Schoenberg's Sheen

[Mirror Image]

There are at least 500 CDs of Schoenberg's music in the catalog. There are multiple recordings of all of his major works by reputable conductors, performers and ensembles. Do we really have to start the "Schoenberg is the whipping boy" discussion again? His works are widely known and available, he is just as popular as he should be.

But how much of his oeuvre is enjoyed outside of a niche group of listeners? Why hasn't Schoenberg's music been given privilege in the concert hall as much as Beethoven or Mozart? This is what I'd really like to know. The comment regarding recordings has nothing to do with determining how popular a composer is. I think Karl's post about Schoenberg still being considered a 'whipping boy' is spot-on and the lack of popularity in terms of concert performances and general public opinion is certainly a testament to this fact.

[Mahlerian]

There are at least 500 CDs of Schoenberg's music in the catalog. There are multiple recordings of all of his major works by reputable conductors, performers and ensembles. Do we really have to start the "Schoenberg is the whipping boy" discussion again? His works are widely known and available, he is just as popular as he should be.

And in spite of all that, the idea that Schoenberg wrote tuneless and unemotional music persists, as does the idea that he somehow destroyed the Western musical tradition.  These things alone attest to the fact that his works are not particularly widely known, much less understood.  I think that his music has the potential to be more popular than it is.

[Baron Scarpia]

The "lack of popularity" of Schoenberg's music reflects the fact that, statistically, less people like it. Material which requires less attention and study is typically more popular, just as The Da Vinci Code is more popular than Ulysses.

[Mahlerian]

The "lack of popularity" of Schoenberg's music reflects the fact that, statistically, less people like it. Material which requires less attention and study is typically more popular, just as The Da Vinci Code is more popular than Ulysses.

Unfamiliarity of the language aside, getting Schoenberg's music is not any more difficult than getting Mahler's symphonies (I mean really getting them) or Bartok's Quartets or, heck, much of late Beethoven.  The difference is that people are willing to put in the effort with the others because of their reputation for being difficult but rewarding.  Schoenberg retains a reputation of having written intellectual nonsense.  Why would one bother to listen until one understands the music if there's no prospect of a reward?

[Baron Scarpia]

And in spite of all that, the idea that Schoenberg wrote tuneless and unemotional music persists, as does the idea that he somehow destroyed the Western musical tradition.  These things alone attest to the fact that his works are not particularly widely known, much less understood.  I think that his music has the potential to be more popular than it is.

Now you want to control what ideas about Schoenberg's music can be expressed? Maybe you should consider the possibility that some of the ideas people have about Schoenberg's music actually have something to do with Schoenberg's music.

The bottom line is Schoenberg's music is complex. A person who is not interested in investing intellectual energy in Schoenberg's music will not be attracted to it. On the other hand, you can put on Eine Kleine Nachtmusic and , da.. da da... da da da da da da... It is catchy.

[Baron Scarpia]

Unfamiliarity of the language aside, getting Schoenberg's music is not any more difficult than getting Mahler's symphonies (I mean really getting them) or Bartok's Quartets or, heck, much of late Beethoven.

And why do you put the language aside? You can listen to Mahler and be attracted to the tunes without trying to grasp the overblown structure and morose obsession with death that it is attached to. And I don't think that Bartok's quartets or late Beethoven are any more popular that Schoenberg.

[Karl Henning]

There are at least 500 CDs of Schoenberg's music in the catalog. There are multiple recordings of all of his major works by reputable conductors, performers and ensembles. Do we really have to start the "Schoenberg is the whipping boy" discussion again?

Thank Robert R. Reilly, who as recently as 2016 is enraged that Schoenberg has destroyed all that is beautiful in art.

Schoenberg unleashed the forces of disintegration in music through his denial of tonality.

Oh, and that's just him getting started . . . so I must decline the honor of being designated the one to "start it again."  We still have dinosaurs holding high the Cross of Tonality, and execrating Schoenberg for being the one to crucify the Sacred in Music.

[Karl Henning]

The "lack of popularity" of Schoenberg's music reflects the fact that, statistically, less people like it. Material which requires less attention and study is typically more popular, just as The Da Vinci Code is more popular than Ulysses.

It also reflects (per Reilly, e.g.) reactionary activism that just won't quit.

[Mahlerian]

And why do you put the language aside? You can listen to Mahler and be attracted to the tunes without trying to grasp the overblown structure and morose obsession with death that it is attached to.

I don't think Mahler's music is overblown (his music is structurally ingenious, and not filled with superfluous elements) or especially death-obsessed.  He was quite an optimist, pace Adorno.

And how is something like Mahler's Fifth more tuneful than Schoenberg's Violin Concerto?  All I hear in either is lots of memorable melodies and intricate motivic structures.  You don't need to grasp the structure of Schoenberg's Violin Concerto (which is simpler in that regard than most Mahler Symphonies anyway) in order to enjoy its kaleidoscope of moods and colors.

And I don't think that Bartok's quartets or late Beethoven are any more popular that Schoenberg.

From the view of the average listener, you may be right.  Still, Schoenberg's music is treated as separate even from such "difficult" classics as those, or Mahler's works.

Now you want to control what ideas about Schoenberg's music can be expressed? Maybe you should consider the possibility that some of the ideas people have about Schoenberg's music actually have something to do with Schoenberg's music.

I have no such wish, nor did I express one.

