Are there particular genres certain composers should have just avoided?

[ritter]

G'day, Rafael!
...I shouldn't have taken so much time to write the above

G'day, Karlo! Mine was the short answer, yours is the well argued one. 

[Florestan]

Well, if Stravinsky hadn't told Ravel about working on Trois poésies de la lyrique japonaise after having heard Pierrot lunaire, we wouldn't have Trois poèmes de Stéphane Mallarmé, all three works sharing the same scoring.

We would never know what if Stravinsky hadn´t, would we? Arguing by counterfactual hypotheses is not the strongest form of arguing. 

Allow me to remind you that before Pierrot Lunaire was composed, Gabriel Faure arranged La bonne chanson op. 61, originally written for tenor and piano, for tenor, piano and string quintet and that Ernest Chausson´s La chanson perpetuelle op. 37 was written in 1898 for soprano, piano and string quartet. Whether Ravel was familiar with them is of course a matter of speculation.

Now, don´t get me wrong: Schoenberg was hugely influential on a great many 20-th century composers, but to stretch this obvious fact to claiming that each and every composer in the 20-th century was influenced by Schoenberg is to go a little too far.

[BasilValentine]

...Never mind.  You won't listen to any evidence I present, clearly, because you've made up your mind.

Simply because you personally can't hear any influence doesn't trump the perception of influence elsewhere, especially when it's been stated by the composer himself.

Funny you citing argument from ignorance in this context! You made a claim about an overwhelming debt Prokofiev and Shostakovich owed to Schoenberg, to the effect that the best of their work would not have existed without him. Then you admitted being mistaken about Prokofiev.  You said the strongest evidence for Schoenberg's influence on Shostakovich was a statement made by Shostakovich himself. It turned out that he didn't say what you claimed. So you had no basis for Prokofiev and your strongest evidence for Shostakovich evaporated. You didn't cite a single example of a work by either composer — and remember, you set the standard as their best work, so the two obscure pieces you mentioned don't count — that supports your apparently ignorant assertion. Having nothing left you have now, finally, resorted to ad hominem characterizations of ignorance and lack of imagination — on my part!

What I wonder is: Given that Schoenberg was an enormously influential composer whose influence one could have demonstrated by citing countless other composers, why you chose the examples you did.

[North Star]

Strange assertion. Which of Shostakovich's best works have a debt Schoenberg and what is the nature of the debt?

SQ's no. 12 op. 133 & no. 13 op. 138, Symphony no. 14 op. 135, and Sonata for violin and piano, op. 134 all made use of twelve-tone techniques.

http://www.quartets.de/compositions/ssq12.html

[Mirror Image]

I think to downright deny Schoenberg's impact on the 20th Century is to show a greater ignorance that even a simpleton like me doesn't even understand.

[Mahlerian]

We would never know what if Stravinsky hadn´t, would we? Arguing by counterfactual hypotheses is not the strongest form of arguing. 

Allow me to remind you that before Pierrot Lunaire was composed, Gabriel Faure arranged La bonne chanson op. 61, originally written for tenor and piano, for tenor, piano and string quintet and that Ernest Chausson´s La chanson perpetuelle op. 37 was written in 1898 for soprano, piano and string quartet. Whether Ravel was familiar with them is of course a matter of speculation.

Now, don´t get me wrong: Schoenberg was hugely influential on a great many 20-th century composers, but to stretch this obvious fact to claiming that each and every composer in the 20-th century was influenced by Schoenberg is to go a little too far.

In the case of Ravel, once again we have the composer's own words:

"In fact, the influence of Schoenberg may be overwhelming on his followers, but the significance of his art is to be identified with influences of a more subtle kind—not the system, but the aesthetic, of his art. I am quite conscious of the fact that my Chansons madécasses are in no way Schoenbergian, but I do not know whether I ever should have been able to write them had Schoenberg never written." - Maurice Ravel

[jochanaan]

I think to downright deny Schoenberg's impact on the 20th Century is to show a greater ignorance that even a simpleton like me doesn't even understand.

The sense I get from some people's words on this forum is not a denial that Schoenberg happened, but a wish that he had never happened!

