# a new thread for SCHOENBERG



## vamos

nothing tickles me like his music does. i'll write more later. just thought i would start this to see what other people think about him and his twelve tone disciples - webern, etc.


also if there are any known music like his out there! beauty like never before.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

vamos said:


> nothing tickles me like his music does. i'll write more later. just thought i would start this to see what other people think about him and his twelve tone disciples - webern, etc.
> 
> also if there are any known music like his out there! beauty like never before.


I don't think that much of Schoenberg's msuic, relatively speaking. Listened to some of his works, which are listenable as one-off or limited experiences. I'm often very curious as to how to appreciate Schoenberg's music as a listener without musical training. How do you approach Schoenberg's music - do you study it on score if you are musically trained? Why does his music "tickle" you, and how have you approached it such that it "tickles" you?

Hopefully you can answer my question above to help enlighten a lesser Schoenberg mortal listener like me, which despite having asked this question more than once to fellow members who enjoy Schoenberg's music, I have yet to read a constructive answer.


----------



## vamos

Personally I played violin for a while as a kid growing up. I learned about music in school. And some basic music theory. I've been writing music for a while, mainly electronic abstractions and piano/jazz compositions. I grew up on rock and roll, jazz, classical, electronic, and just about anything else.

The first Schoenberg I heard was "Transfigured Night." It's not atonal. I was curious about why people had joked that his music could just be someone pounding on a keyboard, so I looked into it more.

I came across Pierrot Lunaire. I've never enjoyed music with vocals too much so it wasn't perfect. But there was something incredible about it.

Since then I found Webern's work much easier to listen to and digest. It still takes time, but it seemed to me that Webern had a different way of going at it - slightly more attached to traditional harmonic structure.

Schoenberg, being the creator and possibly the only one with the true understanding of what he tried explaining to others, is the one whose music goes furthest into the possibilities. 



So, for me, that is the sound of some kind of lawless harmony. There is a harmony there, it is simply one that holds the "future" of music as we know it. There are no limits. Schoenberg, however, still writes within the confines of his own rules. Therefor something like "counterpoint" is incredibly evident in his music. There are extremely strict laws that he creates, but at the same time there is this incredible new vastness that he opens up to. There is simply no other music like his. It is incredibly freeing when you "hear" it for the first time.

What one may "hear" is the sound of a new tonality. It is not "a" tonal, as in "non tonal." It is simply different, progressive, new. I like experimental music, but it must sound good in some way for me to enjoy it. Schoenberg takes his expanded mind and applies it to the rules of music in a way that is most likely very difficult to understand for most - yet it has had an effect on so much all the same.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Schoenberg will be recognized as the greatest composer of the 20th century in the way that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven were for their respective zones of classical music.



So yeah, it's hard to describe. It's incredible. It's a whole different world of refined beauty. I think when you listen to Schoenberg, you have to realize that there really are melodies and harmonies inside of it. Real music. It's not just some pretentious crap - Schoenberg could hear things others could not. If you want to get into Schoenberg, start with Webern. Listen to the music that has traces of him in it. Ease into it, very, very slowly. And eventually, years later perhaps, you will find yourself listening to a Schoenberg piece in pure ecstasy!


----------



## Weston

I like this idea of a new and different tonality you speak of. My opinion of Schoenberg is iopt77 mw i. Ertp perquith56 mw i mw reptc8z-haqsw! Mw i thantrodiplopippus sor _quasi_-ypiliptian blblblblble 4.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Music doesn't convey ideas like language does. There is no _meaning_ to a piece by Schoenberg that needs to be deciphered. Our response, guided by culture and tradition but finally created in each of us as individuals, _is_ the meaning of music. Some, like I, simply think it sounds gorgeous and exciting.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

vamos said:


> So, for me, that is the sound of some kind of lawless harmony. There is a harmony there, it is simply one that holds the "future" of music as we know it. There are no limits. Schoenberg, however, still writes within the confines of his own rules. Therefor something like "counterpoint" is incredibly evident in his music. There are extremely strict laws that he creates, but at the same time there is this incredible new vastness that he opens up to. There is simply no other music like his. It is incredibly freeing when you "hear" it for the first time.
> 
> What one may "hear" is the sound of a new tonality. It is not "a" tonal, as in "non tonal." It is simply different, progressive, new. I like experimental music, but it must sound good in some way for me to enjoy it. Schoenberg takes his expanded mind and applies it to the rules of music in a way that is most likely very difficult to understand for most - yet it has had an effect on so much all the same.


Interesting. Pretty much what I read from other folks who share the same "tickle" treat from Schoenberg's music. That there is musical structure within his twelve-tone discipline for musicians to marvel at when reading it on score. That there is new freedom of sounds when listening to the music performed, which at the end of the day, is a strong subjective preference even more so than say, a standard classical favourite like Bach or Wagner. I quite like the idea "freedom of sounds"; it makes more sense approaching Schoenberg with that in mind.

Your suggestion about Anton von Webern was interesting, too. I'm not at all familiar with his music. Might get hold of a CD or two soon.


----------



## Sid James

I agree with vamos, this type of music can take years to digest & understand. Some things grabbed me immediately, like some of Webern's orchestral pieces or Berg's opera _Wozzeck_. Others, like Schoenberg's _Violin Concerto_, took about 6 months. I'm still trying to "get" Berg's _Lyric Suite_ for string quartet, after about 15 years. Some people are immediately put off by the complexity of some of the pantonal music, but it's exactly this that draws me to it. There are no easy answers, the listener has to piece it together him or herself. Besides the big three, I also like other composers who developed this style - Carter, Lutoslawski, Feldman to name three. Even if some composers reject Schoenberg's theories and techniques, they still have to have a knowledge of what they are negating - hence his huge influence upon all composers since, in many ways...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

HC- I don't think that much of Schoenberg's music, relatively speaking. Listened to some of his works, which are listenable as one-off or limited experiences. I'm often very curious as to how to appreciate Schoenberg's music as a listener without musical training. How do you approach Schoenberg's music - do you study it on score if you are musically trained? Why does his music "tickle" you, and how have you approached it such that it "tickles" you?

My experience with Schoenberg has been largely the same. I have given the work repeated listenings (I actually own some 10 discs of his music) but I find that while I can "get it"... "appreciate it" an an intellectual level... I don't really like it or want to listen to it on a frequent basis. It doesn't move me nor do I find myself humming along or whistling the "tunes" once the work has ended.

vamos-I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Schoenberg will be recognized as the greatest composer of the 20th century in the way that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven were for their respective zones of classical music.

I'm sorry, but I think you greatly overestimate him. We are now nearly 100 years post-Schoenberg and his music is still not embraced or beloved by even a great many of those who are well-informed or less-than-ignorant on classical music. Now we can throw out endless explanations for this starting with suggestions of the ignorance of those who don't love his work or don't "get it"... but this is quite presumptuous... and it ignores that fact that a great many modern composers who were equally innovative are far more loved: Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, Bela Bartok, Debussy, Ravel, Shostakovitch, etc...

vamos-So, for me, that is the sound of some kind of lawless harmony. There is a harmony there, it is simply one that holds the "future" of music as we know it.

