Schoenberg's Sheen

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I believe he oversaw the performance, but didn't actually conduct it as the sextet version doesn't require a conductor.

A friend of mine claims he saw Boulez conduct a string quartet once. So maybe he did, although it's hard to figure out why that would be necessary.

[Mirror Image]

A friend of mine claims he saw Boulez conduct a string quartet once. So maybe he did, although it's hard to figure out why that would be necessary.

That's quite strange indeed as a string quartet is dependent on the body language of each member and visual cues and a conductor really has no place in it IMHO. But since it's a sextet, perhaps Boulez felt the need to make sure all the balances were right? Who knows really...

[Baron Scarpia]

A friend of mine claims he saw Boulez conduct a string quartet once. So maybe he did, although it's hard to figure out why that would be necessary.

I don't know what took place, but the performance was given by the Ensemble Intercontemporian, which is not the same as a string sextet, where a group of musicians form a self-directed group. It is a group with a leader, Pierre Boulez. His name is listed under the name of the ensemble, without specifying his precise role. I assume he rehearsed them and shaped the performance. Whether he found it useful to stand in front of them and "conduct" I do not know.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

BTW I was once privileged to watch Boulez conduct the CSO from the front (in the seats located behind the orchestra). It was fascinating - Boulez didn't use a baton, was absolutely stonefaced throughout, and very economical with his gestures. That's a fun place to sit, because you can observe a wide variety of conductorial styles up close. Boulez was the most restrained conductor I'd ever seen.

[Karl Henning]

A friend of mine claims he saw Boulez conduct a string quartet once. So maybe he did, although it's hard to figure out why that would be necessary.

I could see quartets written in so gnarly a way, that a discreet referee would be value added.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Depending on the way a string quartet is composed it may require a conductor. I am thinking of maybe a very dense modern score where the approach to writing for the quartet is more orchestral in its textural layering and complexity than chamber.

https://www.youtube.com/v/cxtxL1w8D5Q

[Baron Scarpia]

That said, for all of its harmonic and thematic complexity, Verklarte Nacht doesn't strike me as so rhythmically complex that cues from a conductor would be necessary. But Boulez might have wanted to participate in shaping the performance, nevertheless. I haven't come across of a Boulez directed live performance of the sextet version, so we can only speculate.

[Karl Henning]

That said, for all of its harmonic and thematic complexity, Verklarte Nacht doesn't strike me as so rhythmically complex that cues from a conductor would be necessary.

Fully agreed.

[Ainsi la nuit]

Jotting down a few thoughts about Schoenberg, inspired by my (as we speak) listening of his magnificent Moses und Aron:

I came to know about Schoenberg in the same way as most young musicians/music lovers do - his music is difficult and scary, it sent music down to a path of destruction; or alternatively, it was treated as an academically impressive but musically sterile land. Neither way felt inviting, so I decided to stay well away. Not a wise decision, but maybe I needed to let myself discover it on my own terms, instead of having others tell me how to feel about this or that.

Anyhow, I ended up hearing two pieces live in two separate concerts: the Verklärte Nacht, Op. 4 and the Begleitmusik zu einer Lichtspielszene, Op. 34. In both cases I had a tremendously negative attitude even before the concert, but luckily I was convinced to give the music a chance - by my mom in the case of the sextet, as she really loved it even though she had absolutely no knowledge on musical modernism; and by my piano teacher in the case of the Begleitmusik as she was not interested at all in seeing one of her students approach a piece of music while being filled with such a silly prejudice. On that note, I'm only now realizing what a wonderful influence that woman had on me; as I've been going through my scores from my earlier piano student days, I've discovered a lot of music by composers like Bartók and Shostakovich. She really wanted to make me embrace the 20th century, and for that I am forever grateful!

I can't say the live experiences made me fall in love with Schoenberg's music immediately, but one thing was sure: the music was in no way as scary as I had thought based on comments I had seen online. So the game was set - I'd have to listen to more of his work at some point.

