Author Topic: Schoenberg's Sheen  (Read 48268 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cato

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 7271
  • An American Hero!
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #480 on: April 19, 2017, 03:33:36 PM »

I actually want to see Beethoven or Mozart for instance, approached like that because it is honestly irrelevant nonsense. Analyzers don't seem to care about how Beethoven inverts a melody, creates a canon, draws from the dominant scale (using pitch sets etc) and completely overlook the function of the music that you actually HEAR, lol  :laugh:

Have you checked the articles by professors in the academic journals?   All kinds of "irrelevant nonsense" there!!! 0:)
"Now who taught ye t' be playin' patty fingers in the holy water?"

- Barry Fitzgerald to John Wayne in  The Quiet Man.

Offline PerfectWagnerite

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3071
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #481 on: April 19, 2017, 04:43:10 PM »
Have you checked the articles by professors in the academic journals?   All kinds of "irrelevant nonsense" there!!! 0:)
Or just look at part 3 (or maybe Part 4) around the 4 or 5 minute mark where Lenny talks about serialism (or something similar) in the fugue of Bach, in the finale of Beethoven's 9th, or in Don Giovanni.

Anyway Alien's comment is a bit puzzling from someone who seems to have a sound musical education. When I was in school we spend an entire semester on Beethoven just analyzing stuff like that.

Offline Thatfabulousalien

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3179
  • Variations of Armature Pianist and Arm Chair Paris
  • Currently Listening to:
    The sound of noise music
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #482 on: April 19, 2017, 04:53:31 PM »
Or just look at part 3 (or maybe Part 4) around the 4 or 5 minute mark where Lenny talks about serialism (or something similar) in the fugue of Bach, in the finale of Beethoven's 9th, or in Don Giovanni.

Anyway Alien's comment is a bit puzzling from someone who seems to have a sound musical education. When I was in school we spend an entire semester on Beethoven just analyzing stuff like that.

Sorry, what I mean is:

When Beethoven does it - He's a genius
but when Schoenberg (or insert serialist) - he's just a dry academic creating exercises nobody is perceived to actually listen to etc.

It's a major double standard I'm trying to get over. Same with Stockhausen for example, who was trying to achieve a Wagnerian sense of wonderment at these huge cosmological philosophies he was trying to convey and the root of the human experience, in artistic terms of course.

BOTH, still using age old composition techniques, using hierarchies, structures/forms just like every other composer, blah blah

I'm not really in the mood to discuss it today but whatever  ::)



Well I'll clarify again, the whole "academic" side of music exists as much in Beethoven or Bach as it does Schoenberg, Gershwin, Stockhausen, Babbitt or popular music, IT always exists but for some reason it is given way too much importance in 20th century composers (especially serialists and 12 tone composers) for some reason, when it is not important to the music itself.

Why would you study how he inverts tone rows etc instead of the way the music actually functions, on a systematic basis? like in Beethoven. Some notes take center stage, some notes stay in the back et all
« Last Edit: April 19, 2017, 05:04:13 PM by Thatfabulousalien »
The most self-referential, self-aware and self-deprecating user this website (and planet) has ever known. So much, that he fails at being able to insult his own intelligence

Offline Mirror Image

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 39239
  • Steve Hackett (1950 -)
  • Location: Northeast GA, US
  • Currently Listening to:
    A plethora of musical genres
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #483 on: April 19, 2017, 06:56:59 PM »
I have.  They're frustrating and still hold to the false idea of atonality as representing a meaningful category distinct from tonality.  He doesn't go into enough detail on the actual music, and too much about theory.  Schoenberg's music should be approached like any other great composer's, but for some reason it's treated as distinct.

To the bolded text, still beating that dead horse I see.
“I think that a song, when it works, never mind a piece of long form music, even a song is something that speaks to itself but has a language all of its own, ideally.” - Steve Hackett

Online Jeffrey Smith

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 9640
    • Flickr photostream
  • Location: Florida
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #484 on: April 19, 2017, 07:39:00 PM »
Sorry, what I mean is:

When Beethoven does it - He's a genius
but when Schoenberg (or insert serialist) - he's just a dry academic creating exercises nobody is perceived to actually listen to etc.