[Mirror Image]

The sense I get from some people's words on this forum is not a denial that Schoenberg happened, but a wish that he had never happened!

That's a high probability for sure.

[Florestan]

In the case of Ravel, once again we have the composer's own words:

"In fact, the influence of Schoenberg may be overwhelming on his followers, but the significance of his art is to be identified with influences of a more subtle kind—not the system, but the aesthetic, of his art. I am quite conscious of the fact that my Chansons madécasses are in no way Schoenbergian, but I do not know whether I ever should have been able to write them had Schoenberg never written." - Maurice Ravel

Fair enough.

What do we have in the case of Rachmaninoff and Enescu?

[Mahlerian]

Fair enough.

What do we have in the case of Rachmaninoff and Enescu?

I didn't mean to make any claim for Rachmaninoff or Enescu, who were, as stated earlier, of approximately the same generation as Schoenberg.  Like Debussy, who was also an epochal modern composer, their styles were fully developed before he could have influenced them, either in reaction to or sympathy with him.

[Florestan]

I didn't mean to make any claim for Rachmaninoff or Enescu, who were, as stated earlier, of approximately the same generation as Schoenberg. 

Then you might want to modify what you wrote, namely:

I will say that without the existence of Schoenberg's music, every composer working in the tradition would not have had his music to respond to.  Given that everyone was listening to it, everyone was taking up a position for or against it.

[Mahlerian]

Then you might want to modify what you wrote, namely:

I meant that every composer who followed him in time responded to his work.  Schoenberg's existence could not simply have been ignored by those working in the European tradition, and his influence continues to be strong today.

Obviously, composers like Saint-Saens or Stanford who were still railing against Debussy and Strauss into the 1910s didn't take much notice of Schoenberg, if at all.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Because the High Priest of the Schoenbergian Church never misses an opportunity to preach the one true religion and to scold heretics and atheists. 

What?

[Monsieur Croche]

What the more / most literal of participants (who seem very busy looking for specific citations in words by the composers themselves or for concrete examples in other composers works that would directly show the influence of Schoenberg  -- or more accurately 'his method') will miss here is a very simple truth.... 

The moment something so clear and fresh on the scene is disseminated -- and being airborne it travels quickly through the ether -- at the least, and without any concrete evidence to cite, the aesthetic, as well as more specific harmonic implications, will have anyone who became even a bit aware of it at least reviewing their private thoughts about their own working aesthetic and the music they write. 

Ergo, Schoenberg's music "affected almost every composer living and working at the time."  So did Stravinsky's music. 

It amounts to, within a circle of artists, a pan-global "Stop and Think."

So, if you're looking to write that paper, maybe there won't be very much in the way of concrete evidence (though the true pedant can virtually make something out of almost nothing.)  While if we could go back in time, and test the Ether, as it were....

Well, these things happen from time to time. 

[Monsieur Croche]

The sense I get from some people's words on this forum is not a denial that Schoenberg happened, but a wish that he had never happened!

I'm sure there are many, and at least a few more, who would be happy to stop the clock just prior December 22, 1894, in order that modern music never were....

[Mahlerian]

Having nothing left you have now, finally, resorted to ad hominem characterizations of ignorance and lack of imagination — on my part!

...Yet another abuse of the term "ad hominem" to indicate something other an actual ad hominem.  You may not like me saying it, and you may find it insulting, but neither of those means that characterizing your argument as an argument from ignorance is an ad hominem.  Any argument which depends on the lack of knowledge of any example to the contrary is by definition an argument from ignorance.  An ad hominem is an attempt to distract from the logic of the argument at hand by means of personal criticism.  Criticizing your argument is the exact opposite of an ad hominem attack.

As for not giving specifics, it would have been pointless, as you have shown no interest in my argument or any evidence I could present.  You haven't even shown an awareness that your position regarding Shostakovich is now that his formative musical development cannot be said to have influenced his later work...which is quite an extraordinary claim!

[Gaspard de la nuit]

It's a shame this thread got derailed by the Schoenberg haters. I thought it was a really fun idea.