Schoenberg's innovations lead to certain aspects of music's "future"... but I think you overstate the issue. There is not a single path that leads to good music. A great many major composers of the 20th century fully rejected Schoenberg's innovations, as have a good many contemporary composers. Schoenberg is but a dwarf in comparison to the influence of Richard Wagner... and yet even Wagner can not be seen as the source of all that follows.

Andre- I agree with vamos, this type of music can take years to digest & understand.

The same might be said of the complexities of Bach... but in the interim, I receive a great deal of pleasure... even without fully understanding the mechanics... perhaps never needing to fully understand the mechanics.

Andre-I'm still trying to "get" Berg's Lyric Suite for string quartet, after about 15 years.

I can't imagine any work of music being worth that effort.

Andre- Some people are immediately put off by the complexity of some of the pantonal music, but it's exactly this that draws me to it.

No... I don't think that's what turns them off. Unless you imagine that Bach or Mozart's 41st symphony, or Beethoven's string quartets are any less complex. I imagine they that what puts most people off is that it simply doesn't sound good. It is not pleasurable to listen to.

Andre- Besides the big three, I also like other composers who developed this style - Carter, Lutoslawski, Feldman to name three. Even if some composers reject Schoenberg's theories and techniques, they still have to have a knowledge of what they are negating - hence his huge influence upon all composers since, in many ways... 

Actually, I quite like some of Schoenberg's "followers" far more myself. There are several works by Berg and Webern that I quite enjoy... as well as pieces by Carter, Crumb, Feldman and others. But I honestly enjoy Copland, Hovhaness, Richard Strauss, and others who never ventured into atonalism far more. I would also note that for a great many contemporary composers the notion of atonalism vs Romanticism is a non-issue as they have found ways of maintaining tonality without becoming just one more late Romantic through exploration of non-Western music, jazz and other non-classical genre, and even older musical traditions such as medieval and Renaissance music. Here I think of composers ranging from Gorecki, Part, Adams, Glass, Tavener, but also Grisey, Murail, Scelsi, and even Golijov.


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...It doesn't move me nor do I find myself humming along or whistling the "tunes" once the work has ended.


Music is more than just about big or good "tunes," you know that...



> Andre- I agree with vamos, this type of music can take years to digest & understand.
> 
> The same might be said of the complexities of Bach... but in the interim, I receive a great deal of pleasure... even without fully understanding the mechanics... perhaps never needing to fully understand the mechanics.


Yes, much of the older music is just as complex as the newer. I probably shouldn't have really said that it was necessarily more complex, but that it is in another musical language entirely, which may be harder to grasp for the first time listener.



> Andre-I'm still trying to "get" Berg's Lyric Suite for string quartet, after about 15 years.
> 
> I can't imagine any work of music being worth that effort.


As long as I enjoy the ride, I don't mind about where the music does (or doesn't) take me. I accept that I might never "understand" many of these works fully (yes, the same may be said of other works that are (nominally) tonal, like Nielsen's or Shostakovich's 4th symphonies, for example). Music is more than just joining all of the dots, often I enjoy "hearing" all of the questions that a piece raises in my mind, without having a clue as to the "solution."



> It is not pleasurable to listen to.


You are arguing in absolutes - black & white (as usual?). Yes, on the first few listens, pantonal music may not be as "pleasurable" on the surface as some of the others, but it is with the subsequent listenings that one gains a big-picture view of the music & what the composer is trying to say. Usually, there is much consonance in the dissonance. The big three and many other composers using pantonal techniques were masters at developing themes, taking you a journey of themes throughout a whole work, just like the old masters. Schoenberg always stated that his main models were J. S. Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, etc. He was not really aiming to be a "bad boy" or iconoclast & destroy the traditions, he was aiming to reinvigorate them.



> But I honestly enjoy Copland, Hovhaness, Richard Strauss, and others who never ventured into atonalism far more. I would also note that for a great many contemporary composers the notion of atonalism vs Romanticism is a non-issue as they have found ways of maintaining tonality without becoming just one more late Romantic through exploration of non-Western music, jazz and other non-classical genre, and even older musical traditions such as medieval and Renaissance music. Here I think of composers ranging from Gorecki, Part, Adams, Glass, Tavener, but also Grisey, Murail, Scelsi, and even Golijov.


I wouldn't say that Copland or Hovhaness didn't dabble in pantonality. Much as the latter said he hated it, his music is full of such techniques. There are a number of his works that are very similar in sound or technique as Lutoslawski's (eg. both their string quartets have no meter markings). I think that Hovhaness said one thing & did another. & of course, Copland started experimenting with serialism about the same time as Stravinsky (c. 1960). As I suggested, many composers were influenced by Schoenberg, but some of them would have hated to admit it (and did it after they had exhausted directions that went nowhere - eg. Stravinsky's neo-classicism & Copland's "Americana" period).

Your suggestion that the pantonal vs. tonal debate doesn't matter anymore I agree with. Composers like Dutilleux and his student Ades have stated that it doesn't matter to them whether the music they write is pantonal or tonal, they are just composers who write music, full stop.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Yes, much of the older music is just as complex as the newer. I probably shouldn't have really said that it was necessarily more complex, but that it is in another musical language entirely, which may be harder to grasp for the first time listener.

Yes... the modal forms of medieval music, the complex structures of Dufay's isorhythmic motets, the seeming aimlessness of Japanese Shakuhachi flute, the Indian Ragas... or even the works of Debussy can seem disconcertingly new to the first-time listener... but they all convey a certain beauty of sound. Perhaps this is where Schoenberg falls short for many listeners... not only does he present a new musical language, but the result is seldom beautiful.

You are arguing in absolutes - black & white (as usual?). Yes, on the first few listens, pantonal music may not be as "pleasurable" on the surface as some of the others, but it is with the subsequent listenings that one gains a big-picture view of the music & what the composer is trying to say.

But there is a difference between understanding what the composer is trying to say, and appreciating or even enjoying the experience as art. By the same token, I will admit that there are paintings that are unquestionably masterful... innovative... expressive... and yet not at all pleasurable. I can't imagine wanting to look at them often let alone live with them. Most painters that work in such a manner accept this. They understand that their paintings were intended to act as a cry of outrage... intended to disturb or shock a complacent audience. In spite of what Schoenberg has been quoted in saying, I can't believe he honestly thought that what he was doing would be embraced with pleasure in the manner of a Mozart concerto. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot produce something disturbing... disconcerting... harrowing... something that assaults the sensibilities of the audience... and then complain that the audience doesn't show enough love.

Usually, there is much consonance in the dissonance. The big three and many other composers using pantonal techniques were masters at developing themes, taking you a journey of themes throughout a whole work, just like the old masters.

But let's face it... while Debussy and Gesualdo and others employed dissonance, there was far more often a return to tonality... a return to "home"... and a sense of sonic beauty. Schoenberg takes atonality to the step of fully rejecting tonality. There is no "home".

Schoenberg always stated that his main models were J. S. Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, etc. He was not really aiming to be a "bad boy" or iconoclast & destroy the traditions, he was aiming to reinvigorate them.