I think the biggest bomb went off when I first heard the Piano Concerto, Op. 42. It was an unbelievably powerful experience, I hadn't heard such expressive strength in a concerto in ages. It really felt like a breath of fresh air; air that I had needed without really realizing it. The Uchida/Boulez/Cleveland Orchestra recording on Decca, rightfully treated as a classic, played a really big part in my process of learning to appreciate the piece. That brings me to one of my main thoughts about Schoenberg: more so than in many other composers' work, his music requires absolutely perfect performances - and I don't mean perfect in a technical sense, even though that's of course required too, but rather perfect as in a courage to play the music expressively and with a beating heart; the music it not abstract, but filled with infinite expressive potential that is open for so much interpretation. A very good example is the Violin Concerto, Op. 36, a piece that Hilary Hahn really managed to bring alive in a way that made me hear it as one the crowning achievements of the genre it truly is.

The piano music interested me a lot too, since I'm an amateur pianist and enjoy getting my hands dirty even with scores that are beyond my abilities. The Op. 11 pieces sent a lightning bolt through me - I mean, what else could the opening of the third piece do to anyone, or the emotional climax of the second piece? Something similar, though in a different way, happened with the Op. 19 pieces. There was something so wonderfully curious about them, a whisper from a distant place that I couldn't quite reach. The opening harmonies of the last piece in the set still get stuck into my head, even after years of acquaintance. The Op. 25 suite is an amazing piece, filled with so many beautiful and playful moments that I find it impossible to understand why so many people think that Schoenberg's musical language is dry or academic.

Hearing the vocal works was another huge eye-opener. The operatic works are some of the most important works to me in the genre, especially Erwartung and Moses und Aron. I really wish Von heute auf morgen was recorded more often, since I haven't been able to find a performance that I'd really enjoy from an interpretative point of view. Pierrot lunaire is without a doubt one of the musical monuments of the century. I don't think I will ever get bored of it; every performance I hear brings out something new and interesting that I haven't noticed before! Gurrelieder and Die Jakobsleiter are both works that I'm always happy to listen to. A Survivor from Warsaw is one of the most disturbing pieces I've ever heard - I love it, but hesitate to listen to it too often, it's too painful. I'm eagerly waiting for some live performances in my current city - I think I'd have to attend every performance of Moses und Aron if it was ever taken up by our national opera!

The chamber works are of course some of the most important in Schoenberg's oeuvre - how could anyone talk about 20th century music without mentioning the string quartets? The Fantasy for violin and piano is one of my personal favourites. The Serenade, Op. 24 and the Suite, Op. 29 are both works that I admire. The String Trio is a curious case, as I've grown to love it very much but it is, for me, probably the single most incomprehensible work by the composer; seriously, it took me many listens to even start grasping it. No idea why, since Schoenberg's musical language only seldom causes me any confusion. What do others think? Has the work been problematic for anyone else?

Schoenberg is without a doubt one of the most important musical figures for me personally. His music touches me both emotionally and intellectually, if one can even say that such a division exists. There's vitality, beauty and compositional virtuosity in pretty much everything he wrote. It never feels superficial; I always feel like here is a composer who is honest about what he's trying to say. Anyone wanting to explore his music has such a stunning variety of works at their disposal, there's something for every taste. What else could you ask for? He remains a controversial figure, but I think anyone with a little patience can easily realize, upon closer inspection, that his music is very much rooted in tradition and his experiments are not at all difficult to understand. People ridicule Schoenberg for hoping that his tunes would one day be whistled by the regular people, but I'm very much part of the regular people (whatever that means) and my head is constantly filled with Schoenbergian melodies. Go figure.

This post became perhaps a bit too long to be very interesting, so as a little lightweight coda I'll list my (current) top 5 pieces by this wonderful artist:

1. Piano Concerto, Op. 42
2. Moses und Aron
3. Chamber Symphony No. 1, Op. 9
4. Violin Concerto, Op. 36
5. Suite for Piano, Op. 25

[Mahlerian]

Schoenberg is without a doubt one of the most important musical figures for me personally. His music touches me both emotionally and intellectually, if one can even say that such a division exists. There's vitality, beauty and compositional virtuosity in pretty much everything he wrote. It never feels superficial; I always feel like here is a composer who is honest about what he's trying to say. Anyone wanting to explore his music has such a stunning variety of works at their disposal, there's something for every taste. What else could you ask for? He remains a controversial figure, but I think anyone with a little patience can easily realize, upon closer inspection, that his music is very much rooted in tradition and his experiments are not at all difficult to understand. People ridicule Schoenberg for hoping that his tunes would one day be whistled by the regular people, but I'm very much part of the regular people (whatever that means) and my head is constantly filled with Schoenbergian melodies. Go figure.

