Berg op.6 3 Pieces for Orchestra

[greg]

As I mentioned on another thread, I've been studying this score that last couple of weeks..... any thoughts? Any favorite recordings? I have Karajan's and I've also heard one by Eri Klas, which of course  was interesting but not nearly as good.

In the liner notes of the Karajan CD, it says that it is "the most complex and impenetrable of the 2nd Viennese School". I can't argue there. Everything about it is complex all the way through, orchestration, harmony, counterpoint, dynamics, rhythm...... Harmonic thought in a piece like this can be very very complex just because it's both tonal and atonal, which is sort of like a very complex tonality. So compared to writing something serial, where certain stuff is predetermined, i can imagine it being a tougher task. And also compared to something using simple harmonies.

The number of ideas spinning in his head must've been insane..... in my score, it mentions that "his inner incentive to write something 'big' was 'gigantic'", and he had to write it to satisfy his pent-up creative energy.

[some guy]

Everything about it is complex all the way through, orchestration, harmony, counterpoint, dynamics, rhythm....

I see this a lot in discussions of twelve-tone and serial musics. And I always think, but you could say this about Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique, too. Or Beethoven's ninth. Or Bach's St. Matthew Passion. Or practically anything else. Grieg's Norwegian Dances is complex all the way through, orchestration, harmony, counterpoint, dynamics, rhythm.... Maybe not as much as Ives' fourth, but what is?

The number of ideas spinning in his head must've been insane..... in my score, it mentions that "his inner incentive to write something 'big' was 'gigantic'", and he had to write it to satisfy his pent-up creative energy.

Same with this. Mahler. Krenek. Shostakovich. Anyone who's ever written any opera.

Point is, once you've said that Berg's really beautiful and engaging three pieces are complex, what have you said, really? And whether or not writing something was or was not a difficult task? Does it sound good? Is the result enjoyable? In Berg's case, I think the answer is yes.

To get away from the liner notes now and attend to Ggggrrreeg's post(!), I have Gielen's recording of this, which seems really fine to me, but I haven't heard the Karajan for many years, and I no longer own it. (I had that on LP. Pretty sure it was Karajan.) Gielen's is probably as sympathetic and as adept a performance as you could wish for.

[Wendell_E]

I like both of Levine's recordings (DG/Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra and Sony/MET Orchestra).

[bhodges]

I like both of Levine's recordings (DG/Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra and Sony/MET Orchestra).

Yes, I like both of those very much, too.  I also have Abbado/Vienna (which I just heard last week) and Karajan/Berlin, which is also excellent if you want an ultra-refined version.  Of those four, the MET Orchestra recording is probably the one I listen to the most. 

Coincidentally, I'm hearing Levine and the MET play it this coming Sunday afternoon.   

PS, Greg (and anyone else), you might want to try to see a copy of Alex Ross's The Rest is Noise, since he discusses this as one of the seminal works of the early 20th century.

--Bruce

[Wendell_E]

Coincidentally, I'm hearing Levine and the MET play it this coming Sunday afternoon.   

I'm not jealous.  No, to at all.

I forgot about the Abbado/Vienna version.  I've got that one also, in DG's Box o' Berg and like it a lot.  But the Levine/MET's probably the version I listen to most, as well.

[bhodges]

I'm not jealous.  No, to at all.

  I'm writing a review, so I'll try to remember to post it here.

But the Levine/MET's probably the version I listen to most, as well.

PS, that whole disc is just great.  I wish Renée Fleming would do more of this repertoire.  At Carnegie in 2006, she did a beautiful job with Berg's Altenberg Lieder in 2006 (also with Levine and the MET).

--Bruce

[(poco) Sforzando]

I see this a lot in discussions of twelve-tone and serial musics. And I always think, but you could say this about Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique, too. Or Beethoven's ninth. Or Bach's St. Matthew Passion. Or practically anything else. Grieg's Norwegian Dances is complex all the way through, orchestration, harmony, counterpoint, dynamics, rhythm....

I do think the Berg is a bit more complex, more mature, more intense, etc., than Grieg's Norwegian Dances.

My recording of choice is by Leonard Bernstein, a staggeringly intense performance, unfortunately available only in a New York Philharmonic 10-CD historical set.

[bhodges]

My recording of choice is by Leonard Bernstein, a staggeringly intense performance, unfortunately available only in a New York Philharmonic 10-CD historical set.

That alone might persuade me to get that box.  Thanks for mentioning it...

--Bruce

[greg]

I see this a lot in discussions of twelve-tone and serial musics. And I always think, but you could say this about Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique, too. Or Beethoven's ninth. Or Bach's St. Matthew Passion. Or practically anything else. Grieg's Norwegian Dances is complex all the way through, orchestration, harmony, counterpoint, dynamics, rhythm.... Maybe not as much as Ives' fourth, but what is?


Same with this. Mahler. Krenek. Shostakovich. Anyone who's ever written any opera.

