Are there any composers that you think are great but were very poor at a certain genre? Like maybe they are in general fantastic but you think they were to terrible at symphonies. Or maybe it's religious music, chamber music or opera. Any opinions?
I think the only way to really think about the relative lack of skill in some genres by some composers as being due to factors of experience......Perhaps Mahler would have written more interesting chamber music towards the end of his life if he was writing for a combination of instruments where he could exploit the largest timbral palette possible. Perhaps Wagner would have written a better symphony more true to his individual style around the time he was composing Parsifal.
Other times a composer may have been paid to churn out a bunch of pieces to serve a particular function so they could earn a buck. Mozart's German Dances were commissioned, the last symphonies and the Mass in C minor (for example) were not (but may have been composed in advance of other commissions which he may encounter down the track). So it could come down to whether a composer really has a desire to compose a piece or not as well, although there's a lot of speculation going on here.........
With some composers, I just seem to not be particularly interested in a certain genre and I wouldn't be able to give any reason at all other than a failure on my part as a listener. Sibelius and his piano music is what I am talking about here.
Schubert should have avoided certain librettists or librettos...
Quote from: GioCar on October 29, 2016, 11:26:01 PM
Schubert should have avoided certain librettists or librettos...
Yes, strange how he could write perfect minioperas in his songs, but immediately he tried anything longer it fell apart.....
The strange thing is that Schubert apparently was very interested in opera writing several full scale operas as well as a bunch of Singspiele and there are even more fragments of abolished projects.
I think there is also a more general problem here that German romanticism took quite a while to find a way writing operas and only succeeded in very few works before Wagner. There is the "foundation" in Weber's Freischütz but his later attempts, Euryanthe and Oberon are problematic and never became core repertoire; Schumann's Genoveva is also considered a failure despite some nice music in there. Even Wagner had two apparently failed romantic/comic operas (Die Feen, Das Liebesverbot) and one Grand Opéra (Rienzi) until he managed a great and lasting romantic opera with The flying Dutchman.
The successful works of the 1810-1830s by Spohr (Faust, Jessonda) and especially Marschner (several, mainly Der Vampyr and Hans Heiling) and some isolated attempts by Hoffmann and Lortzing (Undine, but he his better known for his comic operas although they are also far less popular than they used to be until the 1960s) are mostly forgotten today.
So it is hardly surprising that a young and inexperienced composer like Schubert could not pull something off other more stage-experienced hands like Weber struggled with.
Quote from: The new erato on October 30, 2016, 12:59:33 AM
Yes, strange how he could write perfect minioperas in his songs, but immediately he tried anything longer it fell apart.....
Except that his operas hold up just fine as music, ignoring the dumb librettos.
Interesting that Weber is mentioned, as he's perhaps an extreme example of someone who could only really do opera (and that's an extreme statement, I know). Apart from the solo clarinet pieces, I find the rest of his œuvre strangely disappointing - by comparison with the wonderful operas, that is.
And just to turn this thread on its head, what about genres that composers never essayed that you wish they had? A symphony by Verdi - now there's a thought.
Quote from: DaveF on October 31, 2016, 01:57:30 AM
And just to turn this thread on its head, what about genres that composers never essayed that you wish they had? A symphony by Verdi - now there's a thought.
An opera by Mahler is something I've always wished he'd done.
Quote from: Chronochromie on October 30, 2016, 07:33:24 PM
Except that his operas hold up just fine as music, ignoring the dumb librettos.
+ 1.
Quote from: DaveF on October 31, 2016, 01:57:30 AM
Interesting that Weber is mentioned, as he's perhaps an extreme example of someone who could only really do opera (and that's an extreme statement, I know). Apart from the solo clarinet pieces, I find the rest of his œuvre strangely disappointing - by comparison with the wonderful operas, that is.
See above.
Euryanthe and
Oberon have some of the dumbest librettos ever penned. The (in)famous Paul Scudo nailed it: Wilhelmine von Chezy (librettist for Euryanthe) was one of those oh-so-numerous muses of Romanticism which had a full heart and an empty head. :D
I think we discussed Weber's piano sonatas and some other works a little in another thread (I do not remember exactly where). His output is uneven (so are the mature operas! although uneven at a more exalted level) but I think overall he is rather underestimated except for Freischütz. The symphonies are very early pieces and I was disappointed as well because I had expected something in the vein of his much later ouvertures to Freischütz, Euryanthe or Oberon. The concertos can be facile at times but they do not strive for much more and at their best they are better than that, especially the f minor concert piece.
