Poll
Question:
Who was the "greatest"?
Option 1: Mendelssohn
votes: 16
Option 2: Schoenberg
votes: 34
>:D
Great poll, Dave!
But is it the greatest poll? ???
Oh definitely it is the greatest poll.
In fact, I thik it is great that we are having all these great discussions about who is great or who isn't great. Great, I say - let's have more, in fact, it would so great if all we did was declare if something, anything, everything: recordings, performers, composers, individual peices, individual movements, individual measures, were great or not. That would be so great.
Don't you think it would great fun?
Great.
So who wants to start?
Actually, I fear it is an awful poll because it will come down to the Classical vs. The Modern.
Greatest at failing to impress me?
When first I saw this title I thought it would be a poll along the lines of "which great composer do you listen to the least," but no.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 24, 2010, 05:27:40 AM
But is it the greatest poll? ???
We won't know if it is the greatest--the poll a work of genius--until Josquin or James arrives to tell us. They know greatness. Just ask them ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on June 24, 2010, 08:25:01 AM
We won't know if it is the greatest--the poll a work of genius--until Josquin or James arrives to tell us. They know greatness. Just ask them ;D
Sick! ; )
P.S. I voted for Arnold...although I confess that pic of him in a bathing suit may have unduly influenced me.
Sarge
If I were not at present so (happily) preoccupied with Henningmusick, I would cue up some Arnold this very day!
Sorry, Mendelssohn has to bow to the superior genius in this case :'(
Testify, Sara!
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on June 24, 2010, 08:30:50 AM
P.S. I voted for Arnold...although I confess that pic of him in a bathing suit may have unduly influenced me.
Sarge
It is a mark of how little attention I pay to Schoenberg that when you said "Arnold" here, first I thought, "But Malcolm Arnold wasn't an option in the poll!" And then I thought, "Neither was Arnold Bax." And then, "Maybe it's a Schwarzenegger joke." Followed at last by, "...Oh."
I prefer Mendelssohn's music by far, but Shoenberg was a better composer.
Quote from: Brian on June 24, 2010, 09:59:17 AM
It is a mark of how little attention I pay to Schoenberg that when you said "Arnold" here, first I thought, "But Malcolm Arnold wasn't an option in the poll!" And then I thought, "Neither was Arnold Bax." And then, "Maybe it's a Schwarzenegger joke." Followed at last by, "...Oh."
Brian,
I think an Arnold vs. Sylvester thread makes at least as much sense as a Mendelssohn vs. Schoenberg thread. :D
Quote from: Brahmsian on June 24, 2010, 10:17:41 AM
I think an Arnold vs. Sylvester thread makes at least as much sense as a Mendelssohn vs. Schoenberg thread.
In that case it would be Arnold by a country mile.
Just popping in to point out that if it is a comparison of only two, it is to find the greater. You need three to find the greatest.
Mike
This poll is too modern!!!! :D
Comparative vs. Superlative
Two composers who did their best work earlier in life. Unusual pattern.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 11:26:32 AM
A genius VS. An incompetent
So...great orchestras all over the world, led by some of the most brilliant conductors around, have all been duped, bamboozled, hoodwinked--playing music by this "incompetent"? 8)
--Bruce
Quote from: bhodges on June 24, 2010, 11:46:05 AM
So...great orchestras all over the world, led by some of the most brilliant conductors around, have all been duped, bamboozled, hoodwinked--playing music by this "incompetent"? 8)
--Bruce
I think youre catching up... ;)
Quote from: bhodges on June 24, 2010, 11:46:05 AM
So...great orchestras all over the world, led by some of the most brilliant conductors around, have all been duped, bamboozled, hoodwinked--playing music by this "incompetent"? 8)
--Bruce
We should tell them to stop playing Mendelssohn. Too stop them from looking foolish. 8)
:P
Quote from: bhodges on June 24, 2010, 11:46:05 AM
So...great orchestras all over the world, led by some of the most brilliant conductors around, have all been duped, bamboozled, hoodwinked--playing music by this "incompetent"? 8)
--Bruce
Smiling throughout Saul's absurd railing, because I remember vividly the two seasons when Levine's programming with the BSO was dominated by twin geniuses: Beethoven and Schoenberg.
You know, it's just possible that Levine has a better sense than Saul of what "an incompetent composer" might be ; )
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 01:37:08 PM
Smiling throughout Saul's absurd railing, because I remember vividly the two seasons when Levine's programming with the BSO was dominated by twin geniuses: Beethoven and Schoenberg.
Yes, that programming said a lot. Our mutual friend Charles still talks about the all-Schoenberg evening he went to.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 01:37:08 PMYou know, it's just possible that Levine has a better sense than Saul of what "an incompetent composer" might be[/font] ; )
Wha--
really?? No way...I don't believe it.
;D
--Bruce
Quote from: knight on June 24, 2010, 11:22:06 AM
Just popping in to point out that if it is a comparison of only two, it is to find the greater. You need three to find the greatest.
This is the great
est linguistically analytical post so far in this thread.
Yes, despite it being utterly irrelevant to the topic in any useful way, I acknowledge it is a truly great post. :-X
Mike
Oh, Dave - you've done it again! ;D
Now, what do I want, an apple or an orange - a glass of wine or a beer? Jeez, I like both of those two options and just cannot decide @ the moment - what am I eating? That may help - ;) :D Dave
Let's see. A composer whose every composition I've heard to date I like against--a composer of whom I've ever heard one work I like, and no other works that I'd like to hear again.
No contest. Verklarte Nacht is great, but despite his importance in the history of music, that's the only thing of Schoenberg's I like.
Quote from: kishnevi on June 24, 2010, 04:37:56 PM
Let's see. A composer whose every composition I've heard to date I like against--a composer of whom I've ever heard one work I like, and no other works that I'd like to hear again.
No contest. Verklarte Nacht is great, but despite his importance in the history of music, that's the only thing of Schoenberg's I like.
Be prepared to be attacked by the 'Intellectuals'...
Tough choice to make, but Schoenberg is more up my alley than Mendelssohn. Also, when I think Schoenberg, Zemlinsky comes to mind (and I really like Zemlinsky's music).
Quote from: Brian on June 24, 2010, 09:59:17 AM
It is a mark of how little attention I pay to Schoenberg that when you said "Arnold" here, first I thought, "But Malcolm Arnold wasn't an option in the poll!" And then I thought, "Neither was Arnold Bax." And then, "Maybe it's a Schwarzenegger joke." Followed at last by, "...Oh."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Arnold_(composer) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Arnold_(composer))
Samuel Arnold, English composer. Wrote the music for INKLE & YARICO, one of the first operas to treat the topic of interracial marriage (and the slave-trade) seriously. A fine piece of music, too.
Quote from: kishnevi on June 24, 2010, 04:37:56 PMNo contest. Verklarte Nacht is great, but despite his importance in the history of music, that's the only thing of Schoenberg's I like.
Have you heard "Gurrelieder" or "Pelleas und Melisande"? These are early tonal works that are quite good. I enjoy both of his "Chamber Symphonies," "Variations for Orchestra," and, of course, "Verklarte Nacht (version for string orchestra)."
I'm quite fond of some of Mendelssohn's works like "Symphony No. 3," all of his concerti, "A Mid Summer's Night Dream," and "Hebrides Overture," but that's about it for me. I don't put Mendelssohn up on a pedestal. Schoenberg, on the other hand, was a genius. He virtually created his own genre of music and he revolutionized music in the 20th Century and ushered a much needed change. While Schoenberg is far from my favorite composer, his importance and influence is much greater than Mendelssohn's.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 24, 2010, 05:26:25 PM
Tough choice to make, but Schoenberg is more up my alley than Mendelssohn. Also, when I think Schoenberg, Zemlinsky comes to mind (and I really like Zemlinsky's music).
OH,
Don - so you want a beer rather than a glass of wine! ;) ;D Dave
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 05:45:08 PM
Have you heard "Gurrelieder" or "Pelleas und Melisande"? These are early tonal works that are quite good. I enjoy both of his "Chamber Symphonies," "Variations for Orchestra," and, of course, "Verklarte Nacht (version for string orchestra)."
I just listened to friede auf erden - I can't imagine this not pleasing any fan of late Romanticism either. It has a few scary harmonies, but late Romanticism is riddled with them anyway.
Quote from: Lethe on June 24, 2010, 05:49:15 PM
I just listened to friede auf erden - I can't imagine this not pleasing any fan of late Romanticism either. It has a few scary harmonies, but late Romanticism is riddled with them anyway.
I don't see how anyone could not like these early tonal works of Schoenberg. They're steeped in the German Romantic tradition. Thick harmonies and orchestration abound. Deep melodies that cry out into the night. Quite beautiful music indeed.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 05:45:08 PM
Have you heard "Gurrelieder" or "Pelleas und Melisande"? These are early tonal works that are quite good. I enjoy both of his "Chamber Symphonies," "Variations for Orchestra," and, of course, "Verklarte Nacht (version for string orchestra)."
I'm quite fond of some of Mendelssohn's works like "Symphony No. 3," all of his concerti, "A Mid Summer's Night Dream," and "Hebrides Overture," but that's about it for me. I don't put Mendelssohn up on a pedestal. Schoenberg, on the other hand, was a genius. He virtually created his own genre of music and he revolutionized music in the 20th Century and ushered a much needed change. While Schoenberg is far from my favorite composer, his importance and influence is much greater than Mendelssohn's.
Gurrelieder--heard, not impressed by it. Of course, that was quite some many years ago, so I might have a different reaction now.
Pelleas--did he write one, too? Obviously never heard that one. Nor the work Lethe mentioned.
But his later music--sorry, but anything that gives me headaches (which much of non-tonal music does) is not going to get my vote.
I did mention "his importance in the history of music" in my first comment--no denying he was influential. But influential and great are not the same thing. For example, Fux.
And don't belittle Mendelssohn's influence as origin of the Bach revival and director of the Gewandhaus.
The one type of music I'm most interested in of his is the string quartets, which I have yet to hear, but want to at some point. I've found that solo piano and small string ensembles work better for me in non-tonal music for some reason, so there is hope yet.
I voted for Mendelssohn, I really love his Hebrides Overture and can hear his talent in works of his I am not that fond of.
Schoenberg on the other hand took many young modern composers down the atonal and hard dissonance road, so I see him as a negative influence. Thank god Respighi created the neo-classical movement to rebel against Schoenberg. Because of Respighi's movement at least half of modern classical works are tonal.
Not going to dispute the main thrust of your post, even though personally I adore Schoenberg etc - you are right that neo-classicism represented the main 'other way' to atonality and modernism in the first decades of the 20th century (though Schoenberg himself was certainly not unaffected by neo-classicism himself - just check out his op 23-5 for starters - pure neo-classicism, albeit in an atonal harmonic language).
But just to point out, Respighi isn't really much to do with it, certainly not a creator of the style. FWIW the Wiki page on neo-classicism in music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassicism_(music)) doesn't even mention Respighi, not even at the bottom of the page in its list of notable neo-classical composers. Which is not to say that Respighi isn't great fun every now and then, nor to say that he didn't have his neo-classical moments.
Quote from: Luke on June 25, 2010, 01:01:52 AM
Not going to dispute the main thrust of your post, even though personally I adore Schoenberg etc - you are right that neo-classicism represented the main 'other way' to atonality and modernism in the first decades of the 20th century (though Schoenberg himself was certainly not unaffected by neo-classicism himself - just check out his op 23-5 for starters - pure neo-classicism, albeit in an atonal harmonic language).
But just to point out, Respighi isn't really much to do with it, certainly not a creator of the style. FWIW the Wiki page on neo-classicism in music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassicism_(music)) doesn't even mention Respighi, not even at the bottom of the page in its list of notable neo-classical composers. Which is not to say that Respighi isn't great fun every now and then, nor to say that he didn't have his neo-classical moments.
Thanks Luke I stand corrected, not sure why I thought Respighi was the head of the movement in opposition to Schoenberg, after reading the definition of neo-classical I am now not even sure that is the right movement.
From Respighi's listing in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottorino_Respighi)
"In his role as musicologist, Respighi was also an enthusiastic scholar of Italian music of the 16th-18th centuries. He published editions of the music of Claudio Monteverdi and Antonio Vivaldi, and of Benedetto Marcello's Didone. Because of his devotion to these older figures and their styles of composing, it is tempting to see him as a typical exponent of Neo-classicism. In fact, Neo-Renaissance or Neo-Baroque would probably more accurately describe his compositions that are based on earlier work. Respighi generally kept clear of the musical idiom of the classical period, unlike most neo-classical composers. He preferred combining pre-classical melodic styles and musical forms (like dance suites) with typical late 19th century romantic harmonies and textures."My favorite contemporary composer's are Neo-Romantics, Neo-Classicists, Neo-Moderns and I guess Neo-Renaissance and Neo-Baroque.
It's a trick question in any case. Any fool knows Muhammad Ali was "The Greatest".
Quote from: Brian on June 24, 2010, 09:59:17 AM
It is a mark of how little attention I pay to Schoenberg that when you said "Arnold" here, first I thought, "But Malcolm Arnold wasn't an option in the poll!" And then I thought, "Neither was Arnold Bax." And then, "Maybe it's a Schwarzenegger joke." Followed at last by, "...Oh."
Silly me. I thought the discussion was about Arnold the Pig from Green Acres.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/3855448499_c502595f92.jpg)
Tragically, as you all may know, the first actor to play the role of Arnold the Pig when to the great GMG Poll in the sky in 1972. If you wish to visit the resting place for his mortal remains, you may find them here.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=14282158 (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=14282158)
What is not widely known about Arnold the Pig was that he was neither interested in the "Classical" or "Modern" periods, but rather Renaissance era Madrigals...
Quote from: Teresa on June 25, 2010, 12:25:30 AM
I voted for Mendelssohn, I really love his Hebrides Overture and can hear his talent in works of his I am not that fond of.
Schoenberg on the other hand took many young modern composers down the atonal and hard dissonance road, so I see him as a negative influence. Thank god Respighi created the neo-classical movement to rebel against Schoenberg. Because of Respighi's movement at least half of modern classical works are tonal.
Thank you.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 05:52:50 PM
I don't see how anyone could not like these early tonal works of Schoenberg. They're steeped in the German Romantic tradition. Thick harmonies and orchestration abound. Deep melodies that cry out into the night. Quite beautiful music indeed.
Schoenberg's early works are just as frigthening as his latter ones. There is no trace of German Romanticism in his music. Even his tonal works are a psychological nightmare of Kafkan proportions. The man was too disturbed to produce anything that might be considered beautiful. It was up to Webern, who had no darker side in his soul, to introduce beauty into the contorted idiom of the first.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 25, 2010, 04:49:08 AM
Schoenberg's early works are just as frigthening as his latter ones.
Well, but then you spook so easily, you tender-eared fellow ; )
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 25, 2010, 04:49:08 AM
Schoenberg's early works are just as frigthening as his latter ones. There is no trace of German Romanticism in his music. Even his tonal works are a psychological nightmare of Kafkan proportions. The man was too disturbed to produce anything that might be considered beautiful. It was up to Webern, who had no darker side in his soul, to introduce beauty into the contorted idiom of the first.
Simply not true! The opening of Gurrelieder with its evocation of nature is explicitly an extension of Mahler. Ditto 'The Song of the Wood dove' from the same piece, it also echos Wagner.
Verklärte Nacht sounds to me like a development of the sounds heard in Mahler's 9th symphony.
Later he turned his back on this form of music, but the influences are clearly there in these earlier works.
Mike
The assertion that Schoenberg was "was too disturbed to produce anything that might be considered beautiful" is rubbish on several levels. It is an ad hominem irrelevance in the first place. In the second, the idea that a person being "disturbed" is therefore precluded from the creation of the beautiful, joins a long parade of tendentious bogusness to come from "Josquin." Most people allow that Dostoyevsky's fiction contains many passages of great beauty; and one can argue that he was to some degree or another "disturbed" as a result of his near-execution.
Conclusive evidence of beauty. I rest my case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8hNxAGivMc
Mike
(that's Berg, not Schoenberg, Mike; beautiful nonetheless)
also odd to read that the composer of Gurrelieder had 'no trace of German Romanticism in his music' - surely it is one of the key, textbook works in the German Romantic line. All the hallmarks are there, writ as large as possible (makes no difference that the source poem is Danish!)
Dolcissima, Mike, thanks!
You are of course right and thanks Luke, I will leave my error intact.
Mike
Quote from: knight on June 25, 2010, 09:03:19 AM
Verklärte Nacht sounds to me like a development of the sounds heard in Mahler's 9th symphony.
Which is a neat trick, considering that it predates Mahler's 9th by about 10 years.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 25, 2010, 09:07:12 AM
The assertion that Schoenberg was "was too disturbed to produce anything that might be considered beautiful" is rubbish on several levels.
Though such pearls of wisdom are typical of "Josquin," I have to admit that he inadvertently hit on one of the reasons for Schoenberg's appeal, at least to me. Hell, I
like nightmarish, Kafkaesque music. Twelve-Tone Arnie really delivered the goods in that department.
Me, I'm bracing myself for a listen to my recently-acquired disc of Arnie's String Trio: his heart attack set to music.
Quote from: Velimir on June 25, 2010, 09:22:04 AM
Which is a neat trick, considering that it predates Mahler's 9th by about 10 years.
I did make one daft mistake, but that was not it. I do know which came first, but I was trying to point out the way in which Schoenberg fed off that late Romantic music, especially of Mahler and that they do sound as though written sequentially the other way round.
Thanks,
Mike
Quote from: knight on June 25, 2010, 09:26:13 AM
I did make one daft mistake, but that was not it.
Indeed. VN shows the degree to which Sch. was ahead of his time. Somebody commented that the score looked like a Wagner score smeared while the ink was still wet, or words to that effect.
Schoenberg is fun. His music is a new way of looking at the world. He was and is able to cause peculiar sensuous, cultural and intellectual aversion in people by prodding their assumptions and habituations.
He was also kind of a musical scientist. The Verein für musikalische Privataufführungen was a great idea (excluding critics), and it's interesting that he didn't allow any of his own work to be performed there for two years.
Quote from: James on June 25, 2010, 03:42:08 PM
Yea .. you touch on something here; is Mendelssohn's music ever really dark, intense, forceful or even disturbing ever? Does it really penetrate the consciousness in a big way? Sure, it's sunny, pretty & beautifully & exquisitely crafted but it often lacks depth or something, it's superficial sounding .. passive, buttoned up even frivolous.. it's the same sort of vibe I get listening to stuff like Mozart.
Does music have to be dark to move? I find much of Mozart's music, and Mendelssohn's too, deeply moving without darkness...
Quote from: James on June 25, 2010, 03:42:08 PM
Yea ... there is a big misconception about the 2nd Viennese school i find (mostly amoungst folks who hear bits, but aren't that deeply exposed to it), and it's that these guys operated in a vacuum with little connection with the musical past. Or that they created new genres etc. Total bunk of course, it arose from what came before. Webern being the most unique however, as he distilled & purified & reduced his music so much so that traces of that are very hard to detect. One of the reasons why I dig him so much tho. And still ... they all wrote for the traditional models-instruments-vehicles too ... string quartet, orchestra, choir, cantatas, variations, symphonies, operas, concertos, lieder etc ...
That was another characteristic of much music from the 20th century's first half: looking forward by looking back if you will. Of course there were Stravinsky and the other Neoclassic composers, but Webern also looked back in this way; he modeled his Concerto for Nine Instruments after the Bach Brandenburgs despite its very different melodic, harmonic and rhythmic material.
Quote from: jochanaan on June 30, 2010, 02:19:55 PM
and Mendelssohn's too... deeply moving
Does not compute.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 30, 2010, 02:27:25 PM
Does not compute.
The perfect response in this case, and no reflection on Mendelssohn at all ; )
Schoenberg's SQs are wonderful so I voted for him. By the time I remembered Mendelssohn's string quintets I had already clicked the button. 0:)
Here's a very informative interview with Riccardo Chailly discussing Mendelssohn.
http://www.youtube.com/v/37jeL5Axs6A
http://www.youtube.com/v/GaNcMexsiTs&feature=channel
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 05:45:08 PM
I'm quite fond of some of Mendelssohn's works like "Symphony No. 3," all of his concerti, "A Mid Summer's Night Dream," and "Hebrides Overture," but that's about it for me. I don't put Mendelssohn up on a pedestal. Schoenberg, on the other hand, was a genius. He virtually created his own genre of music and he revolutionized music in the 20th Century and ushered a much needed change. While Schoenberg is far from my favorite composer, his importance and influence is much greater than Mendelssohn's.
I think you forget that Mendelssohn also created his own genre of music that was vastly influential throughout the 19th century - how many times have I heard of a composer being criticized for writing Mendelssohnian symphonies and I think you'd find it a time consuming task to catalogue the vast number of 'songs without words' that followed from him. Whether you like it or not, his importance in the history of music cannot be ignored.
Quote from: James on June 25, 2010, 03:42:08 PM
Yea .. you touch on something here; is Mendelssohn's music ever really dark, intense, forceful or even disturbing ever? Does it really penetrate the consciousness in a big way? Sure, it's sunny, pretty & beautifully & exquisitely crafted but it often lacks depth or something, it's superficial sounding .. passive, buttoned up even frivolous.. it's the same sort of vibe I get listening to stuff like Mozart.
You are infected by the most nonsensical fallacy ever devised in music criticism: the nature of the emotional content, be it dark or be it sunny has no bearing on 'depth or something'. Do you perhaps equate deep with depressed and uplifting with superficial. If you insist then listen to Mendelssohn's Op. 80 Quartet.
Quote from: DavidW on June 30, 2010, 05:17:17 PM
Schoenberg's SQs are wonderful so I voted for him.
