# Schoenberg and aesthetic experience



## MichaelNahari (Feb 3, 2019)

Hi guys,

Perhaps no other composer is more demanding of his listeners than Arnold Schoenberg. For those among us that have given interest in his music, it becomes evident that a certain conscious effort must be made in order to endure the performance, even when done by remarkable musicians, and in some instances we find ourselves 'inflicting the music upon us' so to speak.

Nevertheless, I think that some if not many of Schoenberg's works, among the less tonal-charitable ones, are indeed quite amicable to the ear and in fact give an amazing tonal and aesthetic experience. I bring the case of the Six Pieces for Male Choir Opus 35 




I've found myself loving this particular work. I find it so full emotion and pictorial attributes. It's a great representation of expressionist aesthetics (roughly defined as the mix of description and abstraction). It contains all the elements of traditional composing that make music relatable. After I listen to it, I find myself remembering motives, chords, textures and gestures.

I'm really interested to read your opinions on this kind of repertoire, specially your impressions on this work that has become a favorite of mine.

I very much appreciate your concern.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I love Schoenberg's music...he's one of my favorite composers....his music is challenging. but it's a rewarding one, it challenges the ear, following the threads, the motifs, the action....very fascinating....


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

MichaelNahari said:


> Hi guys,
> Nevertheless, I think that some if not many of Schoenberg's works, among the less tonal-charitable ones, are indeed quite amicable to the ear and in fact give an amazing tonal and aesthetic experience. I bring the case of the Six Pieces for Male Choir Opus 35


This sounds great! It reminds me of Orthodox liturgical music and of Garlands of Stevan Stojanović Mokranjac (choral pieces based on Balkan folk music) I'd never say it's Schoenberg!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I don't need conscious effort to "endure the performance". I suspect you meant something else. His piano concerto is quite listenable to me, along with some others. I view it as alternative Classical music that has very similar functions as more tonal music of the period, but different harmony.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

OK, but what about the words? Not everyone speaks a foreign language.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MichaelNahari said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Perhaps no other composer is more demanding of his listeners than Arnold Schoenberg. For those among us that have given interest in his music, it becomes evident that a certain conscious effort must be made in order to endure the performance, even when done by remarkable musicians, and in some instances we find ourselves 'inflicting the music upon us' so to speak.
> 
> ...


I like op 35 too, I like the variety of styles and I like the airiness, the spaciousness of the sounds. The last piece, Verbundenheit, sounds tonal to me (but I've got a very bad ear for this sort of thing!)


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

There is certainly more to Schönberg than the atonal depiction of psychoanalytical insanity. I recently listened to his op8 (Six Orchestral Songs) and Op. 15 (Das Buch der hängenden Gärten) and was really surprised. Schönberg had at least the talent of Strauss and Mahler, and had he chosen this path, he could have become a really successful late romantic composer. Now he will be remembered as the man who destroyed western classical music :lol:


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

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


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"And yet behind the absolute eternal values of this opus 35 there seems to be something temporary as well: just as in the magnificent texts you reflect upon today's communal ideas [...] it also appears that you (you who have always shown the younger generation [the way]) for once wished to demonstrate something after the fact, and thereby wanted to show that such simple forms which are generally associated with cheap communal music can also lay claim to the highest standards of artistry and proficiency." Alban Berg to Schoenberg, February 1931.
--
It was a work that could be performed by just about any small group of male voices, as a positive plus. 'Perhaps the most important feature of these pieces with regard to the idea of creating a common foundation with a broader public is the interaction between twelve-tone and tonal elements.' When he wanted to be, Schoenberg could be more accessible.

On the TEXT: https://www.allmusic.com/composition/pieces-6-for-male-chorus-op-35-mc0002380017


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I must confess to finding Schoenberg's serial compositions among the most difficult and challenging music I have ever come to enjoy. My true enjoyment of these works came out of my enjoyment of some later composers who more or less followed his method.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I must confess to finding Schoenberg's serial compositions among the most difficult and challenging music I have ever come to enjoy. My true enjoyment of these works came out of my enjoyment of some later composers who more or less followed his method.