As he was also a great piano virtuoso there are good reason why some of these pieces exist and why they sometimes mainly rely on virtuoso pianism. So it was not a case of him striving for things he had not mastered; rather he put (German) opera on a new level whereas his instrumental music mostly remains within the contemporary framework set by lesser composers such as Hummel (which is probably roughly where we'd put Weber, except for his operas).
Quote from: Jo498 on October 31, 2016, 02:32:50 AM
I think we discussed Weber's piano sonatas and some other works a little in another thread (I do not remember exactly where). His output is uneven (so are the mature operas! although uneven at a more exalted level) but I think overall he is rather underestimated except for Freischütz. The symphonies are very early pieces and I was disappointed as well because I had expected something in the vein of his much later ouvertures to Freischütz, Euryanthe or Oberon. The concertos can be facile at times but they do not strive for much more and at their best they are better than that, especially the f minor concert piece.
As he was also a great piano virtuoso there are good reason why some of these pieces exist and why they sometimes mainly rely on virtuoso pianism. So it was not a case of him striving for things he had not mastered; rather he put (German) opera on a new level whereas his instrumental music mostly remains within the contemporary framework set by lesser composers such as Hummel (which is probably roughly where we'd put Weber, except for his operas).
Hummel is most definitely not a lesser composer. What a strange thing to say....
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 31, 2016, 04:47:46 PM
Hummel is most definitely not a lesser composer. What a strange thing to say....
Plus one. Hummel, Haydn's hand-picked successor btw, was a splendid composer. Have you heard the Chandos set of his piano concerti or the sacred music? Lots of great chamber music too.
Quote from: Ken B on October 31, 2016, 07:06:11 PM
Plus one. Hummel, Haydn's hand-picked successor btw, was a splendid composer. Have you heard the Chandos set of his piano concerti or the sacred music? Lots of great chamber music too.
Agreed. I have all the concerti that Chandos did and all are pretty darn good, though the Hough disc is one of the best discs in my collection. Of any music.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 31, 2016, 07:15:41 PM
Agreed. I have all the concerti that Chandos did and all are pretty darn good, though the Hough disc is one of the best discs in my collection. Of any music.
Yes. As good as say Beethoven's 3rd PC as music too.
Quote from: Dedalus on October 31, 2016, 02:06:26 AM
An opera by Mahler is something I've always wished he'd done.
Das Klagende Lied comes rather close.
Another what-if possibility: a concerto by Schubert.
Or if you want to cast an eye at modern composers, how about a full size symphonic or operatic work by Boulez?
Milhaud, symphonies. Awful stuff, but he wrote appealing short or odd-ball pieces. His petite symphonies are very good.
Quote from: Ken B on October 31, 2016, 07:30:16 PM
Milhaud, symphonies. Awful stuff, but he wrote appealing short or odd-ball pieces. His petite symphonies are very good.
+1 Actually, the more I don't listen to Milhaud, the more I'm a better listener for this. There's many composers who wrote too much, but Milhaud could've written too little and that would've been enough. :)
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 31, 2016, 07:42:16 PM
+1 Actually, the more I don't listen to Milhaud, the more I'm a better listener for this. There's many composers who wrote too much, but Milhaud could've written too little and that would've been enough. :)
Matter of taste I think.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 31, 2016, 07:23:29 PM
Das Klagende Lied comes rather close.
Definitely a work I'm going to be exploring in the upcoming days.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 31, 2016, 04:47:46 PM
Hummel is most definitely not a lesser composer. What a strange thing to say....
Hummel is a very good composer and not "lesser" compared to Spohr but clearly lesser compared to Beethoven, Haydn Schubert or Mozart. Weber is on a similar level in his instrumental music; Hummel might be more classically polished whereas Weber has more romantic elements mixed in. But Weber wrote one epochal masterpiece, namely
Freischütz that really changed the history of opera whereas nothing changes if you cut Hummel from musical history except for the absence of a few nice (but hardly great) pieces.
