Mendelssohn vs. Schoenberg

[Mirror Image]

The sad fact is Intellectuals everywhere fell for his scam.  He was a clever, clever man but in no way shape or form a REAL classical composer. 

Thank god Schoenberg's corrupting influence is disappearing, and modern composers are actually writing music that can be listened to with real human ears.

Have you ever heard Schoenberg's string orchestra arrangement of "Verklarte Nacht" or "Gurre-lieder"? These are two absolutely gorgeous compositions.


As for Berg and Webern, I like both of them, but for different reasons. I can tolerate Berg's 12-tone music because he masked much of it in Romantic gestures and even established tonal centers in his music. Have you heard his "Seven Early Songs," "Three Pieces for Orchestra," "Lulu Suite," or "Violin Concerto"? These are outstanding works in my opinion that further the notion that Berg just couldn't let go of that Romantic lyricism that runs so deeply in his music.

[(poco) Sforzando]

It was Stravinsky who didn't like Beethoven.

Stravinsky's attitude changed in later life, and Beethoven became one of the composers he most revered.

[Teresa]

Have you ever heard Schoenberg's string orchestra arrangement of "Verklarte Nacht" or "Gurre-lieder"? These are two absolutely gorgeous compositions.

I have owned both, as I stated earlier in this thread "Schoenberg's early more tonal works such as Verklarte Nacht and these just sound boring IMHO.  I firmly believe he went the atonal route as he knew he was no good at tonal compositions."

As for Berg and Webern, I like both of them, but for different reasons. I can tolerate Berg's 12-tone music because he masked much of it in Romantic gestures and even established tonal centers in his music. Have you heard his "Seven Early Songs," "Three Pieces for Orchestra," "Lulu Suite," or "Violin Concerto"? These are outstanding works in my opinion that further the notion that Berg just couldn't let go of that Romantic lyricism that runs so deeply in his music.

I have heard all except the 7 Early Songs and found them unacceptable as music.  In fact this is the ONLY Mercury Living Presence recording I ever purchased that I hated:

[Mirror Image]

I have owned both, as I stated earlier in this thread "Schoenberg's early more tonal works such as Verklarte Nacht and these just sound boring IMHO.  I firmly believe he went the atonal route as he knew he was no good at tonal compositions."

He went the atonal route because he believed there was nothing left to be said in tonal music. I don't buy the idelogy that he thought he was "no good at tonal compositions." "Verklarte Nacht" and "Gurre-lieder" are powerfully evocative scores that are as beautiful as much as they are endearing.

I have heard all except the 7 Early Songs and found them unacceptable as music.

You may find them unacceptable as music, but I don't think you've bothered to keep an open-mind when you were listening. There is good and bad music even in atonal music. Berg was a master of his craft as far as I concerned. Even though he composed all of his music in a 12-tone style, his music, in my opinion, is the most approachable of the Second Viennese School.

[mc ukrneal]

I already gave you a few pointers as to why I think Schoenberg is in general terms the composer I think of as more important, greater, better, whatever word you want to choose, a few pages ago. But, you see, and this is important, try to pay attention - I am not claiming that Mendelssohn is a bad composer, as you are claiming of Schoenberg, so I'm not going to root about in his scores looking for 'bad' stuff that isn't there. Much more fun looking for the good stuff in Schoenberg!