Schönberg is rarely boring. His music is almost always interesting. I have a bigger problem with many of the later composers. For example Stockhausen. He wrote many compositions. A couple of days ago I tried to listen to his Sterneklang. At first it sounded great, but then it became boring after about 10 minutes. And the whole composition has 2 hours. I never managed to listen to any of his super-long works in their entirety. Or the recent thread about Scelsi. It sounds like some ambient atmospheric music, but nothing seems to be happening. It is boring (to me). And I have this problem with 80% of modern compositions. For some reason, I find Schoenberg more interesting and hence value his music higher.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

You might find this release of interest. It contains a choral version Farben from the Five Pieces for Orchestra, op. 16, which is mesmerizing. Also, Anton Webern's 'Entflieht auf Kähnen' op. 2 (1908) comes to mind.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Jacck said:


> Schönberg is rarely boring. His music is almost always interesting. I have a bigger problem with many of the later composers. For example Stockhausen. He wrote many compositions. A couple of days ago I tried to listen to his Sterneklang. At first it sounded great, but then it became boring after about 10 minutes. And the whole composition has 2 hours. I never managed to listen to any of his super-long works in their entirety. Or the recent thread about Scelsi. It sounds like some ambient atmospheric music, but nothing seems to be happening. It is boring (to me). And I have this problem with 80% of modern compositions. For some reason, I find Schoenberg more interesting and hence value his music higher.


My difficulty with Schoenberg was resolved years ago now. But I never had any difficulty with Stockhausen! Actually Messiaen was the last of the well-reputed moderns to get through to me (or should I say for me to get through to it?). Again it was his students who showed me the way, in particular George Benjamin.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I must confess to finding Schoenberg's serial compositions among the most difficult and challenging music I have ever come to enjoy._

I would say similarly, especially the Wind Quintet.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

larold said:


> _I must confess to finding Schoenberg's serial compositions among the most difficult and challenging music I have ever come to enjoy._
> 
> I would say similarly, especially the Wind Quintet.


agreed, that's one AS work that just doesn't click with me....[I've played woodwinds 5tets professionally for c50 years]


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> agreed, that's one AS work that just doesn't click with me....[I've played woodwinds 5tets professionally for c50 years]


just playing it (here) now and I am enjoying it immensely. It is strangely bizzare, yet beautiful. But I do understand that it is a difficult piece and I had to force myself through it several times before my brain picked it. I would even say it contains delicate melodies from some strange schoenbergian dimension. It is certainly not one of his dark pieces. I find this one quite warm and strangely beautiful. 
(but everyone is different and connects with differnt types of music)


----------



## dismrwonderful (May 5, 2013)

[Perhaps no other composer is more demanding of his listeners than Arnold Schoenberg. For those among us that have given interest in his music, it becomes evident that a certain conscious effort must be made in order to endure the performance, even when done by remarkable musicians, and in some instances we find ourselves 'inflicting the music upon us' so to speak. ]

This is what irritates me about Schoenberg and his like: he makes demands that I cannot meet. I try and try and just end up giving the stereo the raspberries. [g] It is similar to the experience I have listening to Bach fugues. I have trouble following all of those parts unless, of course, there is only one, but then it wouldn't be a fugue. [sigh] OTOH, I do enjoy as best I can the pre-dodecaphonic music which I can grasp.

Although I hold no malice toward Schoenberg, he is not getting a Valentine's Day card from me.

Dan


----------



## dismrwonderful (May 5, 2013)

Larkenfield said:


> OK, but what about the words? Not everyone speaks a foreign language.


For me this is pointless. I only speak English and I need closed captions for Peter Grimes. Admittedly, part of my problem is hearing that seems to jumble words up. I've gotten to the point where I point my remote menacingly at my wife and press the "cc" button.

Dan


----------



## dismrwonderful (May 5, 2013)

Larkenfield said:


> ...............


This is a perfect example of why I need closed captioning.

Dan


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

dismrwonderful said:


> [Perhaps no other composer is more demanding of his listeners than Arnold Schoenberg. For those among us that have given interest in his music, it becomes evident that a certain conscious effort must be made in order to endure the performance, even when done by remarkable musicians, and in some instances we find ourselves 'inflicting the music upon us' so to speak. ]
> 
> This is what irritates me about Schoenberg and his like: he makes demands that I cannot meet. I try and try and just end up giving the stereo the raspberries. [g] It is similar to the experience I have listening to Bach fugues. I have trouble following all of those parts unless, of course, there is only one, but then it wouldn't be a fugue. [sigh] OTOH, I do enjoy as best I can the pre-dodecaphonic music which I can grasp.
> 
> ...


I'd actually say that Schoenberg might be THE most difficult/challenging modern composer. All of the modernists that came after him are IMHO easier and their music sounds less strange than Schoenberg. My problem with many of the later modernists is not that they are too challenging or that I do not get them, but rather I do not find them interesting - well certainly not as interesting as Schoenberg or Messiaen. Boulez actually is interesting (as the Boulez appreciation thread tought me).