The question was whether Weber was a case who should have stayed away from certain genres because his instrumental music is quite uneven compared to his operatic masterpieces. So I claimed that his instrumental music is decent and comparable to e.g. Hummel's, not really a failure unless one compares with Beethoven oder mature Schubert (of roughly contemporary composers).
Quote from: Jo498 on October 31, 2016, 11:51:49 PM
Weber wrote one epochal masterpiece, namely Freischütz that really changed the history of opera whereas nothing changes if you cut Hummel from musical history except for the absence of a few nice (but hardly great) pieces.
I´m not that sure. He taught Czerny who in his turn taught Liszt. He also taught Thalberg, who was hugely influential on 19-th century piano playing. The young Chopin was influenced by his works, too.
I think that when it comes to musical history things are not as clear-cut and black-and-white as they seem to be.
This applies equally to Weber, whose instrumental music, especially his piano sonatas and piano music, were held in high esteem by his contemporaries and even by later generations of critics.
Quote from: Dedalus on October 31, 2016, 02:06:26 AM
An opera by Mahler is something I've always wished he'd done.
The closest Mahler got to completing an opera was not Das Klagende Lied, as fine as that is, but Symphony #8's last movement. 8)
Quote from: Jo498 on October 31, 2016, 11:51:49 PM
Hummel is a very good composer and not "lesser" compared to Spohr but clearly lesser compared to Beethoven, Haydn Schubert or Mozart. Weber is on a similar level in his instrumental music; Hummel might be more classically polished whereas Weber has more romantic elements mixed in. But Weber wrote one epochal masterpiece, namely Freischütz that really changed the history of opera whereas nothing changes if you cut Hummel from musical history except for the absence of a few nice (but hardly great) pieces.
The question was whether Weber was a case who should have stayed away from certain genres because his instrumental music is quite uneven compared to his operatic masterpieces. So I claimed that his instrumental music is decent and comparable to e.g. Hummel's, not really a failure unless one compares with Beethoven oder mature Schubert (of roughly contemporary composers).
I have spent many happy hours enjoying the music of "lesser" composers such as Hummel. I would hate to see a Hummeloscopy performed on music history.
;)
Thread duty: I once heard a piece for brass by Sibelius, and it was just awful: not even "fair," it actually sounded bad! I don't know if Sibelius was just having an "off" day or however long it took him for that piece, but he probably should have just kept on writing for full orchestra. :-X
With opera, so much depends on the drama. It is a tribute to Mozart's genius, for example, that he was able to make something great out of The Magic Flute, whose libretto is pretty silly if you look at it. Some composers, like the aforementioned Schubert, have been unfairly pegged as being "bad at opera," when if they'd only had a decent collaborator...
Of course, I tend to think that the Strauss brothers should have avoided waltzes. :laugh:
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2016, 08:31:57 AM
I would hate to see a Hummeloscopy performed on music history.
;)
We had a thread on that. The plurality was for a Shostakovichoscopy, with a Glassoscopy neck and neck, but of course the smart money was on Schoenbergoscopy.
What we really need is a Dylanoscopy on the NPL ;)
Quote from: jochanaan on November 01, 2016, 08:40:02 AM
Of course, I tend to think that the Strauss brothers should have avoided waltzes. :laugh:
What! Those are brilliant pieces. :)
Quote from: Brian on November 01, 2016, 09:02:54 AM
What! Those are brilliant pieces. :)
Like we've said, personal taste. In my case, with some reason: I once played in a group called the Mostly Strauss Orchestra, which played exactly what you'd expect. :P
You are still missing my point. Dave above pondered if Weber might be a case of a composer who was considerably better in some genres (opera) than others. I only brought Hummel in because I think that Weber was roughly as good as Hummel in his uneven instrumental music but superior in at least one opera (maybe three). So I defended Weber rather than accuse Hummel of mediocrity.
Bizet also obviously excelled in opera and we do not have to call the symphony from his student days or the charming Arlessienne music weak to recognize that they can hardly be compared with a masterpiece like Carmen.
