Alban Berg (1885-1935)

[TheGSMoeller]

I just bought this 2-CD set tonight:



Have any of you heard any of these performances? I like Venzago's conducting and Berg seemed like a good composer for him to conduct. The set also has Isabelle van Keulen performing the Violin Concerto. I admire her playing a lot. It also contains an orchestration by Theo Verbey of the Piano Sonata. I'm not always onboard with other composers orchestrating another composer's music, but I'm definitely interested in hearing what could be done with the work. Also, it's always nice to have another performance of the suites from Wozzeck and Lulu and not to mention Three Pieces for Orchestra.

Saw this set a few years ago, but didn't interest me until recently now that I've been exposed to Venzago's ongoing series of Bruckner. Although it's a mix of hit or miss, Venzago's presentation of his symphonies is unique. I wonder how these Berg works sound under Venzago.

Very good production of Lulu

https://www.youtube.com/v/QfdP4II20Cg

I haven't seen this one yet, but have read some rave reviews on Schäfer. Also, Andrew Davis must love this opera, as I know he conducted it at Lyric Opera of Chicago in 08.
Thanks for posting, SA.

[Mirror Image]

Saw this set a few years ago, but didn't interest me until recently now that I've been exposed to Venzago's ongoing series of Bruckner. Although it's a mix of hit or miss, Venzago's presentation of his symphonies is unique. I wonder how these Berg works sound under Venzago.

I'll definitely keep you posted once I've heard at least the Three Pieces for Orchestra and the Violin Concerto.

[Leo K.]

I look forward to giving a report, Leo. I take it you enjoy Berg's music? Any favorite works?

Thanks John, yes, Berg is one of my main composers (his music sounds like its filled with secrets - that was my first impression and it stayed). My favorite works are the Three Pieces for Orchestra, Lulu Suite, Violin Concerto and his String Quartet and Lyric Suite.

Admittedly I've had a hard time enjoying Wozzeck, but I love Lulu. Recently, I found a broadcast recording (cond. Erich Klieber) conducting Wozzeck in English. I'm hoping that extra dimension of understanding the text helps me get into the work. I really want to.

[Mirror Image]

Thanks John, yes, Berg is one of my main composers (his music sounds like its filled with secrets - that was my first impression and it stayed). My favorite works are the Three Pieces for Orchestra, Lulu Suite, Violin Concerto and his String Quartet and Lyric Suite.

Admittedly I've had a hard time enjoying Wozzeck, but I love Lulu. Recently, I found a broadcast recording (cond. Erich Klieber) conducting Wozzeck in English. I'm hoping that extra dimension of understanding the text helps me get into the work. I really want to.

Excellent to hear, Leo. Berg has been a favorite of mine, too, for many years now. In fact, he's in my top 10!

[Ken B]

In fact, he's in my top 10!

Who isn't John?

[Mirror Image]

Who isn't John?

[Octave]

Some discussion of the LYRIC SUITE for string quartet (in the string quartet cycles poll) made me want to ask if anyone has heard this recording:

[asin]B002L7TM72[/asin]
Berg & Schubert by Quatuor Thymos w/Christoph Eschenbach and Salomé Haller (Calliope)

I've seen praise for recordings by the Kronos Quartet (w/Dawn Upshaw) and the Arditti Quartet (w/o the final movement w/soprano); but I've heard those already, and the coupling of the Thymos disc is of some interest. 

[TheGSMoeller]

Some discussion of the LYRIC SUITE for string quartet (in the string quartet cycles poll) made me want to ask if anyone has heard this recording:

[asin]B002L7TM72[/asin]
Berg & Schubert by Quatuor Thymos w/Christoph Eschenbach and Salomé Haller (Calliope)

I've seen praise for recordings by the Kronos Quartet (w/Dawn Upshaw) and the Arditti Quartet (w/o the final movement w/soprano); but I've heard those already, and the coupling of the Thymos disc is of some interest.

I haven't heard that one, Octave, although it's fairly inexpensive so I may join you in inquiring about it since it's a nice coupling. I do enjoy the Kronos with Upshaw a lot, also the Schoenberg Quartet collection performing Berg chamber on Brilliant, and Leipzig on MDG, both quality recordings.