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Jacck said:


> just playing it (here) now and I am enjoying it immensely. It is strangely bizzare, yet beautiful. But I do understand that it is a difficult piece and I had to force myself through it several times before my brain picked it. I would even say it contains delicate melodies from some strange schoenbergian dimension. It is certainly not one of his dark pieces. I find this one quite warm and strangely beautiful.
> (but everyone is different and connects with differnt types of music)


it's been awhile since I listened to it...I like most Schoenberg, so maybe it's time to give it another try.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

I am at an appreciation level with Schoenberg. Right now there are a few of his work I really enjoy (Piano Concerto, Pierrot Lunaire, String Quartet 1)... but a lot of his later works I just can't listen to, really. I hope I'll get there one day, because of what I do like by Schoenberg, I really really love.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I like Schoenberg's music, and that of atonalists and serialists in general. To my ears it is not more unlistenable than is Bach, or Mozart, or Chopin, or Brahms, or Xenakis.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Tchaikov6 said:


> I am at an appreciation level with Schoenberg. Right now there are a few of his work I really enjoy (Piano Concerto, Pierrot Lunaire, String Quartet 1)... but a lot of his later works I just can't listen to, really. I hope I'll get there one day, because of what I do like by Schoenberg, I really really love.





larold said:


> _I must confess to finding Schoenberg's serial compositions among the most difficult and challenging music I have ever come to enjoy._
> 
> I would say similarly, especially the Wind Quintet.


I admit, even as a sympathetic listener, I still have problems with the late String Trio Op. 45 (1946).

The Wind Quintet Op. 26, is more interesting, because of the sheer sonority. Schoenberg was exploring the harmonic possibilities of his 12-tone method, and there are interesting harmonic things happening.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I prefer the mature works. And I like the Accentus vocal CD. I'd rather listen to Ewartung, and Pierrot Lunaire than Gurrelieder.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I must confess to finding Schoenberg's serial compositions among the most difficult and challenging music I have ever come to enjoy... I would say similarly, especially the Wind Quintet...agreed, that's one AS work that just doesn't click with me....[I've played woodwinds 5tets professionally for c50 years] _

It's linear as is most 12 tone, not vertical as is romantic music. It lacks peaks and valleys, the plane is level. I think it far more difficult to carry on music 30-45 minutes that way and maintain listener interest.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think listening to the early tonal works is important, because it confirms in your mind that Schoenberg actually knew what he was doing!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> I think listening to the early tonal works is important, because it confirms in your mind that Schoenberg actually knew what he was doing!


And why on earth should we doubt that if we dip into his serial works, first? I accept that people who have yet to break through to an understanding and enjoyment of those works might feel that it is all random. But surely you would have to be some extraordinarily arrogant person to think that it actually *is *random and that you - with your lack of experience of such music - are the only one in the world clever enough to notice? That position seems idiotic to me. It is OK to say "it all sounds random to me" but not "haven't you guys noticed that it is just random note spinning?"


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> And why on earth should we doubt that if we dip into his serial works, first? I accept that people who have yet to break through to an understanding and enjoyment of those works might feel that it is all random. But surely you would have to be some extraordinarily arrogant person to think that it actually *is *random and that you - with your lack of experience of such music - are the only one in the world clever enough to notice? That position seems idiotic to me. It is OK to say "it all sounds random to me" but not "haven't you guys noticed that it is just random note spinning?"


Schoenberg is not random, but some of the later avant-garde composers are. It even has its own name - aleatoric music


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> And why on earth should we doubt that if we dip into his serial works, first?


Well, after all, 12-tone is a completely different language than tonality. On what basis do we "trust" that Schoenberg knew what he was doing, if not familiarity with his tonal works up to that point?



Enthusiast said:


> I accept that people who have yet to break through to an understanding and enjoyment of those works might feel that it is all random.


That's an exaggeration. How are we to know the _depth_ and _profundity_ of Schoenberg's musical knowledge without first hearing his mastery of tonality? Remember that 12-tone and serial procedures are not apparent to the ear like tonality is.