It's a major double standard I'm trying to get over. Same with Stockhausen for example, who was trying to achieve a Wagnerian sense of wonderment at these huge cosmological philosophies he was trying to convey and the root of the human experience, in artistic terms of course.

BOTH, still using age old composition techniques, using hierarchies, structures/forms just like every other composer, blah blah

I'm not really in the mood to discuss it today but whatever  ::)



Well I'll clarify again, the whole "academic" side of music exists as much in Beethoven or Bach as it does Schoenberg, Gershwin, Stockhausen, Babbitt or popular music, IT always exists but for some reason it is given way too much importance in 20th century composers (especially serialists and 12 tone composers) for some reason, when it is not important to the music itself.

Why would you study how he inverts tone rows etc instead of the way the music actually functions, on a systematic basis? like in Beethoven. Some notes take center stage, some notes stay in the back et all

To my ears, Stockhausen completely failed at doing what he said he was doing. (Note the reference to ears, and the subjectivity therein implied.)
Perhaps Schoenberg too failed.

(BTW, in my admittedly limited understanding, wasn't one of the aims of serialism the goal of having no particular note or group of notes take center stage?)

Offline Mahlerian

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1228
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #485 on: April 19, 2017, 08:11:16 PM »
To the bolded text, still beating that dead horse I see.

It's true, though.

If I need to bring it up, it's because people still make comments like this:

(BTW, in my admittedly limited understanding, wasn't one of the aims of serialism the goal of having no particular note or group of notes take center stage?)

No.

One of the aims of serialism is to distance the music from traditional triadic functional harmony and diatonic rhetoric.  It isn't meant to be in a key, but if the point was to avoid any kind of pitch emphasis whatsoever, none of the Second Viennese School composers got the memo, because their music always emphasizes pitches and groups of pitches.

I don't know how anyone got the idea that their music doesn't emphasize any specific pitches, because it's disproven just by listening to any of it, let alone by looking at the score.

Offline Mirror Image

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 39239
  • Steve Hackett (1950 -)
  • Location: Northeast GA, US
  • Currently Listening to:
    A plethora of musical genres
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #486 on: April 19, 2017, 08:22:24 PM »
The term atonality will be around after we’re all dead and gone, so Mahlerian you can continue to bang your head against the wall.
“I think that a song, when it works, never mind a piece of long form music, even a song is something that speaks to itself but has a language all of its own, ideally.” - Steve Hackett

Offline Mahlerian

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1228
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #487 on: April 19, 2017, 08:24:50 PM »
The term atonality will be around after we’re all dead and gone, so Mahlerian you can continue to bang your head against the wall.

I'm not arguing with the term, I'm saying that the concept is useless.

Offline Mirror Image

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 39239
  • Steve Hackett (1950 -)
  • Location: Northeast GA, US
  • Currently Listening to:
    A plethora of musical genres
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #488 on: April 19, 2017, 08:28:11 PM »
I'm not arguing with the term, I'm saying that the concept is useless.

It’s all terms to me. I either dig something or I don’t. Whether it’s with or without a key is of no importance to me.
“I think that a song, when it works, never mind a piece of long form music, even a song is something that speaks to itself but has a language all of its own, ideally.” - Steve Hackett

Offline k a rl h e nn i ng

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 41078
  • Et quid amabo nisi quod ænigma est?
    • Henningmusick
  • Location: Boston, Mass.
  • Currently Listening to:
    Shostakovich, Frescobaldi, Stravinsky, JS Bach, Liszt, Chopin, Haydn, Henning
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #489 on: April 20, 2017, 04:30:42 AM »

(BTW, in my admittedly limited understanding, wasn't one of the aims of serialism the goal of having no particular note or group of notes take center stage?)

