# Webern?



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

So I've been listening to Webern lately... and I like a good bit of modern classical music, Bartok, Debussy, Penderecki, and a few others I can't think of off the top of my head, but there just I just can't get into. I don't know what it is, maybe I am listening to the wrong things?


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

What pieces have you been listening to?


----------



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

the early ones, up to about Op. 5


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I've checked out the Boulez DG set from the library a couple of times. I like Passacaglia for Orchestra, and Im Sommerwind. It would take a major investment of listening time to form an opinion on the entire set. Somehow I don't think I'm going to find the time.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

String quartet!


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Manok said:


> the early ones, up to about Op. 5


Well, I don't see how anyone could dislike those icy early lieder, but I guess eveyone has their own tastes. There's no reason to force yourself to try to like Webern's early works. I'm fond of many of them, but in the end they're mostly not that important to the history of music. I'd suggest trying the slightly later Five Pieces for Orchestra Op. 10, and then moving on to the (incredibly short) Symphony Op. 21, the two cantatas, and maybe Op. 30.

To be honest, Webern's music basically becomes more and more abstract as his life goes on. If the problem you're having with the early works is that they're too abstract and alien, you're probably going to hate these later pieces I've suggested. But there's no harm in trying, since they're mostly very short (less than 10 minutes each). What are you meant to be listening out for? Well, for his use of different instrumental sonorites, and for the lonely atmospheres he creates. In my opinion, there is no hidden meaning - Webern's mature music really is primarily about creating atmospheres, and the listener is meant either to enjoy being in that atmosphere or to listen to something else. It's ultimately a matter of taste.

*Edit*: In addition, it's worth mentioning, Webern uses a variety of contrapuntal techniques, particularly canons. The music is so transparent that they aren't hard to spot if you have an ear for that sort of thing. Some Webern listeners listen out for canons because it gives the ear something to hold on to. That's one way of approaching his works.


----------



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

I'm not sure what my problem is with it. I enjoy abstract music, and as stated before, I don't really understand why I don't like Webern. I'll try out the symphony next.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Early Webern isn't generally as good as later Webern. I definitely encourage listening to the Symphony; it's just an incredible piece. Also look for string quartets and, of course, lieder (I think his lieder are the best things in his oeuvre overall; they're so expressive without being indulgent).


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Manok said:


> I'm not sure what my problem is with it. I enjoy abstract music, and as stated before, I don't really understand why I don't like Webern. I'll try out the symphony next.


The first time I heard Webern, it made me mad. I had just spent an hour and a half analyzing a three-minute piece, and it seemed like there were better uses of my time. Sometime that changed, and now I really like his music. I trust that will happen to you with time.

I don't know if you've heard Herbert von Karajan's recording of the Six Pieces for Orchestra, Opus 6, but if you haven't, I would recommend it.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I've checked out the Boulez DG set from the library a couple of times. I like Passacaglia for Orchestra, and Im Sommerwind. It would take a major investment of listening time to form an opinion on the entire set. Somehow I don't think I'm going to find the time.


If you only have limited time don't spend it all on his early works. Stuff like Im Sommerwind is all very nice but not really representative of his compositional maturity.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I was startled by _Im Sommerwind_. The first time I heard it I got nothing; the second time was fine.

Webern's mature instrumental work is chaff-free; no 'articles', no 'conjunctions', just the meat. One must focus. Something like batting against a fastball pitcher


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

"_Kinderstück_" and "_Menuett_" for piano played by Cascioli (the DG edition) are some of the most immediately striking/even freshly beautiful works from the otherwise very difficult late period.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

This is a great Webern recording I highly recommend. I enjoy all the pieces on this disc.


----------



## bumtz (Aug 6, 2011)

Go for the budget Warner (Apex series) release (originally on Teldec) of Webern's orchestral works (Staatskapelle Dresden / Sinopoli) - goes from Opus 1 to Opus 30. Shows the evolution of Webern's style. As mentioned above, later Webern is the real deal.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Webern-Somm...L5LM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315377244&sr=8-1


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I second* tdc's* recommendation of the Naxos disc of Webern's orchestral works. I can't remember, it's in either the _5 Pieces Op. 10_ or the _6 Pieces Op. 6_ (both works being for orchestra), that there's this intense funeral march in the middle movement, with a shattering part for tam-tam. It's just chilling, visceral, emotional & Webern's use of orchestral colour is no less sophisticated than that of Mahler or R. Strauss, he's just more kind of transparent & lighter. Both of these works are on that disc, & since our very knowledgeable member regarding c20th music *Manxfeeder* also recommends the latter work, my opinion is somewhat corroborated here on this.