Of course the ideas have something to do with Schoenberg's music, just as the idea that the Earth is flat is related to the shape of our planet.

[Baron Scarpia]

It also reflects (per Reilly, e.g.) reactionary activism that just won't quit.

And who the hell is Robert R. Reilly?

We still have dinosaurs holding high the Cross of Tonality, and execrating Schoenberg for being the one to crucify the Sacred in Music.

Sounds like free publicity for Schoenberg. Anyone who pays any attention to that sort of rhetoric isn't going to go for Schoenberg anyway. To be attracted to Schoenberg you have to have a hankering for some weird shit.

[Karl Henning]

Right.  People can simply sit unaware of late Beethoven, and think amiably of him as Schroeder's hero.

But Schoenberg is still the scapegoat for All That Is Wrong in Music Today:

Without tonality, music loses harmony and melody.  Its structural force collapses.  Gutting music of tonality, as Schoenberg did, is like removing grapes from wine.  You can go through all the motions of making wine without grapes, but there will be wine at the end of the process.

Neither of the musical statements ("Without tonality, music loses harmony and melody."  "Its structural force collapses.") is true.  And the simile is pure emotional outreach.

The only thing that is true in that citation, is the author's implacable resentment of Schoenberg.

[ritter]

Thank Robert R. Reilly, who as recently as 2016 is enraged that Schoenberg has destroyed all that is beautiful in art.
...

...und Roger Scruton ist auch dabei...

[Karl Henning]

And who the hell is Robert R. Reilly?

Author of Surprised by Beauty:  A Listener's Guide to the Recovery of Modern Music.  (Well, clearly it needs to be recovered from Schoenberg!)

Sounds like free publicity for Schoenberg. Anyone who pays any attention to that sort of rhetoric isn't going to go for Schoenberg anyway.

Viz. free publicity, not really;  it is the introductory chapter (entitled "Is Music Sacred?" — no, but really) in a book dedicated to safe-as-milk 20^th-c. music.  Viz. rhetoric, you certainly have a point.

[Baron Scarpia]

Right.  People can simply sit unaware of late Beethoven, and think amiably of him as Schroeder's hero.

But Schoenberg is still the scapegoat for All That Is Wrong in Music Today:

Neither of the musical statements ("Without tonality, music loses harmony and melody."  "Its structural force collapses.") is true.  And the simile is pure emotional outreach.

The only thing that is true in that citation, is the author's implacable resentment of Schoenberg.

Sure, that bit about the Wine is nonsense, but I repeat, who the hell is Robert Reilly, and why do you think he has any control over what people listen to? You think it should be forbidden to make nonsensical statements about Schoenberg. You will find lunatics that say the same about artist, that Beethoven destroyed classical music, that the Bee Gees destroyed rock music, that Bob Dylan destroyed folk music by buying an electric guitar, etc. Free advertising.

[Mahlerian]

Sounds like free publicity for Schoenberg. Anyone who pays any attention to that sort of rhetoric isn't going to go for Schoenberg anyway. To be attracted to Schoenberg you have to have a hankering for some weird shit.

Or, like me, you are attracted to it for the same reasons as Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, and Mahler are attractive.  If you're looking to get weirded out by strange sounds, Schoenberg's music is probably not the place to go.  I look to it for expression, counterpoint, melody, and harmony that bring the Austro-Germanic tradition of motivic development and structural innovation into a new idiom.

[Karl Henning]

Sure, that bit about the Wine is nonsense, but I repeat, who the hell is Robert Reilly, and why do you think he has any control over what people listen to?

I think no such thing.

You think it should be forbidden to make nonsensical statements about Schoenberg.

Why do you think so?

Not sure I should trouble to say what I think, since I am being told, and have not been asked 

[Mirror Image]

*Munches popcorn*

[Baron Scarpia]

The bottom line for me is I don't think silly rhetoric like those quotes from that Reilly guy has any bearing on Schoenberg's popularity. In the scheme of things in classical music, Schoenberg is relatively popular, more popular than most of the composers working in his day. And I think his popularity, such as it is, is mainly determined by how people react when they hear his music. His music is different from what came before and I hear it from both sides - that he is defamed by cretins who condemn his music as noise, and that he is pushed by music school elitists who despise the beauty of "tonal" music. I find both narratives equally unconvincing.

[Mirror Image]

The bottom line for me is I don't think silly rhetoric like those quotes from that Reilly guy has any bearing on Schoenberg's popularity. In the scheme of things in classical music, Schoenberg is relatively popular, more popular than most of the composers working in his day. And I think his popularity, such as it is, is mainly determined by how people react when they hear his music. His music is different from what came before and I hear it from both sides - he is defamed by cretins who condemn his music as noise, and he is pushed by music school elitists who despise the beauty of "tonal" music. I find both narratives equally unconvincing.

But how much of Schoenberg's popularity rests solely on his notoriety as a composer of 'decadent' music and not for those who actually like the music?

[Baron Scarpia]

But how much of Schoenberg's popularity rests solely on his notoriety as a composer of 'decadent' music and not for those who actually like the music?

I define popularity as the extent to which people listen to his music. It is my impression that Stravinsky's serial (I dare not use the a-word) music is not listened to any more frequency than Schoenberg's, even though Schoenberg supposedly has the horrid stigma attached to his name and Stravinsky does not. The fraction of people who are interested in serial music is smaller than more traditional music, and that is because of the way the music sounds, and not because of rhetoric.