Full stop, je-je-je! : )
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 01, 2010, 02:53:38 AM
You are infected by the most nonsensical fallacy ever devised in music criticism: the nature of the emotional content, be it dark or be it sunny has no bearing on 'depth or something'. Do you perhaps equate deep with depressed and uplifting with superficial.
Aye, the misprision that if you aren't slapped in the face with a fish that's been dead for ten days, it doesn't mean anything.
Another piece of James's baggage is another fallacy, the dilettante's gambit that in order to feel discriminating, one must find a class of art to sneer at.
Mendelssohn's music is not superficial, its just sterile. He is like Joachim Raff in that respect, except no where near as bad.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 01, 2010, 04:39:22 AM
Mendelssohn's music is not superficial, its just sterile.
Go ahead: explain to us all how music can be "sterile."
I find this kind of thread pointless.
Composers are not things to be compared, judging one above the other. Each composer, just as each person, is absolutely unique, sui generis, and each composer has his unique mission in life, as we all do, and Mendelssohn's mission was not anything the same as Schoenberg's mission, and Mendelssohn was an absolutely great Mendelssohn, as was Schoneberg a great Schoenberg.
You may prefer Schoenberg over Mendelssohn but that has nothing to do with each's purpose or mission and how well they fulfilled it. In any event, no one but Mendelssohn could fulfill his mission better than him, or in place of him, and he was not put here to fulfill any other composer's mission. Our world would be infinitely poorer had Mendelssohn not existed, since his contribution to our world would have been missing and irreplaceable by any other composer.
Someone remarked fairly wittily, "be yourself, everyone else is taken" - a joke, sure, but one that contains a lot of wisdom.
Excellent post, Franco.
Quote from: Franco on July 01, 2010, 05:44:00 AM
I find this kind of thread pointless.
No, the thread is not pointless: it inspires conversation and debate about music--sometimes even
good conversation and debate. Witness your own post 8)
Sarge
Well said, Sarge! We are the makers of the point . . . .
Quote from: Franco on July 01, 2010, 05:44:00 AM
I find this kind of thread pointless.
Composers are not things to be compared, judging one above the other. Each composer, just as each person, is absolutely unique, sui generis, and each composer has his unique mission in life, as we all do, and Mendelssohn's mission was not anything the same as Schoenberg's mission, and Mendelssohn was an absolutely great Mendelssohn, as was Schoneberg a great Schoenberg.
You may prefer Schoenberg over Mendelssohn but that has nothing to do with each's purpose or mission and how well they fulfilled it. In any event, no one but Mendelssohn could fulfill his mission better than him, or in place of him, and he was not put here to fulfill any other composer's mission. Our world would be infinitely poorer had Mendelssohn not existed, since his contribution to our world would have been missing and irreplaceable by any other composer.
Someone remarked fairly wittily, "be yourself, everyone else is taken" - a joke, sure, but one that contains a lot of wisdom.
We all have missions in life but that doesn't mean that we are all the same.
Some people are gifted more then other people. The Genius of Mendelssohn is in a totally higher and extremely different level then the drivels of Schoenberg.
This doesn't have to do with opinion, but pure fact, reading the hand on the wall.
Those who choose Schoenberg over Mendelssohn, practice subjectivity and personal taste, rather then accepting reality.
Believe it or not ,music has quality, and one composers music has either a superior quality or inferior quality then other composers. This quality exists in everything, in all forms of art. To say that every art has the same quality, will put all artists in the same level, and this would be just wrong.
Quote from: James on June 25, 2010, 03:42:08 PM...it's superficial sounding...like Mozart.
Mozart is only superficial sounding if you
listen superficially. You need to know and understand the Classical language, which is quite different from the Baroque and Modern languages you prefer. Mozart is as "deep" as any composer. There is no room for debate about this. It is simply true.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 01, 2010, 05:59:12 AM
No, the thread is not pointless: it inspires conversation and debate about music--sometimes even good conversation and debate. Witness your own post 8)
Sarge
Okay, point taken.
:)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 01, 2010, 06:05:22 AM
Mozart is only superficial sounding if you listen superficially.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 01, 2010, 06:05:22 AM
You need to know and understand the Classical language
Not necessarily. The genius of Mozart has actually very little to do with his classicism.
Quote from: Franco on July 01, 2010, 05:44:00 AM
In any event, no one but Mendelssohn could fulfill his mission better than him, or in place of him, and he was not put here to fulfill any other composer's mission.
Franco - I agree with your general point that comparisons between very different artists are truly pointless, but I disagree with the point about Mendelssohn perfectly fulfilling his promise. I think Mendelssohn is one of those artists who failed to achieve to their potential - and M's was as tremendous as anyone else we can name. I am a pretty big fan of M and think some of his later music is outstanding, but I think his work in the last decade is uneven and doesn't show the growth that other great composers have exhibited (yes, especially Mozart- that's for you James). It's hard to attribute causes, but I think M wrote in a world which priviliged passion and angst, qualities which I think were ill-suited for his music, and perhaps his nature. The music that tries to express this angst seems insincere. (I am well aware of the difficulties associated with applying this adjective to music, but yet I feel it.) I also believe he was plagued with health difficulties in the 1840s which affected his abililty negatively.
Maybe you know what Mendelssohn's promise, or I prefer mission, was - I don't.
I take it as a plain fact that what Mendelssohn accomplished is at least partly, if not entirely, what he was put here to do, and I do not quibble about what was not accomplished, since the explicit accomplishement is huge as it is.
Given your views, I'm puzzled why you bother to read these discussions, or post on them.
Two Mendelssohn compositions that I love are the e-minor Quartet (op. 44 no. 2):
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51E5IP-2qeL._SS500_.jpg)
and the 2nd Piano Concerto:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51y8GEKuzvL._SS500_.jpg)
That Perahia performance is beautiful but the sonics of the disc are iffy, frankly (soft, rounded). I don't view either composition as sterile in any way, although I think I understand that criticism being lodged against some other works (the Op. 80 String Quartet??).
Quote from: Saul on July 01, 2010, 06:04:39 AM
We all have missions in life but that doesn't mean that we are all the same.
Some people are gifted more then other people. The Genius of Mendelssohn is in a totally higher and extremely different level then the drivels of Schoenberg.
This doesn't have to do with opinion, but pure fact, reading the hand on the wall.
Those who choose Schoenberg over Mendelssohn, practice subjectivity and personal taste, rather then accepting reality.
Believe it or not ,music has quality, and one composers music has either a superior quality or inferior quality then other composers. This quality exists in everything, in all forms of art. To say that every art has the same quality, will put all artists in the same level, and this would be just wrong.
Didn't you say you were joking when after you wrote this kind of thing before? Just to stimulate discussion, or something. Whatever, it was rubbish then, and it's rubbish now. The actual facts - provable, quantifiable facts, look-in-the-score-and-see facts, are that as much as we have means to measure these things, Schoenberg was one of the most supremely gifted composers of all. Mendelssohn was pretty darn hot skills-wise too, though his music never carries this skill to such breathtaking heights as Schoenberg does*.
And in turn, this has nothing to do with liking the music or not, it has to do with just the notes themselves, on the page. You might, for instance, despise the op 9 Chamber Symphony (one of the most exciting, lovable works in the repertoire, IMO), but it is impossible, if you actually engage with the score, not to realise that this composer could do pretty much everything, with ease. So let's have none of this talk of 'drivel' until you have proved that you know what you are talking about, until you can take a Schoenberg score apart and show us, in an objective way, without relation to your own personal tastes (that's what you yourself said was important up there, remember), exactly where these flaws and the 'drivel' are, chapter and verse.
*that's one of the strange features of Mendelssohn's music, IMO - he can rise to really beautiful heights and yet have a last minute failure of nerve, a refusal to seal the deal. One of my favourite pieces of Mendelssohn is one of the Songs Without Words, I forget the op no, I think it's 60-something, and it's an Andante in D major. There is a meltingly gorgeous cadence in there identical, I think, to one in the last duet of Rosenkavalier...but Strauss manages to give us an ecstatic closure on this harmonic progression, and Mendelssohn leaves you feeling that he just pulled back from the brink somehow. Unsatisfying. It's safe, it's beautiful, it's flawless....but it could be so much more. That's Mendelssohn, for me, much of the time.
Quote from: Luke on July 01, 2010, 07:46:44 AM
*that's one of the strange features of Mendelssohn's music, IMO - he can rise to really beautiful heights and yet have a last minute failure of nerve, a refusal to seal the deal. One of my favourite pieces of Mendelssohn is one of the Songs Without Words, I forget the op no, I think it's 60-something, and it's an Andante in D major. There is a meltingly gorgeous cadence in there identical, I think, to one in the last duet of Rosenkavalier...but Strauss manages to give us an ecstatic closure on this harmonic progression, and Mendelssohn leaves you feeling that he just pulled back from the brink somehow. Unsatisfying. It's safe, it's beautiful, it's flawless....but it could be so much more. That's Mendelssohn, for me, much of the time.
This brings to mind Charles Rosen's comment that Mendelssohn's melodies often begin brilliantly but finish with conventionality and weakness. He illustrates the position with the long melody from the Violin Concerto (mvt i).
Quote from: cosmicj on July 01, 2010, 07:24:24 AM
Given your views, I'm puzzled why you bother to read these discussions, or post on them.
I read and post on these threads to discuss music and learn about recorded performances new to me and to exchange views with others about a mutual fascination (Mendelssohn and Schoenberg are both composers I am particularly interested in).
I have no urge to discuss music in a hierarchal context, though, I am not prone to making judgements about "greatness" about one composer over another since I find that not only unproductive to enjoying the music, but actually that kind of baggage is an impediment to opening myself to the music.
I hope I have alleviated some of your puzzlement.
:)
Franco - Oh, I understand why you'd be interested in some of the threads on this site - what I don't understand is your interest in this one, which is explicitly about hierarchy or comparative value.
Be puzzled then.
Quote from: James on July 01, 2010, 07:49:22 AM
Well it sure is 'polite', 'pretty' & 'exquisitely crafted' fellas ..."happy muzak" essentially, background decor imo. That's just not my thing & it leaves me cold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7KtxIDZBeg
If you can't understand just how brilliant this piece is, you really ought to seek out a new hobby. I'm serious.
Quote from: James on July 01, 2010, 08:14:06 AM
Ugh. I can't listen to that sorry ...
Well, with that attitude... ::)
I'm not a big Mozart lover. In fact, I don't listen to much of his music at all.
But if all you can hear in (say) the C major string quintet, the D minor symphony or the C minor piano concerto is "pretty perfection" you're not listening to the same Mozart as I do when I pull those works out.
To derail the offtopicness for a bit, I keep hearing very favourable comment on Mendelssohn's op 80 quartet. Anyone have good recommendations for it?
Quote from: edward on July 01, 2010, 08:28:44 AM
To derail the offtopicness for a bit, I keep hearing very favourable comment on Mendelssohn's op 80 quartet. Anyone have good recommendations for it?
I recommend the Aurora Quartet rec I imaged above. Very technically accomplished, expressive. The sound is better than most Naxos releases. The Op 80 quartet is one of the works I had in mind when I thought of as overwrought, a bit insincere, but it's worth listening to, that's for sure.
You've got some cheek, discussing the topic, Edward! ; )
Quote from: Saul on July 01, 2010, 06:04:39 AM
...Those who choose Schoenberg over Mendelssohn, practice subjectivity and personal taste, rather then accepting reality...
So let me make sure I'm understanding you: You say that it's "fact" and "reality" that Mendelssohn is greater than Schoenberg. But that begs a question: Who determines that this is reality? You? And what gives you the exclusive ability? Why should a newcomer to classical music accept your claim to know reality and not, say, Karl's, or Sergeant Rock's, or mine? Karl is a published composer, Rock may be a player and is certainly a fan with wide knowledge and understanding, and I am a performer with decades' experience; I think that makes our comments about reality as valid as yours.
(No, I'm not dissing your favorite composer! :D If you've read my comments here, you'll see that I have defended Mendelssohn's music against several charges of not being "great." But this does not lessen Schoenberg's greatness.)
Quote from: jochanaan on July 01, 2010, 11:42:37 AM
So let me make sure I'm understanding you: You say that it's "fact" and "reality" that Mendelssohn is greater than Schoenberg. But that begs a question: Who determines that this is reality? You? And what gives you the exclusive ability? Why should a newcomer to classical music accept your claim to know reality and not, say, Karl's, or Sergeant Rock's, or mine? Karl is a published composer, Rock may be a player and is certainly a fan with wide knowledge and understanding, and I am a performer with decades' experience; I think that makes our comments about reality as valid as yours.
You're making the assumption that Saul is speaking honestly, and there's good reason to assume otherwise.
Quote from: Franco on July 01, 2010, 11:50:08 AM
But you are underestimating the importance of 60,000 views of Saul's music on Walla - and the credibility this affords him to make these pronouncements.
People who knowingly make dishonest statements in order to induce response have no credibiity with me. Saul has made his bed and will have to live with the results.
Entirely with you, Don.
Totally cool that the current polling shows Schoenberg at a 3:2 advantage.
Quote from: jochanaan on July 01, 2010, 11:42:37 AM
So let me make sure I'm understanding you: You say that it's "fact" and "reality" that Mendelssohn is greater than Schoenberg. But that begs a question: Who determines that this is reality? You? And what gives you the exclusive ability? Why should a newcomer to classical music accept your claim to know reality and not, say, Karl's, or Sergeant Rock's, or mine? Karl is a published composer, Rock may be a player and is certainly a fan with wide knowledge and understanding, and I am a performer with decades' experience; I think that makes our comments about reality as valid as yours.
The fixed stars signify the angel in man. That is why man orients himself by them; and that is why women have no appreciation for the starry sky; because they have no sense of the angel in man. - Otto Weininger
If every star in the firmament was equal to the other, you would never be able to get anywhere, and between Saul and, say, Karl, i would definitely state that the latter shines brighter then the first, and that i would follow his light over the other. Why? Intuition. This is how i then move towards discovering truth, by following the brightest stars in the firmament (genius).
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 01, 2010, 08:12:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7KtxIDZBeg
If you can't understand just how brilliant this piece is, you really ought to seek out a new hobby. I'm serious.
Damn! I listened to it completely and I hated it immensely! To my ears it is not brilliant, indeed I can hear no value in it at all, this could be used to chase people away from Classical music IMHO.
So you seriously advise those who cannot hear the brilliance of this composition need to I seek a new hobby!? :o I feel your attitude is
RUDE and
INSENSITIVE >:(. Since CLASSICAL MUSIC is my life, according to you I might as well comment hara-kiri. IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! ::)
Quote from: Teresa on June 25, 2010, 12:25:30 AM
I voted for Mendelssohn, I really love his Hebrides Overture and can hear his talent in works of his I am not that fond of.
Schoenberg on the other hand took many young modern composers down the atonal and hard dissonance road, so I see him as a negative influence. Thank goodness for the anti-Schoenberg movement to rebel against his serialism and very atonal ugliness. Because of this at least half of modern classical works are tonal, and many are quite wonderfully beautiful.
I made new modifications of my original post, above. Personally I feel it has taken decades to undo the anti-musical damage that Schoenberg has done to modern composers. The modern 20th and 21st century compositions from
Johan de Meij Jennifer Higdon, Michael Daugherty, Michael Gandolfi, and countless other prove that this adversity can be overcome. :)
Also I am sad to say I believe that Schoenberg was a bigger influence than Mendelssohn on composers that followed. However there is no doubt in my mind that Mendelssohn is by far the greater composer. I find it shocking that he has less votes in this thread. :o
Quote from: Bulldog on July 01, 2010, 11:49:18 AM
You're making the assumption that Saul is speaking honestly, and there's good reason to assume otherwise.
Perhaps there is. But my post was not only for Saul but for the many newbies that might be reading this thread. Now, probably most of them have learned to think for themselves, but there's always the chance that somebody might be swayed by such pronouncements. It's them I'm really challenging. :)
Quote from: cosmicj on July 01, 2010, 09:34:20 AM
I recommend the Aurora Quartet rec I imaged above. Very technically accomplished, expressive. The sound is better than most Naxos releases. The Op 80 quartet is one of the works I had in mind when I thought of as overwrought, a bit insincere, but it's worth listening to, that's for sure.
My only recording is by the Emerson SQ. Perfectly satisfied with it, but truth to tell, when I want to hear some of his chamber music, it's almost invariably the Octet or the Piano Trios I opt for.
Quote from: Teresa on July 01, 2010, 03:32:25 PM
Also I am sad to say I believe that Schoenberg was a bigger influence than Mendelssohn on composers that followed. However there is no doubt in my mind that Mendelssohn is by far the greatest composer. I find it shocking that he has less votes in this thread. :o
Not shocked, but I am a little surprised at the spread. Whether warranted or not, Mendelssohn does have a reputation for surface appeal.
This is something I wrote tonight after reading some of the comments here regarding this thread. Parts of it are in my own words, and some are things I've heard and read throughout the years about Mendelssohn.
Felix Mendelssohn and Arnold Schoenberg
Jacob Ludwig Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy (February 3, 1809 - November 4, 1847) was probably the greatest child prodigy composer that music has ever seen, even compared to Mozart (an estimation made by famed author Goethe, friend of Mendelssohn's teacher Carl Friedrich Zelter).
Though acclaimed across Europe in his lifetime, Mendelssohn was disdained by future generations of musicians and critics for whom this Classicist, dedicated to perfection of form but little interested in advancing harmony, was far too conservative and comfortable. Yet there is considerable imagination in his best works (his Violin Concerto in E minor transformed the genre and was much-copied), and nearly everything he wrote is immediately distinctive, "Mendelssohnian" in its graceful textures, moto perpetuo adrenaline, and lack of superfluity.
After viewing some comments made by a number of musicians here I can't but be perplexed and somewhat astonished at the conclusions these people have come to regarding Mendelssohn and Schoenberg.
Felix Mendelssohn the Crown King of European music in the Romantic Era, considered by many prominent music critics and musicians as the rightful heir of L.V Beethoven, is been compared to Arnold Schoenberg , a relatively recent composer who influenced the modern approach to composing music and the progenitor of the 12 tone system.
Many classical music lovers will tell you that Mendelssohn was a superior composer by far then Schoenberg, and on the other side of the debate many will also differ and say that Schoenberg was greater.
But who's right?
I believe that the in the heart of this particular debate, there is yet a deeper debate going on within the classical music world, and this Mendelssohn & Schoenberg debate, is only the outer layer of a deeper important argument.
I believe this argument has to do with influence and progression in modernizing music.
Since Mendelssohn was a traditionalist and was completely dedicated to the style of the past greats, such as Bach, Handel, and Mozart, and to some degree Beethoven, whatever contributions he had given to the world of classical music is marginalized, because he wasn't a revolutionary composer.
Mendelssohn had given many contributions to composition, for example he is credited to be the father of the 'Tone Poem' with his amazing ability to take things like places, pictures, paintings, locations, nature, oceans and elements of the fantasy world , imaginary things like elves, fairies and animals and to translate them into music had no match in those days in Europe. No one did it better then him, and he wasn't shy of creating program music.
He also contributed to development of Scherzo, composing music that is fast, light, and virtuosic for solo piano, chamber pieces, and Orchestral work. Composers like Brahms, Mahler and Borodin were influenced by his unique approach to scherzo and his orchestral style of composing.
Richard Wagner modeled his own career after Mendelssohn's, even though he devoted his long life to denigrating Mendelssohn and his music in published articles.
Mendelssohn's subjective high standards for himself contributed to one third of his music not being published (270 of his 750 works). He revised his work relentlessly, unwilling to publish anything he did not personally deem ready.
Mendelssohn was the first composer with a strong focus on the music of the past. He revered Bach, studied Handel and programmed orchestral concerts less around his contemporaries than Beethoven and Mozart. The legacy he left classical music is one of conservatism. The field has adhered to it ever since.
Mendelssohn helped shape the experience of classical music as we know it today.
He certainly didn't lack for praise during his lifetime. He was born in 1809 in Hamburg to an affluent family of Berlin-based bankers who staged private readings of their talented child's operas and symphonies, and he was publicly lionized, especially in England and Germany.
Popular or no, Mendelssohn certainly set a few enduring precedents. As conductor of the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra for 12 years, he practically codified the modern classical concert. He was an early adopter of the modern conductor's baton. He focused programs so that they included a few big pieces -- an overture, a concerto, a symphony -- performed sequentially: The movements of a symphony were played together rather than interspersed with arias and chamber pieces. He reintroduced major works by dead composers, a practice that had theretofore scarcely figured in musical life. He founded the Leipzig Conservatory. Mozart, were he to return today, might not recognize many aspects of classical music as it is now practiced, but Mendelssohn could find elements of continuity.
If you take all of this monumental contributions, besides the fact that he composed hundreds of works in all genres of classical music, Be it Piano, Chamber, Orchestral, Choral, and Opera, and enriched the Classical music world greatly, and besides the many legendary gifts that he possessed, such as:
1. Photographic memory, Mendelssohn memorized by heart every single music that was ever composed since Bach.
2. His status as a highly virtuosic pianist was unchallenged by anyone, and Clara Wiek Schumann adored Mendelssohn the pianist as much as she adored Mendelssohn the composer.
3. He was a first rate Organist, studying the Organ in a relatively short period of time, and becoming the best organist in all of Europe.
4. His ability to improvise and read new music instantly was astonishing.
5. His other intellectual gifts were evident as he was a fine Painter, writer and spoke and corresponded in writing fluently, in German, English, French and Latin.
To take this Giant of Music, one of a billion and to put him at a lower level then Schoenberg is not only intellectually and historically poor, but its a great injustice.
For Mendelssohn wasn't a revolutionary not because he couldn't be one, but because he didn't want to. This is a huge difference.
Schoenberg could have never composed at the level of Mendelssohn, he just didn't have the talent to do so, this is why he had to revolutionize composition in order to find a unique voice for himself.