On p. 43 of Paul Griffiths' book we read:

_...the process enacted in the music is a way of making it, not a way of hearing it. For the listener, *the process lies hidden, *and what is heard is a succession of instants, just as, for the observer of the world, elementary laws of physics and genetics - laws Stockhausen might have preferred to interpret as the purposes of God - are *concealed behind and within a seeming chaos of phenomena.*_



Enthusiast said:


> But surely you would have to be some extraordinarily arrogant person to think that it actually *is *random and that you - with your lack of experience of such music - are the only one in the world clever enough to notice?


Well, you have no way of proving or demonstrating this assertion by hearing only; the fact is, 12-tone and serial music _does_ appear "random" to our ears, _at least in tonal terms;_ it is based on procedures _which are not audible_, such as sets.



Enthusiast said:


> ...That position seems idiotic to me. It is OK to say "it all sounds random to me" but not "haven't you guys noticed that it is just random note spinning?"


That turns out to be a spurious distinction. What it _is _and what it _appears to be_ might just as well be the same, since the serial procedures are "invisible" to our ears. We just have to accept the results at face value, as we listen moment-by-moment.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, after all, 12-tone is a completely different language than tonality. On what basis do we "trust" that Schoenberg knew what he was doing, if not familiarity with his tonal works up to that point?


His reputation having been established for decades, I jumped in with the Serenade, Op. 24. It sounded very strange at first, but my ear became accustomed after a while.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> His reputation having been established for decades, I jumped in with the Serenade, Op. 24. It sounded very strange at first, but my ear became accustomed after a while.


That seems a reasonable approach, and a reasonable response. Still, although your ears became "accustomed" to the sounds, it still remained "invisible" to you as being 'meaningful' in a tonal sense, since serial principles are invisible abstractions.

The reason your ears became "accustomed" is due more to Schoenberg's artfulness, craftsmanship, and mastery of musical materials than it was to any "meta-revelation" of understanding of serial procedures. These procedures remain invisible to all; we are all faced with "..._a succession of instants which are concealed behind and within a seeming chaos of phenomena."

_This is what I call "accepting the reality of serial music."


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

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


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, after all, 12-tone is a completely different language than tonality. On what basis do we "trust" that Schoenberg knew what he was doing, if not familiarity with his tonal works up to that point?
> 
> That's an exaggeration. How are we to know the _depth_ and _profundity_ of Schoenberg's musical knowledge without first hearing his mastery of tonality? Remember that 12-tone and serial procedures are not apparent to the ear like tonality is.
> 
> ...


What does it matter if we detect profundity in his tonal pieces while missing it in his serial works? The one tells us nothing about the other. I can hear the same profundity in both and I don't think it matters which I approach first. But if we go back to a time when I didn't get his serial music then I might be persuaded about his worth and even his musical character by his tonal pieces first. But that would not be because I felt that his serial works were mere random noise. Why would I think that? If I had discovered the scores in a dustbin and no-one had ever heard of him I might think that. But not when so many people who know so much more about his music that me vouch for its content. These people might not be able to persuade me to like it but they would be enough for me to know that there is something more than random noise there. And, of course, there is nothing spurious in a distinctions between saying what I _feel _is there and saying what I _know _is there. The one reports my mental state. The other reports that, despite contrary views from far more expert people than me, I know I am right.

I know you like to debate stuff but, really, your position makes little sense. I don't want to get into a debate about it, though!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Jacck said:


> Schoenberg is not random, but some of the later avant-garde composers are. It even has its own name - aleatoric music


No, I don't think you are right. Aleatoric music is not random. It merely has designated parts where the performers can do what they like or can leave it to chance. I don't think that is the same thing at all. millionrainbows believes that we can only know that Schoenberg's serial music has meaning and is not *totally *random by recognising Schoenberg's worth from his tonal works.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Well, after all, 12-tone is a completely different language than tonality. On what basis do we "trust" that Schoenberg knew what he was doing, if not familiarity with his tonal works up to that point?_

The main differences between traditional tonal music and Schoenberg's 12 tone is a change from the 8-note scale to a 12-note "scale" or tone row that uses the incidentals in a scale, the naturals, flats and sharps. Schoenberg dictated the notes or tones in the tone row could not be repeated until all 11 others were played, making melody impossible.

No scale or key markings are included and it is difficult for me to determine where they start if the first note is not cited in the name of the piece. I don't know if they can be started anywhere; I'm sure others around here know.

Thus 12 tone has structure and is no more random than any tonal piece of music. What seems random is the way you hear it until you recognize its structure or your mind becomes comfortable with the difference.