.

[TheGSMoeller]

So, this is amazing...

[asin] B006P0FIHO[/asin]

Superbly dramatic performances accompanied by graphic, uncanny and bold stage direction. It's a real winner. For starters, I was shocked by the level of amazing that was Petibon. Not that I didn't think she was capable, but the Petibon I fell in love with was singing Rameau, Charpentier and Mozart. Grand set pieces, a lot of blood, skin, underwear and groping but all to accentuate this beautifully twisted tale. The opening of the 3rd act was a little jarring at first, but spending much of its time within the seats of the audience became successfully audacious.
I really want to get another Lulu on video and am seriously leaning towards the other production featuring Petibon at Liceu, Barcelona and Michael Boder conducting with Olivier Py's stage direction.



Now knowing what Petibon can do with this mammoth of a role, and also being interested in a more ornate staging, and from the praise given by GMG's own Bruce, it looks like the Liceu will be next.

[71 dB]

Triads (whether blatant or latent) are a component of the series.

According to Wikipedia (and I am guessing there are actual sources for these ; ) ::

The first row statement in the first number of the suite is:
F E C A G D A^b D^b E^b G^b B^b C^b

Note that E - C - A spells an a minor triad, and that E^b G^b B^b spells an e^b minor triad.  Note too that the second hexachord [A^b D^b E^b G^b B^b C^b] is a transposition (at the interval of a tritone) of the first hexachord [F E C A G D] in retrograde.

Something which Berg does in the course of the piece is, he takes the constituent tetrachords of the original row, [F E C A] + [G D A^b D^b] + [E^b G^b B^b C^b], and rotates the tetrachords. (The result is a different series, but the 'building blocks' of the two series are the same, so the two series are closely related.)  Thus:

[E^b G^b B^b C^b]  + [F E C A] + [G D A^b D^b]

This derived set, we see, begins with a minor triad.  If we invert that derived set, the opening triad becomes major . . . so we can certainly have a number of the Lyric Suite opening with a G major triad, and yet the piece can still be completely serial.

Interesting. As a person struggling to understand even the basics of music theory I want to ask:

Would a first row statement beginning with notes G B D .... be somewhat "illegal"? Because opening with a G major triad would be very easy, wouldn't it?

[EigenUser]

Interesting. As a person struggling to understand even the basics of music theory I want to ask:

Would a first row statement beginning with notes G B D .... be somewhat "illegal"? Because opening with a G major triad would be very easy, wouldn't it?

Maybe according to Schoenberg -- and almost certainly according to Boulez .

Seriously, though, not really. It's just a method that composers use -- how they use it is up to them. Berg was known for creating tone rows based off of triads and other tonal things. The tone row in his violin concerto is like this even more, and even contains a Bach reference in the last few notes! Still, it has no tonal center.

The most radical example of a tonal tone row is in Bartok's 2nd VC. One of the themes in the first movement contains a tone row that he designed to be as tonal as possible with a tonal center of "A".

[71 dB]

Maybe according to Schoenberg -- and almost certainly according to Boulez .

So they had certain rules for creating tone rows?

Seriously, though, not really. It's just a method that composers use -- how they use it is up to them. Berg was known for creating tone rows based off of triads and other tonal things. The tone row in his violin concerto is like this even more, and even contains a Bach reference in the last few notes! Still, it has no tonal center.

The most radical example of a tonal tone row is in Bartok's 2nd VC. One of the themes in the first movement contains a tone row that he designed to be as tonal as possible with a tonal center of "A".

I see.

[EigenUser]

So they had certain rules for creating tone rows?

I was just joking.