I don't question that his works were logically structured. I don't question that he saw himself in the tradition of the great German composers. But then again, James Joyce clearly saw himself in the great tradition going back to Shakespeare and Homer... but almost no one can read _Finnegan's Wake._ The effort... which is demanded by all art... does not seem to be adequately rewarded.

I wouldn't say that Copland or Hovhaness didn't dabble in pantonality. Much as the latter said he hated it, his music is full of such techniques. There are a number of his works that are very similar in sound or technique as Lutoslawski's (eg. both their string quartets have no meter markings). I think that Hovhaness said one thing & did another.

I agree that Hovhaness made use of dissonance... even pantonality... but he argued for the limited use of dissonance for expressive purposes... as Gesualdo employed it centuries earlier... and he also argued for the need to ultimately return "home" to tonality. Again, Debussy, Wagner, Gesualdo, even Mozart in his "Dissonance Quartet" or Biber make use of dissonance. Where Schoenberg broke away is in the degree... to the point that there no tonal "home". In this sense he is rather like the painters who broke away to absolute pure abstraction, as opposed to painters such as van Gogh or Picasso who employed abstractions and distortions within a framework that was still figurative. Is it surprising that Picasso and Matisse remain far more popular and beloved than Pollack or Mondrian?

Copland started experimenting with serialism about the same time as Stravinsky (c. 1960). As I suggested, many composers were influenced by Schoenberg, but some of them would have hated to admit it (and did it after they had exhausted directions that went nowhere - eg. Stravinsky's neo-classicism & Copland's "Americana" period).

Even if we grant Schoenberg his influence, we need to question whether this influence was for the better. I doubt that Copland's or Barber's experiments with Schoenberg's ideas will be remembered among their strongest works. I might suggest that Andy Warhol was perhaps the most influential artist of the last 50 years... and yet there are more than a few who would question the results of that influence. A great many artists throughout history have rejected the "mannerisms" of their immediate predecessors.

Your suggestion that the pantonal vs. tonal debate doesn't matter anymore I agree with. Composers like Dutilleux and his student Ades have stated that it doesn't matter to them whether the music they write is pantonal or tonal, they are just composers who write music, full stop. 

I don't know that the question of atonal vs tonal vs pantonal is resolved... or ever will be, but I don't see the question framed as atonal Modernism vs latent Romanticism. While these two camps were busy fighting, the next generation arrived for whom the question is not so easily divided into this either/or dichotomy. A composer like Scelsi or Glass or Reich can be clearly tonal without ever suggesting Romanticism in the least.


----------



## Argus

Schoenberg's okay.

I actually find Schoenberg quite traditional. He couldn't shake his Mahler/Strauss influences fully from his writings. He claimed to 'emancipate the dissonace', yet he used the same dissonances as composers before him. He just used them far more often. He may have removed the notion of tonality but he kept the 12 tone equal temperament system. He kept fairly traditional rhythmic structures. He uses recognisable forms. He employed the same timbres as his predecessors. Then by introducing twelve tone/serialism he removing one set of restrictions and imposing a different set. He didn't change that much really.

I do think there is some truth to the idea that our ears can reconfigure over time to appreciate more and stronger dissonances in music. Much like walking on hot coals a lot will callus your feet and make it easier to perform in the future, listening to uber-dissonant music will build up a tolerance to it and you'll hear it from a different perspective.

No doubt he paved the way for the 20 th century experimenters, but I prefer Partch and Varese, who took things a bit further by introducing new tonal relationships, timbres and rhythms, or Cage who both introduced new methods and took away restrictions from old ones.

I'll just add that Schoenbergs writings on music are excellent and I recommend them for anyone interested in learning about the man or his views, as well as diatonic theory. In his Harmonielehre you can already see he is searching for a new way even though he writes about the current one.

Oh, and he's second only to Cage in the most controversial rankings. Just ahead of Wagner.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Schoenberg's early works aren't bad at all (before he changed to dodecophony), and I like them.

I really really want to understand how dodecophony works, I've only done a little study. Do any of you have suggestions of classical examples? You see, I don't care much for it, but my goal is that if I learn how it works, I will eventually come to _Accept_, and then _Appreciate _it.

The 5 A's of Classical Music opinion determination
Level 1: Abhorrence- you hate a piece of music, it's garbage
Level 2: Acceptance- you admit it's not garbage, but you still don't have feelings for it either
Level 3: Appreciation- you come to understand it at a technical level, even respect it
Level 4: Admiration- you come to understand it at a personal level, even like it
Level 5: Adoration- you love a piece of music (though this doesn't necessarily imply _full _understanding)

I once heard a work by Zemlinsky, his 4th string quartet. Not exactly dodecophonic, but dissonant, yet to my shock, it wasn't a bunch of chaos. It was carefully organized, and what was really amazing was when it changed for atonal to tonal, and back again. That was on the verge of Admiration.


----------



## Guest

One thing seems clear to me, no one should be having any trouble with Schoenberg at all, either with Schoenberg specifically or serialism generally.

Not in 2010.

Try 1910. That would be Beethoven that people just weren't getting. Or 1810, and people just not getting Handel.

It's not Schoenberg, either. As Argus points out, his music is basically late Romantic. It's very lovely, twelve tone or otherwise. And there will always be people who don't particularly _like_ his music. Does my not particularly liking Chopin have any importance at all? Does it contribute in any way to any discussion of Chopin's music?

It does not.

And neither does anyone else's dislike of Schoenberg. It is certainly not a musicological statement to declare that one has tried to appreciate Schoenberg but has been so far unsuccessful. (The implication always being that it's Schoenberg somehow who's at fault.)

But back to that 2010 thing. In 1810, people were struggling maybe with Beethoven, not with Bach or Handel. In 1910, people were struggling maybe with Debussy or with Brahms still. But not with Beethoven.

It's 2010. If we're going to struggle, let's do it with something or someone a little more current than someone who died almost 60 years ago. (And who was born over 130 years ago.) Really. Our discussions of Schoenberg should really be no different in kind or quality than our discussions of Brahms or Berlioz or Buxtehude.


----------



## Aramis

> Oh, and he's second only to Cage in the most controversial rankings. Just ahead of Wagner.


Is he? I think that people who don't know anything and want to throw meat at contemporary music always choose Schoenberg as synonym that represents pure evil and unlistenable music.

*some guy*

There is much difference between reality and how things "should" be. Your analogy is true, but at the other hand there is another truth - people do not approach Schoenberg like people in 1810 approached Bach or Handel. And I don't mean classical newbies. My conducting teacher who finished two majors do can't understand this music. She can analyze it technically but nothing more. Same with many other professionals I know.

General understanding of music do not follow contemporary trends. It stopped back there. Even people that care about art music in most cases consider Schoenberg and his team as some kind of terrible and unbreakable barrier beyond which begins the nightmarish world of confused noise.

Again, back in 1810 or 1910 a normal guy that never cared much about music could walk into philharmonic concert and listen to Handel and Beethoven and get some shallow enjoyment because this music was written in language that he could (to some extent) understand. Now it's diffrent.