My reasons for rating Schoenberg more highly in my mind are to do with his attitude to composition as much as anything, his lack of timidity compared to Mendelssohn. I'm not talking about his innovations or anything like that, because innovation does not necessarily mean greatness, and I don't think anyone is saying it does, either. I'm talking sheerly about his compositional stance - it made him a composer unafraid to use his incomparable technique to dazzling ends. In that Mendelssohn Symphony you posted earlier you have a perfectly acceptable, skillful piece which plays by the rules. I forgot it the moment I turned it off (not true of all Mendelssohn, for me, but true of much). In Schoenberg's first symphonic piece (his op 9 Chamber Symphony) you have the most exuberant counterpoint imaginable, instrumental virtuosity of a type uncalled for before, a wholly audible and stunningly new formal scheme, articulated through the spectacular use of harmonic types  (fourths, augmented chords/whole tone music) as formal elements and markers, memorable moments from start to finish (after two listens I could reply the whole piece in my head when I first got to know it years ago) ...and it still pays by the rules too. That, that compositional wizardry, which dazzles and delights me every time I listen to it, is why I rate Schoenberg so highly. Not because he was a 'leader in atonal music' or whatever you and Teresa think is the line of reasoning over here. No, just because he was a supremely talented composer whose music has balls!

Reading this discussion is like reading a ping pong tournament played across several tables as the ball gets tossed around from subject to subject (loved the apple and orange analogy by the way).

It is actually quite easy to show how Schoenberg and Mendelssohn could be 'greater' than each other (if one was so inclined to do so, and why I cannot make a choice): 
1. Mendelssohn was clearly the better melodist (I think this is pretty hard to argue with - Shoenberg is not known for beautiful melodies the way the 'old masters' are). Atonal music does not lend itself to good 'tunes/melodies/etc'. However, this element is subjective.
2. Schoenberg is clearly the more revolutionary with a tremendous impact on his time (and far after). This is a pretty objective element.

All the other stuff, it seems to me, is just noise around the above two issues (at least the way it is being discussed here).

Regarding Luke's description of Schoenberg, I just couldn't stay out of it anymore. While you are right about his lack of timidity, the last thing that comes to mind (for me) with Schoenberg is wizardry, exhuberence, dazzling, delights, etc.  Of course, we all know that Schoenberg was one of the most polarizing fgures in music, and we probably will never agree about him, but I would alter your last sentence to be: He was a supremely talented composer whose horrible music had balls. But I'm just quibbling... 

[Elgarian]

loved the apple and orange analogy by the way.

Delighted, thanks. But I'm not sleeping at all well, and until this fruit issue is resolved once and for all, I don't hold out much hope for improvement. There are people, you know, who say that the orange (along with all its citrus stablemates) is not a proper fruit at all, but just a kind of failed apple. This, in spite of the fact that the orange (together with the lemon) inspired one of the most successful fruit-based songs of all time. It's enough to give anyone the pip.

[petrarch]

First try listening to the dozen or so YouTubes of the godawful noise posted in this thread that Schoenberg passed off as music.  Then try reading the musical scores and see how offensive the placement of every musical note is.  It is his so-called music that FIRMLY qualifies him as a bad composer!

Oh the brilliance and the craft of this unassailable logical argument!

IMHO Schoenberg's music and that of the other members of the Second Viennese School Berg and Webern is an illegitimate farce, and his 12 tone system is a scam.  I personally have written a 12 tone row as it was an exercise in composition class.  There was unanimous agreement among the students that serial and severe atonal music was a total waste of time!

Poor, poor things. You must get really distraught when you look at a painting and don't see a sky that is blue, grass that is green and a sun that is yellow.

In truth I care a lot more for Webern than Schoenberg, and I absolutely prefer the "Darmstadt School" to the 2nd Viennese School. But I can see how that would make your head explode.

[karlhenning]

I'm not sure why you guys continue to even argue with Saul. I'm basically done with that, because 1. he doesn't offer any serious opinions, 2. he doesn't bother explaining why he feels the way he does, 3. he believes that his opinion is the only one and anybody who likes somebody he doesn't (i. e. Stravinsky, Schoenberg) is somehow wrong when the reality is he's masking some deep, inferiority towards people who have more of an open-mind than he does.

QFT

[karlhenning]

. . . The sad fact is Intellectuals everywhere fell for [Schoenberg's] scam.  He was a clever, clever man but in no way shape or form a REAL classical composer.

