer you listen to, the more you will get out of exploring more and more of their sound world. Try not to become too insular eg become too blindly obsessed with Shostakovitch, Debussy, Humperdinck or whoever, so that you drive everyone mad evangelising them about how your pet composer is the Messiah.

Despite all of this, sometimes you may find that a complete novice to classical music beginning to explore Beethoven might like _die Grosse Fuge_ better than the _Moonlight Sonata_. If you then decided that based on this experience, that everyone should be introduced to Beethoven by getting them to start with _die Grosse Fuge_, you will find this experiment to be a dismal failure. Sometimes you may find your ability to appreciate music doesn't progress in a perfectly linear fashion, but rather in a stepwise fashion. If you try to force this to happen by jumping into the deep-end all the time, you are not going to have much joy. However, if a breakthrough like this happens to you, take full advantage of it.

The more cultivated your musical palette becomes, the more you will get out of listening to music. You will find yourself hearing things in music that previously escaped your notice. Always try to at least push the boundaries of your comfort zone just a little bit every time. Most people's comfort zone is around the mid 1700s to late 1800s. Once you go beyond this, either backwards or forwards in time, you start to lose an increasing number of people. Likewise, as you move away in location away from Western Europe to world music you will find yourself out of your comfort zone too. However, if you move out of your comfort zone very gradually, increasing your tolerance to what may initially seem strange and alien to you, you will be more likely to find your exploration into foreign territory a pleasurable one.


----------



## Sator

Now if you have read my last post and you have decided that you are not quite ready to listen to the Schoenberg VfO then you should at least know that the best stepping stone to Schoenberg is still Alban Berg. And again, you should not even touch Berg until you are _*totally*_ familiar with late Mahler - namely DLvdE and the IXth Symphony.

Make sure Berg's Lulu Suit, Alternberg Lieder, Drei Orchesterstuecke and Violin Concerto are as second nature to you as Tchaikovsky.

Not only that but you should be totally familiar with early Schoenberg such as _Verklaerte Nacht, Gurrelieder_, and the _String Quartet Nr I_. Only once totally familiar with these three works should you even consider proceeding to the _1st Chamber Symphony. _

Do NOT, I repeat do *NOT NOT NOT* even go near the VfO until you have *totally* familiarised yourself with the above works and especially with the more approachable compositions of Berg!!!!!!!! If you do rush into the deep end, you will condemn yourself to forever hating this beautiful and intensely expressive work. It's miracles will forever be closed off to you and you will be damned to the hell of eternally writing tedious polemics on internet fora about Schoenberg's music.


----------



## Taneyev

How to approach Schoenberg? Very slowly and carefully, and ready to run away fast as you can if he try to be close to you.


----------



## Sator

If, and only if, you have taken my last two posts _*fully*_ to heart should you approach the VfO.

When you do listen to a recording of this work - please, please - listen to the Rattle CBSO recording first. I _*beg*_ you NOT to listen to the Karajan recording!!! Do NOT listen to the Boulez recording either (I _love_ Boulez but he _hates_ this composition)!!! The only other recording that is really superb is the Scherchen - in fact, his may be the greatest of them all. Hans Rosbaud is not bad either but not quite as inspirational.

If budget is a concern then what I have briefly heard of the Robert Craft recording on Naxos seems pretty good.


----------



## Sator

Odnoposoff said:


> How to approach Schoenberg? Very slowly and carefully, and ready to run away fast as you can if he try to be close to you.


If you feel the need to run away then that is good. It means you are not ready. You should listen to your intuitions.

However, if you are ready to have this book of secrets opened to you, then you will discover truly wondrous things. Most of you are not ready and you will probably go to your graves without ever being ready.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Sator: I can tell by your avatar that you are well-educated in this area. I agree with your posts (except for the Berg part, but that's a personal quirk. His music hasn't clicked with me yet, though I'm still trying).

I discovered Obrecht after hearing Beethoven's Heiliger Dankesang, then got into Webern after hearing Obrecht, and after Webern came Schoenberg.


----------



## starthrower

To each his own. I didn't listen to Mahler, but I dove right into the Second Viennese School. I love Berg the most. But I enjoy a number of works by Schoenberg and Webern as well.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I like this work very much. I think I "got" it. I still have problems with Pierrot Lunaire and Erwartung.

Martin


----------



## Manxfeeder

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I like this work very much. I think I "got" it. I still have problems with Pierrot Lunaire and Erwartung.


I had to mark up the score to Erwartung to follow it. There are two recurring motifs, but I don't think you can hear them unless they're highlighted in the score. It has a unique ending - the vocalist sings, "I'm waiting," and instead of dying away to end the piece, suddenly the brass shoots up and the orchestra dives down at the same time, and they are actually speeding up.

I got a lot of good info about Pierrot from the _Cambridge Music Handbook_ by Jonathan Dunsby. That's another score I marked up. I've found that at least in my case, Schoenberg, especially in this period, needs to be seen and heard.


----------