----------



## Sid James

@ St Luke's

Yes, there is (often) no "home" in Schoenberg's music. But music is not only about returning "home," it's also about exploring the outer regions. Also, I don't miss the lack of a tonal centre in some of Schoenberg's music, becuase he is so good on thematic development. If you listen closely, he returns to themes and ideas quite often, and after a few listens, it's readily apparent.

& I think that you know that art is not only about beauty but about encompassing the whole of the human condition/experience. If you want 100% easy listening regurgitated "beauty" go to Andre Rieu. Great art is much more than just about prettiness and correctness. Sometimes the notes don't have to be in the "right" place to convey what the composer wants. Eg. Schoenberg's _A Survivor from Warsaw _is pretty "ugly" in parts, but wasn't the Holocaust as well?

@ Argus

I agree that Schoenberg was much closer to the Austro-Germanic tradition that most people will allow for. There is something rock solid about his music. No matter that he was exploring the outer regions of tonality, there is always something rooted and stable in his music.

@ Some Guy

I agree with your analogy. People who are heavily into classical, like most on these kind of boards, should (at the very least) recognise that Schoenberg was a great composer, one of the most significant of the last century. I think that only Debussy can lay claim to the same type of vision as Schoenberg (but in different ways) back in the 1900's. I think it is silly how people argue the merits of guys like Schoenberg when (let's face it) most music scholars and even musicians would agree that his contribution to music is still felt today...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I do think there is some truth to the idea that our ears can reconfigure over time to appreciate more and stronger dissonances in music. Much like walking on hot coals a lot will callus your feet and make it easier to perform in the future, listening to uber-dissonant music will build up a tolerance to it and you'll hear it from a different perspective.

That's rather Pavlovian. I don't know that it says much in favor of Schoenberg to suggest that eventually you get over the pain... and maybe even come to embrace it.

No doubt he paved the way for the 20 th century experimenters, but I prefer Partch and Varese, who took things a bit further by introducing new tonal relationships, timbres and rhythms, or Cage who both introduced new methods and took away restrictions from old ones.

Varese and Cage don't do much for me... although I'll admit that I like Cage's _Pieces for Prepared Piano_... but I do quite like Partch and certainly see that he may have been far more audacious in his innovations. Of course I like Ellington and Armstrong and Miles and Monk and Muddy Waters even more... and suspect that what they brought to music was no less important or innovative.

I actually find Schoenberg quite traditional... He used the same dissonances as composers before him. He just used them far more often. He may have removed the notion of tonality but he kept the 12 tone equal temperament system... Then by introducing twelve tone/serialism he removing one set of restrictions and imposing a different set. He didn't change that much really.

That has long been my feeling. Schoenberg removed one set of limitations and traded them for another... Where he is influential is that he led to the possibility of composers employing or rejecting either set of limitations... to further questioning of all limitations.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Some Guy- One thing seems clear to me, no one should be having any trouble with Schoenberg at all, either with Schoenberg specifically or serialism generally.\

Let's face it, Some Guy, you've made it abundantly clear that you like a lot of music that 99% or humanity would define as noise, so I have little doubt Schoenberg would be at all able to annoy you. Whether you like it or not, however, there are more than a few people who actually are not altogether ignorant of music who have yet to come to love Schoenberg. Murray Perahia, to give but one example, has made clear his dislike for Schoenberg... and he might just know more about music than even yourself. I am not suggesting that he or you are right or wrong. But I am pointing out that you are being somewhat ingenuous when you feign dismay at the fact that Schoenberg continues to leave even musically educated audiences disconcerted... or irritated.

Does it matter that you or I or Andre or anyone else likes or dislikes Schoenberg? I thought that was what this thread was about. Or is it only permitted to speak of the great Arnold in hushed reverence?

Some Guy- It is certainly not a musicological statement to declare that one has tried to appreciate Schoenberg but has been so far unsuccessful. (The implication always being that it's Schoenberg somehow who's at fault.)

And who cares if such statements are of a musicological nature? Do you assume that if you can prove the technical brilliance of a given composer's work that this should immediately translate to admiration... or love? Is Mozart loved only after one understands the musicological innovations and implications of his efforts? As for whose fault this is... well one would assume that the artist has some notion as to how accessible or inaccessible his or her music is. Arnie could have chosen to write catchy pop tunes... although he might not have been that good on that account... but he took the direction he did and adhered to it with a certain understanding of what that entailed. All art would seem to be something of a two-sided relationship. The artist reaches out to the audience, and the audience puts forth the efforts to come to an understanding of the art. Some art reaches too far... panders to the audience to the point that the artist loses those who demand a degree of challenge. Others demand so much that a great portion of the audience feels the work is not worth the effort. To suggest that because you like Schoenberg's music there is nothing lacking in it is no more of an argument than for me to suggest that because I don't like Schoenberg there is something lacking.

Aramis- I think that people who don't know anything and want to throw meat at contemporary music always choose Schoenberg as synonym that represents pure evil and unlistenable music.

Yes... he's become something akin to James Joyce and Picasso... or perhaps Jackson Pollack.

Andre- I think that you know that art is not only about beauty but about encompassing the whole of the human condition/experience. If you want 100% easy listening regurgitated "beauty" go to Andre Rieu. Great art is much more about prettiness and correctness. Sometimes the notes don't have to be in the "right" place to convey what the composer wants. Eg. Schoenberg's A Survivor from Warsaw is pretty "ugly" in parts, but wasn't the Holocaust as well?

Andre... I know you are aware that "beauty" is something that need not be reduced to the insipid. There is a beauty in the tragedy of Bach's passions. There is a beauty in Goya's images of the horrors of war. The artist brings a degree of beauty to themes of horror... or even just the mundane... and by doing so transforms them. Yes, the Holocaust... and war in general... and a great deal of other aspects of our world are clearly ugly, but is the role of the artist simply to regurgitate this ugly reality back at us... as if highlighting the world's ugliness were a revolutionary artistic act? Is it not possible that Beauty is actually the ultimate protest against ugliness? I personally find Paul Celan's great poem, Death Fugue, to be even more powerful as a result of the manner in which the poet contrasts the horrors of Auschwitz... with the beauty of form:

http://www.english.txstate.edu/cohen_p/postmodern/Literature/Celan/Hamburger.html

Andre- I agree with your analogy. People who are heavily into classical, like most on these kind of boards, should (at the very least) recognise that Schoenberg was a great composer, one of the most significant of the last century. I think that only Debussy can lay claim to the same type of vision as Schoenberg (but in different ways) back in the 1900's. I think it is silly how people argue the merits of guys like Schoenberg when (let's face it) most music scholars and even musicians would agree that his contribution to music is still felt today... 