That said, anyone who listens to Shostakovich's late quartets and thinks Schoenberg had nothing to do with that is just in denial.

You don't have to like Schoenberg's music. But to ignore his influence at this point is absurd.

[Monsieur Croche]

It's a shame this thread got derailed by the Schoenberg haters. I thought it was a really fun idea.

That said, anyone who listens to Shostakovich's late quartets and thinks Schoenberg had nothing to do with that is just in denial.

You don't have to like Schoenberg's music. But to ignore his influence at this point is absurd.

+1 & INDEED.

As far as the general listening public, it probably took no longer for the dust to settle re: Wagner's near total unbuttoning of common practice harmony.  Schoenberg's further unbuttoning of common practice harmony (or at least Arnie's stamp on it, since Debussy had 'been there, done that,' in 1894) seems to take the same historic place... a century later, and some still just hate it ;-)

The thing is, even among the greenest of neophyte / n00bs, about Wagner there is a sense that if he is hated / disliked, there is at lease some accepted opinion/wisdom of these two most salient points when regarding such 'revolutionaries.'
1.) they changed the way most any composer thought about music.
2.) about everyone at least acknowledges they are 'great composers.'

So... taken how long it took for Wagner to reach this prickly balance on a pin of 'horrible to my taste, yet truly great,' it does not seem unreasonable that many of the general public are still going to grind their axes when it comes to Schoenberg. 

IF they would consider the Wagner scenario, they might just realize that it is futile, and spouting a bit more than foolish, to denigrate the composer and the music, and that the informed and more reasonable thing to say, as some still do about Wagner, "I really don't like it, though I know he is a great composer."  (This is even more peculiar considering so many have no problem saying similar about many another great composer or entire era of music of the past.)  Since Schoenberg is also historically quite concretely "of the past," it is that much more puzzling that more people haven't come to the conclusion, 'like it, don't like it, but indisputably a great composer.'

But then, Arnie will be the chosen scapegoat and poster-boy for all that 'went wrong with music back then,' and that ruffles those who more exclusively prefer to wallow in the bathos of the hot tub / cholera-scented candle environment of the romantic and later romantic eras... just sayin'.

[Wanderer]

Talking about axes to grind:

the bathos of the hot tub / cholera-scented candle environment of the romantic and later romantic eras...

The ridiculousness becomes even more delicious, as just a few lines above we have this:

they might just realize that it is futile, and spouting a bit more than foolish, to denigrate the composer and the music, and that the informed and more reasonable thing to say, as some still do about Wagner, "I really don't like it, though I know he is a great composer.

Hint: this also applies to composers, music and idioms, past and present, that don't follow your aesthetic dogma. Deal with it.

[Monsieur Croche]

Talking about axes to grind.

But then, Arnie will be the chosen scapegoat and poster-boy for all that 'went wrong with music back then,' and that ruffles those who more exclusively prefer to wallow in the bathos of the hot tub / cholera-scented candle environment of the romantic and later romantic eras... just sayin'.

I thought some might want to try that hat on and look at themselves in the mirror -- just to see if it fits and goes well with the suit they are already wearing. :-) 

I'm certain their are indiscriminate sensationalists who soak in the hot tub of Nothing But modernist / contemporary as well... while I don't think there are any of that ilk chatting it up in this thread, lol.

Hint: this also applies to composers, music and idioms, past and present, that don't follow your aesthetic dogma. Deal with it.

Well, this is the intent of paralleling the 'historic place' of Wagner and Schoenberg.  Glad that point was communicated; because "deal with it" (+1 and thank you) is exactly what most everyone does.  The huge difference if one mentions Bach, Wagner, Rameau, etc. is that it does not ring that alarm crying 'the Huns are at the gates of Vienna and our culture and arts are in dire peril,' and mention of other composers does not bring that sort of reflexive triggered offensive commentary against as a defense of that older rep... which is why the reflex trigger about, especially, Schoenberg, is more or less an anomalous phenomenon.

You'd seriously think just about anyone would 'be over it,' but then, back to that still present hard-ass split on Wagner.... 


Best regards.