Point is, once you've said that Berg's really beautiful and engaging three pieces are complex, what have you said, really? And whether or not writing something was or was not a difficult task? Does it sound good? Is the result enjoyable? In Berg's case, I think the answer is yes.

Well, have you studied scores by Shostakovich and Grieg and compared them to this specific score? Trust me, there's a huge difference, their stuff is way less ornate. Just look at both, and compare. Mahler, Strauss and Schoenberg are also among rival Berg in terms of complexity.....


As for which being harder to write, that's something none of us could answer, since none of us were ever Shostakovich, Berg, Grieg, whatever.... i think that's an entirely different issue you bring up.

PS, Greg (and anyone else), you might want to try to see a copy of Alex Ross's The Rest is Noise, since he discusses this as one of the seminal works of the early 20th century.

--Bruce

hm, i did a search and can only find bits, but no lengthy blog about the piece.

[bhodges]

hm, i did a search and can only find bits, but no lengthy blog about the piece.

It's in the chapter of the book on the Second Viennese School.  If I can get to it later I'll try to post some.

--Bruce

[(poco) Sforzando]

That alone might persuade me to get that box.  Thanks for mentioning it...

--Bruce

It's a 10-CD set list priced at $220 or so, but Amazon has used copies for about $135. And there are other excellent things in it, such as a Kubelik Bluebeard's Castle, Nadia Boulanger Fauré Requiem, etc.

[some guy]

Sf and Greg, notice that I never said anything about more or less complex, except for the inconsequential reference to Ives' fourth. I just said that these other things are also complex.

By which I mean that "complexity" in and of itself, is no gauge of quality or difficulty in appreciating or anything like that. Serial music is always accused of being complex, usually in an attempt to account for its high degree of unpopularity. Or to prove that it's unpopular for a very good reason.

I, for one, do not find complexity or simplicity either one to be very important for enjoying, understanding, appreciating a piece of music. Besides, pieces that are so extremely complex that they present an almost impenetrable wall of sound--pieces by Stockhausen or Xenakis come to mind--can come across, ironically, as almost simple in effect. Like a wall. Indeed, as long as we're talking metaphors here, there's little, architecturally, as complex as a suspension bridge. But bridges are no more difficult to look at or to understand (or to use!) than are houses or garden sheds.

I think I'll go play my recording of the Berg opus 6, now, which I find very easy to listen to, and very pleasant indeed, just by the way!

[(poco) Sforzando]

Sf and Greg, notice that I never said anything about more or less complex, except for the inconsequential reference to Ives' fourth. I just said that these other things are also complex.

By which I mean that "complexity" in and of itself, is no gauge of quality or difficulty in appreciating or anything like that. Serial music is always accused of being complex, usually in an attempt to account for its high degree of unpopularity. Or to prove that it's unpopular for a very good reason.

I, for one, do not find complexity or simplicity either one to be very important for enjoying, understanding, appreciating a piece of music. Besides, pieces that are so extremely complex that they present an almost impenetrable wall of sound--pieces by Stockhausen or Xenakis come to mind--can come across, ironically, as almost simple in effect. Like a wall. Indeed, as long as we're talking metaphors here, there's little, architecturally, as complex as a suspension bridge. But bridges are no more difficult to look at or to understand (or to use!) than are houses or garden sheds.

I think I'll go play my recording of the Berg opus 6, now, which I find very easy to listen to, and very pleasant indeed, just by the way!

But by mentioning Grieg in the same breath as the St. Matthew Passion, you appear to imply a continuum. I certainly agree however that "complexity" in itself is not necessarily a virtue, and "simplicity" not necessarily a fault. One of the simplest pieces that comes to mind is the last little Bb major bagatelle from Beethoven's Op. 119. But what makes that piece simple but not simple-minded is the artful way in which it is placed as the conclusion of the set, following several short but concentrated and intricate pieces earlier. With Grieg on the other hand I always think of an agreeable, neatly groomed, but rather simple-minded soul whose musical thinking rarely goes beyond pleasant surfaces.

As for op. 6, "very easy to listen to, and very pleasant indeed," doesn't quite hit the mark either by my experience of the work, which to me is Berg's ultimate attempt to out-Mahler Mahler and out-Schoenberg Schoenberg in concentrated expressionist intensity. In all of Berg, only the huge climaxes of the last act of Wozzeck come close to packing such a wallop as the final March, especially if you hear a performance as searing as Bernstein's from 1961. (Somehow, the idea of the "ultra-refined" Karajan in this music . . . . I don't know the recording, but I shudder.) Alex Ross's description of the op.6, something like "pandemonium where all the instruments are rioting in the streets," is closer to how I hear this music.

[greg]

But by mentioning Grieg in the same breath as the St. Matthew Passion, you appear to imply a continuum.

yeah, that's how we interpreted it. But oh well, just a minor misunderstanding, our bad 

(Somehow, the idea of the "ultra-refined" Karajan in this music . . . . I don't know the recording, but I shudder.) Alex Ross's description of the op.6, something like "pandemonium where all the instruments are rioting in the streets," is closer to how I hear this music.

oh, i don't hear it as ultra-refined at all! 
Trust me, the recording screams well enough when it needs to!
and the quieter moments are just mystical bliss  0:)

[bhodges]

(Somehow, the idea of the "ultra-refined" Karajan in this music . . . . I don't know the recording, but I shudder.) Alex Ross's description of the op.6, something like "pandemonium where all the instruments are rioting in the streets," is closer to how I hear this music.