This was the first major change in music composition style since J.S. Bach's equal temperament and development of the fugue 250 years earlier. It set the stage intellectually for all that followed.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> What does it matter if we detect profundity in his tonal pieces while missing it in his serial works? The one tells us nothing about the other. I can hear the same profundity in both and I don't think it matters which I approach first.


That's fine, as far as your personal impressions, but that says nothing about the depth or profundity in his serial works. The "profound meaning" in his tonal works is audible, and obvious. When it comes to the serial works, the process lies hidden, and what is heard is a succession of instants which are concealed behind and within a seeming chaos of phenomena.



> But if we go back to a time when I didn't get his serial music then I might be persuaded about his worth and even his musical character by his tonal pieces first. But that would not be because I felt that his serial works were mere random noise. Why would I think that? If I had discovered the scores in a dustbin and no-one had ever heard of him I might think that. But not when so many people who know so much more about his music that me vouch for its content. These people might not be able to persuade me to like it but they would be enough for me to know that there is something more than random noise there. And, of course, there is nothing spurious in a distinctions between saying what I _feel _is there and saying what I _know _is there. The one reports my mental state. The other reports that, despite contrary views from far more expert people than me, I know I am right.


This says to me that you are a "believer" in Schoenberg's atonal works, not that you actually understand his serial music on the same level that you understand his tonal works.



> I know you like to debate stuff but, really, your position makes little sense. I don't want to get into a debate about it, though!


True; one either likes it, and is a "believer", or not. It's an air-tight case, like Christianity.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> The reason your ears became "accustomed" is due more to Schoenberg's artfulness, craftsmanship, and mastery of musical materials than it was to any "meta-revelation" of understanding of serial procedures. These procedures remain invisible to all; we are all faced with "..._a succession of instants which are concealed behind and within a seeming chaos of phenomena."
> _


_

I listen to the music, not the method. So you are stating the obvious._


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> That seems a reasonable approach, and a reasonable response. Still, although your ears became "accustomed" to the sounds, it still remained "invisible" to you as being 'meaningful' in a tonal sense, since serial principles are invisible abstractions.
> 
> The reason your ears became "accustomed" is due more to Schoenberg's artfulness, craftsmanship, and mastery of musical materials than it was to any "meta-revelation" of understanding of serial procedures. These procedures remain invisible to all; we are all faced with "..._a succession of instants which are concealed behind and within a seeming chaos of phenomena."
> 
> _This is what I call "accepting the reality of serial music."


So you start with the premise that meaning in music is a property of tonality. I can't say what I understand in music or why it can have such profound affects on me but I don't notice a difference in how it works between the tonal and atonal music. Both are abstract to me. Both can evoke emotional responses for me and even, when there is a text or perhaps merely a name, can evoke predictable emotional responses.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> No, I don't think you are right. Aleatoric music is not random. It merely has designated parts where the performers can do what they like or can leave it to chance. I don't think that is the same thing at all. millionrainbows believes that we can only know that Schoenberg's serial music has meaning and is not *totally *random by recognising Schoenberg's worth from his tonal works.


If it were totally random, it would be white noise. It is not random, even Boulez is not random. In theory it should be possible to use entropy (a quantitative measure of disorder, chaos) to compare different types of music and measure how much random they are. Not sure if it has been done or if it is even doable


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> The main differences between traditional tonal music and Schoenberg's 12 tone is a change from the 8-note scale to a 12-note "scale" or tone row that uses the incidentals in a scale, the naturals, flats and sharps. Schoenberg dictated the notes or tones in the tone row could not be repeated until all 11 others were played, making melody impossible.


In my opinion both atonal music and serialism were good ideas, but then they were taken too far, to the point where whatever advantage they offered was lost, and their final result was kind of absurd type of music which appears random even if it's not.

Schoenberg basically required the following: *Make a 12 tone row and don't repeat any pitch until you play all 11 others. Keep doing it with some variations throughout whole piece. Who cares if it sounds good.*

I think much saner approach would be this:

*Compose a melody as short as possible using all 12 tones of a chromatic scale*. You can use certain tones more than once if it's required for your melody to sound good. The melody must sound good and it must make sense, it must be distinct, meaningful. *So make it as short as possible, but not shorter than that.*
Once you have a melody, use it as a starting point and develop it traditionally, in a sonata form, or some other similar form, with the only concern that it sounds good and makes sense. Don't worry about whether it's tonal or atonal, don't keep repeating the same row or its inversions... DEVELOP it, just make sure that it makes sense and sound good. Express whatever you want to express with it, but in YOUR natural language, language that comes to you intuitively, whatever it is, not some artificial language that's result of some rule or algorithm. (Well I'm contradicting myself a bit here because sonata form itself is a rule based artificial system, but the way sonata form works is such that it feels natural and feels "human" - and it allows some freedom of self expression, it just gives basic guidance)
If you use sonata form, for the second melody you can use another 12 tone melody as well.

