Is Anton Webern the greatest genius of the 20th century?

[Lyric Suite]

I don't think the genius of Webern comes from how he treated atonality or form in his music, but how he was able to concentrate it.  Webern's music jumps from one climax to another, and in between there is no marking time, but a softness that feels like it will explode.  I know of no other music before his that so successfully produced Webern's quiet intensity.

And that is where atonality comes in.  One could argue that Schoenberg's and Berg's atonal music was unnecessary.  Their music often seems like it could have been written many years before, if only tonally.  Webern, however, demands atonality.  I cannot possibly see tonal music producing anything like Webern's music.  The uncertainty and sparsity require a harmonic system with the same properties.  In a word, Webern's music is the killer app. of atonality.

I like this. I think you nailed him very well, but i think there's more to Webern then atonality (and all it's implications and uses). What really strikes me about most of his compositions is that his level of concentration extends over everything, from form (which he uses profusely), tone color, counterpoint and who knows what else (i'm still busy exploring his music). He has such a complete grasp of almost every compositional technique he makes a lot of other composers look like amateurs in comparison.

[rappy]

I admire his works not as music but as crazy and successful experiments.

[loudav]

Webern had more direct influence than Schoenberg (for good or ill), but to my untutored ears Schoenberg is the creative giant of the 20th century. I say this on account of his Beethovenian ability to produce astonishing and yet musically sensible tone combinations. For me, Webern's music is intriguing and stimulating, Schoenberg's is awe-inspiring. Which of Webern's works are as bursting with musical ideas as Schoenberg's first two string quartets, Erwartung, his violin concerto, or his late string trio? BTW, I mean this only in part as a rhetorical question--I would indeed be interested in listening again to whichever works the Webernians here point me to.

[g r e g]

I did not say Messiaen is a barf-bag. I simply asked for a barf-bag when his name was brought up. There is a difference.

wow, you hate Messiaen that much? interesting.....

[Larry Rinkel]

wow, you hate Messiaen that much? interesting.....

I didn't say "hate."

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

Webern had more direct influence than Schoenberg (for good or ill), but to my untutored ears Schoenberg is the creative giant of the 20th century.

Because of my no-less-great admiration for Stravinsky, that definite article jars my ears, I admit.

[loudav]

Because of my no-less-great admiration for Stravinsky, that definite article jars my ears, I admit.

Okay, you're not going to like this (please don't call me by my real given name!), but I'll also take Bartok and Hindemith over Stravinsky any day. Hindemith's rhythms can get tedious, but he had so much more facility for harmony that Stravinsky, who by contrast seemed to know how to do certain things harmonically and then fumble when he stretched beyond them. And is there anything by Stravinsky that can even come close to comparing to Bartok's string quartets or violin sonatas? That said, there's nothing like the Italian Suite for Cello and Piano (from Pulcinella) or Dumbarton Oaks for a feel-good romp. Anyway, de gustibus.

[loudav]

Also, no one's obligated, but I'd still like some suggestions as to which of Webern's works are as bursting with musical ideas as Schoenberg's first two string quartets, Erwartung, his violin concerto, or his late string trio. I could start re-listening at random, but I wouldn't mind a pointer from one of the Webern-o-philes who have contributed to the earlier part of this topic.

[James]

Also, no one's obligated, but I'd still like some suggestions as to which of Webern's works are as bursting with musical ideas as Schoenberg's first two string quartets, Erwartung, his violin concerto, or his late string trio. I could start re-listening at random, but I wouldn't mind a pointer from one of the Webern-o-philes who have contributed to the earlier part of this topic.

webern's whole output is bursting with musical ideas and full of wonderous things....just as much as anything in schoenberg, keep listening...

[Wanderer]

I would have difficulty calling him a genius, let alone the greatest. Schoenberg, for instance, was a true genius; his music  not only had far-reaching "revolutionary" value but also genuine musical substance. I think Webern either lacks or tries too much to achieve the second element. His works more often than not sound as mere (albeit enjoyable) etudes on newly introduced compositional methods. I'd take Skalkottas over Webern any time, in my opinion a musical genius in par with Schoenberg.

[Danny Boy]

He's one tough nut to crack but once you get used to his style, ho man. He makes everybody else seem almost redundant. I generally get that feeling only with the likes of Bach, or late Beethoven. Maybe i'm a wierdo, but i'm starting to think this guy is on the same irk, even if his output is pitifully small (particularly if you take out the lieder, which is not exactly one of my favored genres).

Maybe i'm no longer sane... 

Never heard him.  He was a serialist, right?  Well, I like the Berg VC, but everything from Schoenberg's atonalist catologue leaves me flat.  I'll try and give him a listen.

However, I doubt he was greater than either Sergei or Mitya!