Another work worthy of a listening or two (or more!) is Webern's _Variations_ for piano solo. Here, the dynamic contrasts - loud and soft, peaks and troughs - for me represent the Alpine valleys of which he was very fond of (he was a keen hiker in his younger days). So, just as in the music of Bruckner, the Austrian landscape is never far away in the music of Webern, or in this work at least...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

tdc said:


> This is a great Webern recording I highly recommend. I enjoy all the pieces on this disc.


Naxos also has this one, which is also very good. (Robert Craft has been recording a lot of Schoenberg works for Naxos too).


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I've really got to give him a try, I hear that he and Berg are some of the most accessible of the second viennese school.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I hear that he and Berg are some of the most accessible of the second viennese school.


Really? Berg certainly is but I would have put Webern down as one of the more difficult. He was the one who departed furthest from the romantic tradition and was the inspiration for a lot of 'difficult' postwar ultra-serialist / avant garde music.

Having said that, he is also pretty awesome so do listen. Just maybe to Schoenberg and Berg first.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

jalex said:


> Really? Berg certainly is but I would have put Webern down as one of the more difficult. He was the one who departed furthest from the romantic tradition and was the inspiration for a lot of 'difficult' postwar ultra-serialist / avant garde music.
> 
> Having said that, he is also pretty awesome so do listen.


Yeah, Webern's rep is 'difficult'. The mature music is so highly concentrated that it's hard to find a 'seam' to enter it by.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I think of Webern as being slightly "easier" than Schoenberg at least. With Schoenberg there's still something to hold onto in the patterns and stuff that he kept from the late romantic style; Webern distancing himself entirely makes it much easier for me to just put it on and fall into it, since it's a total shift rather than a partial one. Easier psychologically, anyway.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, Webern's works are shorter, and his music doesn't have the density of the other two (from what I know of his music), so that may make him somewhat more approachable for beginners, but it depends.

There are many schools of thought on how to enter the realm of the c20th Viennese School, my way was with Berg's opera _Wozzeck_ in my teens, but everyone has a different way. In any case, I've heard more works from these three guys - & beyond - than I had in the 20 years before. That Naxos disc with the Ulster Orchestra conducted by Takuo Yuasa was the first disc I got of Webern's music, only one or two years back, and I also got Pollini's recording of the piano variations...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Those single CDs on Naxos look good! Looks like the Sony Boulez 3 disc set is available again. It's a lot cheaper than the 6 disc DG set, plus some of the CDs in the DG set are only 36-40 minutes.

Clavichorder, if you're thinking of trying some Berg, EMI has a really nice 2 disc set for cheap
http://www.amazon.com/Berg-Violin-C...=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1315504140&sr=1-1


----------



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

I think I may have figured out my problem with Webern, and maybe my problem with some modern composers. There is too much silence in the music. I don't like all the starts and stops.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Manok said:


> ...There is too much silence in the music...


Yes, there are "voids," but so too in Bruckner, it's as if you're climbing up a mountain & stopping to catch your breath & admire the view, which brings me to what you said next -



> ...I don't like all the starts and stops.


...which is what I was talking about earlier. The "leaps" in his music, esp. in terms of dynamics (contrasts between loud/soft), speaks to me of the Alpine valleys which he loved so much...


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Any Webern experts out there?

I just bought a set of his complete works (along with some Varese, Carter, and Berio) that I want to delve into, but I just don't know where to start. I did have experience with Webern in the past, but only really early Webern, such as _Im Sommerwind_ and the op. 1 _Passacaglia_. Actually, I heard _Im Sommerwind_ on radio and thought that it was some wonderful late Romantic tone poem! The Passacaglia has this really spacious, cathedral-like feel that reminds me of tonally progressive Bruckner. But this Webern I first got to know is miles away from late Webern, and I simply can't connect the two when I attempt to understand the latter.

I think the main difficulty I have with mid-late Webern is how distilled his work seems to be. Every work is so short, unlike Berg's and Schoenberg's, so there's no time given to me to sense the structure, the development, the tension. And before I know it, it's over, and I feel like I've got very little out of it.

In a way, I find Webern more of a "total serialist" than Boulez is. With a lot of his music, I can barely concentrate on anything at all because the emphasis is simply so scattered, so staggered - only a really sensitive or focused mind can calculate such variations. With a work like Boulez's _...explosante-fixe..._, I can actually feel a lot of the pulses of the randomness move upwards and downwards and this sort of organizes it for me. I hope that makes sense.

