What are you listening to now?

[San Antone]

Okay, how about the fact that he enjoyed watching movies, taught several film composers, and even sketched material for a film score which wasn't, ultimately, used?

You can also look at the predominance of works using key signatures in his American period as indicative of a stylistic shift.  This cannot, it is true, be attributed entirely or even mostly to Hollywood, but the theatricality of works such as Ode to Napoleon or A Survivor from Warsaw is a far cry from the semi-ironic imitations of classical forms in the works from the 20s.

None of these, it is true, count as absolute proof that he was influenced by Hollywood.  But proof of influence is notoriously difficult to validate in any case, so such a preponderance of evidence, however circumstantial, does serve to bolster a case.

It is not surprising that Schoenberg made some effort to break into the film music market, many other serious composers also tried that.  He was disappointed at not having been able to get a university professorship and was probably looking at any way to generate income from his music.  But for someone with Schoenberg's discipline and strong ideas about composition it stretches credulity that he would all of a sudden switch gears and become overly influenced in his working methods simply because he was living in the L.A. area.

[Mahlerian]

It is not surprising that Schoenberg made some effort to break into the film music market, many other serious composers also tried that.  He was disappointed at not having been able to get a university professorship and was probably looking at any way to generate income from his music.  But for someone with Schoenberg's discipline and strong ideas about composition it stretches credulity that he would all of a sudden switch gears and become overly influenced in his working methods simply because he was living in the L.A. area.

Only if you assume that his style was incompatible with being influenced by Hollywood.  As Karl pointed out, the potential was already there, especially given how many Hollywood composers were in much the same situation as Schoenberg himself.

Did his works end up sounding "like film music"?  No, of course not.  It ended up being more the opposite, that Schoenberg's style influenced music in film in the 1950s and 60s.  But that doesn't mean that he wasn't influenced by the music he heard around him, in spite of or perhaps even because of his reservations about it.  Compare, for example, Schoenberg's own appropriation of the Neoclassical tendencies of the 20s despite his criticisms of Stravinsky, Krenek, and others (presumably including Les Six).

[Karl Henning]

It is not surprising that Schoenberg made some effort to break into the film music market, many other serious composers also tried that.  He was disappointed at not having been able to get a university professorship and was probably looking at any way to generate income from his music.  But for someone with Schoenberg's discipline and strong ideas about composition it stretches credulity that he would all of a sudden switch gears and become overly influenced in his working methods simply because he was living in the L.A. area.

I think there can be reconcilement between your point that a composer of Schoenberg's discipline and strong musical personality is unlikely to run off his own rails, and Mahlerian's point that Schoenberg was an artist with an active and supple mind, that his ears were open, and that he was in a new environment.

[Florestan]

Cross post from Haydn´s Haus.

https://www.youtube.com/v/TmhkJTrcmqM

Second theme of the Allegro starts at 3:39

https://www.youtube.com/v/s9t-kCzCKMU

Main theme of the Allegro starts at 0:25

Mere coincidence or deliberate quotation? 

[Sergeant Rock]

Mahler Symphony No.10 (Cooke I), Ormandy conducting the Philadelphia




Sarge

[San Antone]

Only if you assume that his style was incompatible with being influenced by Hollywood.  As Karl pointed out, the potential was already there, especially given how many Hollywood composers were in much the same situation as Schoenberg himself.

Did his works end up sounding "like film music"?  No, of course not.  It ended up being more the opposite, that Schoenberg's style influenced music in film in the 1950s and 60s.  But that doesn't mean that he wasn't influenced by the music he heard around him, in spite of or perhaps even because of his reservations about it.  Compare, for example, Schoenberg's own appropriation of the Neoclassical tendencies of the 20s despite his criticisms of Stravinsky, Krenek, and others (presumably including Les Six).

I think you are taking some coincidental things and stringing themn together to support a questionable thesis.  Schoenberg was always interested in using traditional forms and wished to take the sonata, Baroque suite, and string quartet forms into new harmonic territory.  He was severely criticized for this by the Darmstadt composers who argued that new formal architecture was needed for atonal music, hence total serialism.  And they had somewhat of a point since the classic forms were an outgrowth of the major-minor system and the tensions created by manipulating transpositions and key centers.   However, Schoenberg did not think that their historical development vitiated their usefulness since they embodied large formal patterns which could be adapted to 12-tone composition.  And other composers have followed his lead in this regard.

He was always "neoclassical" and did not need to pick it up from Stravinsky.

[NikF]

Back in my Buffalo days, I played in the Sextet with the BNME (Buffalo New Music Ensemble).  That and playing the Prokofiev Overture on Hebrew Themes in the original chamber scoring are treasured chamber music-making memories.