But Andre... no one here has questioned Schoenberg's position within the history of music... although you know as well as I that such things change with time. But I would suggest that he was not alone among the giants of 20th century music... many of whom rejected his ideas... and I would also suggest that his position is perhaps primarily secure only within academia... rather like James Joyce who is touted by academia as the greatest writer (at least in English) of the 20th century... and yet is seldom read outside of academia. Perhaps I exaggerate to a degree... yet one rarely sees Schoenberg festivals or "Most Schoenberg" performances by the orchestras with audiences clamoring to get tickets... while not only do we have "Mostly Mozart" extravaganzas but Richard Strauss, Debussy, Stravinsky and any number of other Modernist play to sell-out crowds, while Arvo Part, Osvaldo Golijov, Philip Glass and other contemporary composers do more than brisk sales of their music. And I know... Some Guy will charge into the fray citing a conspiracy of reactionary Romantic-loving orchestras and orchestra trustees and record executives, and listeners, and film-makers... etc... etc... But such conspiracy theories always come off sounding a bit like Robert Newman.

Again, I think all that I have done is to suggest that I don't particularly like Schoenberg... in spite of repeated efforts and in spite of understanding what he was after to a certain extent. That and I have suggested that he may not have been alone among the great innovators of Modernism... some of whom may have been equal or better... and some of whom I far prefer.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Some Guy- One thing seems clear to me, no one should be having any trouble with Schoenberg at all, either with Schoenberg specifically or serialism generally.\
> 
> Let's face it, Some Guy, you've made it abundantly clear that you like a lot of music that 99% or humanity would define as noise, so I have little doubt Schoenberg would be at all able to annoy you.


You, sadly, are still able too, though. But I'm working on it. With the mighty powers of Zen Buddhism, I look forward to the day when you won't be able to annoy me at all.

But on to the topic at hand.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Whether you like it or not, however, there are more than a few people who actually are not altogether ignorant of music who have yet to come to love Schoenberg. Murray Perahia, to give but one example, has made clear his dislike for Schoenberg... and he might just know more about music than even yourself.


No, I don't like it. I thought that's what I just got through saying. Do read my posts, the actual posts that I write, not the distortions your peculiar filters make of them.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I am pointing out that you are being somewhat ingenuous when you feign dismay at the fact that Schoenberg continues to leave even musically educated audiences disconcerted... or irritated.


And you somehow magically know whether I'm feigning things or not? I don't think so. As I stated, and best in these discussions to stay with the statements, not slurs and innuendos about the staters, in 2010 musically educated audiences have trouble with Schoenberg. That's historically unparalleled. It shouldn't be. (I know, Aramis, that it IS. The point is not whether I know the difference between reality and how things should be. I _do_ know the difference, hence my post.)



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Does it matter that you or I or Andre or anyone else likes or dislikes Schoenberg? I thought that was what this thread was about. Or is it only permitted to speak of the great Arnold in hushed reverence?


OK. And now it's you who are being _dis_ingenuous.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Some Guy- It is certainly not a musicological statement to declare that one has tried to appreciate Schoenberg but has been so far unsuccessful. (The implication always being that it's Schoenberg somehow who's at fault.)
> 
> And who cares if such statements are of a musicological nature?


Um, that would be you? You're the one who made, who tried to make, a statement of personal dislike into a statement of a composer's merit and contribution to musical evolution. It didn't work, and I was informing you of that fact.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Again, I think all that I have done is to suggest that I don't particularly like Schoenberg... in spite of repeated efforts and in spite of understanding what he was after to a certain extent. That and I have suggested that he may not have been alone among the great innovators of Modernism... some of whom may have been equal or better... and some of whom I far prefer.


Disingenuousness AND backpedalling, in the same remark. A trick cyclist of the highest standing y'are. Yes indeedy.


----------



## Argus

Aramis said:


> Is he? I think that people who don't know anything and want to throw meat at contemporary music always choose Schoenberg as synonym that represents pure evil and unlistenable *music*.


At least Schoenbergs critics refer to his art as music.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> That's rather Pavlovian. I don't know that it says much in favor of Schoenberg to suggest that eventually you get over the pain... and maybe even come to embrace it.


It's just a matter of getting used to something unfamiliar. Someone who has lived all their life in the Sahara wouldn't particularly enjoy being forcefully deported to northern Canada, or someone who was brought up a vegan wouldn't particularly enjoy a traditional English fry-up for the first time. You get the idea.

I'm not saying that people will come to like Schoenberg or any non-tonal music with enough time and effort, but it takes time and effort to have a _chance_ of liking something you aren't familiar with. This is assuming most people were brought up in an environment where relatively consonant heavy music was most often heard, which I guess would be the case for most people.


----------



## vamos

something about schoenberg:

as soon as you get into his atonal music, it's somewhat difficult to experience much emotion other than terror/alienation. at least for me.

his music is something like the sound of the inside of your mind while you are dreaming, or perhaps the farthest reaches of the cosmos.

i agree that it is actually very romantic in nature. he never breaks away from form, from what i can tell. everything has the "classical" feel to it. except it's written with an entirely different set of harmonic rules. through this, strange new patterns can form.

these patterns exist, it is only Schoenberg who has revealed them.



my question, i guess, is this:

there is no major key in atonal music...it never sounds "positive," so to speak.
there is also no minor key, or there should not be?
maybe i'm misunderstanding this.

my point is that it almost always sounds "negative," or "scary."

i think this touches upon a bigger point - this music is something far away from us. something mystical deep within us. it is less related to the cosmic/heavenly glory of say, Mozart, and more related to something primal deep within us. that's my opinion at least.


----------



## Guest

vamos said:


> something about schoenberg:
> 
> as soon as you get into his atonal music, it's somewhat difficult to experience much emotion other than terror/alienation. *at least for me*.


I.e., nothing about Schoenberg.



vamos said:


> my point is that it almost always sounds "negative," or "scary."


No. This is all you. (And you can test this simply by finding one other listener, me perhaps, for whom none of his music is either negative nor scary.)


----------



## vamos

it is hard for me to imagine you listening to pierro lunaire while smiling and thinking about how great life is.


----------



## Guest

It shouldn't be too hard to imagine someone listening to _Pierrot Lunaire_ and enjoying it for a fine, well-made piece that's a pleasure to listen to, though, should it?


----------



## Aramis

Umh, Schoenberg wasn't exceptionally "negative" with his music, all expressionist were interested in "darker side" of our reality - Richard Strauss is never considered as someone who loved horror, but wasn't he one to write most gloomy music? What is Schoenberg's Erwartung (correct?) compared to Elektra, in terms of "scaryness"? 

Schoenberg didn't end on his expressionist period but I dig only this part of his music so far, so I can't elaborate on his later works.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

If I am reading Adorno correctly, the keen thing about Schönberg and his 12-tone method of composition is that the music created thereby confronts the capitalistic dementia induced by the pabulum of banality which is intended to distract people from the condition of what is actually occuring in the world as the result of plutocratic-technocratic-autocratic authoritarian domination.

In other words, Schönberg's thought inducing art will awaken the cogent.


----------



## Argus

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> If I am reading Adorno correctly, the keen thing about Schönberg and his 12-tone method of composition is that the music created thereby confronts the capitalistic dementia induced by the pabulum of banality which is intended to distract people from the condition of what is actually occuring in the world as the result of plutocratic-technocratic-autocratic authoritarian domination.
> 
> In other words, Schönberg's thought inducing art will awaken the cogent.


Adorno reads too far into some things.

