The Second Viennese School --- Who Do You Prefer?

[Mirror Image]

That orchestration of Brahms's Piano Quartet No. 1 is certainly impressive. However, I feel the orchestration in some parts is a little 'capricious' in the 4th movement, losing the focus of what the original work pretends to convey. It's just what I detect, hence I didn't include it among my favorites by Schonberg.

And that's what I love about it. Schoenberg demonstrating what a genius he is and he let's it all hang out in that movement. Love it!

[André]

And that's what I love about it. Schoenberg demonstrating what a genius he is and he let's all it all hang out in that movement. Love it!

+1.

A downscale transcription (like the Haydn symphonies or Mozart concertos for piano quartet) aims at increasing the work's exposure. An upscale one (like that Brahms/Schoenberg quartet) has an aesthetic, not practical purpose. The full resources of the orchestra obviously give access to a whole new point of view.

[some guy]

We have really been working the "music as servant" idea here pretty hard. You know, the idea that music exists to please me. If it doesn't please me, it's no good; if it does, it's great.

Of course, the idea is rarely if ever stated so baldly, but that's what it comes down to.

And, also of course, the "me" in that formula always presents the truth about music even though there are always other "me's" that disagree. And no, I do not consider lip service that pretends to acknowledge other viewpoints at all ameliorative.

Here's an example of one of the worst expressions of "music is my servant" I've seen--and as someone who has been hanging out with musicians and music fans for around sixty years now, I have seen some pretty bad ones.

Webern is my least favorite.... Nevertheless, some of his early works do appeal to me, especially Passacaglia for orchestra and Im Sommerwind. I find his other music extremely cerebral and cold whose purpose seems merely intellectual rather than giving pleasure or entertaining the listener.

Note how--and this is universal (that is, not confined to Symphonic Addict in any way)--the me in this instance turns into "the listener," as if all listeners were the same (hint, they are not) and as if all listeners were exactly like the "I" of this statement.

I also cringe at the ideas that cerebral goes well with cold and that intellectual things are neither pleasurable nor entertaining.

Two things occur to me, things that might appear to the unwary to be contradictory, though I don't think they really are:

1) It's not all about you, and

2) if you spend more time listening, carefully and sympathetically, you will find that more and more different things will pleas and entertain you.

All three people mentioned in this hapless thread are capable of pleasing some listeners. And some other listeners may find that any of them at any time are not pleasing at all. Is any of this about those three? No. It's all about the listeners.

What fun it would be to be able to talk about Schoenberg and Berg and Webern rather than simply about ourselves.

[Symphonic Addict]

If you, some guy, like to be transcendent with your super explanation, that's your issue. I take things more relaxingly. 'Me' doesn't like most of Webern's music. There is much more interesting music to 'me' out there. For 'me' that is a fact.

Most or all of your posts are too pedantic as far as I can see.

[Florestan]

We have really been working the "music as servant" idea here pretty hard. You know, the idea that music exists to please me. If it doesn't please me, it's no good; if it does, it's great.

Of course, the idea is rarely if ever stated so baldly, but that's what it comes down to.

And, also of course, the "me" in that formula always presents the truth about music even though there are always other "me's" that disagree. And no, I do not consider lip service that pretends to acknowledge other viewpoints at all ameliorative.

Here's an example of one of the worst expressions of "music is my servant" I've seen--and as someone who has been hanging out with musicians and music fans for around sixty years now, I have seen some pretty bad ones.
Note how--and this is universal (that is, not confined to Symphonic Addict in any way)--the me in this instance turns into "the listener," as if all listeners were the same (hint, they are not) and as if all listeners were exactly like the "I" of this statement.

I also cringe at the ideas that cerebral goes well with cold and that intellectual things are neither pleasurable nor entertaining.

Two things occur to me, things that might appear to the unwary to be contradictory, though I don't think they really are:

1) It's not all about you, and

2) if you spend more time listening, carefully and sympathetically, you will find that more and more different things will pleas and entertain you.

All three people mentioned in this hapless thread are capable of pleasing some listeners. And some other listeners may find that any of them at any time are not pleasing at all. Is any of this about those three? No. It's all about the listeners.

What fun it would be to be able to talk about Schoenberg and Berg and Webern rather than simply about ourselves.

We can always count on you to be --- or play --- the smartest ass in town, ain't it?

Let me infuriate you much more than Symphonic Addict did: none of the three guys is my cup of tea; nothing I've heard from any of them made me want to go further (if forced at the point of a gun, I'd choose Berg for the VC, the piano sonata and the Lyric suite, which are far above anything I've heard from the other two, yet far below anything from my favorite composers). And btw: I won't waste my precious time on listening again to music that didn't please me at first hearing. What I positively like is enough to warrant me a lifetime of enjoyment.

(I apologize, John, I'd have never posted in this thread were it not for some guy's supercilious smugness which really gets on my nerves big time. --- but at least I voted for Berg)

[Karl Henning]

--- but at least I voted for Berg)

But, you cannot have meant it  0:)

[Mirror Image]

We have really been working the "music as servant" idea here pretty hard. You know, the idea that music exists to please me. If it doesn't please me, it's no good; if it does, it's great.

Of course, the idea is rarely if ever stated so baldly, but that's what it comes down to.

And, also of course, the "me" in that formula always presents the truth about music even though there are always other "me's" that disagree. And no, I do not consider lip service that pretends to acknowledge other viewpoints at all ameliorative.

Here's an example of one of the worst expressions of "music is my servant" I've seen--and as someone who has been hanging out with musicians and music fans for around sixty years now, I have seen some pretty bad ones.
Note how--and this is universal (that is, not confined to Symphonic Addict in any way)--the me in this instance turns into "the listener," as if all listeners were the same (hint, they are not) and as if all listeners were exactly like the "I" of this statement.

