Schoenberg, Berg or Webern!

[Jo498]

I voted Berg but mainly for the trivial reason that I know more of his music better than the music of the others.

I can't really get into the super-short pieces by Webern. I am not smart or musical enough to pick out any structures there and they don't really work for me as "pure impression" or emotionally. I like some of his late romantic stuff like "Im Sommerwind" or the Passacaglia op.1 (It is most obvious for Schoenberg, but all three showed sufficient promise in the late romantic idiom that any of them could have become a great late/postromantic composer, I think). I certainly should try (at least they are short) but there is a lot of other stuff to listen to that is more immediately appealing.
Similarly, Schoenberg's music can be tough for me and I have not given it sufficient time...

[Monsieur Croche]

Can you say what is it that makes something sound "labored" or spontaneous (as opposed to actually being spontaneously/laborously composed)  to you? Or is it inexplainable?

Best put by others long before, about Brahms, the criticism / quip being that while listening to his music, you could "hear the pen scratching the paper."  I.e. when listened to, too audibly 'thought about' might cover it.

As I said, it is not a negative quality per se, though I imagine it is somewhat of a barb on meant to say that 'intellectual' music can sound 'too over thought on the part of the composer.'  This particular dis just makes me laugh, though... as if 'intellectual' listening was something new Brahms required of an audience, or, as wikipedia cites, Schoenberg expected the audience to listen more intellectually.  What the hey, you can say the same about music of Guillaume de Machaut, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy or a host of others....


Best regards.

[Jo498]

One of the most striking examples (despites some worthwhile music) of labored Über-Brahms-style is Reger. If one does not get the impression "labored" when listening to some Reger pieces, one is probably immune against that fault...
Schoenberg (as well as the Busch brothers and Serkin) held Reger in very high esteem but nowadays his music fares considerably worse than the 2nd Viennese School.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

For me, my preference is Webern. Some very beautiful music and his melodic writing just happens to be more appealing to me as well as his amazing use of textural and timbral combinations in his instrumental music. So much beautiful stuff!

[Mahlerian]

One of the most striking examples (despites some worthwhile music) of labored Über-Brahms-style is Reger. If one does not get the impression "labored" when listening to some Reger pieces, one is probably immune against that fault...
Schoenberg (as well as the Busch brothers and Serkin) held Reger in very high esteem but nowadays his music fares considerably worse than the 2nd Viennese School.

On his off days, Schoenberg sometimes sounded like the better parts of Reger's output.  They had in common (and together with Brahms) a dislike of regular pulse and symmetrical rhythm, added to which Reger's extremely chromatic harmony makes him sound similar on the surface to Schoenberg.

To me, Reger seems like a good composer of the second tier.  Some interesting works, lots of dull or mundane ones.  The labored impression is certainly shared throughout much of his work.  On the other hand, I find that there are many pieces by Schoenberg which sound quite spontaneous, and some of them certainly are, such as Erwartung or the Six Little Pieces for Piano, both of which were written extremely quickly.

[Mahlerian]

This has been an interesting thread so far. First it looked like Berg was the popular one, but now Webern has made a suprise resurgence.
Well, he's my personal favorite, for similar reasons that Jessop and Sanantonio have stated. 

The one thing I have noticed (as far that my personal tastes go) is that I don't like Webern's vocal music as much as Schoenberg's (like Pierrot or Erwartung)  and Berg's operas 

Even though I stand by what I said before, I can say that Webern's lieder in particular are not well-served by Boulez's Sony set.  Heather Harper, who does the earlier music, is fine, but I personally find Halina Lukomska's approach insensitive to the nuances of Webern's 12-tone music.  His later DG set has better singing across the board.

Among his vocal works, I would point to the Cantatas in particular as masterpieces.

[Contemporaryclassical]

I take Webern over anyone (really) but I admire Schoenberg's ingenuity.

[71 dB]

Berg without question.

YES!! 

[SharpEleventh]

Schoenberg contains Berg so I see little point in voting for Berg.

[Karl Henning]

I like them all.  Still, if pressed to choose but one:  with ease, Schoenberg.  Of the three, I think his body of work the richest.

[Mahlerian]

Schoenberg contains Berg so I see little point in voting for Berg.

Even as someone who voted for Schoenberg...you could say the same thing about Webern:

https://www.youtube.com/v/4nloEJZK7dE

But really, that's like saying Schumann contains Chopin so there's no reason to prefer Chopin.  There are Berg-like parts in Schoenberg's oeuvre, but their artistic personalities are quite different, to say nothing of their works.  Schoenberg didn't write any of those fascinatingly coded works like the Chamber Concerto (okay, the Three Pieces Op. 11 do contain some coded references) and he didn't make use of the palindromes in which Berg's music abounds.

[Karl Henning]

I think it was a pun: [ Schoen + Berg ]

[Mahlerian]

I think it was a pun: [ Schoen + Berg ]

....................................

Aughhh...how could I have missed that?

[North Star]

I like them all.  Still, if pressed to choose but one:  with ease, Schoenberg.  Of the three, I think his body of work the richest.

+1, and how I voted originally, too.