Mendelssohn could have composed as the previous Greats such as Bach and Handel, he did compose a number of works that demonstrate to us his amazing ability to emulate the greats but not copy them, a great difference, and keeping his own special and distinctive Mendelssohnian style.
Mendelssohn didn't have to revolutionize music in order to find his voice, he was Great enough to compose Great music with a special and extremely distinctive style and voice that was his own, without breaking any laws of music, and without separating himself from the legacy of the Greats.
A great magician is not someone that tells you to shut your eyes while he creates the trick. A great Magician is someone who creates the magic while your eyes are open, but you still can't come to know how he pulled the trick.
Anyone can be 'different', it takes a real genius to be different even though staying the same, just like everyone else.
I therefore conclude that this comparison is not worthy. There is no comparison between the two. Mendelssohn was clearly without any shadow of any doubt the superior composer, by every standard conceivable my the human mind.
Cheers,
Saul
Quote from: James on July 01, 2010, 08:20:11 AM
Oh I hear the 'pretty perfection' of it ... but that kind of music doesnt do a thing for me, it actually makes me a bit ill to be honest.
weird... I actually agree with you on this one. It was actually painful to listen to after about 10 seconds. Of course, it doesn't mean it's
bad, but wow...
QuoteFelix Mendelssohn the Crown King of European music in the Romantic Era, considered by many prominent music critics and musicians as the rightful heir of L.V Beethoven
Saul, quit making stuff up would ya.
Quote from: Greg on July 01, 2010, 07:30:28 PM
weird... I actually agree with you on this one. It was actually painful to listen to after about 10 seconds. Of course, it doesn't mean it's bad, but wow...
I guess it takes a more experienced listener to understand Mozart. Then again, you appear to have problems with Beethoven as well, which is actually much more n00b friendly.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 01, 2010, 08:59:50 PM
Saul, quit making stuff up would ya.
Read Professor Larry Todd's bio of Mendelssohn and see if he didnt say that many considered Mendelssohn to be the rightful heir of L.V Beethoven.
Lots of people thought that the earth was flat.
Mike
Quote from: knight on July 01, 2010, 09:40:10 PM
Lots of people thought that the earth was flat.
Mike
Some still do The Flat Earth Society (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)
Quite so Teresa.
Mike
Quote from: Saul on July 01, 2010, 09:09:03 PM
Read Professor Larry Todd's bio of Mendelssohn and see if he didnt say that many considered Mendelssohn to be the rightful heir of L.V Beethoven.
Perhaps many people did consider Mendelssohn "the rightful heir to Beethoven," but this is 2010, so obviously the consensus of this train of thought is not applicable anymore.
Yes, that is pretty much what I was indicating. We have our Mendelssohn cousin to the Flat Earth Society.
Mike
Quote from: Franco on July 01, 2010, 05:44:00 AM
Composers are not things to be compared, judging one above the other. Each composer, just as each person, is absolutely unique, sui generis, and each composer has his unique mission in life, as we all do, and Mendelssohn's mission was not anything the same as Schoenberg's mission, and Mendelssohn was an absolutely great Mendelssohn, as was Schoneberg a great Schoenberg.
You may prefer Schoenberg over Mendelssohn but that has nothing to do with each's purpose or mission and how well they fulfilled it. In any event, no one but Mendelssohn could fulfill his mission better than him, or in place of him, and he was not put here to fulfill any other composer's mission. Our world would be infinitely poorer had Mendelssohn not existed, since his contribution to our world would have been missing and irreplaceable by any other composer.
Someone remarked fairly wittily, "be yourself, everyone else is taken" - a joke, sure, but one that contains a lot of wisdom.
Haven't anything to contribute to the thread as such, but just want to say that when I read posts by Franco like this one, I quite often want to cheer.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 01, 2010, 08:59:50 PM
Saul, quit making stuff up would ya.
By a wide margin, my favorite of all your posts on the forum.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 01, 2010, 09:46:17 PM
Perhaps many people did consider Mendelssohn "the rightful heir to Beethoven" . . . .
Although to consider his many contemporaries "wrongful heirs" (or worse, "pretenders"?) were utter tripe.
Quote from: James on July 01, 2010, 08:36:37 AM
. . . i geniunely just dont like it all & it makes me kinda sick.
Can't be the only thing making you sick. Anyway, that is hardly any matter of a "problem" with the music, but with the listener.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 02, 2010, 02:13:11 AM
Quote from: FrancoComposers are not things to be compared, judging one above the other. Each composer, just as each person, is absolutely unique, sui generis, and each composer has his unique mission in life, as we all do, and Mendelssohn's mission was not anything the same as Schoenberg's mission, and Mendelssohn was an absolutely great Mendelssohn, as was Schoneberg a great Schoenberg.
You may prefer Schoenberg over Mendelssohn but that has nothing to do with each's purpose or mission and how well they fulfilled it. In any event, no one but Mendelssohn could fulfill his mission better than him, or in place of him, and he was not put here to fulfill any other composer's mission. Our world would be infinitely poorer had Mendelssohn not existed, since his contribution to our world would have been missing and irreplaceable by any other composer.
Someone remarked fairly wittily, "be yourself, everyone else is taken" - a joke, sure, but one that contains a lot of wisdom.
Haven't anything to contribute to the thread as such, but just want to say that when I read posts by Franco like this one, I quite often want to cheer.
Hear, hear. That said . . . FWIW, I like both composers, but I like more of Schoenberg's work, and I rate him rather higher as an artist. Franco's point entirely well taken, that each artist must be taken on his own terms. (It's no good 'dismissing' Mendelssohn for not being Schoenberg, or vice versa.) As to whether composers aren't to be compared, I'm unsure that I should disallow the idea, even in light of Franco's point; people have done it forever — what may be the truth (or a truth) beyond the reach of the objection? Our "Josquin" called Mendelssohn's art sterile, and seems not to have accepted my invitation to explain that to those of us who find such an adjective only incompetently applied to the noun art. It's a pathetic fallacy, of course . . . but in all events impossible to apply to a composer's work. Coincidentally, I am reading The Gesualdo Hex, and the author mentions more than once some musicologist or other mourning Gesualdo's as "a stillborn art." Now, that "evaluation" is nonsense, most obviously in view of the artistic stimulation which 20th-c. composers found in Gesualdo's music. There's no point at which any of us could call Mendelssohn's art "sterile," for that "evaluation" will evaporate whenever an artist arises who takes that work as one seed of inspiration. And these seeds remain quick through long ages, as the example of Gesualdo attests. All in all, though, and while I frequently pound the table for half a dozen underappreciated composers who have been (in my view) unfairly marginalized (and my objection may be a matter of degree more than any question of an "artistic democracy" in which all composers are created "equal") I don't believe we can rank Mendelssohn even among the foremost of 19th-c. composers, let alone (as some here seek to claim) the superior to Schoenberg. The story I have repeated before tells of an impatient sophomore in a Music History class who complains to the teacher that they are spending too much time on Mendelssohn. The student believes he has pinned the professor with the rhetorical question, "Isn't he a Grade B composer?" After a second's fermata, the professor earnestly replies, "Yes — but I'm not sure you understand how good that is."
One example of why I choose Mendelssohn:
http://www.youtube.com/v/yOZGl5UmkvQ
The melody, the harmony, the tension, the drama, the orchestral colors, this music is alive! And why I love the Romantic composers the best. :)
This is a sentimental favorite of mine. It was one of the assignments in my conducting class at Wooster, for one thing; and we played it with the (as it was then known) Charlottesville University & Community Symphony Orchestra:
http://www.youtube.com/v/rGWai0SEpUQ
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 02, 2010, 04:12:57 AM
. . . and we played it with the (as it was then known) Charlottesville University & Community Symphony Orchestra
(That would have been while I was at UVa, of course.)
Perhaps i need to correct myself then. Mendelssohn's art is not sterile in itself. He was indeed a consummate crafter and his music is far more complex then a lot give him credit for. I just find some facets of his expression to be artificial. His melodies can sometimes be extremely beautiful, but beyond that his music simply sounds flat to me, like he had no real personal involvement in the type of feeling he wanted to express in the first place. There are exceptions of course, but they are just that, exceptions. I realize that this is a subjective opinion, but at the same time i think i'm in a better position to those who claim disdain for the music of Mozart.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 02, 2010, 04:36:36 AM
Perhaps i need to correct myself then. Mendelssohn's art is not sterile in itself. He was indeed a consummate crafter and his music is far more complex then a lot give him credit for. I just find some facets of his expression to be artificial. His melodies can sometimes be extremely beautiful, but beyond that his music simply sounds flat to me, like he had no real personal involvement in the type of feeling he wanted to express in the first place. There are exceptions of course, but they are just that, exceptions. I realize that this is a subjective opinion, but at the same time i think i'm in a better position to those who claim disdain for the music of Mozart.
In all, a perfectly sensible and enjoyable post, thank you.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 02, 2010, 03:47:15 AM
Haven't anything to contribute to the thread as such, but just want to say that when I read posts by Franco like this one, I quite often want to cheer.
Hear, hear.
That said . . . FWIW, I like both composers, but I like more of Schoenberg's work, and I rate him rather higher as an artist.
Franco's point entirely well taken, that each artist must be taken on his own terms. (It's no good 'dismissing' Mendelssohn for not being Schoenberg, or vice versa.) As to whether composers aren't to be compared, I'm unsure that I should disallow the idea, even in light of Franco's point; people have done it forever — what may be the truth (or a truth) beyond the reach of the objection?
Our "Josquin" called Mendelssohn's art sterile, and seems not to have accepted my invitation to explain that to those of us who find such an adjective only incompetently applied to the noun art. It's a pathetic fallacy, of course . . . but in all events impossible to apply to a composer's work. Coincidentally, I am reading The Gesualdo Hex, and the author mentions more than once some musicologist or other mourning Gesualdo's as "a stillborn art." Now, that "evaluation" is nonsense, most obviously in view of the artistic stimulation which 20th-c. composers found in Gesualdo's music. There's no point at which any of us could call Mendelssohn's art "sterile," for that "evaluation" will evaporate whenever an artist arises who takes that work as one seed of inspiration. And these seeds remain quick through long ages, as the example of Gesualdo attests.
All in all, though, and while I frequently pound the table for half a dozen underappreciated composers who have been (in my view) unfairly marginalized (and my objection may be a matter of degree more than any question of an "artistic democracy" in which all composers are created "equal") I don't believe we can rank Mendelssohn even among the foremost of 19th-c. composers, let alone (as some here seek to claim) the superior to Schoenberg.
The story I have repeated before tells of an impatient sophomore in a Music History class who complains to the teacher that they are spending too much time on Mendelssohn. The student believes he has pinned the professor with the rhetorical question, "Isn't he a Grade B composer?"
After a second's fermata, the professor earnestly replies, "Yes — but I'm not sure you understand how good that is."
It is purely a personal worldview that I find it distasteful to make judgments about composers, saying this one is greater than that one (I particularly do not like a hierarchical approach: 1st tier, 2nd, etc. or even worse, Grade B). I try to experience music, all art really, with as uncluttered a mind as possible and allow a work to reach out to me on its own terms. If I find one work more compelling than another my first thought is not that one artist is greater than the other, but merely that on that day, I was more receptive to what one artist was doing than the other.
And I understand the drive towards a set of qualitative judgments to try to make some sense of the huge amount of music written throughout human history - it's just that I have no care to know who is considered great, greater or greatest.
My own little red wagon, I know.
:)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 02, 2010, 04:36:36 AM
I just find some facets of his expression to be artificial. His melodies can sometimes be extremely beautiful, but beyond that his music simply sounds flat to me, like he had no real personal involvement in the type of feeling he wanted to express in the first place. There are exceptions of course, but they are just that, exceptions.
I think that's a better way of describing your feeling than the adjective "sterile." It's something I sometimes feel about M's music, too, but I think it is often
not true (too frequently to be labelled exceptions). And Felix deserves to be judged by his best work.
That f minor Quartet Op. 80 that was being discussed before is actually a good case in point. A very fine, accomplished late work from 1847. Absolutely worth listening to. I do feel like some of the emotion is not genuine, though.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 02, 2010, 03:18:51 AM
By a wide margin, my favorite of all your posts on the forum.
Yes, but he was replied properly. Karl, if you read the book, you would have came across the same statement. Professor Todd, is a noted Mendelssohn Scholar. His bio of Mendelssohn is the most researched and the most elaborate one ever written. Its over 700 pages, and the book costs $50, small amount to pay to get the facts straight on one of the greatest if not greatest composer that ever walked the earth, I know I paid it and it was worth every penny.
But if you wanna hold on to that 50 bucks, you can still read it on the web free of charge here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=j2Pf2yQipyUC&dq=larry+todd+mendelssohn&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=nuUtTOfzKsOqlAe4lp3hCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Cheers,
I don't at all agree with much of what Saul has written on this thread, but I think his assertion - complete with a source reference -- that contemporaries believed M the true successor to LvB shouldn't be dismissed lightly. Some of the contemporaries who believed that were highly sophisticated and technically well trained and we should assume they had put thought behind the opinion.
The problem is that a lot of 19th composers were referred to as the "heir of Beethoven" at one point or another. Its a meaningless adjective. Much more interesting to me is to know where in Todd's biography (which i own btw) does it say that Mendelsshon was the "crowing King of European music in the 19th century".
Quote from: cosmicj on July 02, 2010, 05:18:15 AM
I don't at all agree with much of what Saul has written on this thread, but I think his assertion - complete with a source reference -- that contemporaries believed M the true successor to LvB shouldn't be dismissed lightly. Some of the contemporaries who believed that were highly sophisticated and technically well trained and we should assume they had put thought behind the opinion.
Sure. But (and a little inconvenient to the generalization) it doesn't aid Saul's cause that I am fairly well read in Berlioz, and that Berlioz (while of a friendly disposition to Mendelssohn — in contrast to M. being something of a snot in private viz. Berlioz) had a more nuanced esteem for Mendelssohn. In all, it was not simply a matter of contemporary consensus putting laurel wreaths on the Mendelssohn brow. OTOH, his contemporary esteem was of far more substance than 4,000 hits on youtube ; ) Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 02, 2010, 05:29:38 AM
The problem is that a lot of 19th composers were referred to as the "heir of Beethoven" at one point or another. Its a meaningless adjective. Much more interesting to me is to know where in Todd's biography (which i own btw) does it say that Mendelsshon was the "crowing King of European music in the 19th century".
An apt point.
The point is that its not us to determine who was the greatest composer between the two. But to look onto the greats and see what they would have said:
1. Schumann adored Mendelssohn, and considered him a first rate composer, A class, and he wrote many enthusiastic articles about Mendelssohn and even was influenced in some degree with Mendelssohn' music.
2. His wife considered Mendelssohn to be one of the greatest pianists, musicians and composers of the day.
3. Chopin admired Mendelssohn's Genius and sought his assistance in getting his music known in Europe.
4. Liszt did the same as Chopin.
5. Wagner held that Mendelssohn was the greatest musical genius the world has ever had since Mozart.
6. Goethe, the famous German poet considered Mendelssohn to be the greatest child prodigy composer that music has ever seen, even compared to Mozart.
And the list of prominent contemporary musicians and intellectuals who said similar things goes on and on.
As to Karl statement that Berlioz 'had a more nuanced esteem for Mendelssohn'...if you flipped the coin you should see what Mendelssohn said of Berlioz's music:
'One needs to wash his hands after performing his music'.. I couldn't believe that Mendelssohn would use this language, but he did, he had a strong disdain for the extravaganza modern composers of his day, especially Berlioz and Liszt.
So the feeling goes both ways.
And while Berlioz was in a dilemma whether to continue his law studies or to enter a conservatory, Mendelssohn had the Midsummer's night dream overture wrapped around his waist, besides the hundreds of other works that he completed before he was 20 years old. Berlioz was no composer, was almost nothing before the age of 20, Mendelssohn was already a Giant by that time.
So this is what matters, what the great composers and the great intellectuals and musicians and music lovers all around the world had said of Mendelssohn, not what today some composers who had never seen the greatness of Mendelssohn say about him.
Their opinion stays just that, an opinion, but its as far from the truth and from reality as the sun is from the moon.
Cheers,
Saul
QuoteWagner held that Mendelssohn was the greatest musical genius the world has ever had since Mozart.
Erm, what?
QuoteAnd while Berlioz was in a dilemma whether to continue his law studies or to enter a conservatory, Mendelssohn had the Midsummer's night dream overture wrapped around his waist, besides the hundreds of other works that he completed before he was 20 years old. Berlioz was no composer, was almost nothing before the age of 20, Mendelssohn was already a Giant by that time.
Yes but Mendelssohn had the best musical education any composer has enjoyed, like, ever. He had his own personal orchestra with which to experiment with for Christ sake. If Beethoven's father had been a rich banker rather then a peasant and a drunk (and vice-versa) history might have played out differently. Context people, context.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 02, 2010, 06:10:44 AM
Erm, what?
Yes, what you didn't know that?
Very famous, this statement is attributed to Hans Von Bulow, who was a German conductor and a contemporary of Wagner.
He wrote down that Wagner said this, as I explained to Teresa and even provided the source for her.
I imagine that part of this was to do with Mendelssohn being, like Mozart, a child prodigy. I am not really into beauty competitions of composers. I don't think the two here can be compared. I listen to more Mendelssohn, but although it does not give me as much pleasure, I can grasp that Schoenberg was an extraordinary musical innovator and highly influential.
Mike
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 06:15:39 AM
Yes, what you didn't know that?
Very famous, this statement is attributed to Hans Von Bulow, who was a German conductor and a contemporary of Wager.
He wrote down that Wagner said this, as I explained to Teresa and even provided the source for her.
Are we talking about the same Hans Von Bulow who hated Wagner's guts? Wagner believed that Mendelssohn was not genuine. A composer of immense gifts who couldn't understand let alone adopt the idiom of a nation he felt no affinity for (being Jewish and all), no matter how he tried (he then concedes that Mandelsshon was at least sincere in his efforts, unlike other Jewish composers, like, say, Meyerbeer, who just did it for the money, their success being egged on by the Jewish dominated press!).
Here's the relevant passage:
Quote
By what example will this all grow clearer to us—ay, wellnigh what other single case could make us so alive to it, as the works of a musician of Jewish birth whom Nature had endowed with specific musical gifts as very few before him? All that offered itself to our gaze, in the inquiry into our antipathy against the Jewish nature; all the contradictoriness of this nature, both in itself and as touching us; all its inability, while outside our footing, to have intercourse with us upon that footing, nay, even to form a wish to further develop the things which had sprung from out our soil: all these are intensified to a positively tragic conflict in the nature, life, and art-career of the early-taken FELIX MENDELSSOHN BARTHOLDY. He has shewn us that a Jew may have the amplest store of specific talents, may own the finest and most varied culture, the highest and the tenderest sense of honour—yet without all these pre-eminences helping him, were it but one single time, to call [94] forth in us that deep, that heart-searching effect which we await from Art (24) because we know her capable thereof, because we have felt it many a time and oft, so soon as once a hero of our art has, so to say, but opened his mouth to speak to us. To professional critics, who haply have reached a like consciousness with ourselves hereon, it may be left to prove by specimens of Mendelssohn's art-products our statement of this indubitably certain thing; by way of illustrating our general impression, let us here be content with the fact that, in hearing a tone-piece of this composer's, we have only been able to feel engrossed where nothing beyond our more or less amusement-craving Phantasy was roused through the presentment, stringing-together and entanglement of the most elegant, the smoothest and most polished figures—as in the kaleidoscope's changeful play of form and colour (25) —but never where those figures were meant to take the shape of deep and stalwart feelings of the human heart. (26) In this latter event Mendelssohn lost even all formal productive-faculty; wherefore in particular where he made for Drama, as in the Oratorio, he was obliged quite openly to snatch at every formal detail that had served as characteristic token of the individuality of this or that forerunner whom he chose out for his model. It is further significant of this procedure, that he gave the preference to our old master BACH, as special pattern for his inexpressive modern tongue to copy. Bach's musical speech was formed at a period of our history when Music s universal tongue was still striving for the faculty of more individual, more unequivocal Expression: pure formalism and pedantry still clung so strongly to her, that it was first through the [95] gigantic force of Bach's own genius that her purely human accents (Ausdruck) broke themselves a vent. The speech of Bach stands toward that of Mozart, and finally of Beethoven, in the relation of the Egyptian Sphinx to the Greek statue of a Man: as the human visage of the Sphinx is in the act of striving outward from the animal body, so strives Bach's noble human head from out the periwig. It is only another evidence of the inconceivably witless confusion of our luxurious music-taste of nowadays, that we can let Bach's language be spoken to us at the selfsame time as that of Beethoven, and flatter ourselves that there is merely an individual difference of form between them, but nowise a real historic distinction, marking off a period in our culture. The reason, however, is not so far to seek: the speech of Beethoven can be spoken only by a whole, entire, warm-breathed human being; since it was just the speech of a music-man so perfect, that with the force of Necessity he thrust beyond Absolute Music—whose dominion he had measured and fulfilled unto its utmost frontiers—and shewed to us the pathway to the fecundation of every art through Music, as her only salutary broadening. (27) On the other hand, Bach's language can be mimicked, at a pinch, by any musician who thoroughly understands his business, though scarcely in the sense of Bach; because the Formal has still therein the upper hand, and the purely human Expression is not as yet a factor so definitely preponderant that its What either can, or must be uttered without conditions, for it still is fully occupied with shaping out the How. The washiness and whimsicality of our present musical style has been, if not exactly brought about, yet pushed to its utmost pitch by Mendelssohn's endeavour to speak out a vague, an almost nugatory Content as interestingly and spiritedly as possible. Whereas Beethoven, the last in the chain of our true music-heroes, [96] strove with highest longing, and wonder-working faculty, (28) for the clearest, certainest Expression of an unsayable Content through a sharp-cut, plastic shaping of his tone-pictures: Mendelssohn, on the contrary, reduces these achievements to vague, fantastic shadow-forms, midst whose indefinite shimmer our freakish fancy is indeed aroused, but our inner, purely-human yearning for distinct artistic sight is hardly touched with even the merest hope of a fulfilment. Only where an oppressive feeling of this incapacity seems to master the composer's mood, and drive him to express a soft and mournful resignation, has Mendelssohn the power to shew himself characteristic—characteristic in the subjective sense of a gentle (29) individuality that confesses an impossibility in view of its own powerlessness. This, as we have said, is the tragic trait in Mendelssohn's life-history; and if in the domain of Art we are to give our sympathy to the sheer personality, we can scarcely deny a large measure thereof to Mendelssohn, even though the force of that sympathy be weakened by the reflection that the Tragic, in Mendelssohn's situation, hung rather over him than came to actual, sore and cleansing consciousness.