So the difference between Schoenberg's row and my type of 12 tone row - linguistic analogy:

Schoenberg
Letters available to use: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L
Potential Schoenbergian row: Hajklecbdifg (12 notes long 12 tone row)

My proposal
Letters available to use, the same: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L
Potential row: Jack, hide a badge file! (18 notes long 12 tone row - note, all 12 tones are used, and no other tones but these 12! - but now it sounds MUCH better)
Without this repetition allowed we would again sound like Schoenberg: Jack, hide bg fl!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It sounds as if ZJovicic is trying to "stuff a horse into a suitcase."

The _reality_ of 12-tone music is, the "melodies" that Schoenberg created are what they are.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Schoenberg to me is the easiest so-called serialist to listen to. He models much of his 12-tone music after romantic music, as Berg does, with the added twist of the tone row. Hard-core serialists like Babbitt scoffed at his inconsistency, as if he was a sell-out. Webern is their hero.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Schoenberg to me is the easiest so-called serialist to listen to. He models much of his 12-tone music after romantic music, as Berg does, with the added twist of the tone row. Hard-core serialists like Babbitt scoffed at his inconsistency, as if he was a sell-out. Webern is their hero.


Schoenberg is Charles Baudelaire of serialism, Webern is Stéphane Mallarmé.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> Schoenberg to me is the easiest so-called serialist to listen to. He models much of his 12-tone music after romantic music, as Berg does, with the added twist of the tone row. Hard-core serialists like Babbitt scoffed at his inconsistency, as if he was a sell-out. Webern is their hero.


Schoenberg may be "dressed up" as Romanticism, but his "melodies" which are derived from tone-rows are definitely startling to most tonally-oriented listeners.

For example, The String Trio, op.45:






Babbitt had great respect for Schoenberg, especially his use of hexachords to divide the tone row. I think Boulez was the one who was the most critical of Schoenberg's use of Romantic/tonal devices, such as "melodies" and "themes."


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

I actually find the abrasiveness of Schoenberg the most accessible part, to the point that I wasn't quite grabbed by the piece in the OP. 

One thing I have noticed is that, for me, many composers get at the same agitated energy I enjoy in his music but without the 12-tone system, something that I suspect is just inherently grating on the senses (hard to describe, but it seems to "stagnate" and elude narrative progression in some way, and maybe even restrict melody and motivic material unnecessarily. I know an earlier post got at a similar point), and I'm not really sure what effects, at least emotionally, that Schoenberg achieves with it specifically that couldn't be achieved without it. 

Other unrelentingly vicious works by Bartok, Ligeti, Xenakis, Penderecki, and etc don't have that anti-aesthetic grating effect on me that 12-tone works do and yet they hit on the same feelings and provide me the same catharsis, so it can't be that the "mood" of Schoenberg's music is what I find irritating after about 3-4 minutes. It definitely feels to me like some artificial restriction has been imposed on it, however much I enjoy it regardless. 

For the most part I feel like good music imposes its character on us regardless of how we're personally feeling, but Schoenberg's dense textures are an insatiable sponge for depression, frustration, and other negative emotions in my life. The music challenges me, but not at all because it's hard to pick a feeling or experience it corresponds to and describes better than any other music does.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Schoenberg saw music as a vehicle to express his own emotions. This statement, made towards the end of his life, clearly spells this out:

_If a composer does not write from the heart, he simply cannot produce good music...I get a musical idea for a composition. I try to develop a certain logical and beautiful conception, and I try to clothe it in a type of music which exudes me from me naturally and inevitably. I do not consciously create tonal, atonal or polytonal music. I write what I feel in my heart - and what finally comes on paper is what first courses through every fiber of my body._

In other words, technique isn't an end in itself, it is at the service of the composer's vision. This corresponds with what many other composers have said, including those with more conservative approaches.

There are two ways of seeing Schoenberg's innovations - that they where a complete break from the diatonic system or that they where a logical extension given that at the hands of Wagner, Mahler and Strauss it was breaking apart at the seams anyway. Schoenberg baulked at being the one to deliver the final blow and his famous quote "I am a conservative who was forced to become a radical" bears this out.