Quote from: jochanaan on November 01, 2016, 08:40:02 AM
the Strauss brothers should have avoided waltzes. :laugh:
Yeah, right, and Bach should have never composed fugues, and Verdi should have stayed away from opera... ;D
Quote from: Brian on November 01, 2016, 09:02:54 AM
What! Those are brilliant pieces. :)
+1. Such marvels of orchestration and poetry! A great many of their waltzes are tone poems in miniature.
Quote from: Florestan on November 01, 2016, 10:48:25 AM
...Verdi should have stayed away from opera... ;D
+1 (except for
Falstaff, of course)... :laugh:
Quote from: Ken B on November 01, 2016, 08:59:21 AM
We had a thread on that. The plurality was for a Shostakovichoscopy, with a Glassoscopy neck and neck, but of course the smart money was on Schoenbergoscopy.
Removing Schoenberg from music history would affect everything that came after, so you wouldn't have Shostakovich the way he is either. It's one of those things reactionaries might dream about only because they don't know anything about Schoenberg or his music.
Oh, to answer the thread question, Bruckner's piano music is pretty universally mediocre.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 01, 2016, 12:32:26 PM
Removing Schoenberg from music history would affect everything that came after, so you wouldn't have Shostakovich the way he is either. It's one of those things reactionaries might dream about only because they don't know anything about Schoenberg or his music.
Oh, to answer the thread question, Bruckner's piano music is pretty universally mediocre.
Actually, in that thread, it was precisely his effect rather than his music per se that was cited.
Quote from: Ken B on November 01, 2016, 01:04:30 PM
Actually, in that thread, it was precisely his effect rather than his music per se that was cited.
But there wasn't even a single semi-decent composer after him whose music wasn't either inspired by or written in reaction to Schoenberg's. To remove him from history, we'd lose The Planets, Shostakovich's best works, some of the most fascinating parts of Prokofiev, a good bit of Stravinsky, the Neoclassical movement, and so forth, all of which reacted to his work in some way. Forget about the Darmstadt School and American serialism, the entire 20th century would be significantly different without one of its foremost geniuses to guide it.
His influence is incredibly poorly understood because people think that the 12-tone method was the most important thing he did, or that his theoretical work was especially influential, both of which are dead wrong.
His most widely accepted theoretical idea is so widely accepted today that people don't even realize that Schoenberg was one of the first to formulate it: that the distinction between consonance and dissonance is one of degree, rather than kind.
Once again, because Schoenberg's influence was, and continues to be, so wide-ranging, no one could possibly imagine how much it would affect the entirety of music history to remove it, and to imagine that it would be a good thing is near-sighted and spitefully reactionary.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 01, 2016, 01:10:33 PM
But there wasn't even a single semi-decent composer after him whose music wasn't either inspired by or written in reaction to Schoenberg's. To remove him from history, we'd lose The Planets, Shostakovich's best works, some of the most fascinating parts of Prokofiev, a good bit of Stravinsky, the Neoclassical movement, and so forth, all of which reacted to his work in some way. Forget about the Darmstadt School and American serialism, the entire 20th century would be significantly different without one of its foremost geniuses to guide it.
His influence is incredibly poorly understood because people think that the 12-tone method was the most important thing he did, or that his theoretical work was especially influential, both of which are dead wrong.
His most widely accepted theoretical idea is so widely accepted today that people don't even realize that Schoenberg was one of the first to formulate it: that the distinction between consonance and dissonance is one of degree, rather than kind.
Once again, because Schoenberg's influence was, and continues to be, so wide-ranging, no one could possibly imagine how much it would affect the entirety of music history to remove it, and to imagine that it would be a good thing is near-sighted and spitefully reactionary.
Did you read the thread? I refer to the compulsory aspect of its premise.
And if no-one can imagine the effect then how can you?
Anyway Delius is really the right answer, logically, in that thread since the existence of his music is identical in its effect to its absence.
:laugh:
Quote from: Ken B on November 01, 2016, 01:44:45 PM
Did you read the thread? I refer to the compulsory aspect of its premise.
And if no-one can imagine the effect then how can you?
Anyway Delius is really the right answer, logically, in that thread since the existence of his music is identical in its effect to its absence.
:laugh:
I can't. I can imagine
part of the effect, but not the
entirety of it.