He then concludes that "A like sympathy, however, can no other Jew composer rouse in us".
Interesting article here.
Mike
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/may/05/felix-mendelssohn-richard-wagner-classical-music
Extract
'The reason for Wagner's vitriol was simple: he felt threatened. In the years after his death, Mendelssohn's influence made him the most important figure in German musical culture. Before Wagner could launch his musical and social revolutions, he needed to destroy Mendelssohn.'
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 02, 2010, 06:23:23 AM
Are we talking about the same Hans Von Bulow who hated Wagner's guts? Wagner believed that Mendelssohn was a fake. A composers of immense gifts who couldn't understand let alone adopt the idiom of a nation he felt no affinity with (being Jewish and all).
Wagner was an anti Semite, I know this. But Huns Von Bulow, was a noted German conductor who knew what he was talking about, and he said what he had heard from Wagner about Mendelssohn. Wagner had a public anti Semitic opinion of Mendelssohn, and yet he had a private opinion of Mendelssohn who he spoke of in private conversations.
About been German and all...
It is entirely possible that Mendelssohn was more German then Wagner, because there is a Jewish presence in Germany for 2000 years un interrupted. Jews had lived there for two millennia. But Wagner?
Who knows if one of his forefathers some 600 years ago didn't immigrate to Germany from Holland, or France or any other European country?
Also remember that Jewish contributions to Germany considering their community size compared to others there, was unrivaled to anyone. German art, music, philosophy, religion, science, medicine, law and politics were enriched enormously, by the Jewish population who was and still remain until this very day, the most harmonious and peaceful law abiding community in Germany.
Jews don't have skin heads, and other negative streams in their community that places enormous strains on the German government today. Just look at the community now, how beautiful it is today, and you can translate it to how it was back then.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 02, 2010, 03:47:15 AM
As to whether composers aren't to be compared, I'm unsure that I should disallow the idea, even in light of Franco's point; people have done it forever — what may be the truth (or a truth) beyond the reach of the objection?
Wisely said, of course. People have done it and will continue to do it and so will I. If you give me a list of apples, bananas, plums and oranges, I'll happily rank them in order and even award them points, if you like.
But to elaborate: I see these posts of Franco's (I mean the ones of this particular type) not as arguments, but as reminders that a valuable alternative approach exists, and as an
invitation to try it: an invitation, that is,
not to place in ranking order, or attempt to quantify something that is essentially unquantifiable, but to engage with it for the sake of its quiddity: rejoicing in it for what it is, and not becoming preoccupied with what it
might be; and certainly not castigating it for not being what it
isn't. I don't grow to love plums by virtue of them not being oranges, but by revelling in their plumness.
Quote from: knight on July 02, 2010, 06:34:05 AM
Interesting article here.
Mike
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/may/05/felix-mendelssohn-richard-wagner-classical-music
Extract
'The reason for Wagner's vitriol was simple: he felt threatened. In the years after his death, Mendelssohn's influence made him the most important figure in German musical culture. Before Wagner could launch his musical and social revolutions, he needed to destroy Mendelssohn.'
This interpretation really shows how much the intellectual sophistication of our society has plummeted into the lowest regions of banality and mediocrity.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 02, 2010, 06:42:38 AM
Wisely said, of course. People have done it and will continue to do it and so will I. If you give me a list of apples, bananas, plums and oranges, I'll happily rank them in order and even award them points, if you like.
But to elaborate: I see these posts of Franco's (I mean the ones of this particular type) not as arguments, but as reminders that a valuable alternative approach exists, and as an invitation to try it: an invitation, that is, not to place in ranking order, or attempt to quantify something that is essentially unquantifiable, but to engage with it for the sake of its quiddity: rejoicing in it for what it is, and not becoming preoccupied with what it might be; and certainly not castigating it for not being what it isn't. I don't grow to love plums by virtue of them not being oranges, but by revelling in their plumness.
Always a pleasure to read your posts, Alan!
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 06:37:58 AM
Wagner was an anti Semite, I know this. But Huns Von Bulow, was a noted German conductor who knew what he was talking about, and he said what he had heard from Wagner about Mendelssohn. Wagner had a public anti Semitic opinion of Mendelssohn, and yet he had a private opinion of Mendelssohn who he spoke of in private conversations.
This really shows the danger of your constant need to appeal to authority. Van Bulow was a respected critic. Wagner was a
genius. Whom would you rather trust, according to your own logic? Wagner had a very high of opinion of Mendelssohn from an individual point of view. His views on the music of the latter however have been made more then plain.
I don't really know where this is getting us. It was agreed some while back that lots of highly thought of composers detested the music of other equally fine composers.
Writers, poets, painters, a few were generous, a lot will stick the boot in at any opportunity. You have to sift genuine critique from jealousy, insecurity, dislike etc. Even when you have done that sifting, it would still be a matter of treating with caution the remaining comment.
Mike
Quote from: knight on July 02, 2010, 06:55:40 AM
I don't really know where this is getting us. It was agreed some while back that lots of highly thought of composers detested the music of other equally fine composers.
Writers, poets, painters, a few were generous, a lot will stick the boot in at any opportunity. You have to sift genuine critique from jealousy, insecurity, dislike etc. Even when you have done that sifting, it would still be a matter of treating with caution the remaining comment.
QFT
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 02, 2010, 06:50:16 AM
This really shows the danger of your constant need to appeal to authority. Van Bulow was a respected critic. Wagner was a genius. Whom would you rather trust, according to your own logic? Wagner had a very high of opinion of Mendelssohn from an individual point of view. His views on the music of the latter however have been made more then plain.
I do trust Wagner when he said that 'Mendelssohn was the greatest musical genius the world has had since Mozart'.
Quote from: knight on July 02, 2010, 06:55:40 AM
I don't really know where this is getting us. It was agreed some while back that lots of highly thought of composers detested the music of other equally fine composers.
Sometimes, its the other way around. Composers and critics may have held an higher opinion of some of their contemporaries because their contributions were felt more deeply within the confines of their specific era, where as when put into context with the entire canon of western art music, an harsher evaluation may result. Another danger of using contemporary opinions about long dead composers which may or may not hold any relevance today.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 06:05:48 AM
The point is that its not us to determine who was the greatest composer between the two. But to look onto the greats and see what they would have said:
1. Schumann adored Mendelssohn, and considered him a first rate composer, A class, and he wrote many enthusiastic articles about Mendelssohn and even was influenced in some degree with Mendelssohn' music.
2. His wife considered Mendelssohn to be one of the greatest pianists, musicians and composers of the day.
3. Chopin admired Mendelssohn's Genius and sought his assistance in getting his music known in Europe.
4. Liszt did the same as Chopin.
5. Wagner held that Mendelssohn was the greatest musical genius the world has ever had since Mozart.
6. Goethe, the famous German poet considered Mendelssohn to be the greatest child prodigy composer that music has ever seen, even compared to Mozart.
The thing about this funy little list is, that it doesn't emphasize what a small timescale Saul is working within. All this 'since Mozart' and '....of his day'... Between Mozart and Mendelssohn there
are only a small number of great composers - Beethoven, Schumann, Liszt, Chopin, Berlioz, Alkan (some would say), and Mendelssohn himself. A little later Wagner and Verdi. Years to go till Brahms. Of course Mendelssohn's contemporaries counted him among the best in those years, and the Schumanns, and Brahms, and other opponenets of the 'New Germans' continued to hold him in deserved high respect. But critical consensus moved on as new composers appeared, as the picture becmae larger. Brahms, Bruckner, Faure, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, not to mention the next generation, Janacek, Mahler, Strauss, Sibelius, Elgar, Debussy....these are all composers opinions of whom are automatically ruled out of the narrow timescale Saul's quoted composers draw on, and all composers of arguably equal or greater stature.
.....all of which is pretty much on the same lines as what JDP has just posted, whilst I was writing this
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 06:37:58 AM
Jews don't have skin heads
ORLY?
http://www.rickross.com/reference/skinheads/skinheads87.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/nyregion/13punk.html
(sorry, couldn't resist).
Get and keep back on the subject please and drop the extraneous sideissues.
Knight
Alban Berg talks about Schoenberg:
http://www.schoenberg.at/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=478&Itemid=706&lang=en
Might be of interest here.
I don't consider Schoenberg's music hard to comprehend. But, I am several decades down the road, I suppose.
Quote from: Franco on July 02, 2010, 08:38:33 AM
I don't consider Schoenberg's music hard to comprehend. But, I am several decades down the road, I suppose.
Hear, hear.
A friend of mine is in his 70s, and only started to study composition perhaps three years ago. His musical experience reaches back much longer; he once served for a spell as choir director in a small Anglcan parish in southern Ontario. I don't know why, but he's having rough sledding getting into atonality. (I don't know why, partly because I took a liking to it right away.) But his mind and ears are open, and he's trying manfully. We talk a lot about atonality over P.E.I. oysters every month or so.
Quote from: Luke on July 02, 2010, 07:23:08 AM
The thing about this funy little list is, that it doesn't emphasize what a small timescale Saul is working within. All this 'since Mozart' and '....of his day'... Between Mozart and Mendelssohn there are only a small number of great composers - Beethoven, Schumann, Liszt, Chopin, Berlioz, Alkan (some would say), and Mendelssohn himself. A little later Wagner and Verdi. Years to go till Brahms. Of course Mendelssohn's contemporaries counted him among the best in those years, and the Schumanns, and Brahms, and other opponenets of the 'New Germans' continued to hold him in deserved high respect. But critical consensus moved on as new composers appeared, as the picture becmae larger. Brahms, Bruckner, Faure, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, not to mention the next generation, Janacek, Mahler, Strauss, Sibelius, Elgar, Debussy....these are all composers opinions of whom are automatically ruled out of the narrow timescale Saul's quoted composers draw on, and all composers of arguably equal or greater stature.
.....all of which is pretty much on the same lines as what JDP has just posted, whilst I was writing this
Luke,
Apparently, the famous quote by Brahms had slipped your attention.
He Said:
'I would have given up all my compositions just so I could have composed Mendelssohn's Hebrides overture'.I guess Brahms who openly acknowledges Mendelssohn's superiority and was willing to give up all his compositions just to have the talent of Mendelssohn in writing one Single work, didn't know what he was talking about.
And Brahms was no contemporary of Mendelssohn.
Cheers,
Saul
I understood Schoenberg before i actually understood Mozart, or Brahms. It funny to think about it, but when i started to listening to classical music my first tries were Schoenberg, Ligeti, Bartok and Beethoven. The last two because they were listed as an influence to Robert Fripp, King Crimson being at the time my favored band. Then i moved to Ligeti because of Bartok, and then i went straight to Schoenberg because of Ligeti.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 10:01:59 AM
Luke,
Apparently, the famous quote by Brahms had slipped your attention.
He Said:
'I would have given up all my compositions just so I could have composed Mendelssohn's Hebrides overture'.
I guess Brahms who openly acknowledges Mendelssohn's superiority and was willing to give up all his compositions just to have the talent of Mendelssohn in writing one Single work, didn't know what he was talking about.
And Brahms was no contemporary of Mendelssohn.
Cheers,
Saul
Saul, you are too funny, the way you read things the way you want to read them; this citation is not the slam-dunk "Mendelssohn is superior to Brahms" which you are fond to imagine. Brahms was famously generous in his (sincere) praise of the music of others. He said quite similar things about Joh. Strauss, Jr & Dvořák . . . how should we sort out which of the three (all of them "superior" to Brahms, the way you seem to read it) is greatest? Anyway, we really haven't gotten around Mike's cogent remark earlier: Quote from: knight on July 02, 2010, 06:55:40 AM
I don't really know where this is getting us. It was agreed some while back that lots of highly thought of composers detested the music of other equally fine composers.
Writers, poets, painters, a few were generous, a lot will stick the boot in at any opportunity. You have to sift genuine critique from jealousy, insecurity, dislike etc. Even when you have done that sifting, it would still be a matter of treating with caution the remaining comment.
Where Mike has the wisdom to speak of "treating with caution the remaining comment," Saul barges in with, "Look! Clearly Mendelssohn is superior to Brahms! Didn't Brahms just say so?!"
Karl,
I'm sure you know the difference between been :" generous in his (sincere) praise of the music of others:" and saying that he would have given up all his composition in order to have the ability to compose music like Mendelssohn".
Examples of been generous in his (sincere) praise:
1. He was a fine composer
2. He was a great composer
3. He was a monumental composer
4. He was an astonishing composer
5.He was a phenomenal composer.
6.He was an earth shattering composer.
7. He was an amazing composer
But 'I would have given up all my works to compose like him' is not one of those 'generous praises', it cant be and will never be, its totally illogical.
Best,
Saul
Saul, You fight a good rearguard action; but basically, you have no understanding of the man that was Brahms. That quote you throw up needs to be set into the context of who he was and how he behaved.
Mike
I shan't bother to create the poll, but the great majority of listeners here on GMG would confirm that Brahms is far the greater symphonist. The only question would be, by how great a margin Mendelssohn would be embarrassed in the poll.
But wait! This thread is about the superiority of Schoenberg to M.!
The composer himself conducting some of Pierrot Lunaire:
http://www.youtube.com/v/utm1HH16uwM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 02, 2010, 10:27:24 AM
I shan't bother to create the poll, but the great majority of listeners here on GMG would confirm that Brahms is far the greater symphonist. The only question would be, by how great a margin Mendelssohn would be embarrassed in the poll.
But wait! This thread is about the superiority of Schoenberg to M.!
The composer himself conducting some of Pierrot Lunaire:
http://www.youtube.com/v/utm1HH16uwM
I think that if one gives a testimony about himself, and admits to such an overwhelming statement such as Brahms had made, you should take him at his word. Brahms was a good man, and there is no reason in the world to assume that he didn't mean what he said, and dismiss it as been 'generous in praise'.
At the same token what would I say if Mendelssohn would have said the same thing, that he would have given up all his compositions just to compose Bach's D minor Toccata and Fugue?
I would have taken him at his word, I respect the man enough to believe that he really meant it. Had he said something of a lesser magnitude I would have dismissed it as 'praise' but serious people don't throw out such astronomical statements like that, and no one should take them lightly.
Therefore I conclude that if Mendelssohn had said the same thing on Bach or any other composer, I would have considered that composer superior then Mendelssohn.
Say, here's a composer quote to throw into the mix!
Said Stravinsky of Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire: It is the solar plexus of twentieth-century music.
Who ever said any comparable thing of any work of Mendelssohn's?
(Rhetorical question, that.)
Brahms said these things, frequently, as Karl points out. A great example, and probably more indicative of his real feelings, since he could have picked any composer out to make this off-the-cuff remark:
Somone making a toast of Brahms (Hanslick or Bulow or someone, I forget who) - Ladies and Gentleman, the world's greatest composer
Brahms - hear hear, let's toast Mozart.
or words to that effect. Pretty unequivocal statement of views, though, that, even if thrown off at a party.
Brahms had a character of most becoming modesty. No wonder his motivations are so impenetrable to some ; )
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 02, 2010, 10:36:34 AM
Say, here's a composer quote to throw into the mix!
Said Stravinsky of Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire: It is the solar plexus of twentieth-century music.
Who ever said any comparable thing of any work of Mendelssohn's?
(Rhetorical question, that.)
LOL two bad composers prasing each other.
Catch the Brilliance of Mendelssohn at the age of 13...
A young little boy composing such music can you handle it?
http://www.youtube.com/v/zUWm1Xy39rs&feature=related
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 10:43:55 AM
LOL two bad composers prasing each other.
LOL who's calling whom "bad composers"?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 02, 2010, 10:46:12 AM
LOL who's calling whom "bad composers"?
Yes, even I'm better then these two crackerbots.
How about Mendelssohn at 15?
Symphony No.1 In C minor...
http://www.youtube.com/v/zpgas5hXjEI
As I asked you to earlier, Saul, I will believe every word you say about Shocenberg (or Stravinsky) if you are able to take any piece of theirs and point me to these flaws that you keep saying are there. I want objective flaws, since you are talking about objective fact. Not your opinion that they are drivel, that you don't like the harmonies, but musical proof - bad orchestration, bad voice-leading, structural misconceptions, anything at all.
You have a way of ignoring inconvenient posts (like the one I just wrote, with the Brahms quotation in which he baldly stated that Mozart was the greatest of composers, no 'I wish I'd...' or 'unfortunately not by me' (he said that of Strauss) or 'if only I"d known, I'd have done this too' (he said that of Dvorak)....). It would be good to see you engaging with a difficult argument to try to convince others of your views, rather than ignoring those ones and just repeating the same tired old groundless rootless lines, because that convinces no one. Quite the opposite.
Karl and Luke, You will both be sent to the naughty step because you cannot resist temptation.
Mike
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 10:47:58 AM
Yes, even I'm better then these two crackerbots.
for(int i = 0; i < INFINITY; i++) //Saul sets to infinity, everyone else increases the variable
{
cout << SaulVsSchoenbergDiscussion << "\n";
}
Quote from: Luke on July 02, 2010, 10:55:06 AM
As I asked you to earlier, Saul, I will believe every word you say about Shocenberg (or Stravinsky) if you are able to take any piece of theirs and point me to these flaws that you keep saying are there. I want objective flaws, since you are talking about objective fact. Not your opinion that they are drivel, that you don't like the harmonies, but musical proof - bad orchestration, bad voice-leading, structural misconceptions, anything at all.
You have a way of ignoring inconvenient posts (like the one I just wrote, with the Brahms quotation in which he baldly stated that Mozart was the greatest of composers, no 'I wish I'd...' or 'unfortunately not by me' (he said that of Strauss) or 'if only I"d known, I'd have done this too' (he said that of Dvorak)....). It would be good to see you engaging with a difficult argument to try to convince others of your views, rather than ignoring those ones and just repeating the same tired old groundless rootless lines, because that convinces no one. Quite the opposite.
Why don't you do it and explain to us objectively why and how anything Stravinsky and Schoenberg composed is any better then the Mendelssohn Symphony No. 1 In C minor composed at 15?
http://www.youtube.com/v/zpgas5hXjEI
Because I'm not the one making the claims that are disputed by everyone else. Except Teresa. So I have no burden of proof.
Quote from: Greg on July 02, 2010, 11:01:21 AM
for(int i = 0; i < INFINITY; i++) //Saul sets to infinity, everyone else increases the variable
{
cout << SaulVsSchoenbergDiscussion << "\n";
}
Greg is your avatar lain? :)
Quote from: Luke on July 02, 2010, 11:04:30 AM
Because I'm not the one making the claims that are disputed by everyone else. Except Teresa. So I have no burden of proof.
Actually the burden of proof is on you to explain to us why modernist atonal composers are better then not only Mendelssohn but even Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, and the other Romantics, cause I sense, that its not only about Mendelssohn here.
Explain to us how in the world ? How is it possible to even suggest that anything these two composers wrote even comes close to Mendelssohn's C minor Symphony written at 15?
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 10:47:58 AM
Yes, even I'm better then these two crackerbots.
Saul, you're not even better than Mendelssohn.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 02, 2010, 11:10:26 AM
Saul, you're not even better than Mendelssohn.
But I bet you are... :-X
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 11:11:09 AM
But I bet you are... :-X
Aw, what a nice thing to say. Have you figured out what's wrong with that trombone trill yet?
Quote from: Sforzando on July 02, 2010, 11:12:07 AM
Aw, what a nice thing to say. Have you figured out what's wrong with that trombone trill yet?
No I didn't physically look into the Trombone ;) :)
(http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/5500/Trombone--5941.jpg)
Now he's falling into the old fallacy again that Mendelssohn was THE greatest merely because he was the most precocious.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 11:08:32 AM
Actually the burden of proof is on you to explain to us why modernist atonal composers are better then not only Mendelssohn but even Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, and the other Romantics, cause I sense, that its not only about Mendelssohn here.
Explain to us how in the world ? How is it possible to even suggest that anything these two composers wrote even comes close to Mendelssohn's C minor Symphony written at 15?
No, Saul, it's not on me to prove anything because actually I haven't said that I think Mendelssohn was a poor composer, as you have of Schoenberg etc. Quite the opposite, I think he was fabulously skillful. I'm not going to look into his compositions for technical flaws because I wouldn't find any -
and if I did, knowing his skill, I would assume it was my error, not his. (Perhaps you ought to give Schoenberg a little of the same respect...)
But you've stated that Schoenberg was a bad composer, so I want you to show me where I can see an example of this. Bad composing, remember, not just stuff you don't like.
EDIT - there was another point I wanted to make lol!
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 11:08:32 AM
Actually the burden of proof is on you to explain to us why modernist atonal composers are better then not only Mendelssohn but even Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, and the other Romantics, cause I sense, that its not only about Mendelssohn here.