Well said (and that goes for your entire post).

I have to say that my experience was different in that I had never heard of Schoenberg before I heard his music, and I was taken in by it immediately, even though I found it difficult (just as I had Debussy, Mahler, Takemitsu, and others).  It was such vital, passionate, and yes, beautiful music that I simply had to discover more and more of it until I knew it all.

I only later came to discover that people hated Schoenberg and they hated his music for reasons that seemed to me then, and seem to me now, nonsensical.

As a composer, Schoenberg is a primary inspiration, for the inner life which his music conveys, its fullness of humanity.

[Mirror Image]

I only later came to discover that people hated Schoenberg and they hated his music for reasons that seemed to me then, and seem to me now, nonsensical.

Oh brother not this again! It's a fact that that Schoenberg will never be a popular composer as he's a composer that only a niche group of listeners enjoy with any kind of frequency. If it's nonsensical for someone to dislike Schoenberg's music just because they don't like the sound of it and it simply doesn't touch them, then that's not nonsensical at all. What is nonsensical, however, is your constant need to wave your finger at people who don't like his music.

This said, I love Schoenberg and think he's truly one the great composers, but not because of his chosen style(s), but for what he has chosen to express. This, as with anything else I enjoy, is of upmost importance. If someone doesn't like him, I'm certainly okay with it and you should be, too.

[Mirror Image]

Jotting down a few thoughts about Schoenberg, inspired by my (as we speak) listening of his magnificent Moses und Aron:

I came to know about Schoenberg in the same way as most young musicians/music lovers do - his music is difficult and scary, it sent music down to a path of destruction; or alternatively, it was treated as an academically impressive but musically sterile land. Neither way felt inviting, so I decided to stay well away. Not a wise decision, but maybe I needed to let myself discover it on my own terms, instead of having others tell me how to feel about this or that.

Anyhow, I ended up hearing two pieces live in two separate concerts: the Verklärte Nacht, Op. 4 and the Begleitmusik zu einer Lichtspielszene, Op. 34. In both cases I had a tremendously negative attitude even before the concert, but luckily I was convinced to give the music a chance - by my mom in the case of the sextet, as she really loved it even though she had absolutely no knowledge on musical modernism; and by my piano teacher in the case of the Begleitmusik as she was not interested at all in seeing one of her students approach a piece of music while being filled with such a silly prejudice. On that note, I'm only now realizing what a wonderful influence that woman had on me; as I've been going through my scores from my earlier piano student days, I've discovered a lot of music by composers like Bartók and Shostakovich. She really wanted to make me embrace the 20th century, and for that I am forever grateful!

I can't say the live experiences made me fall in love with Schoenberg's music immediately, but one thing was sure: the music was in no way as scary as I had thought based on comments I had seen online. So the game was set - I'd have to listen to more of his work at some point.

I think the biggest bomb went off when I first heard the Piano Concerto, Op. 42. It was an unbelievably powerful experience, I hadn't heard such expressive strength in a concerto in ages. It really felt like a breath of fresh air; air that I had needed without really realizing it. The Uchida/Boulez/Cleveland Orchestra recording on Decca, rightfully treated as a classic, played a really big part in my process of learning to appreciate the piece. That brings me to one of my main thoughts about Schoenberg: more so than in many other composers' work, his music requires absolutely perfect performances - and I don't mean perfect in a technical sense, even though that's of course required too, but rather perfect as in a courage to play the music expressively and with a beating heart; the music it not abstract, but filled with infinite expressive potential that is open for so much interpretation. A very good example is the Violin Concerto, Op. 36, a piece that Hilary Hahn really managed to bring alive in a way that made me hear it as one the crowning achievements of the genre it truly is.