What book have you acquired that information from? Did he only attach such theories to the music of Schoenberg or does he include others in that category? Are there any observable effects or in depth studies that agree with Adorno's views?



vamos said:


> my question, i guess, is this:
> 
> there is no major key in atonal music...it never sounds "positive," so to speak.
> there is also no minor key, or there should not be?
> maybe i'm misunderstanding this.
> 
> my point is that it almost always sounds "negative," or "scary."


A possible reason why it sounds more negative or scary to you is that it contains more dissonance. The minor mode sounds 'darker' than the major mode because it contains more dissonance by virtue of it's minor third and minor sixth in comparison to the major counterparts. The intervals 6/5 and 8/5 are scientifically more dissonant than 5/4 and 5/3. Well, technically, these intervals on their own they are no more dissonant than each other but because of clashes/beats within the upper harmonic partials of each tone the minor intervals are heard as rougher and therefore more dissonant. Schoenbergs music contains much more of these intervals and even more dissonant intervals for longer lengths of time, without preparation or resolution like previous composers used. There are consonances but these were not the 'norm' as before and were no more or less common than dissonances.

The problem with this theory is the old nature/nurture debate. Are these relationships of tones inherently 'darker', 'scarier' etc, because the ear is less comfortable with higher levels of dissonance or is it because we are brought up with music that treats the dissonance in such a way that it becomes 'darker' etc to us. This was the question Schoenberg asked himself. He obviously come to the conclusion that it was not an inherent truth but a manmade disposition. The consonance-dissonance scale is only relative to what has already been heard, and there is no clear distinction between the two categories. Therefore, Schoenberg felt his new system was just as capable as the previous ones of creating music that carries out the same purpose.

Well, that's just my take on it anyway.


----------



## vamos

Regarding Adorno - I learned a bit about him a while back. I'm pretty sure that's his thing - that art is meant to challenge societal standards. I'm sure he loved Schoenberg. Personally, I don't think Schoenberg created his music for any sort of "political" reasons (capitalism / waking up the "sheep" as Adorno suggests). I do however think that his music does represent the sound of the future, of enlightenment / Nirvana, spiritual/extraterrestrial intelligence, and universal truth. It disregards the "human" way of perceiving existence, and moves forward to an extremely advanced, "non-human" (Godly?) level of consciousness.

Thank you for the response, Argus.

I've been looking through Schoenberg's writing, "Theory of Harmony." I think I will purchase it and study it closely.

I would like to write a bit on my thoughts regarding what I said before about Schoenberg's music being "negative" or "scary." I didn't choose words very wisely there, I don't think. What I meant is that with music, and "existence" as a human being, a certain given "thing" is automatically labelled "good" or "bad." Yes, certain "things" fall towards neutral, though perfect neutrality is hard to perceive unless higher levels of consciousness are brought into the picture.

"Pierrot Lunaire" will undoubtably be perceived as horrid, negative, alien, scary, or dark to the average person. To argue over this is a waste of time, but we can use it as a starting point for discussion of Schoenberg's music. We can use his solo piano music as a way of exploring the concept of dissonance/consonance as a "good" or "bad" thing in music.

Argus said:


> Are these relationships of tones inherently 'darker', 'scarier' etc, because the ear is less comfortable with higher levels of dissonance or is it because we are brought up with music that treats the dissonance in such a way that it becomes 'darker' etc to us. This was the question Schoenberg asked himself. He obviously come to the conclusion that it was not an inherent truth but a manmade disposition. The consonance-dissonance scale is only relative to what has already been heard, and there is no clear distinction between the two categories. Therefore, Schoenberg felt his new system was just as capable as the previous ones of creating music that carries out the same purpose.


This is correct.

The "darkness" of his atonal music is perhaps just a side effect of everything that lead up to it. One can listen to something like:
"Three Piano Pieces - No. 1 - Op. 11"





And it does sound otherworldly - "dark," "alien" - but there are moments when the light of more traditional tonality shines through - jazz sounding chords. But one might describe it as being "mystical" or "otherworldly." That is my take on his music - that it the sound of a dream state, lucidity, clarity, nothingness, and so on.

For into a slightly more "dark," atonal piece, there is the "Suite for Piano - Op. 25." Here is the first part:





This strikes me as being far more immersed in the world of atonality. There are fewer moments where you are able to hold onto "reality." We see Schoenberg drifting further away from our own existence and into his own mind. Or this is how I look at it.

ok i'm ******* tired of writing!!!!

The epitome of horror, anger, despair:
(apparently he wrote this one after he found his wife cheating on him with that painter dude...)


----------



## vamos

some may want check out some of my piano type music ... it's at the link in my signature.

heavy schoenberg influence ... i didn't even know it!
reading "theory of harmony" and critiques of it i see that i will be needing to take my ideas and structure them more around logical theory. i'm moving forward, and i think my music reflects certain new ways of looking at "song structure."


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Argus said:


> _What book have you acquired that information from? Are there any observable effects that agree with Adorno's views?_


Theodor W. Adorno, _*Philosophy of Modern Music*_.

Just personal anecdotal experience from auditing Schönberg and working with critical theory.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*people like to complaint*

They cannot accept that they don't understand the music...Then the music becomes unacceptable..Por guys...Open your minds. Listen several times....Schönberg is not hermetic....he was a human been with feelings like you and me.

Martin Pitchon


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

*Sure was a human...*



myaskovsky2002 said:


> They cannot accept that they don't understand the music...Then the music becomes unacceptable..Por guys...Open your minds. Listen several times....Schönberg is not hermetic....he was a human been with feelings like you and me.
> 
> Martin Pitchon


Here, can you give me some reasons why someone would want to compose in the dodecophonic form?


----------



## Webernite

Why shouldn't they?


----------



## Random

I have a question, a real honest question. No sarcasm or anything like that.

How am I suppose to enjoy this






Honestly, I know nothing about music and I want to know what makes this piece "enjoyable". What makes it "great music?"


----------



## Webernite

Random said:


> I have a question, a real honest question. No sarcasm or anything like that.
> 
> How am I suppose to enjoy this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I know nothing about music and I want to know what makes this piece "enjoyable". What makes it "great music?"


A few points:

Pierrot Lunaire is famous _because_ it's difficult, and not necessarily because it's one of his better works
It helps if you read a translation while listening
It helps if you "get" Wagner beforehand
If you're going to listen to music on Youtube, at least find a video with decent sound
If you're going to listen to music on Youtube, don't listen to it performed by amateurs 
Put the volume up quite high (probably higher than you have it at the moment) 
Listening tips:

Enjoy the ominous and mysterious atmosphere he creates
Enjoy the textures of the different instruments: do not listen only to the voice 
If you're not going to get a translation, treat it like someone reading a fairytale
Here's a better quality version. Use 480p or more, not 360p:


----------



## emiellucifuge

A common misconception is that all music exists to be enjoyed.

Comparison with the visual arts shows that sometimes art is intended to be ugly, to confront you with the negative aspects of humanity and the world and can be difficult to bear.


----------



## Random

emiellucifuge said:


> A common misconception is that all music exists to be enjoyed.
> 
> Comparison with the visual arts shows that sometimes art is intended to be ugly, to confront you with the negative aspects of humanity and the world and can be difficult to bear.