It's not about Mendelssohn, or Schumann, or Chopin, or Liszt, or Romantics in general. Mendelssohn is a composer I respect greatly, though I can't think of many pieces of his that I love unreservedly. The other three I adore deeply; Chopin I think is one of the supreme musicians, if forced to pick. Romanticism as a style produced some of the greatest works of music you'll ever hear (including some by Schoenberg). What this is really about isn't these composers who everyone here agrees are great, even if no one apart from you ranks Mendelssohn quite so ridiculously highly; it's about the (relatively) modern ones who, without any convincing description of why, precisely, you are saying wrote drivel and are bad composers.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 02, 2010, 11:16:58 AM
Now he's falling into the old fallacy again that Mendelssohn was THE greatest merely because he was the most precocious.
Ok forget about the early work, how about Elijah or the Violin Concerto or the Hebrides, can anyone explain to me how anything these two composers wrote even comes close to the awesomeness and grandeur and beauty and greatness of these mature works of Mendelssohn?
Quote from: Luke on July 02, 2010, 11:20:40 AM
No, Saul, it's not on me to prove anything because actually I haven't said that I think Mendelssohn was a poor composer, as you have of Schoenberg etc. Quite the opposite, I think he was fabulously skillful. I'm not going to look into his compositions for technical flaws because I wouldn't find any - and if I did, knowing his skill, I would assume it was my error, not his. (Perhaps you ought to give Schoenberg a little of the same respect...)
But you've stated that Schoenberg was a bad composer, so I want you to show me where I can see an example of this. Bad composing, remember, not just stuff you don't like.
You claim that Schoenberg was greater then Mendelssohn, explain how in the world this could be, please.
Hey, maybe i can do this too. Beethoven at 15:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoNyw9dJeOE&feature=related
Now imagine had he been as thoroughly educated as Mendelssohn. Prodigies are so overrated.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 02, 2010, 11:24:39 AM
Hey, maybe i can do this too. Beethoven at 15:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoNyw9dJeOE&feature=related
Now imagine had he been as thoroughly educated as Mendelssohn.
But did he compose something that comes to 'The Midsummer's Overture' at 17 or the Octet at 16 or the Symphony In C minor at 15?
No.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 11:22:39 AM
You claim that Schoenberg was greater then Mendelssohn, explain how in the world this could be, please.
Yes, I think all considered he probably was a greater composer than Mendelssohn, if that really matters. Taking into acount his technique (as flawless as M's, but much more fantastically displayed in his music), and the scope and ambition of his music (by which I don't mean how innovative it is, but that's another reason for those who think such things are important), and the motivic richness and density of his works, and so on. I also enjoy it a lot more, too, clearly, though that means nothing.
I'd happily spend a while writing a lot more, in a bit, in more detail, but somehow I doubt you will listen, so it's probably a waste of time....and I have a PM just appeared which may well be advising me of that possibility once again, in fact.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 11:31:03 AM
But did he compose something that comes to 'The Midsummer's Overture' at 17 or the Octet at 16 or the Symphony In C minor at 15?
No.
Well no, he was too busy trying to support his brothers and drunken father. He did eventually complete his musical education and went to write works of an order of magnitude beyond anything Mendelssohn was ever able to compose, as a teenager or as an adult. Thus, why your stubborn fixation with the latter's precocious talents is an exercise in futility.
It is hard to fathom why musical composition has never been added to the Olympic Games.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 02, 2010, 11:16:58 AM
Now he's falling into the old fallacy again that Mendelssohn was THE greatest merely because he was the most precocious.
Among them, anyway. If precociousness were any proof of anything, Mendelssohn would still have stiff competition from a huge variety of composers. Korngold's teenage and pre-teenage works are just astonishing - check out the piano trio he wrote at 12! (http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/5/50/IMSLP10134-Korngold_op01_Piano_Trio__score_.pdf) (none but a crackpot would claim supreme greatness for him, though). Saint-Saens, Liszt, Handel, that Mozart fella, Scriabin's incredible son Julian who died at 11, Mozart's friend and contemporary Thomas Linley who died younger than WAM...
But the whole precociousness thing is a blind alley, meaning nothing.
Quote from: Franco on July 02, 2010, 11:37:39 AM
It is hard to fathom why musical composition has never been added to the Olympic Games.
I think it was, along with all kinds of crazy crap, pre-WW2 (sculpture, city planning, etc).
Music competitions in general do have such a bad habit of awarding prizes to total rubbish...
Edit: I lie, the Olympic committee seem to have had a narrow view of what constitutes art :-X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_art_competitions
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 02, 2010, 11:35:47 AM
Well no, he was too busy trying to support his brothers and drunken father. He did eventually complete his musical education and went to write works of an order of magnitude beyond anything Mendelssohn was ever able to compose, as a teenager or as an adult. Thus, why your stubborn fixation with the latter's precocious talents is an exercise in futility.
Not only did Mendelssohn compose his music with a greater skill and craft, but his music is more astonishing and more moving then Beethoven, but the latter part of course is a matter of taste and opinion.
Quote from: Luke on July 02, 2010, 11:43:46 AM
Among them, anyway. If precociousness were any proof of anything, Mendelssohn would still have stiff competition from a huge variety of composers. Korngold's teenage and pre-teenage works are just astonishing - check out the piano trio he wrote at 12! (http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/5/50/IMSLP10134-Korngold_op01_Piano_Trio__score_.pdf) (none but a crackpot would claim supreme greatness for him, though). Saint-Saens, Liszt, Handel, that Mozart fella, Scriabin's incredible son Julian who died at 11, Mozart's friend and contemporary Thomas Linley who died younger than WAM...
But the whole precociousness thing is a blind alley, meaning nothing.
There were many child prodigies, but there was only one Mendelssohn.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 12:01:54 PM
Not only did Mendelssohn compose his music with a greater skill and craft, but his music is more astonishing and more moving then Beethoven, but the latter part of course is a matter of taste and opinion.
Yes, it certainly is. And so it doesn't really mean much. But though it doesn't, because it's only one person's opinion, the concept of '
weight of opinion' (of informed, considered opinion, anyway)
does count for something. Though one person's individual tastes means nothing, in the grand scheme of things, when a majority of concerned parties share an opinion, it begins to take on the status of a fact, it begins to mean something. And the fact is that the tastes of the vast majority of informed classical music lovers do not chime with yours.
Quote from: Luke on July 02, 2010, 12:08:39 PM
Yes, it certainly is. And so it doesn't really mean much. But though it doesn't, because it's only one person's opinion, the concept of 'weight of opinion' (of informed, considered opinion, anyway) does count for something. Though one person's individual tastes means nothing, in the grand scheme of things, when a majority of concerned parties share an opinion, it begins to take on the status of a fact, it begins to mean something. And the fact is that the tastes of the vast majority of informed classical music lovers do not chime with yours.
Well its entirely possible that the majority is wrong. Not everything that has many followers means that its the truth.
When he majority of this site says that Schoenberg was a greater composer then Mendelssohn, this is simply not true, and therefore wrong.
And even so, one web site doesn't speak for all classical music listeners in the world.
Here's Wikipedia:
"his creative originality is now being recognized and re-evaluated. He is now among the most popular composers of the Romantic era."
One of the most popular that is, do you know what that connotes?
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 12:18:56 PM
Here's Wikipedia:
"his creative originality is now being recognized and re-evaluated. He is now among the most popular composers of the Romantic era."
One of the most popular that is, do you know what that connotes?
Popularity?
Quote from: DavidW on July 02, 2010, 11:07:07 AM
Greg is your avatar lain? :)
Good guess- I didn't even think about it, but she does look like Lain!
Actually, she's Misaki from Welcome to the NHK. Crazy show where every single main character has serious problems, and most of them at one point try to jump off of a cliff to end it all (the main character is a shut-in and there's a ton of black humor in it).
One of my favorite shows, and one of my favorite characters. 8)
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 12:01:54 PM
Not only did Mendelssohn compose his music with a greater skill and craft, but his music is more astonishing and more moving then Beethoven, but the latter part of course is a matter of taste and opinion.
You got the "opinion" part right, thankfully. I don't know how you'll ever prove "greater skill and craft" part, though.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 12:01:54 PM
Not only did Mendelssohn compose his music with a greater skill and craft.
Actually, i'm pretty sure Beethoven's use of form is quite a few degrees greater then that of Mendelssohn, and the contrapuntal and harmonic technique displayed in his late works leaves Mendelssohn in the dust (a bit unfair since Mendelssohn died relatively young but there is no indication his music was evolving in any technical sense, so...).
Of course he's popular. And he's a very great composer. I haven't said otherwise, though you seem to think I have. I've praised Mendelssohn fulsomely here, even though I have my own minor reservations about some aspects of his style and his musical 'personality', such as that failure to see things through that I described earlier.
No, Saul, as I read it this thread isn't really about Mendelssohn being a poor composer, because no one thinks he is. If there is doubt cast on him in this thread, it's only doubt that he is the 'King of Music' that you claim he is. No, in general terms no one is disputing that M was a great composer. The only serious composer-dissing going on round here is what you have to say about Schoenberg etc., and that's why I've asked you to substantiate your claims that he is actually Bad Composer (as opposed to one you don't like) with reference to the scores.
Once again, before you try to get me to do your work for you, there's no need for me to try to prove anything in this way, because I don't think Mendelsshon is a bad composer. Far from it.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 02, 2010, 12:26:19 PM
Actually, i'm pretty sure Beethoven's use of form is quite a few degrees greater then that of Mendelssohn...
Mendelssohn obviously admired it, as he based some of his formal structures (and more) on Beethoven templates...
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 02, 2010, 12:26:19 PM
Actually, i'm pretty sure Beethoven's use of form is quite a few degrees greater then that of Mendelssohn, and the contrapuntal and harmonic technique displayed in his late works leaves Mendelssohn in the dust (a bit unfair since Mendelssohn died relatively young but there is no indication his music was evolving in any technical sense, so...).
All these flaws that Bernstein found in Beethoven's music, are nowhere to be found in Mendelssohn. His musical education was the most detailed and elaborate. His teacher Zelter famously told the 15 year old Mendelssohn:
" I have nothing else to teach you, now go and join the greats, Bach, Handel and Mozart". I would be more then happy to provide the source...
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 12:34:27 PM
All these flaws that Bernstein found in Beethoven's music, are nowhere to be found in Mendelssohn.
Which flaws are these again?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 02, 2010, 12:40:19 PM
Which flaws are these again?
You want to tell me that you didn't watch the earth shattering monumental video of Bernstein discussing Beethoven's 7th?
http://www.youtube.com/v/wNi1_kGC9dg
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 12:34:27 PM
All these flaws that Bernstein found in Beethoven's music, are nowhere to be found in Mendelssohn. His musical education was the most detailed and elaborate. His teacher Zelter famously told the 15 year old Mendelssohn:
" I have nothing else to teach you, now go and join the greats, Bach, Handel and Mozart". I would be more then happy to provide the source...
Saul, there are flaws and there are flaws. What Bernstein is talking about with Beethoven is not the same sort of flaw as lazily written, sloppy counterpoint or miscontroled formal balance or whatever, the sort of flaw a teacher would point out to a pupil. That sort of flaw does not exist in Beethoven in any meaningful way. But it is certainly possible that there are 'flaws' of a totally different sort in Beethoven, 'flaws', that is, when he is set against some kind of this-is-good-practice norm - his counterpoint is sometimes criticised for being too rugged, angular, rough, for instance. But then we ask - too rugged for what? Isn't the roughness of Beethoven's counterpoint entirely what it should be, given the scope and intent of the music itself. How would the Hammerklavier Fugue be as earth-shattering as it is if the counterpoint was smoothed out? Wouldn't unobtrusive, perfect part-writing be in itself an enormous flaw, in this piece, and in so many others?
The point is, Beethoven was reaching for new things, he was not inhibited about this in the ways Mendelssohn's music tends to ruggest to us that he was. The 'flaws' in Beethoven are necessary, and they are integral, and they are beautiful, and on a larger-scale, they aren't flaws at all, they are just perfect. Mendelssohn's smoothness is just that, but it isn't anything more - great for music which isn't really reaching out as far. But his inability to work in any other way was a limitation on him (when he tries, as in the last quartet, he writres some of his most interesting and satisfying music)
Be moved...
Felix Mendelssohn - 42. Psalm
http://www.youtube.com/v/I0YjuWzmkqg&feature=related
"Beethoven may have mastered some things with difficulty, but he mastered nothing incompletely; and where he is not orthodox it is safest to conclude that orthodoxy is wrong."
- Donald Francis Tovey
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 12:51:47 PM
Be moved...
Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy - Der 42. Psalm
http://www.youtube.com/v/I0YjuWzmkqg&feature=related
I see that, and i'll raise you this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW8wdpfkpM0
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 12:43:12 PM
You want to tell me that you didn't watch the earth shattering monumental video of Bernstein discussing Beethoven's 7th?
http://www.youtube.com/v/wNi1_kGC9dg
It's pretty beautiful, that, Saul, and you've missed Bernstein's point. He's saying something similar to what I said - that there are things in Beethoven that if you look at them, and only them, seem to be flaws. Those big one-chord perorations, for instance. And then he says - the form, the inevitability of every note, that is what is perfect, that is what no other composer could ever do, in the context of the form all of these 'flaws' cease being flaws (so, for instance, in the context of a massive symphonic movement, a coda of one harmony, repeated many times, is the only right option, not a flaw at all).
The first part of Bernstein's talk, the bit you have latched onto, where he lists the things you could find wrong with Beethoven if you only looked at the small scale, is like an opening parenthesis which he forgets to close fully as he improvises his little talk. It's clear from the beginng that he is saying 'BUT' - he's saying 'you can find fault with x and y and z, but somehow the finished product is more perfect than any other music'. And indeed, at the end, he says the final pieces, after the compositional struggle, look as if they have been 'phoned in from God'.
"I would have given up all my compositions just so I could have composed Mendelssohn's Hebrides overture".
Brahms
http://www.youtube.com/v/yOZGl5UmkvQ
Saul is better than Schoenberg IMHO, but that is saying nothing at all. As a little kid banging random notes on a piano makes better music to my ears than the awful extremely UGLY atonal non-music Schoenberg composes.
Some of you pointed to Schoenberg's early more tonal works such as Verklarte Nacht and these just sound boring IMHO. I firmly believe he went the atonal route as he knew he was no good at tonal compositions.
The fact that anyone is DARING to compare Schoenberg to the Mendelssohn is not only an insult to Mendelssohn but an affront real music! :( And the fact that Schoenberg is winning in this poll tells me there are more intellectuals here and actual real music lovers. >:(
Of course this is all my humble opinion, but I do not understand the contrary opinion that not only apologizes for UGLINESS in music but actually supports it. Maybe one needs special atonal ears? :o
Quote from: Teresa on July 02, 2010, 01:17:18 PM
"I would have given up all my compositions just so I could have composed Mendelssohn's Hebrides overture".
Brahms
http://www.youtube.com/v/yOZGl5UmkvQ
Saul is better than Schoenberg IMHO, but that is saying nothing at all. As a little kid banging random notes on a piano makes better music to my ears than the awful extremely UGLY atonal non-music Schoenberg composes.
Some of you pointed to Schoenberg's early more tonal works such as Verklarte Nacht and these just sound boring IMHO. I firmly believe he went the atonal route as he knew he was no good at tonal compositions.
The fact that anyone is DARING to compare Schoenberg to the Mendelssohn is not only an insult to Mendelssohn but an affront real music! :( And the fact that Schoenberg is winning in this poll tells me there are more intellectuals here and actual real music lovers. >:(
Of course this is all my humble opinion, but I do not understand the contrary opinion that not only apologizes for UGLINESS in music but actually supports it. Maybe on needs special atonal ears? :o
Intellectuality that gets you on the wrong path, is counterproductive.
Glad you understand this.
Cheers,
Saul
Luke,
Bernstein clearly said that Beethoven's flaws need to be adjusted by the conductor, listen carefully he said 'Balancing' the Orchestra so one instrument wouldn't swallow the others. If that's not a flaw in writing music, then what is?
Meanwhile, back at the farm....
Jack: The apple is far superior to the orange.
Jill: No, you're quite wrong. The orange is far more popular.
Jack: Popularity has nothing to do with it. The apple is intrinsically the finer fruit. Not only can it be eaten as it is, it can also be used to make apple sauce.
Jill: Pooh, that's nothing. The orange is not only superior in terms of taste and juiciness, it can be used to make marmalade.
Jack: I don't like marmalade, so that argument doesn't carry any weight with me.
Jill: Your personal taste has nothing to do with it. Marmalade has a far more complex structure than your apple sauce. Marmalade is superior both sensually and intellectually.
Jack: But apple sauce widens our perceptions by taking us into the realm of complementary foods. An appreciation of apple sauce leads on to an appreciation of roast pork.
Jill: Just as marmalade leads on to the wider appreciation of toast.
Jack: Well it's not just my opinion. Newton said he'd never have discovered gravity if it hadn't been for the apple, and he was a Great Man so he should know.
Jill: You're just making that up.
Jack throws his apple at Jill.
Jill throws her orange at Jack.
Be enthralled...
http://www.youtube.com/v/M-r2JUXiMwA
Quote from: Elgarian on July 02, 2010, 01:31:47 PM
Meanwhile, back at the farm....
Jack: The apple is far superior to the orange.
Jill: No, you're quite wrong. The orange is far more popular.
Jack: Popularity has nothing to do with it. The apple is intrinsically the finer fruit. Not only can it be eaten as it is, it can also be used to make apple sauce.
Jill: Pooh, that's nothing. The orange is not only superior in terms of taste and juiciness, it can be used to make marmalade.
Jack: I don't like marmalade, so that argument doesn't carry any weight with me.
Jill: Your personal taste has nothing to do with it. Marmalade has a far more complex structure than your apple sauce. Marmalade is superior both sensually and intellectually.
Jack: But apple sauce widens our perceptions by taking us into the realm of complementary foods. An appreciation of apple sauce leads on to an appreciation of roast pork.
Jill: Just as marmalade leads on to the wider appreciation of toast.
Jack: Well it's not just my opinion. Newton said he'd never have discovered gravity if it hadn't been for the apple, and he was a Great Man so he should know.
Jill: You're just making that up.
Jack throws his apple at Jill.
Jill throws her orange at Jack.
;D ;D ;D
--Bruce
Quote from: bhodges on July 02, 2010, 01:33:08 PM
;D ;D ;D
--Bruce
Just don't get me started on plums, Bruce.
Yes, in a sense it is a flaw, Saul - but it's one that conductors spend their lives dealing with, in all music, Mendelssohn's included. Play in an orchestra, you'll find them rebalancing things left right and centre. Have one of your pieces played by an orchestra, and you'll see it practice a great deal. It's how things work.
There are a million reasons for a conductor to need to do this - the misjudgement of the composer is only one, the players themselves, the acoustics, the instruments used are among the others.... And re the last one of these - Beethoven's orchestration sounds very different played on the instuments he was used to as opposed to their modern descendants, and I suspect Bernstein is refering to inbalances that occur when the music is played on the latter, so that's not entirely fair, in itself. In Mendelssohn's case, too, (for instance) the Midsummer Night's Dream overture sounds so much more evocative and better balanced, too, I think, when the orchestra uses the ophicleide he asked for and not the tuba he usually gets.
Beethoven had a kind of orchestral aesthetic that he followed in his orchestration - it seemed to include vague notions toward the idea that, if there are to be brass in a chord, and if they can play a note of it, they should, even if that means that from chord to chord there are different numbers of brass playing. I can see why a conductor might have to work on this, but I don't see something so integral to his conception of orchestral practice as really being a flaw so much as a Beethovenian idiosyncrasy that needs to be played with sensitivity. It certainly adds to the character of his scoring, I think.
Be Amazed...
http://www.youtube.com/v/vYxusx_ICLc
But aren't plums superior to both apples and oranges?
(I promise not to encourage future scripts...but that little sequence cracked me up.)
--Bruce
Quote from: Teresa on July 02, 2010, 01:17:18 PM
I firmly believe he [Schoenberg] went the atonal route as he knew he was no good at tonal compositions.
To say this is to deny, ignore or totally misunderstand the history of music.
Quote from: bhodges on July 02, 2010, 01:41:27 PM
But aren't plums superior to both apples and oranges?
Yes, but the most important thing is to realise that they come somewhere between Mendelssohn and Schoenberg.
Quote from: petrArch on July 02, 2010, 01:53:25 PM
To say this is to deny, ignore or totally misunderstand the history of music.
Or perhaps, all three.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 02, 2010, 01:56:43 PM
Yes, but the most important thing is to realise that they come somewhere between Mendelssohn and Schoenberg.
More ;D ;D ;D
--Bruce
Quote from: petrArch on July 02, 2010, 01:53:25 PM
To say this is to deny, ignore or totally misunderstand the history of music.
or all three?
Quote from: petrArch on July 02, 2010, 01:53:25 PM
To say this is to deny, ignore or totally misunderstand the history of music.
Doesn't makes a difference why he did it.
A cake that tastes and looks bad will stay that way even if it was baked in a 5 Star hotel...
I promise you, even if you'll take the ugliest and vicious thing in the world, the Intellectuals will find reasons to justify it if they chose to.
Just look at the theory of evolution, but that's a totally different discussion that I don't want to go into here ever.
Intelligent people decided that there is nothing wrong with the idea that they might of come from the Apes, and the Baboons, and the rest of the 'Jungle Creed'. They have decided, therefore they must be right no?
And anyone who dares think differently, is branded an ignoramus.
This is precisely what's going on here.
Schoenberg's music and atonal music in general, is very poor and not pleasing, and no 'excuses' and no 'intellectuality' can confuse this fact.
Quote from: petrArch on July 02, 2010, 01:53:25 PM
To say this is to deny, ignore or totally misunderstand the history of music.
When one realizes their
tonal compositions are considerably worse than what come before then one needs either a new
way or an new line of work. Schoenberg's new way was atonal. :)
I choose to ignore that which is not relevant to the music I enjoy. I do firmly acknowledge Schoenberg's destructive influence on classical music. :( However modern composers beginning with neo-romantic composers such Howard Hanson have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the negative influences of Schoenberg and his followers can be overcome. :)
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 02:00:13 PM
Schoenberg's music and atonal music in general, is very poor and not pleasing, and no 'excuses' and no 'intellectuality' can confuse this fact.