I initially found his music hard to like but ultimately it has proven to be rewarding. I didn't take to Schoenberg as easily as I did to his significant near contemporaries, e.g. Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev to name three. At the same time, he is unique exactly because his music presents the listener with challenges of a nature which the others don't. It can't be denied that his music is always has this expressive force, a sense of reality, of no holds barred, here and now (Janacek is the closest I can think of with regards to this breaking down between artifice and reality).

I agree with Hilary Hahn's comparison of Schoenberg to an explorer going deep into previously uncharted territory. There's a sense of searching and being on a journey without a predetermined goal, of uncertainty about what will be found. Although by no means a Schoenberg fanatic, in some ways I am attracted to that.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I actually find the abrasiveness of Schoenberg the most accessible part, to the point that I wasn't quite grabbed by the piece in the OP.
> 
> One thing I have noticed is that, for me, many composers get at the same agitated energy I enjoy in his music but without the 12-tone system, something that I suspect is just inherently grating on the senses (hard to describe, but it seems to "stagnate" and elude narrative progression in some way, and maybe even restrict melody and motivic material unnecessarily. I know an earlier post got at a similar point), and I'm not really sure what effects, at least emotionally, that Schoenberg achieves with it specifically that couldn't be achieved without it.


I can see what you mean. Some modernists are guilty of what I call "diminished-itis," an overuse of the eight-tone diminished scale, which imparts an 'agitated' quality.

If we look at it in terms of numbers, the diminished scale, with its minor thirds (3 half-steps), creates a tonality which divides the octave into 4 parts (3 half steps x 4=12). The whole tone scale, with its stacked major thirds (4 half-steps) used by Debussy and Liszt to "float" the tonality, divides the octave into 3 parts (4 half-steps x 3=12).

Both of these "tonalities" share the major second (2x6=12). Perhaps Schoenberg is at an advantage because the chromatic collection divides the octave into 12 parts (12 half-steps x 1=12). So, all these other possible divisions are subsumed into the 12-division.

As far as Schoenberg always writing from "the heart," I can see this more easily in his earlier tonal works. If we are to attribute this Romantic quality to Schoenberg the man, we must also recognize his penchant for numbers, and perhaps a touch of OCD. His papers after his death included many serial charts and "wheels" that he made, to aid in his musical research when composing.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

By chance, I realize the legacy of Schoenberg's Six Pieces for male chorus, when my shuffle hit "Choral works of Stefan Wolpe and Morton Feldman." This is an excellent recording, if you haven't heard it.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> Schoenberg dictated the notes or tones in the tone row could not be repeated until all 11 others were played, making melody impossible.





> Schoenberg basically required the following: *Make a 12 tone row and don't repeat any pitch until you play all 11 others.*


The above quotes are completely false and based on popular myth. It is called the Myth of Non-Repetition. The truth is, only when creating the actual tone row, you cannot repeat a pitch. That makes perfect sense, since you are allowed to repeat pitches anyway during actual composition it would just be redundant and superfluous during the construction of the row itself. As was just stated, during actual composition with the row, immediate repetition of a pitch, or repetition of a group of pitches is perfectly fine.

I've read Schoenberg's complete writings on the subject in _Style and Idea_ and he never says any rule about not repeating pitches during composition of the serial piece with the row.

Further, the Wikipedia page addresses this myth as follows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-tone_technique
"Note that rules 1-4 above apply to the construction of the row itself, and not to the interpretation of the row in the composition. (Thus, for example, postulate 2 does not mean, contrary to common belief, that no note in a twelve-tone work can be repeated until all twelve have been sounded.)"

If you'd actually study Schoenberg's music, you wouldn't make such mistakes when discussing it. Note that Schoenberg himself repeated pitches in his serial music as demonstrated in the following examples:











If you'd actually have experience in composing serial music, you'd know following the myth of non-repetition makes no sense. You would never be able to switch permutations. A C# might appear towards the end of a Prime version of the row and it may also appear towards the beginning of another permutation of the row you want to use next, before all other 11 have sounded. It would be a huge headache and you would never be able to compose anything past the first couple bars.

The Myth of Non-Repetition is for people who have never read what Schoenberg wrote about serial music, never studied his music, and never wrote serial music. It's absurd. Yet, they talk as though they are an authority on the matter.