This is sharply ironic, coming from someone who is insisting that she is a REAL writer, isn't it?

Just given that bit of background, how much confidence would you say, Teresa, any of us has in your assessment of whether anyone is a REAL composer?

[karlhenning]

It was Stravinsky who didn't like Beethoven.

Stravinsky's attitude changed in later life, and Beethoven became one of the composers he most revered.

And I see that Teresa, no more than Saul, has not gained any insight from Mike's earlier point:

I don't really know where this is getting us. It was agreed some while back that lots of highly thought of composers detested the music of other equally fine composers.

Writers, poets, painters, a few were generous, a lot will stick the boot in at any opportunity. You have to sift genuine critique from jealousy, insecurity, dislike etc. Even when you have done that sifting, it would still be a matter of treating with caution the remaining comment.

Mike

[karlhenning]

Delighted, thanks. But I'm not sleeping at all well, and until this fruit issue is resolved once and for all, I don't hold out much hope for improvement. There are people, you know, who say that the orange (along with all its citrus stablemates) is not a proper fruit at all, but just a kind of failed apple. This, in spite of the fact that the orange (together with the lemon) inspired one of the most successful fruit-based songs of all time. It's enough to give anyone the pip.

The world won't be safe for fruiterers until there is developed a navel apple.

[mc ukrneal]

The world won't be safe for fruiterers until there is developed a navel apple.

Or how about a Golden Orange!?! There's a head scratcher!

[Elgarian]

The Cox's Orange Pippin is an apple with an identity crisis. It beats me how anyone can take such fruit seriously at all, let alone attempt to put it in some kind of fruitological ranking order.

[Teresa]

Karl all I can do is expose Schoenberg's scam, it is up to you whither or not you can see what a clever con-man he was.  I am very sorry I cannot do that for you. 

All I am saying is I am glad his anti-musical influence is DISAPPEARING from the classical music world as most new compositions are basically tonal, many are quite beautiful and wonderful, such as the examples I gave previously in this thread.  In short music is getting back on track and in time Schoenberg's corrupting influence will be totally gone from the musical scene.  Thank goodness! 

[Teresa]

Karl another veiled comment on my ADMITTED poor spelling and poor grammar skills which I freely admitted to.  No where do I advise throwing out the dictionary or rules of grammar.  I just said I actively use spell check, and grammar check and depend on editors to catch bad grammatical errors.

If Schoenberg wrote music you KNOW he would throw out both the dictionary and the rules of grammar.  And likely write something like this.

"eiwrgp hewrpgo fasghrupgj ovasdfl; nsdbafna;sibhdeurfheurfbhIK FJIO JAIji fgiasdo gjfirj JM IQAJIOR ioj IJ fiop jioaj fieor riogj iofgndfnjsda 8ier hIJ jiermrg0 it69560u4mvfkzl vbidf"

He would claim it is new and different, a new literature, for a new age.  His music is just the same.  A scam is a scam.   

[(poco) Sforzando]

First try listening to the dozen or so YouTubes of the godawful noise posted in this thread that Schoenberg passed off as music.  Then try reading the musical scores and see how offensive the placement of every musical note is.  It is his so-called music that FIRMLY qualifies him as a bad composer!

But only of course in your opinion. And since your operating premise is that greatness is only a matter of personal opinion, those who consider Schoenberg great are every bit as much in the right as you are.

I admit that when we're talking about Michael Daugherty all bets are off. . . .

[Teresa]

But only of course in your opinion. And since your operating premise is that greatness is only a matter of personal opinion, those who consider Schoenberg great are every bit as much in the right as you are.

I admit that when we're talking about Michael Daugherty all bets are off. . . .

If you actually listened to all the YouTubes and STILL believe Schoenberg is great I FULLY support your opinion and back you up 100%. 

However that does not change my opinion of Schoenberg's composition skills, the resulting non-music nor my view of him as a scam artist that KNEW he was fleecing intellectuals.  It is all personal opinion and personal perceptions of reality after all and as I have always said that differs from person to person.