I also cringe at the ideas that cerebral goes well with cold and that intellectual things are neither pleasurable nor entertaining.

Two things occur to me, things that might appear to the unwary to be contradictory, though I don't think they really are:

1) It's not all about you, and

2) if you spend more time listening, carefully and sympathetically, you will find that more and more different things will pleas and entertain you.

All three people mentioned in this hapless thread are capable of pleasing some listeners. And some other listeners may find that any of them at any time are not pleasing at all. Is any of this about those three? No. It's all about the listeners.

What fun it would be to be able to talk about Schoenberg and Berg and Webern rather than simply about ourselves.

Well, thanks for stopping by.

[Florestan]

But, you cannot have meant it  0:)

Oh, yes, I meant it. I don't care for the 2nd Viennese School at all, but if need be, then give me Berg.

[Karl Henning]

Oh, yes, I meant it. I don't care for the 2nd Viennese School at all, but if need be, then give me Berg.

That's what I meant: that your vote for Berg was a bit like my friend Blake's vote for Trump: devoid of any hope. 

[Karl Henning]

To be sure, Andrei, I know you are entirely sincere in your distaste for the 2VSch

[Daverz]

I admire Berg, and his music has grown on me over the years, but Schoenberg's nervy music has always been very simpatico.  Webern's pieces are always over before I have a chance to warm up.  I suppose I can always put them on repeat until they sound like Morton Feldman. 

[some guy]

Sorry guys, your dislike of any or all of the Second Viennese School has no effect on me at all. Why should it? We all like and dislike all sorts of things. Several of my closest musical friends detest Bruckner, who's one of my favorites.

I don't particularly like Chopin or Wagner, but I don't confuse my dislike of those two with anything like a criticism of their music.

Florestan continues to be pissed off not at me, not really, nor at any of my opinions about music, but at a simulacrum of my own sweet self that he's constructed out of whole cloth. That's annoying, but only slightly. (It was WAY more annoying when an ex-girlfriend started doing that, haha.)

But ad hominem IS good fun, and there are several posters who will predictably weigh in with an ad hom or three whenever I post.

I'd do thread duty now, just because I admire and respect Mr. Blanston, whose tastes I hasten to point out, are vastly different from mine, but I like all three, Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. They're all different, and I admire all of them.

[Mirror Image]

I admire Berg, and his music has grown on me over the years, but Schoenberg's nervy music has always been very simpatico.  Webern's pieces are always over before I have a chance to warm up.  I suppose I can always put them on repeat until they sound like Morton Feldman.

[Karl Henning]

Sorry guys, your dislike of any or all of the Second Viennese School has no effect on me at all. Why should it? We all like and dislike all sorts of things.

Right on, brutha!

[Florestan]

That's what I meant: that your vote for Berg was a bit like my friend Blake's vote for Trump: devoid of any hope. 

To be sure, Andrei, I know you are entirely sincere in your distaste for the 2VSch

One cannot like everything. My dislike of this music is not a value judgement, though.

[Florestan]

Florestan continues to be pissed off not at me, not really, nor at any of my opinions about music, but at a simulacrum of my own sweet self that he's constructed out of whole cloth. That's annoying, but only slightly. (It was WAY more annoying when an ex-girlfriend started doing that, haha.)

You might not even realize it but more often than not the tone of your posts, especially when you are in lecturing mode, is one of pedantic smugness, or smug pedantry if you prefer. You could really use a more relaxed and tolerant approach.

[Wanderer]

Sorry guys, your dislike of any or all of the Second Viennese School has no effect on me at all.

And regarding your seething dislike of others' dislike of any or all of the Second Viennese School: likewise.

[Wanderer]

Some good adjectives mentioned so far that describe much of this music: cerebral (the bad kind), cold, sterile, over-intellectualized. Much of this comes down to an, as mentioned, unrelatable musical language; but also, I feel, to often not enough talent or musical substance to make this musical language work. Much of this music may look good on paper, however its failure to sound good, or as good as it looks on paper, and its subsequently natural effect of alienating and/or repelling the listener seems to eternally puzzle some people. No matter, they'll get it sooner or later. Or not.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

We have really been working the "music as servant" idea here pretty hard. You know, the idea that music exists to please me. [middle of rant snipped...]

What fun it would be to be able to talk about Schoenberg and Berg and Webern rather than simply about ourselves.

Sorry guys, your dislike of any or all of the Second Viennese School has no effect on me at all.

[Mirror Image]

Quite frankly, I don't care whether this or that person responds to music I enjoy (and yes, I do enjoy Schoenberg and Berg immensely). Too often people say that there's no music in these composer's music or that it doesn't make any sense or blah...blah...blah. The way I hear it is you don't have to be an intellectual to understand or appreciate this music. In fact, I think the more time you spend away from getting caught up in all the cerebral aspects of the music and focus on simply letting the music wash over you, then the better one will be for it. Deep analysis is fascinating and I wish I knew how to read music to the extent to where I could actually see what's happening on the paper, but letting my ears do the work is what I'm more interested in, because it enables you to pick out things that you didn't know existed. Repeated listening is what is, ultimately, required of this music. It's not easy if you're accustomed to tonal centers and traditional tonal resolutions. This is a different musical language and as with anything new, it deserves a more than fair trial for your ears instead of calling it 'garbage' from the initial listen. I've made this mistake with some music and ended up coming back to it with an appreciation I didn't previously have, and, sometimes, this appreciation develops into love or passion for the music.