Okay, let's say I agree with you that M is a greater composer than S. But, I still think S is a good composer. You say he is "very poor and not pleasing" and that this is a fact.
Explain to me, i.e. provide some kind of objective factual basis, why S is not only not as good as M but actually a
bad composer.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 02, 2010, 01:36:49 PM
Just don't get me started on plums, Bruce.
How to defend yourself against an assailant armed with fresh fruit (http://i.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050321/151820__banana_l.jpg)
Quote from: petrArch on July 02, 2010, 02:06:45 PM
I was trying to be polite ;).
Admirable restraint! ; )
Just so people wouldn't think I invented the Brahms' quote, click on this link, the very last sentence on the review page...
Apparently others besides me have read the quote:
:)
http://www.amazon.com/Symphony-No-3-Hebrides-Overture/dp/B000F7BO1M
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 02, 2010, 02:23:03 PM
How to defend yourself against an assailant armed with fresh fruit
(http://i.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050321/151820__banana_l.jpg)
Is that a Ba Na Na?
:D
Quote from: SaulJust so people wouldn't think I invented the Brahms' quote, click on this link, the very last sentence on the review page...
Apparently others besides me have read the quote:/quote]
Very odd, Saul, why wouldn't we believe it? Do you really think it's that odd that Brahms would say such a thing? You don't have much faith in Mendelssohn, perhaps....he's really a very good composer, you know. Brahms admired his fluency and directness of utterance, I suspect. So yes, personally, I can perfectly well believe Brahms said that. As I've said, and Karl has said, and Mike has said, Brahms is well known for statements of this sort, though none as unambiguous as the one I mentioned - that Mozart was the greatest of all composers.
Really, none of these statements from one composer about another really mean much on their own, mind you. It's the consensus that means something, if anything does, and consensus takes time to reach, it needs perspective and hindsight. In the 1840s Mendelssohn may have been viewed one way; by 1890, after Brahms and Wagner, with Debuusy in the offing etc. the musical world looked very different, and the consensus had changed.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 02:00:13 PM
Schoenberg's music and atonal music in general, is very poor and not pleasing, and no 'excuses' and no 'intellectuality' can confuse this fact.
You seem to imply that liking one precludes liking the other. Please don't assume other people have the same narrow taste.
As there appears to be a mood for quotes, here's another one: "To understand Schoenberg is to better understand Bach".
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 01:25:09 PM
Luke,
Bernstein clearly said that Beethoven's flaws need to be adjusted by the conductor, listen carefully he said 'Balancing' the Orchestra so one instrument wouldn't swallow the others. If that's not a flaw in writing music, then what is?
I'm amazed that Saul would use the Bernstein video to support the notion that Beethoven isn't so great. "Phoned in by God" - that's all you need to understand Bernstein's views on Beethoven's music.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 02, 2010, 02:23:03 PM
How to defend yourself against an assailant armed with fresh fruit
(http://i.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050321/151820__banana_l.jpg)
Excellent and timely advice, Karl. If we get on to whether bananas are better than Beethoven, it could turn really nasty.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 02, 2010, 02:43:33 PM
I'm amazed that Saul would use the Bernstein video to support the notion that Beethoven isn't so great. "Phoned in by God" - that's all you need to understand Bernstein's views on Beethoven's music.
I never said Beethoven was not great.
Quote from: petrArch on July 02, 2010, 02:43:01 PM
You seem to imply that liking one precludes liking the other. Please don't assume other people have the same narrow taste.
As there appears to be a mood for quotes, here's another one: "To understand Schoenberg is to better understand Bach".
Oh comeon...don't compare him to Bach now.. please.
Quote from: Teresa on July 02, 2010, 02:09:59 PM
When one realizes their tonal compositions are considerably worse than what come before then one needs either a new way or an new line of work. Schoenberg's new way was atonal. :)
...until you realize that atonality "was in the air" for a long time. I'd really like you to quantify and precisely elaborate on that "considerably worse" of yours (other than "I really really really don't like it," of course).
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 02:45:31 PM
I never said Beethoven was not great.
Do you even know what you are saying?
Quote from: Luke on July 02, 2010, 02:41:32 PM
[quote author=SaulJust so people wouldn't think I invented the Brahms' quote, click on this link, the very last sentence on the review page...
Apparently others besides me have read the quote:
Very odd, Saul, why wouldn't we believe it? Do you really think it's that odd that Brahms would say such a thing? You don't have much faith in Mendelssohn, perhaps....he's really a very good composer, you know. Brahms admired his fluency and directness of utterance, I suspect. So yes, personally, I can perfectly well believe Brahms said that. As I've said, and Karl has said, and Mike has said, Brahms is well known for statements of this sort, though none as unambiguous as the one I mentioned - that Mozart was the greatest of all composers.
Really, none of these statements from one composer about another really mean much on their own, mind you. It's the consensus that means something, if anything does, and consensus takes time to reach, it needs perspective and hindsight. In the 1840s Mendelssohn may have been viewed one way; by 1890, after Brahms and Wagner, with Debuusy in the offing etc. the musical world looked very different, and the consensus had changed.
I said it to reassure, that's all.
And your strategy of simplifying Brahms astonishing quote is not working, Luke.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 02:49:37 PM
I said it to reassure, that's all.
And your strategy of simplifying Brahms astonishing quote is not working, Luke.
Huh? I really don't get why it is astonishing. Are
you astonished, Saul, that Brahms should admire that piece of Mendelssohn's so much? I'm not.
No more than I'm astonished that Brahms wished he'd written the Blue Danube waltz, too, and the Dvorak Cello Concerto....
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 02:45:31 PM
I never said Beethoven was not great.
There you go again - playing games with the English language when you're cornered by multiple fellow board members. Of course, your stating of opinions as facts is what usually makes you look foolish.
Here's a fact. Schoenberg is easily beating Mendelssohn in the poll; take it like a man.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 02:46:48 PM
Oh comeon...don't compare him to Bach now.. please.
No. Looks like you need to do some reading... please.
Quote from: James on July 02, 2010, 02:50:10 PM
Nice
Nice what...? did you ask him who said it? maybe an atonal modern composer that had to say it in order to save his music from ruin?
Sometimes composers and musicians will use these stretched out delusional comments in order to achieve personal gains, but again its all wrapped up in the hype of intellectuality. Roll around this long enough with a number of 'intellectuals' deciding that something ugly is beautiful, and you'll believe it.
Its a trick on the mind, as the famous saying goes :"Say the lie long enough and everyone will believe it".
Bach was so much greater then Schoenberg, there is nothing what to talk about.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 02:54:53 PM
Its a trick on the mind, as the famous saying goes :"Say the lie long enough and everyone will believe it".
Yes, Saul, we've watched you try the tactic yourself for years.... :) :D ;)
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 02:54:53 PM
Bach was so much greater then Schoenberg, there is nothing what to talk about.
Schoenberg would have agreed. Of course he was. Mendelssohn was no Bach, though, and
he knew it, too.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 02, 2010, 02:52:52 PM
There you go again - playing games with the English language when you're cornered by multiple fellow board members. Of course, your stating of opinions as facts is what usually makes you look foolish.
Here's a fact. Schoenberg is easily beating Mendelssohn in the poll; take it like a man.
If anyone will point out where I said that Beethoven was not a great composer, I will buy you a present.
In fact I listed him as one of my top five composers.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 02:58:36 PM
If anyone will point out where I said that Beethoven was not a great composer, I will buy you a present.
In fact I listed him as one of my top five composers.
After I don't know how many pages of nonsense, you've reached a point where almost every poster on this board disagrees with you, to the extent they can even figure out what you are trying to say. Maybe it is time to give it a rest.
I think Saul's 'point' in posting that Bernstein clip, as he saw it, was to expose some monstrous trends in modernist thinking. He said it blew up in our faces and reduced our argument to nothing. But it remains unclear as to what point he was actually trying to make. I certainly didn't feel like anything had exploded in my face.
Quote from: Franco on July 02, 2010, 03:00:42 PM
But you still have not explained using a factual objective basis why Schoenberg is a bad composer.
Teresa, do you know where they sell ear plugs?
I think some folks here would be wise to use them. If your ears cheat you that much, plug'em.
Beethoven had natural plugs, but he at least created beautiful music.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 03:03:03 PM
Teresa, do you know where they sell ear plugs?
I think some folks here would be wise to use them. If your ears cheat you that much, plug'em.
Beethoven had natural plugs, but he at least created beautiful music.
The explosion thing was allegorical...!
I thought that was self evident, don't take every word I write literally.
Quote from: Franco on July 02, 2010, 03:05:01 PM
That's a pretty lame attempt to convince me that Schoenberg is a bad composer.
Is that the best you can do?
Sometimes the simplest remedy, is the answer.
Quote from: Franco on July 02, 2010, 03:00:42 PM
But you still have not explained using a factual objective basis why Schoenberg is a bad composer.
No, I've asked him to do that, yesterday and again today, but he won't. No one's saying it, but clearly we all suspect that he can't.
So instead, when I asked him a second time to do this, he tried to say the onus was on me, instead, to explain why I thought that Mendelssohn was a
bad composer. But seeing as I don't think that, and have never said that, have only said, repeatedly, that he is one of the great composers (and that has generally been the line of everyone on this thread - we have nothing against Mendelssohn himself, though Saul thinks we do; we just don't think he is quite as much the 'King of Music' as Saul does), that line of reasoning doesn't really fly, it seems to me.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 03:05:00 PM
The explosion thing was allegorical...!
I thought that was self evident, don't take every word I write literally.
Yes, Saul, so was my answer. Metaphorical, perhaps, more than allegorical, but whatever.
I thought that was evident too.
Quote from: Luke on July 02, 2010, 03:08:19 PM
No, I've asked him to do that, yesterday and again today, but he won't. No one's saying it, but clearly we all suspect that he can't.
So instead, when I asked him a second time to do this, he tried to say the onus was on me, instead, to explain why I thought that Mendelssohn was a bad composer. But seeing as I don't think that, and have never said that, have only said, repeatedly, that he is one of the great composers (and that has generally been the line of everyone on this thread - we have nothing against Mendelssohn himself, though Saul thinks we do; we just don't think he is quite as much the 'King of Music' as Saul does), that line of reasoning doesn't really fly, it seems to me.
Its up to you to explain why Schoenberg is superior, because the suggestion itself is ludicrous, and anyone who wants to justify such as thing the onus falls on him to explain.
I already gave you a few pointers as to why I think Schoenberg is in general terms the composer I think of as more important, greater, better, whatever word you want to choose, a few pages ago. But, you see, and this is important, try to pay attention - I am not claiming that Mendelssohn is a bad composer, as you are claiming of Schoenberg, so I'm not going to root about in his scores looking for 'bad' stuff that isn't there. Much more fun looking for the good stuff in Schoenberg!
My reasons for rating Schoenberg more highly in my mind are to do with his attitude to composition as much as anything, his lack of timidity compared to Mendelssohn. I'm not talking about his innovations or anything like that, because innovation does not necessarily mean greatness, and I don't think anyone is saying it does, either. I'm talking sheerly about his compositional stance - it made him a composer unafraid to use his incomparable technique to dazzling ends. In that Mendelssohn Symphony you posted earlier you have a perfectly acceptable, skillful piece which plays by the rules. I forgot it the moment I turned it off (not true of all Mendelssohn, for me, but true of much). In Schoenberg's first symphonic piece (his op 9 Chamber Symphony) you have the most exuberant counterpoint imaginable, instrumental virtuosity of a type uncalled for before, a wholly audible and stunningly new formal scheme, articulated through the spectacular use of harmonic types (fourths, augmented chords/whole tone music) as formal elements and markers, memorable moments from start to finish (after two listens I could reply the whole piece in my head when I first got to know it years ago) ...and it still pays by the rules too. That, that compositional wizardry, which dazzles and delights me every time I listen to it, is why I rate Schoenberg so highly. Not because he was a 'leader in atonal music' or whatever you and Teresa think is the line of reasoning over here. No, just because he was a supremely talented composer whose music has balls!
Quote from: Franco on July 02, 2010, 03:21:11 PM
Saul, I've already posted that I will stipulate that M is a superior composer to S. I only am asking you to demonstrate why S is not only inferior to M but a BAD composer, using some kind of objective argument.
Can you do that? Or are you only able to blurt out, over and over, that you don't like his music?
Even the suggestion is an insult. How in the world HOW? Is it possible to compare Schoenberg to Mendelssohn?
You know even in the jungle, when the fox thinks that he is in the same level as the Lion, one swift stroke of the Lion's paw is enough to demonstrate. No skillful analysis, or discussion is needed. The lion is not required to summon the court of the animals so they might hear his reason as to why he is the king. To suggest a discussion like this is ludicrous as of itself, and is not worthy of explanation. And I said it before in this thread that this comparison is not worthy.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 03:37:11 PM
Even the suggestion is an insult. How in the world HOW? Is it possible to compare Schoenberg to Mendelssohn?
Is there any stronger indication that it is time to stop feeding the troll? Is there any indication that this person will respond to any reasonable argument at all? What is the point?
Quote from: Scarpia on July 02, 2010, 03:39:01 PM
Is there any stronger indication that it is time to stop feeding the troll? Is there any indication that this person will respond to any reasonable argument at all? What is the point?
Good point. G'night, folks! :)
Quote from: Scarpia on July 02, 2010, 03:39:01 PM
Is there any stronger indication that it is time to stop feeding the troll? Is there any indication that this person will respond to any reasonable argument at all? What is the point?
I have responded more then you ever will to anything.
But its always nice to take a nice swing , a short cut and use the word 'Troll' when you can't win an argument.
As they say, 'been there done that'...
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 03:46:16 PM
I have responded more then you ever will to anything.
But its always nice to take a nice swing , a short cut and use the word 'Troll' when you can't win an argument.
As they say, 'been there done that'...
You've already stated that you post controversial claims just to wind people up and stimulate "discussion" for your own amusement. That sort of manipulation of other posters on this board is despicable, and the definition of a "troll." Perhaps it is standard on internet discussion board, but given the knowledge and talent of some of the posters here, it is a shame that people like you have to make things unpleasant for everyone.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 02, 2010, 03:55:27 PM
You've already stated that you post controversial claims just to wind people up and stimulate "discussion" for your own amusement. That sort of manipulation of other posters on this board is despicable, and the definition of a "troll." Perhaps it is standard on internet discussion board, but given the knowledge and talent of some of the posters here, it is a shame that people like you have to make things unpleasant for everyone.
I think he was given his walking papers on That Other Board, and so he comes here to regale us with his wit and wisdom, as well as leaving his little droppings on the Composers' Board.
Guys like Saul endeavor to get the biggest response for the buck. In that respect his success here has been phenomenal. Each of you knows what you need to do in order for that success to vanish.
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 02:54:53 PM
Nice what...? did you ask him who said it? maybe an atonal modern composer that had to say it in order to save his music from ruin?
To paraphrase another one: There you stand, "like an ox looking at a palace."
I'm amazed at the zeal with which some people put blinders on.
(excuse the mixed animal metaphor)
Quote from: Luke on July 02, 2010, 03:08:19 PM
No, I've asked him to do that, yesterday and again today, but he won't. No one's saying it, but clearly we all suspect that he can't...
And he hasn't picked up the gauntlet I threw down pages ago, either. :)
Quote from: petrArch on July 02, 2010, 05:34:27 PM
To paraphrase another one: There you stand, "like an ox looking at a palace."
I'm amazed at the zeal with which some people put blinders on.
(excuse the mixed animal metaphor)
:) Here in Texas we say "like a calf looking at a new gate". Either is appropriate.
I used to be amazed too. After being here every day for 8 years, well, now not so much... ::) ;)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Musicae Antiquae Collegium Varsoviense \ Viviana Sofronitzki - K 467 Concerto in C for Keyboard 1st mvmt - Allegro maestoso
Quote from: Saul on July 02, 2010, 02:45:31 PM
I never said Beethoven was not great.
It was Stravinsky who didn't like Beethoven. Even though Beethoven is not one of my favorite composers I agree he was great. And he was a positive influence on some of my favorite composers. I can clearly hear the birth of
Impressionism in Beethoven's far reaching
"Pastorale Symphony" which paved the way for Debussy's
"La Mer (The Sea)" and the colorful orchestral suites of Ferde Grofé.
Quote from: petrArch on July 02, 2010, 02:43:01 PM
"To understand Schoenberg is to better understand Bach".
Bah, humbug
Quote from: petrArch on July 02, 2010, 02:47:02 PM
...I'd really like you to quantify and precisely elaborate on that "considerably worse" of yours...
First try listening to the dozen or so YouTubes of the godawful noise posted in this thread that Schoenberg passed off as music. Then try reading the musical scores and see how offensive the placement of every musical note is. It is his so-called music that FIRMLY qualifies him as a bad composer!
IMHO Schoenberg's music and that of the other members of the Second Viennese School Berg and Webern is an illegitimate farce, and his 12 tone system is a scam. I personally have written a 12 tone row as it was an exercise in composition class. There was unanimous agreement among the students that serial and severe atonal music was a total waste of time!
The sad fact is Intellectuals everywhere fell for his scam. He was a clever, clever man but in no way shape or form a REAL classical composer.
Thank god Schoenberg's corrupting influence is disappearing, and modern composers are actually writing music that can be listened to with real human ears.
For example:
Niagara Falls (written in 1997) by Michael Daugherty (1954-http://www.youtube.com/v/cBkkhaUVD3U
I'm not sure why you guys continue to even argue with Saul. I'm basically done with that, because 1. he doesn't offer any serious opinions, 2. he doesn't bother explaining why he feels the way he does, 3. he believes that his opinion is the only one and anybody who likes somebody he doesn't (i. e. Stravinsky, Schoenberg) is somehow wrong when the reality is he's masking some deep, inferiority towards people who have more of an open-mind than he does.
Mendelssohn was great in his time, but his influence on other composers was not as great as Schoenberg's, hence why Schoenberg will always win a poll like this. I'm not particularly fond of everything Schoenberg composed and I hardly ever even listen to Mendelssohn, but Schoenberg broke new ground by continuing to push the envelope of what classical music could be.
Quote from: Teresa on July 02, 2010, 06:52:10 PMThe sad fact is Intellectuals everywhere fell for his scam. He was a clever, clever man but in no way shape or form a REAL classical composer.
Thank god Schoenberg's corrupting influence is disappearing, and modern composers are actually writing music that can be listened to with real human ears.
Have you ever heard Schoenberg's string orchestra arrangement of "Verklarte Nacht" or "Gurre-lieder"? These are two absolutely gorgeous compositions.
As for Berg and Webern, I like both of them, but for different reasons. I can tolerate Berg's 12-tone music because he masked much of it in Romantic gestures and even established tonal centers in his music. Have you heard his "Seven Early Songs," "Three Pieces for Orchestra," "Lulu Suite," or "Violin Concerto"? These are outstanding works in my opinion that further the notion that Berg just couldn't let go of that Romantic lyricism that runs so deeply in his music.
Quote from: Teresa on July 02, 2010, 06:52:10 PM
It was Stravinsky who didn't like Beethoven.
Stravinsky's attitude changed in later life, and Beethoven became one of the composers he most revered.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 02, 2010, 07:17:54 PM
Have you ever heard Schoenberg's string orchestra arrangement of "Verklarte Nacht" or "Gurre-lieder"? These are two absolutely gorgeous compositions.
I have owned both, as I stated earlier in this thread
"Schoenberg's early more tonal works such as Verklarte Nacht and these just sound boring IMHO. I firmly believe he went the atonal route as he knew he was no good at tonal compositions."QuoteAs for Berg and Webern, I like both of them, but for different reasons. I can tolerate Berg's 12-tone music because he masked much of it in Romantic gestures and even established tonal centers in his music. Have you heard his "Seven Early Songs," "Three Pieces for Orchestra," "Lulu Suite," or "Violin Concerto"? These are outstanding works in my opinion that further the notion that Berg just couldn't let go of that Romantic lyricism that runs so deeply in his music.
I have heard all except the 7 Early Songs and found them unacceptable as music. In fact this is the ONLY Mercury Living Presence recording I ever purchased that I hated:
(http://pixhost.ws/avaxhome/8f/19/000b198f_medium.jpeg)
QuoteI have owned both, as I stated earlier in this thread "Schoenberg's early more tonal works such as Verklarte Nacht and these just sound boring IMHO. I firmly believe he went the atonal route as he knew he was no good at tonal compositions."
He went the atonal route because he believed there was nothing left to be said in tonal music. I don't buy the idelogy that he thought he was "no good at tonal compositions." "Verklarte Nacht" and "Gurre-lieder" are powerfully evocative scores that are as beautiful as much as they are endearing.
QuoteI have heard all except the 7 Early Songs and found them unacceptable as music.
You may find them unacceptable as music, but I don't think you've bothered to keep an open-mind when you were listening. There is good and bad music even in atonal music. Berg was a master of his craft as far as I concerned. Even though he composed all of his music in a 12-tone style, his music, in my opinion, is the most approachable of the Second Viennese School.
Quote from: Luke on July 02, 2010, 03:34:32 PM
I already gave you a few pointers as to why I think Schoenberg is in general terms the composer I think of as more important, greater, better, whatever word you want to choose, a few pages ago. But, you see, and this is important, try to pay attention - I am not claiming that Mendelssohn is a bad composer, as you are claiming of Schoenberg, so I'm not going to root about in his scores looking for 'bad' stuff that isn't there. Much more fun looking for the good stuff in Schoenberg!