No.


I'd say, in at least one sense, yes. Or at least, probably.  It grew out of the rich chromaticism wherewith composers were weakening the sense of a tonal center. I don't know that Schoenberg ever specified thus, but he and Webern typically favored source sets whose sequence of pitches did not trend to [suggesting a center]. However, the series for Berg's Violin Concerto is arguably three tetrads, each of which is essentially a "tonal artifact"; and I don't believe Schoenberg ever felt that Berg was "doing it wrong," in terms of applying the method.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Offline Mahlerian

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1228
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #490 on: April 20, 2017, 06:38:25 AM »
No.



I'd say, in at least one sense, yes. Or at least, probably.  It grew out of the rich chromaticism wherewith composers were weakening the sense of a tonal center. I don't know that Schoenberg ever specified thus, but he and Webern typically favored source sets whose sequence of pitches did not trend to [suggesting a center]. However, the series for Berg's Violin Concerto is arguably three tetrads, each of which is essentially a "tonal artifact"; and I don't believe Schoenberg ever felt that Berg was "doing it wrong," in terms of applying the method.

Like I said, they used the method in such a way so as not to suggest a diatonic key (which is what Schoenberg would have understood by the term tonal center), but not to avoid emphasizing given pitches.  As for traditional harmonies, there is a row that Schoenberg used in the Suite Op. 29 and the Ode to Napoleon that allowed him to produce lots of triads.  Granted, he often superimposes multiple triads, but they're all over both pieces.  He said in his writings that he and his students did tend to avoid conventional harmonic formations, but felt that this was no requirement of the style and that future generations would synthesize the old methods and the new.

If Schoenberg wanted to avoid suggesting any kind of center for his pieces, what would the purpose have been in, in the Wind Quintet, focusing so much on E-flat and B-flat?  There's no requirement in the 12-tone method that says that one should use the untransposed rows more than transposed ones.  The piece ends on a unison E-flat, which is not a dissonance by anyone's standards.  I'm not suggesting that the piece is in a key, because that has so many other requirements relating to functional harmony and voice leading and so forth, but rather that Schoenberg's use of specific pitches does emphasize certain of them over others.

Offline bwv 1080

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1439
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #491 on: April 20, 2017, 07:49:33 AM »
Brahms with wrong notes
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum

Offline millionrainbows

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Location: USA
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #492 on: May 06, 2017, 12:13:56 PM »
Yes, Schoenberg uses thematic, melodic, motivic elements, but these have more of an intervallic identity of relations, like 'shapes', rather than emphasizing certain specific pitch identities by name. If you start claiming pitch identity, by naming notes like Eb, then you are getting into tonality.

Even if a certain pitch identity like Eb is emphasized, all that will do is create a singularity, a localized and momentary pitch station in a heavily chromatic environment. It has no overriding or structural tonal significance.

Offline snyprrr

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 10340
  • SQs, PQs, PQTs, PTs, VSs, Berlioz-Xenakis/Aperghis
  • Currently Listening to:
    Things that are crisp and spritely vs. things that are thick and creamy
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #493 on: May 06, 2017, 03:37:11 PM »
I've got wood... let's build a pyre!!
Rat Poison is 99% Good Food, so Follow the Money

Haydn-Sikh

Offline k a rl h e nn i ng

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 41078
  • Et quid amabo nisi quod ænigma est?
    • Henningmusick
  • Location: Boston, Mass.
  • Currently Listening to:
    Shostakovich, Frescobaldi, Stravinsky, JS Bach, Liszt, Chopin, Haydn, Henning
Re: Schoenberg's Sheen
« Reply #494 on: May 06, 2017, 05:53:35 PM »
I've got wood... let's build a pyre!!

You sure it's wood, and not particle board?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Buying Music From Amazon?
Please consider using these links. A small percentage of every sale using these links is passed on to GMG and helps keep this forum online.
Amazon US
Amazon Canada
Amazon UK