The way I think of dodecaphonicism (is that a word? ) is that there are no "rules" for creating a tone row other than not repeating a tone until all others have sounded. There is a lot that can be done there -- 12!! The first exclamation mark is to denote factorial. The second is because it is amazing*. In fact:

The tone row chosen as the basis of the piece is called the prime series (P). Untransposed, it is notated as P0. Given the twelve pitch classes of the chromatic scale, there are (12![18]) (factorial, i.e. 479,001,600[13]) tone rows, although 469,022,400 of these are merely transformations of other rows. There are 9,979,200 truly unique twelve-tone rows possible ("rows unrelated to any others through transposition, inversion, retrograde, and retrograde inversion.").[19]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-tone_technique

Not to take the spotlight from Berg, but I will mention that I have written a very short twelve-tone piece for piano (which I later orchestrated). Since I love the pentatonic scale so much, my tone row consisted of the "white-key" pentatonic and the "black-key" pentatonic. It looks like this: (CDFGA)(C#D#F#G#A#). Since the only two notes not sounded by this method are 'B' and 'E', I included them at the end as an interchangeable dyad (the ordering of the two notes wasn't consistent  and was whatever I felt worked at the time). The tone row was then (CDFGA)(C#D#F#G#A#)[BE]. A fun exercise, but it wasn't a successful piece. I might re-do it later.

*(Should be read as (12 factorial)!, i.e. (12*11*10*...*2*1)!) .

[Ken B]

So they had certain rules for creating tone rows?

Yes, depending on who they refers to. Avoiding triads was one of them.
Don't think of it as defining a row, think of it as defining intervals. The goal was to get away from the standard intervals, to 'expand the harmonic resources'. So the idea was if you use a lot of traditional intervals they would, because of the way listeners have been conditioned by past music, attract undue attention and mitigate the effect.

[Ken B]

Nate

a fun exercise [for the composer] but it wasn't a successful piece.

Forty years of music history in a nutshell.

[71 dB]

I was just joking.

The way I think of dodecaphonicism (is that a word? ) is that there are no "rules" for creating a tone row other than not repeating a tone until all others have sounded. There is a lot that can be done there -- 12!! The first exclamation mark is to denote factorial. The second is because it is amazing*. In fact:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-tone_technique

Not to take the spotlight from Berg, but I will mention that I have written a very short twelve-tone piece for piano (which I later orchestrated). Since I love the pentatonic scale so much, my tone row consisted of the "white-key" pentatonic and the "black-key" pentatonic. It looks like this: (CDFGA)(C#D#F#G#A#). Since the only two notes not sounded by this method are 'B' and 'E', I included them at the end as an interchangeable dyad (the ordering of the two notes wasn't consistent  and was whatever I felt worked at the time). The tone row was then (CDFGA)(C#D#F#G#A#)[BE]. A fun exercise, but it wasn't a successful piece. I might re-do it later.

*(Should be read as (12 factorial)!, i.e. (12*11*10*...*2*1)!) .

I'm not sure I understand fully how tone rows affect the way music is composed. So if your tone row is (CDFGA)(C#D#F#G#A#)(BE) it means you "can't" use chords like C F G# because G# is too far from C and F in the tone row? I know tone rows tell which notes are available, but what about their order in the row? What does that mean? What doesn the subgroups in the parenthesis mean? Chord progression? But what really is chord progression?

No need to teach me math here

[EigenUser]

Nate

Forty years of music history in a nutshell.

I'm not sure I understand fully how tone rows affect the way music is composed. So if your tone row is (CDFGA)(C#D#F#G#A#)(BE) it means you "can't" use chords like C F G# because G# is too far from C and F in the tone row? I know tone rows tell which notes are available, but what about their order in the row? What does that mean? What doesn the subgroups in the parenthesis mean? Chord progression? But what really is chord progression?

No need to teach me math here

My post ended up being about my piece, so I am moving it to my thread:
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,23309.msg826813.html#msg826813

[petrarch]

I'm not sure I understand fully how tone rows affect the way music is composed.

They provide base material, not unlike a motive or a rhythmic figure. Some composers have experimented with very strict rules for the use of rows, even generating entire rows from the same 3-note cell or extending the principle to other aspects of notes beyond pitch (duration, dynamics, instrument). On this, it is worth noting that most of them refused to relinquish the freedom to bend the rules where they felt was aesthetically necessary.

[amw]

There is a lot that can be done there -- 12!! The first exclamation mark is to denote factorial. The second is because it is amazing*.

I've always wondered if there are any quarter-tone serialist compositions. Or 31-limit just intonation. ...hmm.

[EigenUser]

I've always wondered if there are any quarter-tone serialist compositions. Or 31-limit just intonation. ...hmm.

Haha, I've actually thought of that, too. I'm sure it has been done before.