My view on is that the negative aspects of humanity and the world is not something I want to think about, therefore why would I listen to or look at something that makes me think about terrible things. It makes no sense to me, it just seems to me that the negative aspects of humanity and the world are the opposite of what any form of art should bring to mind.


----------



## Webernite

Well, in the first place, that's obviously not true. Surely you quite happily watch films and plays involving violence, tragedy, alienation and so on? Surely you can appreciate paintings that depict wars and death? If anything, _most_ great art is about the "negative aspects of humanity," in some way.

But in any case, none of this matters, because Pierrot Lunaire is simply a series of poems set to music. It's not overtly about human suffering or anything else. Certainly, the poems are quite dark, but they cover a variety of themes and philosophical ideas. If you can appreciate them, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to appreciate the music as well. Here, I found a translation: http://ada.evergreen.edu/~arunc/texts/music/pierrot/pierrot.pdf


----------



## emiellucifuge

If you only want to be filled with happiness I suggest you stick to...(?). Wait! Even Mozart had unhappiness and the entire romantic era is based on the turbulence of lost souls. Perhaps better to watch the teletubbies..


----------



## Aramis

> My view on is that the negative aspects of humanity and the world is not something I want to think about, therefore why would I listen to or look at something that makes me think about terrible things. It makes no sense to me, it just seems to me that the negative aspects of humanity and the world are the opposite of what any form of art should bring to mind.


If music makes you think about these negative things against your will then it makes you better man. It brings you closer to the turth, part of which you refuse to think about. That's the sense you can't see.

UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE LIKE A RAT THAT HIDES IN HIS DARK HOLE, THAT CARES NOT ABOUT THE TRUTH JUST ABOUT HIS MISERABLE COMFORT! LET THE LIGHT OF MUSIC SHINE INTO YOUR DARK HOLE, RANDOM, LET IT SHINE!

HEAR ME NATIONS OF THE EARTH

BLA BLA BLA

I HAVE JUST CHANGED TO WORLD, DIDN'T I?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Webernite said:


> Why shouldn't they?


That doesn't convince me.



> A common misconception is that all music exists to be enjoyed.


EXACTLY! That's what I've thought myself! Good to find someone who has found that conclusion too. 

I'm an extremely optimistic person, highly confident, happy, etc. But I have real reason to! I'm not some superficial, or even insane person living in an illusion. Well, maybe a little insane (I yell at the radio), but not deceived. I can't help but be attracted to joyful, spontaneous, even humorous music (hence, Prokofiev), and also be turned off by discouraging music. I'm getting use to it, but it's still hard.


----------



## Webernite

Huilunsoittaja said:


> That doesn't convince me..


People compose in the dodecophonic form for the same reason people compose in any other form: because it offers unique possibilities in sound and musical emotion.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Webernite said:


> People compose in the dodecophonic form for the same reason people compose in any other form: because it offers unique possibilities in sound and musical emotion.


That's a better answer. Elaborate on the emotion idea please, I wanna know your thoughts on that.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Tonality by definition involves some form of gravity towards a certain tone. Dodecaphony, similar to less strict atonal styles, provides a complete freedom from this gravity.


----------



## Webernite

Huilunsoittaja said:


> That's a better answer. Elaborate on the emotion idea please, I wanna know your thoughts on that.


Well, all I can say is that the twelve-tone music of Schoenberg expresses a degree of anxiety and torment that I don't think he was ever able to reach in his earlier chromatic and atonal music. The emotion in Schoenberg is at its most sincere in his twelve-tone works. They are less theatrical, less artificial, than anything he had written before. The difference between his early and his late works is the difference between watching an actor cry in a film, and watching a person cry in real life.

For Webern, the twelve-tone system did something quite different. It provided him with a way of structuring his ideas, a framework, which I think he had always really needed. When it was invented, in the 20s, all of a sudden he found his artistic voice, and went on to write most of his best works. It's probably wrong to talk about "emotion" in the twelve-tone music of Webern: he creates _atmospheres_. But nonetheless, they are still atmospheres that couldn't have existed without the dodecophonic form, as you call it.


----------



## Random

Webernite said:


> Well, in the first place, that's obviously not true. Surely you quite happily watch films and plays involving violence, tragedy, alienation and so on? Surely you can appreciate paintings that depict wars and death?


True, so I had the wrong opinion that time. It all comes down to the fact that everyone enjoys different things.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Random said:


> enjoys


I dont enjoy Schoenberg, i experience his music.


----------



## starthrower

I like dissonance and I like Schoenberg. Of course his music goes much deeper than that. I don't get the negative/scary vibe. What's up with that? Schoenberg's music is beautiful!


----------



## Webernite

Random said:


> True, so I had the wrong opinion that time. It all comes down to the fact that everyone enjoys different things.


Sure. It's up to you what you listen to. But I'm not lying when I say that I and many others actually like Schoenberg. Have you tried listening to something other than Pierrot Lunaire?


----------



## Random

Webernite said:


> Sure. It's up to you what you listen to. But I'm not lying when I say that I and many others actually like Schoenberg. Have you tried listening to something other than Pierrot Lunaire?


No, but I'm sure I will some day, right now I don't imagine I would like any of it, I'll wait and maybe in the future I'll come to like it.


----------



## Webernite

Random said:


> No, but I'm sure I will some day, right now I don't imagine I would like any of it, I'll wait and maybe in the future I'll come to like it.


Start with the easy stuff: 





Or the _really_ easy stuff:


----------



## Eusebius12

Argus said:


> Schoenberg's okay.
> 
> I actually find Schoenberg quite traditional. He couldn't shake his Mahler/Strauss influences fully from his writings. He claimed to 'emancipate the dissonace', yet he used the same dissonances as composers before him. He just used them far more often. He may have removed the notion of tonality but he kept the 12 tone equal temperament system. He kept fairly traditional rhythmic structures. He uses recognisable forms. He employed the same timbres as his predecessors. Then by introducing twelve tone/serialism he removing one set of restrictions and imposing a different set. He didn't change that much really.


It is interesting how doctrinaire the advocates for dodecaphony were for many years, almost constituting an 'artistic mafia', and how rigidly the system is applied, at least by its founder and several others. Pace Honegger "[serialists] look for an exit by way of atonality, setting up, more arbitrarily still, the twelve tone system. This system boasts a very narrow codification; the dodecaphonists remind me of convicts who, having broken their chains, voluntarily attach 200 pound balls to their feet in order to run faster. Their dogma is entirely comparable to that of classroom counterpoint, with the difference, that while the aim of counterpoint is merely to facilitate the pen and stimulate its exercise, the serial principles are presented, not as a means but an end!"
Of course Honegger, writing here in 1951, is exaggerating and could not then know of future developments, the adoption of serialists like Penderecki, Lutoslawski, Gorecki and Richard Meale etc. of polytonal elements and generally more diverse harmonic and thematic materials (even frank tonality). Alban Berg was not so strict in his application of the 'system'. But as a rigid and all-embracing system, rigidly, dogmatically and ruthlessly applied, serialism is fortunately dying a welcome death.