I'll certainly check out the sextet. And despite being on the road to the 8th Symphony of Vaughan Williams I've taken a route via the only recording I have of the Overture on Hebrew Themes (for clarinet, string quartet and piano) to enjoy that lovely way Prokofiev has with folk type themes.

Prokofiev: Overture On Hebrew Themes In C Minor Op.34

[asin]B000EQ5PN2[/asin]

[San Antone]

I think there can be reconcilement between your point that a composer of Schoenberg's discipline and strong musical personality is unlikely to run off his own rails, and Mahlerian's point that Schoenberg was an artist with an active and supple mind, that his ears were open, and that he was in a new environment.

Sure, his ears were open.  But I just think it a stretch to claim he was influenced by Hollywood film music.  His last years were fairly tragic considering how alone he felt after being at the center of musical ferment that was early 20th century Vienna.  Hollywood, and America in general, was a wasteland in comparison.  That I think was more of an influence than movie music.

[Mahlerian]

I think you are taking some coincidental things and stringing themn together to support a questionable thesis.  Schoenberg was always interested in using traditional forms and wished to take the sonata, Baroque suite, and string quartet forms into new harmonic territory.  He was severely criticized for this by the Darmstadt composers who argued that new formal architecture was needed for atonal music, hence total serialism.  And they had somewhat of a point since the classic forms were an outgrowth of the major-minor system and the tensions created by manipulating transpositions and key centers.   However, Schoenberg did not think that their historical development vitiated their usefulness since they embodied large formal patterns which could be adapted to 12-tone composition.  And other composers have followed his lead in this regard.

He was always "neoclassical" and did not need to pick it up from Stravinsky.

There is a significant difference between the very free forms of the early and middle periods and the stricter forms of the early 12-tone works.  While pieces like the Chamber Symphony No. 1, the String Quartet No. 1, and even the Five Orchestral Pieces can be fitted into the molds of sonata form and other traditional models, they are built primarily upon a free fantasia of ideas which overflows the traditional boundaries.  This tendency is taken to its limits with those works like Erwartung, Herzgewaechse, and the Six Little Pieces for piano which are structured completely intuitively, without overt references to traditional forms.

With the works of the 1920s, the free fantasia remains, but it is fitted into a strict mold.  So the theme and variations becomes a strict theme and variations in Opp. 24 and 31, the song without words is homophonic throughout in Op. 24, and the sly nods to Baroque dances in Op. 25 are in strict binary form.  With the American works, the form becomes freer once again.

Read what I said more closely; I did not say that he picked up Neoclassicism from Stravinsky, I said that he responded to the tendencies which were current in the artistic world of that time, regardless of his skepticism of some of them.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

#morninglistening to @JRhodesPianist in #Bach'n'more, truly a mix tape of Bach-flavored fa... http://ift.tt/2eE3xVg

[Harry]

This music means alot to me. To me its a perfect expression of emotions and very near to my heart.

http://walboi.blogspot.nl/2016/10/goetz-hermann-1840-1876-complete-piano.html?spref=tw

[San Antone]

There is a significant difference between the very free forms of the early and middle periods and the stricter forms of the early 12-tone works.  While pieces like the Chamber Symphony No. 1, the String Quartet No. 1, and even the Five Orchestral Pieces can be fitted into the molds of sonata form and other traditional models, they are built primarily upon a free fantasia of ideas which overflows the traditional boundaries.  With the works of the 1920s, the free fantasia remains, but it is fitted into a strict mold.  So the theme and variations becomes a strict theme and variations in Opp. 24 and 31, the song without words is homophonic throughout in Op. 24, and the sly nods to Baroque dances in Op. 25 are in strict binary form.  With the American works, the form becomes freer once again.

Read what I said more closely; I did not say that he picked up Neoclassicism from Stravinsky, I said that he responded to the tendencies which were current in the artistic world of that time, regardless of his skepticism of some of them.

I think we can agree that Schoenberg was not an island unto himself.   Most composers go through periods of experimentation with formal aspects of composing and attempting various solutions to large form problems.  The fact that Schoenberg displays this in how he handled traditional forms is not unusual or proof of anything.

I also don't think Schoenberg was any more susceptible to being influenced by the music around him than any other composer, and in many ways he was arguably somewhat more immune from the work of others since he had developed such a strong sense of how he wanted to compose from very early on.

[Mahlerian]

I think we can agree that Schoenberg was not an island unto himself.   Most composers go through periods of experimentation with formal aspects of composing and attempting various solutions to large form problems.  The fact that Schoenberg displays this in how he handled traditional forms is not unusual or proof of anything.