I actually like all of Karajan's Second Viennese School box, but freely admit that it is hardly the only way to play this music.  Where it may have an advantage is in seducing those who are already put off by the music's built-in rough edges; Karajan offers a slightly softer grain.  (Not that there is anything hesitant or timid about the Berlin Philharmonic's playing, make no mistake.) 

But that's the Ross quote I was trying to think of above, and is closer to how I experience the music as well.

--Bruce

[Josquin des Prez]

Sf and Greg, notice that I never said anything about more or less complex, except for the inconsequential reference to Ives' fourth. I just said that these other things are also complex.

Complexity is the wrong word here. What Greg is really talking about is density, and not in a mere quantitative sense either.

[greg]

Complexity is the wrong word here. What Greg is really talking about is density, and not in a mere quantitative sense either.

thank you!!!!! you said it better than i did!
Density, perfect adjective! And yeah, dense in many ways, it's obvious that his mind was filled up with many, many, ideas that come out while he was writing, and the result could be described as more dense.

[some guy]

Well, I finally took the time to listen to this again. I hadn't given it a spin for several months, but have been bothered by the vast difference between what I remembered of it and what people have been saying about it.

Complex I think is fine, with the proviso I brought up earlier. (Other things are complex, too. Now what?) Dense, I think, is way off the mark. For some listeners, it may seem dense. I can't imagine. But then, I just listened again to Carter's Double Concerto, which I used to be able to put on the turntable and anywhere I dropped the needle, it would sound the same. Dense and busy. It would be interesting, I suppose, to be able to hear that piece, again. Probably just as well that I can't, as the Double Concerto I listen to now is remarkably various and transparent.

Intense is OK, too, from time to time. So long as "intense" doesn't ever mean "unpleasant," for after just now listening to it again, I must say that my memory of it as pleasant and easy to listen to still stands. It's a lovely piece, for all the intensity of the intense bits, and just as charming, from time to time, as any of Mahler's ländler--for Mahler wasn't intense all the time, either. Various seems apropos, like a Beethoven symphony or a Mahler symphony or a Schoenberg concerto or whatever. If any of this music sounds like an impenetrable tangle of sound to any of you, then you have simply identified your level of experience with this music. Maybe Gielen is better at making everything clear and defined than the other conductors mentioned. I know he's as good as Boulez at finding transparency where others find turgidity. But still!

Anyway, we are agreed, I think, that the opus 6 is a fine piece and as exciting to listen to as all get out, no?

[bhodges]

Coincidentally, I'm hearing Levine and the MET play it this coming Sunday afternoon.   

All I can say is, if James Levine and the MET Orchestra had done nothing else but the Berg, it would have been a completely worthwhile afternoon.  The passion Levine brings to this score is nothing short of amazing.  These days he conducts while sitting in a chair, but for some works, like this one, he places one leg on the floor, sort of half-standing, which allows him to move even more with the music.

The ensemble's colors often seemed initiated by the group's percussion section (equally brilliant in Webern's Six Pieces before intermission), with gorgeous work on celesta and gongs.  In the second movement, "Reigen," the waltz figures surged up with crazy abandon, and in the final "Marsch," I've never heard the links to Mahler's Sixth Symphony come through so clearly.

At the end (note: the end of the piece, not of the concert), the audience brought out Levine three times, as he asked different members of the orchestra to stand, each time to loud ovations.  All this, in addition to the Webern, AND Alfred Brendel's farewell in the Mozart C Minor Piano Concerto, AND Deborah Voigt in the final scene from Salome.  A rather generous concert, needless to say.

--Bruce

[greg]

All I can say is, if James Levine and the MET Orchestra had done nothing else but the Berg, it would have been a completely worthwhile afternoon.  The passion Levine brings to this score is nothing short of amazing.  These days he conducts while sitting in a chair, but for some works, like this one, he places one leg on the floor, sort of half-standing, which allows him to move even more with the music.

The ensemble's colors often seemed initiated by the group's percussion section (equally brilliant in Webern's Six Pieces before intermission), with gorgeous work on celesta and gongs.  In the second movement, "Reigen," the waltz figures surged up with crazy abandon, and in the final "Marsch," I've never heard the links to Mahler's Sixth Symphony come through so clearly.

At the end (note: the end of the piece, not of the concert), the audience brought out Levine three times, as he asked different members of the orchestra to stand, each time to loud ovations.  All this, in addition to the Webern, AND Alfred Brendel's farewell in the Mozart C Minor Piano Concerto, AND Deborah Voigt in the final scene from Salome.  A rather generous concert, needless to say.

--Bruce

sounds fun...... wish i could've been there