If I wanted to throw out a composer, I'd do away with Pfitzner or some nobody like that, not one of the greatest musical geniuses.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 01, 2016, 01:10:33 PM
But there wasn't even a single semi-decent composer after him whose music wasn't either inspired by or written in reaction to Schoenberg's. To remove him from history, we'd lose The Planets, Shostakovich's best works, some of the most fascinating parts of Prokofiev, a good bit of Stravinsky, the Neoclassical movement, and so forth, all of which reacted to his work in some way. Forget about the Darmstadt School and American serialism, the entire 20th century would be significantly different without one of its foremost geniuses to guide it.
Strange assertion. Which of Shostakovich's best works have a debt Schoenberg and what is the nature of the debt? What fascinating parts of Prokofiev?
Yes. Genres for which they have no innate strong interest or feeling for, lol.
Schubert should not have composed any concerti, for example. Oh, wait... he didn't.
From what I've heard via listening to them, Medtner should not have composed three piano concerti (if they are any measure of what and how else he composed, well, different strokes for different folks); Karl Jenkins should not have composed anything; etc.
Of course, there is only one way to find out if one is 'good at' anything, and that is in the doing of that thing -- and often doing more than just one essay. Unfortunately, even a formal training up through doctorate level is not going to have a composition major writing, say, a concerto, an opera, art song, a choral work, a ballet score, or all varieties of chamber music.
To be plain, I don't get the value of the question, or at least if there is a point of discussion there, it is to me lost in the particular wording.
On the other hand, it is a weirdly academic conjectural tease to contemplate an object such as, say, "Puccini's Piano Concerto." >:D :laugh:
Best regards
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 01, 2016, 02:56:44 PM
Strange assertion. Which of Shostakovich's best works have a debt Schoenberg and what is the nature of the debt? What fascinating parts of Prokofiev?
Shostakovich listed Schoenberg among his favorite composers in the early 1930s, and you can certainly hear this in the works from around that time. The most obviously influenced piece, of course, is the Five Fragments for Orchestra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQIPGefNMvY, and the Fourth Symphony, the third movement of which begins with the motif of the so-called "Viennese trichord," but I can hear the influence of Schoenberg's melodic style on even the "populist" works of the later 30s and 40s.
Naturally, these influences were filtered through Hindemith and Stravinsky and others as well.
Similarly, Prokofiev was reacting to the milieu of The Rite of Spring (orchestrated after Stravinsky's encounter with Pierrot lunaire) and the machine works of Varese when he wrote his percussive sonatas and the Second Symphony. Even if the influence was not direct, and in Prokofiev's case I agree it most likely was not, to suggest that he was ignoring the musical world around him would seem to have a higher burden of proof than otherwise.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 01, 2016, 12:32:26 PM
Oh, to answer the thread question, Bruckner's piano music is pretty universally mediocre.
As indeed is Sibelius's - BUT it is clearly unfair (of me) to cite Weber for having written three great operas and not much else of note, since it would clearly be impossible only to write three masterpieces and nothing else (yeah, yeah, Barraqué, Duruflé, Joyce, I know, I know, but I bet they turned out a load of junk that ended up on the fire). I laugh sometimes to read things like "if Schoenberg had only written the 1st chamber symphony (or Stravinsky the
Rite, or Haydn the Op.20s) he would still be considered one of the greatest composers" - as if stuff like that leaps into existence fully-formed. Poor Weber - I should celebrate his writing of two dud symphonies if they were essential preparation for
Freischütz.
Quote from: Thatfabulousalien on November 01, 2016, 01:55:43 PM
Is there the mirror opposite of this thread?
Genres composers should have written in?
I have more ideas there
Agreed, this is too negative.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 01, 2016, 03:04:50 PM
Shostakovich listed Schoenberg among his favorite composers in the early 1930s, and you can certainly hear this in the works from around that time. The most obviously influenced piece, of course, is the Five Fragments for Orchestra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQIPGefNMvY, and the Fourth Symphony, the third movement of which begins with the motif of the so-called "Viennese trichord," but I can hear the influence of Schoenberg's melodic style on even the "populist" works of the later 30s and 40s.
Naturally, these influences were filtered through Hindemith and Stravinsky and others as well.