Webern's way of writing is also a lot harder to pick up than say, Varese, Messiaen, Schoenberg or even Stockhausen. With the first two, I can sense a great connection to the impressionists and Stravinsky's ideals exemplified in the Rite, and this makes it clear what they are getting at. They are very "effect-based" in the way they create a sound-world, and in a way Stockhausen works the same way. Even Schoenberg leans more towards this school than Webern does, and he has even strong roots in late German Romanticism.

So my question is - how do I make those connections with Webern's music? Is there somewhere I need to start to better comprehend his later music? I basically need a reference point to begin with among his entire oeuvre to make it less intimidating.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Air said:


> Any Webern experts out there?
> 
> I just bought a set of his complete works (along with some Varese, Carter, and Berio) that I want to delve into, but I just don't know where to start. I did have experience with Webern in the past, but only really early Webern, such as _Im Sommerwind_ and the op. 1 _Passacaglia_. Actually, I heard _Im Sommerwind_ on radio and thought that it was some wonderful late Romantic tone poem! The Passacaglia has this really spacious, cathedral-like feel that reminds me of tonally progressive Bruckner. But this Webern I first got to know is miles away from late Webern, and I simply can't connect the two when I attempt to understand the latter.
> 
> ...


I am no Webern expert, but for me what made his music very accessible was the fact certain works (ie - his op. 5 + 6) immediately create a mood or atmosphere that I find compelling and intriguing, and quite mysterious. The reasons that you've gotten into Berg and Schoenberg (the structure, development, tension) are precisely the reasons I find those composers generally more difficult than Webern. I enjoy the distilled feel of Webern's pieces - to me somehow they seem very pure, uncluttered, and instantly take me to 'interesting places' with little to no effort. Webern's music to me feels more impressionistic than Berg or Schoenberg... it creates a similar feeling in me to guys like Debussy.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Air said:


> Any Webern experts out there?
> 
> I just bought a set of his complete works (along with some Varese, Carter, and Berio) that I want to delve into, but I just don't know where to start. I did have experience with Webern in the past, but only really early Webern, such as _Im Sommerwind_ and the op. 1 _Passacaglia_. Actually, I heard _Im Sommerwind_ on radio and thought that it was some wonderful late Romantic tone poem! The Passacaglia has this really spacious, cathedral-like feel that reminds me of tonally progressive Bruckner. But this Webern I first got to know is miles away from late Webern, and I simply can't connect the two when I attempt to understand the latter.
> 
> ...


I suggest to just not think too much with Webern. I think the point of his music is that:

1. You're supposed to just enjoy each sound that comes by as it's happening
2. There are less notes, so each note becomes more "intense." For example, in a Beethoven symphony, the main event is a melody or theme that is made up of different notes, for Webern, each note IS an event in and of itself.

I hope that made sense.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

The BBC did a program on Webern a little while back. The presenter said that to understand Webern you had to imagine someone waving from the window of a train departing from a station. His music is like that fading goodbye.

No, I don't understand that either


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

In Berg there's usually some hint of fragmented melody to hang onto, so too in Schoenberg, but in guys like Webern (& also Boulez), I tend to listen to dynamic contrasts (loud/soft). There's not much melody there, so it's a waste of time for me to try to grasp what's not there. I esp. like the decay - sound fading, which talks to the departing train that Chris talks about above - in this music as well. It's something you don't come across that often elsewhere.

& *Air* is right talking of Webern & Messiaen in the same breath. Messiaen actually had some Webern scores when he was a prisoner of war in the Stalag at Gorlitz during WW2, and Webern's influence is discernible in Messiaen's _Quartet for the End of Time_ (esp. in terms of colour, imo). As for Varese, I think he's a different kettle of fish, he had little time for the c20th Viennese School altogether, but he would have been familiar with their music.

In terms of Stockhausen, I don't know if it's easier to grasp or listen to his music for me. I don't know a huge amount of it, but what I have heard has been diverse, he used a lot of techniques, he did some of his own innovations & I think he distanced himself from the post-war "total serialists," but he did write some (but not many, I think?) works using these techniques.

Even Boulez, who was kind of like a big proseletyzer of "total serialism" in his younger days, didn't compose a great deal of works strictly adhering to it's rules, I think he mainly used this technique as a springboard, as pretty quickly it became a matter of being a straightjacket rather than the liberation that it had been hoped to have been immediately following 1945...


----------