Yes, actually, a wholesale revision of one's approach to form is unusual and marks off a stylistic shift.  Your argument that he wasn't influenced by the currents around him just because you don't think he was is far weaker than suggesting that the shift being in tandem with similar shifts everywhere else was not a coincidence.

I also don't think Schoenberg was any more susceptible to being influenced by the music around him than any other composer, and in many ways he was arguably somewhat more immune from the work of others since he had developed such a strong sense of how he wanted to compose from very early on.

Once again, your entire argument boils down to saying that you don't believe it's true because you don't believe it's true.  Fine, he was not any more susceptible to influence than others.  That doesn't mean that he was impervious to it.  He was an observer of the musical trends around him, and even as characteristically idiosyncratic a work as Pierrot lunaire was written in response to a commission for just such a setting (although the idea of the chamber ensemble accompaniment was certainly his, as was the weighting of the balance towards the instruments rather than the voice).

[Mister Sharpe]

I believe the answer to Mahlerian and sanantonio's discussion may be found in Schoenberg and Hollywood Modernism by Kenneth H. Marcus (Cambridge Univ. Press); see and hear the author himself:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_u0-3dLsCw

[San Antone]

Yes, actually, a wholesale revision of one's approach to form is unusual and marks off a stylistic shift.  Your argument that he wasn't influenced by the currents around him just because you don't think he was is far weaker than suggesting that the shift being in tandem with similar shifts everywhere else was not a coincidence.

Once again, your entire argument boils down to saying that you don't believe it's true because you don't believe it's true.  Fine, he was not any more susceptible to influence than others.  That doesn't mean that he was impervious to it.  He was an observer of the musical trends around him, and even as characteristically idiosyncratic a work as Pierrot lunaire was written in response to a commission for just such a setting (although the idea of the chamber ensemble accompaniment was certainly his, as was the weighting of the balance towards the instruments rather than the voice).

The reason I believe he was less likely to being overly influenced by other composers (especially Hollywood composers, which is where this conversation began) was because of his personal history as someone who developed an entire method of composition, his history as a teacher, lecturer and author and his being more of a leader than follower.  Of course this does not mean that he did not respond to the requirements of commissions or adopted/adapted current trends to his own purposes.  But from reading your posts, I got the impression you were making the case that Schoenberg was like a weak reed susceptible to any wind.

[San Antone]

I believe the answer to Mahlerian and sanantonio's discussion may be found in Schoenberg and Hollywood Modernism by Kenneth H. Marcus (Cambridge Univ. Press); see and hear the author himself:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_u0-3dLsCw

That book documents Schoenberg's influence on those around him rather than the opposite.  The fact that he regularly played tennis with George Gershwin does not mean he was influenced by Gershwin's musical activities.

[mc ukrneal]

This music means alot to me. To me its a perfect expression of emotions and very near to my heart.

http://walboi.blogspot.nl/2016/10/goetz-hermann-1840-1876-complete-piano.html?spref=tw

So I have a disc of his supposed 'complete' piano works performed by Adrian Ruiz. I like it and am enthusiastic about the music, but as I compare the sets, the 'complete' in his title really just means published Opus works. Thus I have Op 7, 8 and 13. I am missing all those other little works that make up bout 45 minutes of music on that CPO set. Do you think it's worth picking up just for that? Here is what I have for reference:
[asin]B000005WWN[/asin]

[San Antone]

[Harry]

So I have a disc of his supposed 'complete' piano works performed by Adrian Ruiz. I like it and am enthusiastic about the music, but as I compare the sets, the 'complete' in his title really just means published Opus works. Thus I have Op 7, 8 and 13. I am missing all those other little works that make up bout 45 minutes of music on that CPO set. Do you think it's worth picking up just for that? Here is what I have for reference:
[asin]B000005WWN[/asin]

Yes Neal I think so, for the CPO set is only 9,99€ and the pieces are well worth having.

[Mahlerian]

The reason I believe he was less likely to being overly influenced by other composers (especially Hollywood composers, which is where this conversation began) was because of his personal history as someone who developed an entire method of composition, his history as a teacher, lecturer and author and his being more of a leader than follower.  Of course this does not mean that he did not respond to the requirements of commissions or adopted/adapted current trends to his own purposes.  But from reading your posts, I got the impression you were making the case that Schoenberg was like a weak reed susceptible to any wind.

What?

It would take an absurdly black-and-white view of the nature of inspiration to draw that from my posts.  I said that he was influenced in certain aspects by his new homeland.  You took this somehow to mean that he changed his aesthetic wholesale based on whatever was going on around him?

You even say yourself what I was arguing, that Schoenberg "adopted/adapted current trends to his own purposes."  That's exactly what I was saying.