My reasons for rating Schoenberg more highly in my mind are to do with his attitude to composition as much as anything, his lack of timidity compared to Mendelssohn. I'm not talking about his innovations or anything like that, because innovation does not necessarily mean greatness, and I don't think anyone is saying it does, either. I'm talking sheerly about his compositional stance - it made him a composer unafraid to use his incomparable technique to dazzling ends. In that Mendelssohn Symphony you posted earlier you have a perfectly acceptable, skillful piece which plays by the rules. I forgot it the moment I turned it off (not true of all Mendelssohn, for me, but true of much). In Schoenberg's first symphonic piece (his op 9 Chamber Symphony) you have the most exuberant counterpoint imaginable, instrumental virtuosity of a type uncalled for before, a wholly audible and stunningly new formal scheme, articulated through the spectacular use of harmonic types (fourths, augmented chords/whole tone music) as formal elements and markers, memorable moments from start to finish (after two listens I could reply the whole piece in my head when I first got to know it years ago) ...and it still pays by the rules too. That, that compositional wizardry, which dazzles and delights me every time I listen to it, is why I rate Schoenberg so highly. Not because he was a 'leader in atonal music' or whatever you and Teresa think is the line of reasoning over here. No, just because he was a supremely talented composer whose music has balls!
Reading this discussion is like reading a ping pong tournament played across several tables as the ball gets tossed around from subject to subject (loved the apple and orange analogy by the way).
It is actually quite easy to show how Schoenberg and Mendelssohn could be 'greater' than each other (if one was so inclined to do so, and why I cannot make a choice):
1. Mendelssohn was clearly the better melodist (I think this is pretty hard to argue with - Shoenberg is not known for beautiful melodies the way the 'old masters' are). Atonal music does not lend itself to good 'tunes/melodies/etc'. However, this element is subjective.
2. Schoenberg is clearly the more revolutionary with a tremendous impact on his time (and far after). This is a pretty objective element.
All the other stuff, it seems to me, is just noise around the above two issues (at least the way it is being discussed here).
Regarding Luke's description of Schoenberg, I just couldn't stay out of it anymore. While you are right about his lack of timidity, the last thing that comes to mind (for me) with Schoenberg is wizardry, exhuberence, dazzling, delights, etc. Of course, we all know that Schoenberg was one of the most polarizing fgures in music, and we probably will never agree about him, but I would alter your last sentence to be: He was a supremely talented composer whose horrible music had balls. But I'm just quibbling... ;)
Quote from: ukrneal on July 02, 2010, 11:26:04 PM
loved the apple and orange analogy by the way.
Delighted, thanks. But I'm not sleeping at all well, and until this fruit issue is resolved once and for all, I don't hold out much hope for improvement. There are people, you know, who say that the orange (along with all its citrus stablemates) is not a proper fruit at all, but just a kind of failed apple. This, in spite of the fact that the orange (together with the lemon) inspired one of the most successful fruit-based songs of all time. It's enough to give anyone the pip.
Quote from: Teresa on July 02, 2010, 06:52:10 PM
First try listening to the dozen or so YouTubes of the godawful noise posted in this thread that Schoenberg passed off as music. Then try reading the musical scores and see how offensive the placement of every musical note is. It is his so-called music that FIRMLY qualifies him as a bad composer!
Oh the brilliance and the craft of this unassailable logical argument!
Quote from: Teresa on July 02, 2010, 06:52:10 PM
IMHO Schoenberg's music and that of the other members of the Second Viennese School Berg and Webern is an illegitimate farce, and his 12 tone system is a scam. I personally have written a 12 tone row as it was an exercise in composition class. There was unanimous agreement among the students that serial and severe atonal music was a total waste of time!
Poor, poor things. You must get really distraught when you look at a painting and don't see a sky that is blue, grass that is green and a sun that is yellow.
In truth I care a lot more for Webern than Schoenberg, and I absolutely prefer the "Darmstadt School" to the 2nd Viennese School. But I can see how that would make your head explode.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 02, 2010, 07:09:37 PM
I'm not sure why you guys continue to even argue with Saul. I'm basically done with that, because 1. he doesn't offer any serious opinions, 2. he doesn't bother explaining why he feels the way he does, 3. he believes that his opinion is the only one and anybody who likes somebody he doesn't (i. e. Stravinsky, Schoenberg) is somehow wrong when the reality is he's masking some deep, inferiority towards people who have more of an open-mind than he does.
QFT
Quote from: Teresa on July 02, 2010, 06:52:10 PM
. . . The sad fact is Intellectuals everywhere fell for [Schoenberg's] scam. He was a clever, clever man but in no way shape or form a REAL classical composer.
This is sharply ironic, coming from someone who is insisting that she is a REAL writer, isn't it? Just given that bit of background, how much confidence would you say, Teresa, any of us has in your assessment of whether anyone is a REAL composer?
Quote from: Sforzando on July 02, 2010, 07:35:47 PM
Quote from: TeresaIt was Stravinsky who didn't like Beethoven.
Stravinsky's attitude changed in later life, and Beethoven became one of the composers he most revered.
And I see that Teresa, no more than Saul, has not gained any insight from Mike's earlier point: Quote from: knight on July 02, 2010, 06:55:40 AM
I don't really know where this is getting us. It was agreed some while back that lots of highly thought of composers detested the music of other equally fine composers.
Writers, poets, painters, a few were generous, a lot will stick the boot in at any opportunity. You have to sift genuine critique from jealousy, insecurity, dislike etc. Even when you have done that sifting, it would still be a matter of treating with caution the remaining comment.
Mike
Quote from: Elgarian on July 03, 2010, 12:29:25 AM
Delighted, thanks. But I'm not sleeping at all well, and until this fruit issue is resolved once and for all, I don't hold out much hope for improvement. There are people, you know, who say that the orange (along with all its citrus stablemates) is not a proper fruit at all, but just a kind of failed apple. This, in spite of the fact that the orange (together with the lemon) inspired one of the most successful fruit-based songs of all time. It's enough to give anyone the pip.
The world won't be safe for fruiterers until there is developed a navel apple.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 03, 2010, 04:32:04 AM
The world won't be safe for fruiterers until there is developed a navel apple.
Or how about a Golden Orange!?! There's a head scratcher!
The Cox's Orange Pippin is an apple with an identity crisis. It beats me how anyone can take such fruit seriously at all, let alone attempt to put it in some kind of fruitological ranking order.
Karl all I can do is expose Schoenberg's scam, it is up to you whither or not you can see what a clever con-man he was. I am very sorry I cannot do that for you.
All I am saying is I am glad his anti-musical influence is DISAPPEARING from the classical music world as most new compositions are basically tonal, many are quite beautiful and wonderful, such as the examples I gave previously in this thread. In short music is getting back on track and in time Schoenberg's corrupting influence will be totally gone from the musical scene. Thank goodness! :)
Karl another veiled comment on my ADMITTED poor spelling and poor grammar skills which I freely admitted to. No where do I advise throwing out the dictionary or rules of grammar. I just said I actively use spell check, and grammar check and depend on editors to catch bad grammatical errors.
If Schoenberg wrote music you KNOW he would throw out both the dictionary and the rules of grammar. And likely write something like this.
"eiwrgp hewrpgo fasghrupgj ovasdfl; nsdbafna;sibhdeurfheurfbhIK FJIO JAIji fgiasdo gjfirj JM IQAJIOR ioj IJ fiop jioaj fieor riogj iofgndfnjsda 8ier hIJ jiermrg0 it69560u4mvfkzl vbidf"
He would claim it is new and different, a new literature, for a new age. His music is just the same. A scam is a scam. >:(
Quote from: Teresa on July 02, 2010, 06:52:10 PM
First try listening to the dozen or so YouTubes of the godawful noise posted in this thread that Schoenberg passed off as music. Then try reading the musical scores and see how offensive the placement of every musical note is. It is his so-called music that FIRMLY qualifies him as a bad composer!
But only of course in your opinion. And since your operating premise is that greatness is only a matter of personal opinion, those who consider Schoenberg great are every bit as much in the right as you are.
I admit that when we're talking about Michael Daugherty all bets are off. . . .
Quote from: Sforzando on July 03, 2010, 04:30:36 PM
But only of course in your opinion. And since your operating premise is that greatness is only a matter of personal opinion, those who consider Schoenberg great are every bit as much in the right as you are.
I admit that when we're talking about Michael Daugherty all bets are off. . . .
If you actually listened to all the YouTubes and STILL believe Schoenberg is great I FULLY support your opinion and back you up 100%. :)
However that does not change my opinion of Schoenberg's composition skills, the resulting non-music nor my view of him as a scam artist that KNEW he was fleecing intellectuals. It is all personal opinion and personal perceptions of reality after all and as I have always said that differs from person to person.
Did you listen to the Michael Daugherty clip?
http://www.youtube.com/v/cBkkhaUVD3U
Quote from: Teresa on July 03, 2010, 04:44:32 PM
Did you listen to the Michael Daugherty clip?
Yes, as much of it as I could stomach.
Quote from: ukrneal on July 02, 2010, 11:26:04 PM
Regarding Luke's description of Schoenberg, I just couldn't stay out of it anymore. While you are right about his lack of timidity, the last thing that comes to mind (for me) with Schoenberg is wizardry, exuberance [corrected spelling], dazzling, delights, etc.
The "wizardry, exuberance, dazzling, delights" descriptors are imminently plausible and in reality are part and parcel to Schoenberg's aesthetic.
QuoteOf course, we all know that Schoenberg was one of the most polarizing fgures in music, and we probably will never agree about him, but I would alter your last sentence to be: He was a supremely talented composer whose horrible music had balls. But I'm just quibbling... ;)
What is this supposed to mean?
Hoooo-rah!! for Schoenberg yet his music doesn't amount to squat? Last I checked composers with nil to offer anyone tended to fall right off the musical radar and end up completely forgotten.
Yet, if you look around, a half-century later Schoenberg is still with us. Alive and kicking.
So I'm going with posterity on this one.
I have one major reason why Mendelssohn was greater then Schoenberg, I will say it, even though I didn't want to give my reason because I already stated a couple of times that this discussion is not worthy , simply because the grandeur and superiority of Mendelssohn over Schoenberg is so awesome and evident in every conceivable way, that giving an explanation and a reason why, is playing into the hands of those who want to use their 'intellectuality' to disrupt reality and make us believe things that are just not true.
Well to the reason then:
Mendelssohn is greater then Schoenberg because he didn't compose music to a select few, minority professional music listeners who would evaluate every single aspect of his music under a microscope.
Even though he had nothing to fear, because he was probably the most technically competent composer ever, still that wasn't his ultimate aim.
Mendelssohn wrote music for the people. His music can be experienced and enjoyed instantly by a child, a teen, and an adult simultaneously. Even though the enjoyment will vary, still the music will enter the soul of all these people and would generate enjoyment, for after all there is no greater value to music then enjoyment, for this its core characteristic.
Schoenberg on the other hand, infused a degree of 'intellectuality' in his music, that demands previous exposure to music, and a professional ear, to really grasp what he is doing with his music. This music therefore effected not the Masses of the people, but only a select few. This kind of music that is limited to such an elite audience, lacks within it something that is completely contrary to what music is, and that is enjoyment.
Music must be for all people, instantly, experienced widely, and spoken to everyone on their respected level.
To demonstrate this I will take Beethoven's Fur Elise piano piece. This music is so simple, and beautiful, and so open, that a child will understand it on their own level and an adult on their own level too, and they will both connect to it differently, but positively and instantly, they will enjoy it right then and there as soon as the first sounds hit their ears.
I believe that Mendelssohn by sticking to the traditions of the greats, achieved this universality and openness that the Greats before hand achieved. His Melodies are memorable, one can go with them and take them where ever he or she may be, and sing them and constantly remind themselves of them, keep the music in their hearts and souls for days, cause the music of the Greats with Mendelssohn included was easily absorbed by the human heart and soul.
I believe, that this most essential and pivotal element is missing from Modern composers, where they channel what they want in very blurry and indirect manner, and as a result, the encompassing effect of the music is missing from the wider universal audience, but is only understood by the experienced professional ear. And this to me, is a great flaw in composing music.
When all the smoke of arguments is clear, the bottom line is that music is enjoyment, and if the music is not written in a way that will give enjoyment to as many people as possible, then the music itself becomes significantly lower in quality compared to real beautiful music that is experienced and understood and enjoyed by the vast majority of the listeners of every background, and of every level of music understanding.
Best,
Saul
Just to state the obvious:
1. The fact that either Teresa or Saul (or both) wrote twelve-tone or atonal exercises, and the result was forgettable, does not invalidate the musical process.
2. The question of Michael Daugherty's artistic worth has nothing to do with that of Schoenberg. (Of course, Sfz understands this without saying.
QuoteSchoenberg on the other hand, infused a degree of 'intellectuality' in his music, that demands previous exposure to music, and a professional ear, to really grasp what he is doing with his music.
To what music?
QuoteThis music therefore effected not the Masses of the people, but only a select few. This kind of music that is limited to such an elite audience, lacks within it something that is completely contrary to what music is, and that is enjoyment.
But I enjoy Schoenberg... oh wait, according to you, I don't. Never mind, I guess you're right.
QuoteWhen all the smoke of arguments is clear, the bottom line is that music is enjoyment, and if the music is not written in a way that will give enjoyment to as many people as possible, then the music itself becomes significantly lower in quality compared to real beautiful music that is experienced and understood and enjoyed by the vast majority of the listens of every background, and of every level of music understanding.
Yes, everyone I know has Mendelssohn on their iPod.
Quote
His music can be experienced and enjoyed instantly by a child, a teen, and an adult simultaneously.
Weird usage of the word "simultaneously..." The same could be said of Schoenberg, btw.
Might as well talk to the wall, Greg.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 03, 2010, 07:02:25 PM
Might as well talk to the wall, Greg.
The wall is both more intelligent and more musically talented.
(I'll stop here before I start channeling M Forever.)
First some people were upset that I didn't give my reason as to why I consider Mendelssohn greater then Schoenberg.
Now that I gave the reason, some people are still upset and try to personalize the discussion with insults.
Where does it end?
Why can't we speak here normally like adults, this is music and we are all musicians or music listeners here that love music dearly, why the attacks? why the insults?
I don't get it.
Point well taken, Edward ; )
Schoenberg by a tidy 2:1 ratio now. Sweet! I was listening to some Berg today . . . some Arnold tomorrow.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 03, 2010, 07:02:25 PM
Might as well talk to the wall, Greg.
I can predict Saul's next post:
50/50 chance he posts a video.
50/50 chance he repeats "Mendelssohn is a superior composer. It's a fact. Schoenberg is baaaaaad. He wrote baaaaad music. He makes me sad. Mendelssohn makes me happy. Like a happy walk in the forest on a sunny day. Everyone pretends to like Schoenberg's music because they want to be accepted by this sort of "intellectual crowd." No one really likes his music. If you like his music, you're wrong. And I'm right.
EDIT: ok, maybe not. But it's coming up. :D
Quote from: Saul on July 03, 2010, 07:05:14 PM
First some people were upset that I didn't give my reason as to why I consider Mendelssohn greater then Schoenberg.
Now that I gave the reason, some people are still upset and try to personalize the discussion with insults.
Where does it end?
Why can't we speak here normally like adults, this is music and we are all musicians or music listeners here that love music dearly, why the attacks? why the insults?
I don't get it.
Well, for one, you seem to know why I like Schoenberg. Actually, you say I don't really like him and that I'm just deceiving myself. What if I told you that you were deceiving yourself for liking Mendelssohn?
(and I'd never do that, btw)
Quote from: Saul on July 03, 2010, 06:44:47 PM
I have one major reason why Mendelssohn was greater then Schoenberg, I will say it, even though I didn't want to give my reason because I already stated a couple of times that this discussion is not worthy , simply because the grandeur and superiority of Mendelssohn over Schoenberg is so awesome and evident in every conceivable way, that giving an explanation and a reason why, is playing into the hands of those who want to use their 'intellectuality' to disrupt reality and make us believe things that are just not true.
Well to the reason then:
Mendelssohn is greater then Schoenberg because he didn't compose music to a select few, minority professional music listeners who would evaluate every single aspect of his music under a microscope.
Even though he had nothing to fear, because he was probably the most technically competent composer ever, still that wasn't his ultimate aim.
Mendelssohn wrote music for the people. His music can be experienced and enjoyed instantly by a child, a teen, and an adult simultaneously. Even though the enjoyment will vary, still the music will enter the soul of all these people and would generate enjoyment, for after all there is no greater value to music then enjoyment, for this its core characteristic.
Schoenberg on the other hand, infused a degree of 'intellectuality' in his music, that demands previous exposure to music, and a professional ear, to really grasp what he is doing with his music. This music therefore effected not the Masses of the people, but only a select few. This kind of music that is limited to such an elite audience, lacks within it something that is completely contrary to what music is, and that is enjoyment.
Music must be for all people, instantly, experienced widely, and spoken to everyone on their respected level.
To demonstrate this I will take Beethoven's Fur Elise piano piece. This music is so simple, and beautiful, and so open, that a child will understand it on their own level and an adult on their own level too, and they will both connect to it differently, but positively and instantly, they will enjoy it right then and there as soon as the first sounds hit their ears.
I believe that Mendelssohn by sticking to the traditions of the greats, achieved this universality and openness that the Greats before hand achieved. His Melodies are memorable, one can go with them and take them where ever he or she may be, and sing them and constantly remind themselves of it, keep the music in their hearts and souls for days, cause the music of the Greats with Mendelssohn included was easily absorbed by the human heart and soul.
I believe, that this most essential and pivotal element is missing from Modern composers, where they channel what they want in very blurry and indirect manner, and as a result, the encompassing effect of the music is missing from the wider universal audience, but is only understood by the experienced professional ear. And this to me, is a great flaw in composing music.
When all the smoke of arguments is clear, the bottom line is that music is enjoyment, and if the music is not written in a way that will give enjoyment to as many people as possible, then the music itself becomes significantly lower in quality compared to real beautiful music that is experienced and understood and enjoyed by the vast majority of the listens of every background, and of every level of music understanding.
Best,
Saul
Fantastic post Saul, one of your best!I agree totally, music should be something one enjoys listening to, not some technological gobbledygook. I really wish they would keep this kind of crap inside the University walls and not out in the general public.
Quote from: Greg on July 03, 2010, 07:09:32 PM
I can predict Saul's next post:
50/50 chance he posts a video.
50/50 chance he repeats "Mendelssohn is a superior composer. It's a fact. Schoenberg is baaaaaad. He wrote baaaaad music. He makes me sad. Mendelssohn makes me happy. Like a happy walk in the forest on a sunny day. Everyone pretends to like Schoenberg's music because they want to be accepted by this sort of "intellectual crowd." No one really likes his music. If you like his music, you're wrong. And I'm right.
EDIT: ok, maybe not. But it's coming up. :D
Well, for one, you seem to know why I like Schoenberg. Actually, you say I don't really like him and that I'm just deceiving myself. What if I told you that you were deceiving yourself for liking Mendelssohn?
(and I'd never do that, btw)
You're taking everything out of context and you infer wrong assumptions.
Perhaps you didn't understand what I said, in the thread before, but my comments were very general and simple, and I was not talking about you specifically.
There is a very negative thing going on here, I don't know where it comes from exactly, but its feels like the site is been controled by a close circle of friends here who are constantly on the guard to attack different point of views. Look what you have done to me and Teresa, for thinking otherwise, not only you Greg, but others, you attack us personally, turning us to bad human beings, even though we are good people who love music, and are here only to have fun and enjoy discussing music with others, we don't have secret agendas and ulterior motives, the stuff from the movies.
I'm sorry but this is wrong.
BTW, glancing mention of Mendelssohn here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,224.msg425961.html#msg425961).
Quote from: Teresa on July 03, 2010, 07:15:11 PM
Fantastic post Saul, one of your best!
I agree totally, music should be something one enjoys listening to, not some technological gobbledygook. I really wish they would keep this kind of crap inside the University walls and not out in the general public.
I enjoy listening to Schoenberg, so by your definition it is good music.
One of the differences between us is that I am not compelled to denigrate as a "kind of crap" or "some technological gobbledygook" any music or composer.
Quote from: Franco on July 03, 2010, 07:19:55 PM
I enjoy listening to Schoenberg, so by your definition it is good music.
I should indeed suppose that all the people who have voted for Schoenberg, did so partly because we just plain enjoy the music. We appreciate the beauties of the music.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 03, 2010, 07:22:17 PM
I should indeed suppose that all the people who have voted for Schoenberg, did so partly because we just plain enjoy the music. We appreciate the beauties of the music.
Speak for yourself. I received instructions from the GCAS central committee (Global Conspiracy Against Saul) to vote for Schoenberg. Once my vote has been registered, I am optimistic that my uncle will be released from the GCAS dark prision in Kandahar where he has been held hostage for the last 17 years.
Quote from: Teresa on July 03, 2010, 07:15:11 PM
Fantastic post Saul, one of your best!
I agree totally, music should be something one enjoys listening to, not some technological gobbledygook. I really wish they would keep this kind of crap inside the University walls and not out in the general public.
Thank you Teresa.
I mean the things are simple, and obvious, if I wanted to exercise my intellectuality, I would go and learn Icelandic...
But music?
I just want to enjoy it...
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 03, 2010, 07:22:17 PM
I should indeed suppose that all the people who have voted for Schoenberg, did so partly because we just plain enjoy the music. We appreciate the beauties of the music.
As for the music, I prefer the music of Mendelssohn. I am not really too fond of Schoenberg's music (At least, not yet). The reason why I voted him was because of the creation of the 12 tone scale, and the start of the second Vienesse school.
For instance, I really like Berg's Violin Concerto, and Webern's 4 pieces for Violin and piano.
Quote from: Saul on July 03, 2010, 07:15:58 PM
There is a very negative thing going on here, I don't know where it comes from exactly, but its feels like the site is been controled by a close circle of friends here who are constantly on the guard to attack different point of views.