The piano music interested me a lot too, since I'm an amateur pianist and enjoy getting my hands dirty even with scores that are beyond my abilities. The Op. 11 pieces sent a lightning bolt through me - I mean, what else could the opening of the third piece do to anyone, or the emotional climax of the second piece? Something similar, though in a different way, happened with the Op. 19 pieces. There was something so wonderfully curious about them, a whisper from a distant place that I couldn't quite reach. The opening harmonies of the last piece in the set still get stuck into my head, even after years of acquaintance. The Op. 25 suite is an amazing piece, filled with so many beautiful and playful moments that I find it impossible to understand why so many people think that Schoenberg's musical language is dry or academic.

Hearing the vocal works was another huge eye-opener. The operatic works are some of the most important works to me in the genre, especially Erwartung and Moses und Aron. I really wish Von heute auf morgen was recorded more often, since I haven't been able to find a performance that I'd really enjoy from an interpretative point of view. Pierrot lunaire is without a doubt one of the musical monuments of the century. I don't think I will ever get bored of it; every performance I hear brings out something new and interesting that I haven't noticed before! Gurrelieder and Die Jakobsleiter are both works that I'm always happy to listen to. A Survivor from Warsaw is one of the most disturbing pieces I've ever heard - I love it, but hesitate to listen to it too often, it's too painful. I'm eagerly waiting for some live performances in my current city - I think I'd have to attend every performance of Moses und Aron if it was ever taken up by our national opera!

The chamber works are of course some of the most important in Schoenberg's oeuvre - how could anyone talk about 20th century music without mentioning the string quartets? The Fantasy for violin and piano is one of my personal favourites. The Serenade, Op. 24 and the Suite, Op. 29 are both works that I admire. The String Trio is a curious case, as I've grown to love it very much but it is, for me, probably the single most incomprehensible work by the composer; seriously, it took me many listens to even start grasping it. No idea why, since Schoenberg's musical language only seldom causes me any confusion. What do others think? Has the work been problematic for anyone else?

Schoenberg is without a doubt one of the most important musical figures for me personally. His music touches me both emotionally and intellectually, if one can even say that such a division exists. There's vitality, beauty and compositional virtuosity in pretty much everything he wrote. It never feels superficial; I always feel like here is a composer who is honest about what he's trying to say. Anyone wanting to explore his music has such a stunning variety of works at their disposal, there's something for every taste. What else could you ask for? He remains a controversial figure, but I think anyone with a little patience can easily realize, upon closer inspection, that his music is very much rooted in tradition and his experiments are not at all difficult to understand. People ridicule Schoenberg for hoping that his tunes would one day be whistled by the regular people, but I'm very much part of the regular people (whatever that means) and my head is constantly filled with Schoenbergian melodies. Go figure.

This post became perhaps a bit too long to be very interesting, so as a little lightweight coda I'll list my (current) top 5 pieces by this wonderful artist:

1. Piano Concerto, Op. 42
2. Moses und Aron
3. Chamber Symphony No. 1, Op. 9
4. Violin Concerto, Op. 36
5. Suite for Piano, Op. 25

Thank you for this post! It's always a great thing to put beside preconceived notions and prejudices and just listen to the music without any kind of outside influence. My own gateway into The Second Viennese School was Berg's Violin Concerto. It's still a work that affects me deeply whenever I hear it. One of the main reasons I was scared of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern was the negative stigma that surrounded the music. Of course, people have a right to their opinions and I respect them and I respect the fact that this music isn't for them. Anyway, Berg's Violin Concerto awoken something inside of me on that initial listen. It's as if I entered a labyrinth shrouded in shadow. Like an alternate twilight world perhaps. This was my initial impression in any case, but what I took away from this work was that I needn't be scared nor should I ever have been --- this is heartbreaking music written by someone who was a complete master IMHO. By the time I got to Schoenberg, I had most of Berg's oeuvre under my belt. Schoenberg proved to be another revelation. I heard the string orchestra arrangement of Verklärte Nacht performed by Karajan and the Berliners on one of those remastered DG discs that came out many years ago (original-bit-processing or something along this line). I was truly blown away by this music. Also, on this disc was his symphonic poem Pelleas und Melisande and this was another mind-blowing work. It's as if Wagner had lived much, much longer and took in some of innovations of his contemporaries at that time, but, of course, I'm just joking around here as you couldn't have had Schoenberg without the influence of Wagner (and really Brahms, too since we're talking about Arnie). Webern took me quite some time to appreciate, but I think now I'm finally understanding his brilliance. Of course, when I got to mid to late Schoenberg, I was already well-aware of his style and so listening to him was quite easy, but, like with any of my favorite composers, there are always works I don't like simply because they don't touch me or move me in any way.