> Oh, and he's second only to Cage in the most controversial rankings. Just ahead of Wagner.


Wagner's music is more controversial because of his personality and his writings than the music itself, although it was pretty controversial in the day (and certainly his ridiculous 'poetry', and his incredible longueurs at times, I think can justifiably be poked fun at)


----------



## Eusebius12

Not at all. I am an avid consumer of news and information. I revel in the spiritual states of Bach and the emotional rollercoaster of the romantics. The serialists don't convey very much emotional content, but they do often produce ugly sounds. Sometimes they write interesting stuff. Webern, for example, to my ears has a much finer feeling for sonority than Schoenberg, with his rather dense textures. Of course, Brahms and Bach have dense textures, why not have a dig at them? Well, I feel that Bach and Brahms have much more variety. They have and exercise a fine lyrical gift, a rich melodic and harmonic sense. Yes, there are works and passages of Bach and Brahms which are quite dull. But music within the tonal sphere, seems to be able to include more variety than serialism, odd for a system that seeks to liberate. Also there is a sort of dialectic inherent in tonal music, or non-serial music at any rate, that serial music can rarely replicate. Its analogous to the sentence. Then, a series of statements that produce an organic unity, a sense of ebb and flow, a sense of small units combining into an edifice, and allowing moments of climax which organically spring from the structure instead of merely being imposed on it. One senses these as features of many 'modernish' composers, polytonal ones such as Stravinsky or early Prokofiev and even atonal ones like late Scriabin. 
Anyway, the point is not the system but the music. There are several works by the so-called SVS which are (to my ears and mind) digestible and assimilable from that POV.


----------



## Webernite

Eusebius12 said:


> Not at all. I am an avid consumer of news and information. I revel in the spiritual states of Bach and the emotional rollercoaster of the romantics. The serialists don't convey very much emotional content, but they do often produce ugly sounds. Sometimes they write interesting stuff. Webern, for example, to my ears has a much finer feeling for sonority than Schoenberg, with his rather dense textures. Of course, Brahms and Bach have dense textures, why not have a dig at them? Well, I feel that Bach and Brahms have much more variety. They have and exercise a fine lyrical gift, a rich melodic and harmonic sense. Yes, there are works and passages of Bach and Brahms which are quite dull. But music within the tonal sphere, seems to be able to include more variety than serialism, odd for a system that seeks to liberate. Also there is a sort of dialectic inherent in tonal music, or non-serial music at any rate, that serial music can rarely replicate. Its analogous to the sentence. Then, a series of statements that produce an organic unity, a sense of ebb and flow, a sense of small units combining into an edifice, and allowing moments of climax which organically spring from the structure instead of merely being imposed on it. One senses these as features of many 'modernish' composers, polytonal ones such as Stravinsky or early Prokofiev and even atonal ones like late Scriabin.
> Anyway, the point is not the system but the music. There are several works by the so-called SVS which are (to my ears and mind) digestible and assimilable from that POV.


Er, who are you replying to here?


----------



## myaskovsky2002

PHP:


The 5 A's of Classical Music opinion determination
Level 1: Abhorrence- you hate a piece of music, it's garbage
Level 2: Acceptance- you admit it's not garbage, but you still don't have feelings for it either
Level 3: Appreciation- you come to understand it at a technical level, even respect it
Level 4: Admiration- you come to understand it at a personal level, even like it
Level 5: Adoration- you love a piece of music (though this doesn't necessarily imply full understanding)

I once heard a work by Zemlinsky, his 4th string quartet. Not exactly dodecophonic, but dissonant, yet to my shock, it wasn't a bunch of chaos. It was carefully organized, and what was really amazing was when it changed for atonal to tonal, and back again. That was on the verge of Admiration. 
__________________
My name is Sergei Prokofiev, and I approve this message.

Prokofiev approves everything you say!

Well....

Schönberg was lucky! This is the truth! His friends Zemlinsky (his brother in law) and his friend Schreker were into the edge...They were afraid or less mathematic than Schönberg.

Schreker's opera The other Christophorous

http://www.operatoday.com/content/2005/12/schreker_christ.php

was dedicated to Schönberg and has some parts dodecaphonic, Egon Wellesz studied with Schönberg as Berg and Webern...But the master was always Schönberg and Zemlinsky and Schreker being his contemporaries were considered old fashion and then neglected!

Schönberg was loved mainly by snob people at the beginning...It takes time to understand Schönberg, it also takes listening MANY times...I love almost all his works...I still don't understand some: e.g. Pierrot Lunaire, Erwartung....I think I'll never understand them...or maybe I don't like them....which A is this?...It is not an* A* but a question mark!!!!!!!

But Schönberg is one good composer, not a genious.... Bach invented counterpoint...another technique...Brahms used it in his 4th symphony, Schönberg also used it....many times...

Martin


----------



## starthrower

Here's a fascinating conversation about Schoenberg's music between two classical legends.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

As I was saying to Richard Gill, "Schoenberg's music does sound a bit ... _old fashioned,_ don't you think?"


----------



## regressivetransphobe

starthrower said:


> Here's a fascinating conversation about Schoenberg's music between two classical legends.


The way they talk is hilarious.


----------



## starthrower

regressivetransphobe said:


> The way they talk is hilarious.


A bit upper crusty, eh?


----------



## opus55

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont enjoy Schoenberg, i experience his music.


I only know his violin concerto. It is an experience I like to occasionally repeat (play the CD). You're right - enjoy is not quite the right word for it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

starthrower said:


> Here's a fascinating conversation about Schoenberg's music between two classical legends.


It reminds me of a conversation I had with my viola teacher about why I didn't like Hindemith.


----------



## lukecubed

I'm a Schoenberg poser... I'm not really much for the 12-tone stuff. It's an experience, for sure. Not knocking it, just... not sure if it's for me, unless I'm in the mood.

But I do love his early stuff. I could listen to _Verklarte Nacht_ all day.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

lukecubed said:


> I'm a Schoenberg poser... I'm not really much for the 12-tone stuff. It's an experience, for sure. Not knocking it, just... not sure if it's for me, unless I'm in the mood.
> 
> But I do love his early stuff. I could listen to _Verklarte Nacht_ all day.


Toughen up princess! Listen to some _real_ Schoenberg!


----------



## violadude

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Toughen up princess! Listen to some _real_ Schoenberg!


That is an awesome piece! Man I love Schoenberg.


----------



## starthrower

Anybody know which recording this is?

Schoenberg-Book Of Hanging Gardens


----------



## xuantu

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> It reminds me of a conversation I had with my viola teacher about why I didn't like Hindemith.


Talking with a viola teacher about your dislike for Hindemith? You really have a knack in finding your match, have you not?


----------



## xuantu

Second part of the Gould-Menuhin video, a full performance of Schoenberg's Fantasie.






Love it! And not just because of the violinist who is playing it! Well, actually that does help a little.


----------



## palJacky

starthrower said:


> Anybody know which recording this is?
> 
> Schoenberg-Book Of Hanging Gardens


http://www.amazon.com/Schoenberg-Co...9657&sr=1-3&keywords=schoenberg+lange+lonskov


----------

