# Webern



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

Having returned to 5 pieces for orchestra and six pieces for orchestra I am now of the opinion that it is fairly pointless noodling. Whilst this may be not a particularly constructive post, at least I’ve got it off my chest. :devil:


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

That's funny. When I heard those pieces for the first time, it was like a borderline religious experience. The op.6 Six Pieces especially hit me right in the soul. Listen to the fourth movement, the funeral march, really listen. Do you really hear pointless noodling? For me it's music that goes right to the heart of the matter, and captures like no other the feeling of loss. 

Of course, not everyone is going to like Webern's music. I'm glad you got it off your chest. But I assure you, pointless noodling it is not.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Webern's pieces aren't long enough for any noodling. And besides, some jazz musicians noodle, not composers like Webern.


----------



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

It's strange - the reason I returned to it is that heard some music by him a year or to ago... each note broke out in my head like a sparkling jewel and it was lovely. But I have never been able to remember which piece of music it was and each time I returned I had the noodling experience.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

juliante said:


> Having returned to 5 pieces for orchestra and six pieces for orchestra I am now of the opinion that it is fairly pointless noodling. Whilst this may be not a particularly constructive post, at least I've got it off my chest. :devil:


I understand what you're saying. and I appreciate your honesty.

The first time I heard Webern, I got very angry. How could I tell if this was the actual piece or just the orchestra playing random notes? I had to put some time in in study (in particular, I spent an hour and a half analyzing Herr Jesus Mein, which lasts two and a half minutes). But then his music started making sense.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Must be that part of our brain that craves instant gratification that gets annoyed or miffed? I remember my first Schoenberg CD. It was the Boulez disc that opens with Serenade, Op. 24. I wasn't exactly annoyed but my ears made me say, wow! This is some weird music and I don't know if I'm gonna warm up to this stuff? But in time it began to sound quite normal. I still don't really understand what determines the note choices. I realize they are working with a tone row so there is a theory and method involved. But from a purely aesthetic or musical narrative point of view it's still kind of baffling for me.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Must be that part of our brain that craves instant gratification that gets annoyed or miffed? I remember my first Schoenberg CD. It was the Boulez disc that opens with Serenade, Op. 24. I wasn't exactly annoyed but my ears made me say, wow! This is some weird music and I don't know if I'm gonna warm up to this stuff? But in time it began to sound quite normal. I still don't really understand what determines the note choices. I realize they are working with a tone row so there is a theory and method involved. But from a purely aesthetic or musical narrative point of view it's still kind of baffling for me.


I think you're right. There is an article in the current Gramophone about the need for thoughtful music critics and the pressure they face not to spend time with music which has deeper substance because of its lack of easy gratification.

One thing I've found is, there is some music that I connect with even when I don't understand it. Like the music of Grisey and Feldman, I don't know exactly what they're doing, but somehow it grabs my attention, and it makes exploring it worth the effort. There is other music that I don't connect with, and I may put some time in to appreciate it, but I still don't "like" it. (Right now I'm trying to understand how rap and pop music like Lizzo works so that I at least get what they're doing, but I still don't choose to spend much time with it).


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The substance aspect is very important to me as a listener. The music that excites on first listening but turns out to be shallow is always a disappointment. And there is music that is very technically accomplished but feels light weight, so I'm always looking for the stuff that stands up to repeated listening and reveals new aspects each time around.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

juliante said:


> Having returned to 5 pieces for orchestra and six pieces for orchestra I am now of the opinion that it is fairly pointless noodling. Whilst this may be not a particularly constructive post, at least I've got it off my chest. :devil:


That's not an opinion, because it refers to the music itself as "pointless noodling." It is common knowledge that Webern wrote out each note in the score, and that it is not the result of "noodling" or improvisation, nor is it pointless. There is also a section which depicts (in sound) his grandmother's struggle in the dark, after falling.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> ...Like the music of Grisey and Feldman, I don't know exactly what they're doing, but somehow it grabs my attention, and it makes exploring it worth the effort.


Compared to Webern, most of Grisey's music sounds like he's in some sort of aleatoric area, where the actual results are indeterminate and could vary each time. I don't get that sense from Webern, or from Feldman either; they both sound more predetermined, even if sometimes Feldman is not.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Compared to Webern, most of Grisey's music sounds like he's in some sort of aleatoric area, where the actual results are indeterminate and could vary each time. I don't get that sense from Webern, or from Feldman either; they both sound more predetermined, even if sometimes Feldman is not.


Right. I wasn't comparing the two; I was just commenting on how strange it is that some things grab me and some don't.


----------



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

starthrower said:


> The substance aspect is very important to me as a listener. The music that excites on first listening but turns out to be shallow is always a disappointment. And there is music that is very technically accomplished but feels light weight, so I'm always looking for the stuff that stands up to repeated listening and reveals new aspects each time around.


Which leads me onto another question - how many times do you return to a composer or piece that is highly regarded and has stood the test of time but you don't connect with? I remember I think it was mmbls saying he went back to serial music many times before getting and then loving it. (How long is a piece of string?)


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

juliante said:


> Which leads me onto another question - how many times do you return to a composer or piece that is highly regarded and has stood the test of time but you don't connect with? I remember I think it was mmbls saying he went back to serial music many times before getting and then loving it. (How long is a piece of string?)


I keep returning to these pieces every year. It took me three years of trying just to get into Mahler. Now I listen to every symphony, and the Lieder too. I have to say Mozart is a composer I still have trouble enjoying. There are bits and pieces in each work I enjoy but overall he's really not my cuppa tea. Same for Haydn. But I'd be willing to listen to every symphony just to hear something that connects with me. But I doubt I will ever get too interested in Vivaldi. One area I've really expanded on is English symphonic music. A few years ago I viewed most of it as conservative and old fashioned pastoral pleasantries. But now I am a big fan of several English composers. The Second Viennese School of composers is easier for me because I'm a modern music fan.


----------