I will say we're glad to have you here and we hope you continue to post great posts like the one from above.

[Daverz]

Oh brother not this again! It's a fact that that Schoenberg will never be a popular composer as he's a composer that only a niche group of listeners enjoy with any kind of frequency. If it's nonsensical for someone to dislike Schoenberg's music just because they don't like the sound of it and it simply doesn't touch them, then that's not nonsensical at all. What is nonsensical, however, is your constant need to wave your finger at people who don't like his music.

This said, I love Schoenberg and think he's truly one the great composers, but not because of his chosen style(s), but for what he has chosen to express. This, as with anything else I enjoy, is of upmost importance. If someone doesn't like him, I'm certainly okay with it and you should be, too.

I'm gonna have to stick up for finger wagging at Schoenberg haters.  Nine times out of ten, they are reacting to the name and not the music.

[Mirror Image]

I'm gonna have to stick up for finger wagging at Schoenberg haters.  Nine times out of ten, they are reacting to the name and not the music.

But certainly if someone decides to listen to Schoenberg's music on it's own terms and doesn't like the music, will you still wave your finger in their face?

[Daverz]

But certainly if someone decides to listen to Schoenberg's music on it's own terms and doesn't like the music, will you still wave your finger in their face?

The beatings will continue until morale improves!

[Mirror Image]

The beatings will continue until morale improves!

Good luck with that!

[Karl Henning]

Just a lexical quibble, if I may.

It's a fact that that Schoenberg will never be a popular composer as he's a composer that only a niche group of listeners enjoy with any kind of frequency.

This would be better stated:

It's unlikely that Schoenberg will ever be a popular composer as he's a composer that only a niche group of listeners enjoy with any kind of frequency.

It cannot be a fact, that Schoenberg will never be a popular composer;  unless we know the future.  I am sure that I don't.  It is a reasonable speculation, and the subsequent clause is reasonable support for the speculation.


We might chalk it up to rhetorical exaggeration.  I just like to remind myself, from time to time, what is a fact, and what is not.  Given the present political discussion climate, that is a niche concern   

[Ainsi la nuit]

My own gateway into The Second Viennese School was Berg's Violin Concerto. It's still a work that affects me deeply whenever I hear it. --- Anyway, Berg's Violin Concerto awoken something inside of me on that initial listen. It's as if I entered a labyrinth shrouded in shadow. Like an alternate twilight world perhaps.

Berg's violin concerto was an early revelation for me too, and I think we're not alone - it's quite common that people find that piece in particular quite accessible. It's a truly magnificent work, a grand statement in the genre; I don't think it's possible to know it and not be moved by it.

That being said, it makes me a bit sad that the Berg is so well known while Schoenberg's concerto for the same instrument remains a rarity in the concert hall. Both pieces are absolutely stunning - I really couldn't choose between the two - and should be part of every self-respecting violinist's repertoire; and I'm only half-joking here... Schoenberg's writing for the violin is admittedly difficult (I think Hilary Hahn once said that she had to forget most conventional fingerings and come up with totally new ones!) but given how high the general level of playing is these days, I think there's no excuse for the lack of performances the piece has had to endure.

I know for a fact that Isabelle Faust - a wonderful German violinist who has made amazing recordings of the concertos of Bartók and Berg, among others - has been actively playing the piece this season, and we can only hope that both she and her recording label realize the potential of breathing new life into this masterpiece, and recording it with fresh interpretative ideas.

[Cato]

The beatings will continue until morale improves!

I love that joke!    Some would say it describes my teaching style!    (but only some!    )

[Mahlerian]

If it's nonsensical for someone to dislike Schoenberg's music just because they don't like the sound of it and it simply doesn't touch them, then that's not nonsensical at all.

I agree.  But to say that Schoenberg lacks melodies or his music is effectively random notes is as nonsensical applied to him as it would be applied to Bach.  And many people say those things, rather than that it doesn't appeal to them.