Did you listen to the Michael Daugherty clip?

http://www.youtube.com/v/cBkkhaUVD3U
   

[(poco) Sforzando]

Did you listen to the Michael Daugherty clip?

Yes, as much of it as I could stomach.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Regarding Luke's description of Schoenberg, I just couldn't stay out of it anymore. While you are right about his lack of timidity, the last thing that comes to mind (for me) with Schoenberg is wizardry, exuberance [corrected spelling], dazzling, delights, etc.

The "wizardry, exuberance, dazzling, delights" descriptors are imminently plausible and in reality are part and parcel to Schoenberg's aesthetic. 

Of course, we all know that Schoenberg was one of the most polarizing fgures in music, and we probably will never agree about him, but I would alter your last sentence to be: He was a supremely talented composer whose horrible music had balls. But I'm just quibbling... 

What is this supposed to mean? Hoooo-rah!! for Schoenberg yet his music doesn't amount to squat? Last I checked composers with nil to offer anyone tended to fall right off the musical radar and end up completely forgotten.

Yet, if you look around, a half-century later Schoenberg is still with us. Alive and kicking. 

So I'm going with posterity on this one.

[Saul]

I have one major reason why Mendelssohn was greater then Schoenberg,  I will say it, even though I didn't want to give my reason because I already stated a couple of times that this discussion is not worthy , simply because the grandeur and superiority of Mendelssohn over Schoenberg is so awesome and evident in every conceivable way, that giving an explanation and a reason why, is playing into the hands of those who want to use their 'intellectuality' to disrupt reality and make us believe things that are just not true.

Well to the reason then:

Mendelssohn is greater then Schoenberg because he didn't compose music to a select few, minority professional music listeners who would evaluate every single aspect of his music under a microscope.
Even though he had nothing to fear, because he was probably the most technically competent composer ever, still that wasn't his ultimate aim.

Mendelssohn wrote music for the people. His music can be experienced and enjoyed instantly by a child, a teen, and an adult simultaneously. Even though the enjoyment will vary, still the music will enter the soul of all these people and would generate enjoyment, for after all there is no greater value to music then enjoyment, for this its core characteristic.

Schoenberg on the other hand, infused a degree of 'intellectuality' in his music, that demands  previous exposure to music, and a professional ear, to really grasp what he is doing with his music. This music therefore effected not the Masses of the people, but only a select few. This kind of music that is limited to such an elite audience, lacks within it something that is completely contrary to what music is, and that is enjoyment.

Music must be for all people, instantly, experienced widely, and spoken to everyone on their respected level.

To demonstrate this I will take Beethoven's Fur Elise piano piece. This music is so simple, and beautiful, and so open, that a child will understand it on their own level and an adult on their own level too, and they will both connect to it differently, but positively and instantly, they will enjoy it right then and there as soon as the first sounds hit their ears.

I believe that Mendelssohn by sticking to the traditions of the greats, achieved this universality and openness that the Greats before hand achieved.  His Melodies are memorable, one can go with them and take them where ever he or she may be, and sing them and constantly remind themselves of them, keep the music in their hearts and souls for days, cause the music of the Greats with Mendelssohn included was easily absorbed by the human heart and soul.

I believe, that this most essential and pivotal element is missing from Modern composers, where they channel what they want in very blurry and indirect manner, and as a result, the encompassing effect of the music is missing from the wider universal audience, but is only understood by the experienced professional ear. And this to me, is a great flaw in composing music.

When all the smoke of arguments is clear, the bottom line is that music is enjoyment, and if the music is not written in a way that will give enjoyment to as many people as possible, then the music itself becomes significantly lower in quality compared to real beautiful music that is experienced and understood and enjoyed by the vast majority of the listeners of every background,  and of every level of music understanding.

Best,

Saul