> *Keep doing it with some variations throughout whole piece. Who cares if it sounds good.*


Schoenberg most certainly cared that it sounded good. The note repetitions in the beginning of Op 31 above were meticulously composed to give an Impressionistic, ethereal, and dream-like quality to the music. The note repetitions in the same piece at 13:21 (Variation VIII) were composed to give the music forward-driving momentum. The music throughout Op 25 above was meticulously composed to give each movement a distinct character and mood.

Composers have been using sonata form with just as much, if not more, imagination and artistry as in your example (in various forms, some strict, some modified) for decades. Schoenberg Wind Quintet Mvt 1, Boulez Piano Sonata No. 2 Mvt 1, Wallingford Reigger Sym 3 Mvt 1 for example.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

An excellent post by Torkelburger, which clears up a big myth.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

In regards to the OP, I don't understand why it always has to be Schoenberg who is considered the "most demanding". Some of his twelve-tone music is almost a century old now. Dissonance has come a long way since then. I've never found his music to be that dissonant. If someone finds his music "demanding", how do they find a piece such as Penderecki's _Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima_, (which is itself old by now)?

Countless composers since the time of Schoenberg have used much more dissonant techniques than serialism--such as clusters, microtones, microtonal clusters, noise, and a vast array of effects and disturbing sounds. And they purposely avoid any kind of melody. Yet Schoenberg remains the poster-boy for "demanding" music even though in contrast to the music described above, you hardly even get as much as a single cluster (2 or more intervals of a second) with twelve tone technique. It's very strange.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The Penderecki Threnody, Ligeti, etc. are dissonant, but so different than most earlier music. Perhaps Schoenberg has been castigated because his music is so _similar_ to earlier tonal music in form, gesture, and phrasing that it seems to _parody_ tonal works. I think it's the radical leaps in otherwise 'normal' phrases that really get people's goats. Maybe Boulez was right when he wanted serialism to move on quickly, and far away, as soon as possible.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> If someone finds his music "demanding", how do they find a piece such as Penderecki's _Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima_, (which is itself old by now)?


I think it might in part be a misconception that Schoenberg is difficult because of the twelve-tone technique alone. I've come to really like his music, but the complexity of his counterpoint just confuses my ears for the first ten or so (low estimate honestly) listens, and it's not until I've cleared those that I can start to enjoy myself. I used to struggle with Bach for the same reason.

Something like the Threnody may sound more severe on the surface, but it's much easier to keep track of what's happening, same for a lot of Xenakis's music. You can perceive fewer details and still get something out of the large fluctuations of energy, whereas losing track of the details in Schoenberg can be fatal to engagement, at least for me.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Torkelburger said:


> In regards to the OP, I don't understand why it always has to be Schoenberg who is considered the "most demanding". Some of his twelve-tone music is almost a century old now. Dissonance has come a long way since then. I've never found his music to be that dissonant. If someone finds his music "demanding", how do they find a piece such as Penderecki's _Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima_, (which is itself old by now)?
> 
> Countless composers since the time of Schoenberg have used much more dissonant techniques than serialism--such as clusters, microtones, microtonal clusters, noise, and a vast array of effects and disturbing sounds. And they purposely avoid any kind of melody. Yet Schoenberg remains the poster-boy for "demanding" music even though in contrast to the music described above, you hardly even get as much as a single cluster (2 or more intervals of a second) with twelve tone technique. It's very strange.


I had an old teacher who abhorred all music after Handel's. Those of us who liked music found this quaintly amusing. When I see so many finding 100 year old (and thriving) music impossible to like I always think of him. Old music can be challenging - I have found Mahler, Debussy and others challenging - but it is not _that _difficult to get past that and to reap the rewards of doing so.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> The Penderecki Threnody, Ligeti, etc. are dissonant, but so different than most earlier music. Perhaps Schoenberg has been castigated because his music is so _similar_ to earlier tonal music in form, gesture, and phrasing that it seems to _parody_ tonal works. I think it's the radical leaps in otherwise 'normal' phrases that really get people's goats. Maybe Boulez was right when he wanted serialism to move on quickly, and far away, as soon as possible.


It is an interesting possibility that some people reject Schoenberg because he uses the forms and gestures of the previous generation. I find that aspect of his music fascinating - like a photograph of something familiar with all the colours changed - but had imagined that it would make his music more accessible. Certainly, the recent and very successful recordings of his concertos by Hahn and Uchida seem concerned to ring out the familiar aspects of his creation.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It's strong evidence that music with ties to "speech-like phrasing" is going to affect us more greatly than Ligeti's "clouds" of notes, and Boulez' "light and color shows."


----------