It's a conspiracy. We're a bunch of "intellectuals" and people who don't like "intellectual" music must die! ;)
Quote from: Saul on July 03, 2010, 07:15:58 PM
Perhaps you didn't understand what I said, in the thread before, but my comments were very general and simple, and I was not talking about you specifically.
EDIT:
[quote author = me]Well, for one, you seem to know why
Other Person likes Schoenberg. Actually, you say
Other Person doesn't really like him and that
Other Person is just deceiving their self.
[/quote]
What's the difference? Other Person deceives himself?
Quote from: Scarpia on July 03, 2010, 07:26:41 PM
Speak for yourself. I received instructions from the GCAS central committee (Global Conspiracy Against Saul) to vote for Schoenberg. Once my vote has been registered, I am optimistic that my uncle will be released from the GCAS dark prision in Kandahar where he has been held hostage for the last 17 years.
lol nice :D
I don't know how these colorful things have emerged in the minds of some folks here, but I have made very general and clear comments that deal with the issue head on. Yet, the vast majority of the entire point is neglected, and some other issues which I didn't say are been discussed.
But I thank Teresa, for understanding my article instantly and perfectly.
Quote from: Franco on July 03, 2010, 07:19:55 PM
I enjoy listening to Schoenberg, so by your definition it is good music. One of the differences between us is that I am not compelled to denigrate as a "kind of crap" or "some technological gobbledygook" any music or composer.
Very interesting! So you keep everything bottled-up inside, you do realize that is not healthy, don't you? If you FIRMLY believe something is crap or technological gobbledygook, do you not believe it is beneficial to others to express your honest opinion? Remember not everyone HAS to agree with your opinions so don't be scared.
I have no trouble with you are anyone else loving the ugly hard dissonance sounds of Schoenberg, I just have an extremely hard time understanding how this is even possible. My imagination is not good enough to imagine ANYONE, ANYWHERE on Planet Earth not getting violent ill upon hearing the non-music of Schoenberg. Actually enjoying Schoenberg is just too absurd a concept to contemplate. You guys have got to be kidding me, surely. :o
Quote from: Teresa on July 03, 2010, 07:38:51 PM
Very interesting! So you keep everything bottled-up inside, you do realize that is not healthy, don't you? If you FIRMLY believe something is crap or technological gobbledygook, do you not believe it is beneficial to others to express your honest opinion? Remember not everyone HAS to agree with your opinions so don't be scared.
I have no trouble with you are anyone else loving the ugly hard dissonance sounds of Schoenberg, I just have an extremely hard time understanding how this is even possible. My imagination is not good enough to imagine ANYONE, ANYWHERE on Planet Earth not getting violent ill upon hearing the non-music of Schoenberg. Actually enjoying Schoenberg is just too absurd a concept to contemplate. You guys have got to be kidding me, surely. :o
LOL Teresa you're Great! :)
Quickly Teresa, who is your desert island composer? Mozart or Schoenberg? Those are your only two options.
Quote from: Saul on July 03, 2010, 07:05:14 PM
First some people were upset that I didn't give my reason as to why I consider Mendelssohn greater then Schoenberg.
Now that I gave the reason, some people are still upset and try to personalize the discussion with insults.
Where does it end?
Why can't we speak here normally like adults, this is music and we are all musicians or music listeners here that love music dearly, why the attacks? why the insults?
I don't get it.
Well, as for the "name-calling," I too think some of the criticism towards you might have been handled better. But your reasoning is demonstrably false.
Schoenberg was not writing just for an "intellectual minority." He said himself that he expected "the postman on the street" to whistle his melodies. Now probably he was being over-optimistic on this point, but he was definitely not writing only as an intellectual exercise. Along with his 12-tone methods he also included classical forms such as the symphony and variations, and in his music are waltzes and other dances, considerable drama, and musical phrases shaped for both grace and emotional impact.
If you don't believe me, I challenge you to listen to one of his last compositions, "A Survivor from Warsaw." Yes, its harmonies are uncompromising and harsh--perfectly suited to the subject and the sung-spoken text. There is not just "intellectual material" but a huge emotional wallop. If you can listen to that and still think he wrote only for dry intellectuals, then I'll leave you to your opinion.
Quote from: Teresa on July 03, 2010, 07:38:51 PM
...My imagination is not good enough to imagine ANYONE, ANYWHERE on Planet Earth not getting violent ill upon hearing the non-music of Schoenberg. Actually enjoying Schoenberg is just too absurd a concept to contemplate. You guys have got to be kidding me, surely. :o
No. No, we're not kidding. Some of us actually DO enjoy it; more, some of us are deeply moved by it. If your imagination can't wrap itself around this concept, that's okay; but you're not us, nor can you see inside our heads or hearts, so you cannot deny our assertions. But why is it so hard to accept that some of us, even some non-intellectuals, may actually LIKE Schoenberg's music?! ???
Quote from: Sforzando on July 02, 2010, 04:16:48 PM
I think he was given his walking papers on That Other Board, and so he comes here to regale us with his wit and wisdom, as well as leaving his little droppings on the Composers' Board.
What a vicious attack, do you know the facts why I was Banned on CMG? or you just swallowed what some people have fed you behind my back.
This is outrageous.
Why I was banned?
Because there just like here, there is a majority of members who are liberals who give themselves the 'freedom' to speak their mind as they see fit, perfectly without any problems and limitations.
Yet when I spoke my mind freely, they have bombarded Lance and Corlyss with complaints to shut me out, and one member there named Brendan from Australia, openly stated that he did so, and that he was willing to sacrifice himself just to shut me down.
I have the emails and the discussion of what has happened and I can provide you with them, if you want to, so that you can see the truth for yourself.
Brendan with his insistence to shut me down and ban me, got himself banned too, but I guess for him it was worth it.. He was the first 'suicide internet bomber' willing to sacrifice himself just to ban me, because he couldn't stand equal opportunity for all.
And Corlyss, you know the CO- Owner of CMG was literally FORCED by Lance to ban me from there because the Liberals wouldn't let go...
If you go to Chalkie, there who was a temporary moderator because Corlyss was sick at the time, she is currently recovering from an arm injury, he had written to me that He Was Shocked that I was banned and that Corlyss was forced to do so by Lance.
Corlyss, cant type because of her arm problem, so the libs took advantage of that and sent who knows how many emails to Lance, and Lance had no other choice but to FORCE Corlyss to ban me.
Such Drama, yet this is what had happened. I didn't discuss this here, and I didn't want to discuss it, but since you brought it up, you should at least know the truth.
Quote from: James on July 03, 2010, 08:56:54 PM
This is a fair & perfectly legitimate perspective.
Thank you, Sir.
Quote from: James on July 03, 2010, 08:56:54 PM
This is a fair & perfectly legitimate perspective.
Really? Have you asked Saul what he thinks of Stockhausen?
Quote from: James on July 03, 2010, 09:01:36 PM
And all many people here are doing is hounding him for it. He made his point, leave it be ... and he doesn't have to back up his opinion with a technical dissertation and such, gimme a break ...
Hitler had an opinion, too. Should we just turn a blind eye to any idea no matter how crazy??
Quote from: James on July 03, 2010, 09:14:59 PM
Oh yea .. what Saul is saying here, his musical preferences & such is really on par with that. Get a clue please.
That's not the point. Is it necessary to hold your hand through EVERY discussion?
...oh, wait...
Quote from: James on July 03, 2010, 09:13:28 PM
Why? What difference does it make?
Are you afraid to ask him?
Quote from: James on July 03, 2010, 08:56:54 PM
This is a fair & perfectly legitimate perspective.
To my surprise, I agree. It really is.
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on July 03, 2010, 09:12:50 PM
Hitler had an opinion, too. Should we just turn a blind eye to any idea no matter how crazy??
If you're going to discredit any opinion Hitler had just because Hitler had it, there goes playing Bruckner's Seventh at my funeral. :(
Thank you James, I really don't know the exact problem...
But, you know I was politely asked a few months ago by the Moderators here to refrain from talking about religion. And I have made a candid decision to respect that, and since I took upon myself this pledge, I have not broken it.
I'm speaking about music with others, and the insults still don't stop.
There has to be another reason, cause I thankfully see, that a number of people here understand that I am not the problem here, and I am confident that some moderatos have come to this conclusion to.
Why people are attacking me?
I'm a musician, and a very good human being, and I don't insult people here personally, or curse them, or attack them.
Why then they treat me this way?
I believe the reason is that some people are not willing to let a different point of view that contradicts their opinions have any solid stance here on the site.
But why?
Shouldn't the site be open to all opinions?
I never understood this.
Again, thanks for your support.
Best,
Saul
Quote from: Brahmsian on July 03, 2010, 08:09:29 PM
Quickly Teresa, who is your desert island composer? Mozart or Schoenberg? Those are your only two options.
Easy answer:
NEITHER, complete silence is preferred to either option.
I will even anticipate your next question: If I was held a gunpoint and told I would have to listen to either Mozart or Schoenberg for the next 24 hours or die. I would tell my captures to pull the trigger as after just 30 minutes with either composer I would be ready to do it myself. 8)
Quote from: Saul on July 03, 2010, 09:27:56 PM
Thank you James, I really don't know the exact problem...
But, you know I was politely asked a few months ago by the Moderators here to refrain from talking about religion. And I have made a candid decision to respect that, and since I took upon myself this pledge, I have not broken it.
I'm speaking about music with others, and the insults still don't stop.
There has to be another reason, cause I thankfully see, that a number of people here understand that I am not the problem here, and I am confident that some moderatos have come to this conclusion to.
Why people are attacking me?
I'm a musician, and a very good human being, and I don't insult people here personally, or curse them, or attack them.
Why then they treat me this way?
I believe the reason is that some people are not willing to let a different point of view that contradicts their opinions have any solid stance here on the site.
But why?
Shouldn't the site be open to all opinions?
I never understood this.
The reason is very simple. 99% of posters on this site are able to recognize that a composer may be "great" even if they personally do not enjoy the music of that composer. You, apparently, are not capable of this. You are narcissistic enough to believe that since you find music of Schoenberg ugly, then his music has no intrinsic value and that people who claim to enjoy his music are deluding themselves or maintaining a pretense of enjoying the music to appear intellectual. This is the gist of what you have maintained on this thread. Frankly, this is insulting, and you can expect to be treated with hostility as long as you maintain this attitude.
You may think you have escaped by dropping in a few "in my opinions." However, it is still offensive to say "in my opinion Schoenberg's music is ugly and people who claim to like his music are pretending to be intellectual." If you had any sense you would realize that these statements are insulting to anyone on this board who actually enjoys the music of Schoenberg, and that the hostility you have experienced is simply a response to the implicit or explicit insults that are in almost every post you make here.
Your claim that you are ostracized for having "a different point of view" is absurd. If you look at the "what are you listening to" thread you will see that Schoenberg turns up fairly infrequently compared to other composer. I can assume that most people on this board don't list Schoenberg's works among their favorites or most frequently listened to. But, unlike you, these people do not feel a need to ridicule people who do enjoy Schoenberg and they do not find it a source of conflict.
Quote from: Brian on July 03, 2010, 09:21:02 PM
If you're going to discredit any opinion Hitler had just because Hitler had it, there goes playing Bruckner's Seventh at my funeral. :(
?
Who said anything about discrediting EVERY opinion Hitler had?
But that ONE certain opinion of his caused an awful lot of pain, did it not? Wouldn't it have been appropriate to speak out against this opinion at every opportunity (and with extreme vigor) given the chance?
To sweep contentious issues under the rug by simply using "relativism" (as in, my opinion is okay and you just better get used to it) is to make a mockery of logic. It's a crutch. It's a sham.
No matter how you slice it not every opinion is created equal and it really IS okay so speak out in opposition to a contentious opinion, ESPECIALLY when the opinion-maker (the mouthpiece) is standing on a soapbox trumpeting his/her opinions at resounding volumes.
I mean, if no one's allowed to voice a cogent COUNTER-OPINION what's left? It will reduce society to a circus of mouthpieces running all over the place spitting out anything and everything in the name of "opinion"!! YIKES!!!
Talk about confusion!
Note how NONE of these trolls on this board directly answer a SINGLE question put to them. They use smokescreens and diversion tactics to avoid anything that might resemble confrontation. And confrontation in this instance isn't meant to imply aggression. For instance, Luke is the very OPPOSITE of aggressive and yet his pointed and apposite queries are ignored at every turn. Doesn't this bother you?
If it doesn't, it should.
Quote from: Saul on July 03, 2010, 09:27:56 PM
Shouldn't the site be open to all opinions?
And there it is. Relativism at work.
Opinions are one thing, Saul.
MAKING A CASE for your opinions is quite another.
If it's your sincerest desire "to be heard" and carry your golden message to all corners of the world then it really
IS necessary to provide more than an endless string of platitudes to make your case. And make no mistake, it really IS ok if we demand more in the way of substance! YOU'RE the one trying to persuade US!!
You of course don't understand this at all but it's something that's BASIC if you want to be taken seriously (as opposed to being seen as simply a crackpot).
Quote from: Scarpia on July 03, 2010, 09:56:11 PM
The reason is very simple. 99% of posters on this site are able to recognize that a composer may be "great" even if they personally do not enjoy the music of that composer. You, apparently, are not capable of this. You are narcissistic enough to believe that since you find music of Schoenberg ugly, then his music has no intrinsic value and that people who claim to enjoy his music are deluding themselves or maintaining a pretense of enjoying the music to appear intellectual. This is the gist of what you have maintained on this thread. Frankly, this is insulting, and you can expect to be treated with hostility as long as you maintain this attitude.
You may think you have escaped by dropping in a few "in my opinions." However, it is still offensive to say "in my opinion Schoenberg's music is ugly and people who claim to like his music are pretending to be intellectual." If you had any sense you would realize that these statements are insulting to anyone on this board who actually enjoys the music of Schoenberg, and that the hostility you have experienced is simply a response to the implicit or explicit insults that are in almost every post you make here.
Your claim that you are ostracized for having "a different point of view" is absurd. If you look at the "what are you listening to" thread you will see that Schoenberg turns up fairly infrequently compared to other composer. I can assume that most people on this board don't list Schoenberg's works among their favorites or most frequently listened to. But, unlike you, these people do not feel a need to ridicule people who do enjoy Schoenberg and they do not find it a source of conflict.
My opinion on Schoenberg is my own personal thing, and I'm entitled to it, as long as I don't pick on one individual and attack him and insult him just because he listens to him, there is no reason to insult me.
Where did I personally insulted someone here by name just because he or she choose to listen to him?
And if my opinion is 'insulting' then there is no room here for a different point of view.
There is no reason to call me names and call me a troll and attack my dignity because I have certain opinions on Schoenberg, no reason whatsoever.
Quote from: Saul on July 03, 2010, 10:17:31 PM
And if my opinion is 'insulting' then there is no room here for a different point of view.
It's not "opinion" when it's all based on innuendo, smokescreens, vanity, hearsay, and just plain ignorance.
For instance, your assertion that Schoenberg only wrote for "the few intellectuals" is totally false. For myself, I'm simply "street folk" and I REALLY ENJOY Schoenberg.
So your "opinion" isn't opinion at all. All you've done is concoct something to give yourself "credibility". And then you have the nerve start whining whenever someone disagrees with YOU!!!
Oh, the irony....
Quote from: Saul on July 03, 2010, 10:17:31 PMThere is no reason to call me names and call me a troll and attack my dignity because I have certain opinions on Schoenberg, no reason whatsoever.
You are met with hostility not because you ridicule Schoenberg's music, but because you ridicule people who enjoy Schoenberg's music. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to be surprised that people react the way they do.
Quote from: James on July 03, 2010, 10:25:44 PM
yea your brain is farting big time, if you want his view on another composer ask him then? lol
As usual...ask a troll a direct question, get a non-answer.
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on July 03, 2010, 09:58:41 PM
Who said anything about discrediting EVERY opinion Hitler had?
Hitler was a monster but I do agree to some degree with his indictment of
Entartete Kunst or Degenerate art of which Arnold Schoenberg was one of the prime targets of the Nazis because he was not only a Jew but his music was degenerate, ugly and atonal. The Nazis targeted all Jews even if their music was tonal, thus Felix Mendelssohn and other tonal Jewish composers were also banded as Entartete Musik.
Degenerate Art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art)
Quote from: Teresa on July 03, 2010, 10:29:46 PM
Hitler was a monster but I do agree to some degree with his indictment of Entartete Kunst or Degenerate art of which Arnold Schoenberg was one of the prime targets of the Nazis because he was not only a Jew but his music was degenerate, ugly and atonal.
Degenerate Art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art)
WHAT??!!???So here it is, folks. The real Teresa (and Saul, most likely) exposed. Zealots posing as the "defenders of all goodness". Out to save us from the evils of (pick your poison)...
Run, folks, run....
QuoteThe Nazis targeted all Jews even if their music was tonal, thus Felix Mendelssohn and other tonal Jewish composers were also banded as Entartete Musik.
...and tacking on this little ditty does zero towards reestablishing your credibility.
Quote from: Teresa on July 03, 2010, 10:29:46 PM
Hitler was a monster but I do agree to some degree with his indictment of Entartete Kunst or Degenerate art of which Arnold Schoenberg was one of the prime targets of the Nazis because he was not only a Jew but his music was degenerate, ugly and atonal. The Nazis targeted all Jews even if their music was tonal, thus Felix Mendelssohn and other tonal Jewish composers were also banded as Entartete Musik.
Degenerate Art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art)
You agree with Hitler that Arnold Schoenberg should have been sent to a concentration camp, but because his music was ugly, not because he was a Jew? To bad he got away, heh?
So I'm guessing the instant a moderator sets foot on this thread its lockage is set. ;D
Quote from: Scarpia on July 03, 2010, 10:45:59 PM
You agree with Hitler that Arnold Schoenberg should have been sent to a concentration camp, but because his music was ugly, not because he was a Jew? To bad he got away, heh?
Yes, and isn't it interesting how quiet Teresa (and Saul) have suddenly gotten?
But never fear, James is still around! ;D
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on July 03, 2010, 10:53:49 PM
Yes, and isn't it interesting how quiet Teresa (and Saul) have suddenly gotten?
But never fear, James is still around! ;D
Oh poor Saul, he has two allies on this thread, and one expressed admiration for Hitler. :o
The other admires Stockhausen, well that can be forgiven. 8)
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on July 03, 2010, 10:37:00 PM
WHAT??!!???
So here it is, folks. The real Teresa (and Saul, most likely) exposed. Zealots posing as the "defenders of all goodness". Out to save us from the evils of (pick your poison)...
Great Art(http://dmsra.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lgpp30545mona-lisa-leonardo-da-vinci-poster.jpg?w=320&h=452)
Degenerate Art (http://dmsra.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pablopicassomayaalapoupee1938.jpg?w=450&h=546)
The same thing applies to music. Flat out there is some music that is so degenerate that it should not exist. Schoenberg's assault against the world of music should be banned, just the same is we ban child pornography, murder and other social ills.
IT IS ME WHO IS SHOCKED AT THOSE WHO PROP UP THE DEGENERATE SCHOENBERG. :o You all should be very ashamed of yourselves. I have tried to be nice and understanding but you intellectuals have taken this way too far.
:o :o :o :o :o :o
Quote from: Teresa on July 03, 2010, 11:00:14 PM
Great Art
(http://dmsra.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lgpp30545mona-lisa-leonardo-da-vinci-poster.jpg?w=320&h=452)
Degenerate Art
(http://dmsra.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pablopicassomayaalapoupee1938.jpg?w=450&h=546)
The same thing applies to music. Flat out there is some music that is so degenerate that it should not exist. Schoenberg's assault against the world of music should be banned, just the same is we ban child pornography, murder and other social ills.
IT IS ME WHO IS SHOCKED AT THOSE WHO PROP UP THE DEGENRATE SCHOENBERG. :o You all should be very ashamed of yourselves. I have tried to be nice and understanding but you intellectuals have taken this way too far.
:o :o :o :o :o :o
This is truly the saddest thing I've ever been a part of....
And Saul, right about now would be a good time for you to put a zipper on the rest of your "opinions".
P.S.: Not just degenerate Classical Music but all degenerate music should be banned, including curse words, graphic descriptions of rape, murder and all forms of violence. Why we tolerate this as a society I do not know! ::)
Quote from: Scarpia on July 03, 2010, 10:45:59 PM
You agree with Hitler that Arnold Schoenberg should have been sent to a concentration camp, but because his music was ugly, not because he was a Jew? To bad he got away, heh?
I do not believe anyone should be sent to a concentration camp. ???
I just believe Schoenberg should have been discredited for the fraud he was and allowed to seek employment in another line of work, hopefully of a non-destructive nature. He should never have been around music in any capacity. >:(
Jack: I just don't know how you can possibly defend your taste for oranges.
Jill: Well, you should talk! Don't you know the apple is the source of all the world's evil? Poor Eve! Don't you care about the devastating degeneration of the world that has been brought about by that one horrid fruit?
Jack: Look, that has nothing to do with me. I just like apples. And besides, I can't understand how anybody could possibly tolerate those wretched orange things for a moment. People who say they like oranges must be either deranged or just plain perverse. In fact I think you're defending oranges just to make me feel bad.
Jill: Jack, Jack - anyone can see that apples are evil and the source of all bad things. Leave them alone. Relinquish your wicked apple-loving ways, and enter into Orange Joy!
Jack: How dare you patronise me like that! I come here just to express a perfectly reasonable personal opinion about apples and oranges, and you try to rob me of my freedom of speech! It's you who is evil.
[Enter Joe]
Joe: Hey, they tell me that tomatoes aren't vegetables after all, but they're really a kind of fruit. What does everybody think about that?
[The Thermonuclear Fruit Wars begin.]
I cannot believe my eyes when reading some of the recent posts here. ::)
But I'm not deleting them so everybody can take notice.
What I will do, of course, is lock this thread.
Q