The Five Fragments perhaps — one obscure work and not a very good one. His principle influences in his early style include Rimsky-Korsakoff, Mussorgsky, Stravinsky, Miaskovsky, Prokofiev, Mahler and even Rachmaninoff. There is virtually no appreciable Schoenberg influence in any of his fifteen quartets, or in the mature symphonies, concertos or sonatas. His modal melodic language and the harmonic language in all of his mature music shows the direct lineage of his Russian influences. Contrary to your claim, that if we "removed [Schoenberg] from history, we'd lose ... Shostakovich's best works," we would in fact lose virtually nothing. You've given no credible support for you claim.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 01, 2016, 03:04:50 PMSimilarly, Prokofiev was reacting to the milieu of The Rite of Spring (orchestrated after Stravinsky's encounter with Pierrot lunaire) and the machine works of Varese when he wrote his percussive sonatas and the Second Symphony. Even if the influence was not direct, and in Prokofiev's case I agree it most likely was not, to suggest that he was ignoring the musical world around him would seem to have a higher burden of proof than otherwise.
The support for your claim that without Schoenberg we would not have the most fascinating parts of Prokofiev is non-existent. His percussive piano style was in place in works he wrote as a teen, well before The Rite or Varese. His first couple of piano concertos predate these as well, as do his first three sonatas.
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 01, 2016, 07:00:14 PM
The Five Fragments perhaps — one obscure work and not a very good one. His principle influences in his early style include Rimsky-Korsakoff, Mussorgsky, Stravinsky, Miaskovsky, Prokofiev, Mahler and even Rachmaninoff. There is virtually no appreciable Schoenberg influence in any of his fifteen quartets, or in the mature symphonies, concertos or sonatas. His modal melodic language and the harmonic language in all of his mature music shows the direct lineage of his Russian influences. Contrary to your claim, that if we "removed [Schoenberg] from history, we'd lose ... Shostakovich's best works," we would in fact lose virtually nothing. You've given no credible support for you claim.
Add to the Five Fragments (which is a far better work than, say, the Leningrad) the Aphorisms for piano, the early operas, the Symphonies both before and after #5 (and isn't #4 a more truly mature work than the several that followed it?). I would say the quartets as well; although Shostakovich's language is simpler than Schoenberg's, especially in terms of harmony, he did at times draw from Schoenberg's lyricism and humanity. At any rate, you skipped over the main evidence, which was Shostakovich's own words.
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 01, 2016, 07:00:14 PMThe support for your claim that without Schoenberg we would not have the most fascinating parts of Prokofiev is non-existent. His percussive piano style was in place in works he wrote as a teen, well before The Rite or Varese. His first couple of piano concertos predate these as well, as do his first three sonatas.
Okay, granted on that count. I will say that without the existence of Schoenberg's music, every composer working in the tradition would not have had his music to respond to. Given that everyone was listening to it, everyone was taking up a position for or against it, even the arch-conservatism of the Soviet Union's leaders would have to be counted as a fear of the unknown opened up by Schoenberg's work. To suggest that one would be able to remove it from music history and retain the personalities of the musical world shows a very shallow understanding of how influence works and how artistic traditions develop and feed into each other.
One could say that we could remove Beethoven from the 19th century and all kinds of personalities would be left unaffected, but even someone like Chopin who kept aloof from Beethoven was aware of and responded to the challenges posed by his music.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 01, 2016, 03:02:44 PM
From what I've heard via listening to them, Medtner should not have composed three piano concerti
Then you hardly listened. He should have composed many more.
Quote from: DaveF on November 01, 2016, 03:09:26 PM
As indeed is Sibelius's - BUT it is clearly unfair (of me) to cite Weber for having written three great operas and not much else of note, since it would clearly be impossible only to write three masterpieces and nothing else
I think we also tend to treat some music a little unfairly because we lost some of the historical context and see only the towering masterpieces, some of which were not really typical within that context. E.g. Beethoven's piano concerti with their serious and "symphonic" character are actually outliers. If one listens to a bunch of the concerti from the first half of the 19th century in a series like hyperion's most of them are focussed on virtuose piano writing and seem rather shallow. Compared to Moscheles' Hummel's or Weber's concerti stick out as pretty good. Similarly with piano sonatas and still, Weber's were probably more popular throughout the 19th century than any of Schubert's (they were virtually forgotten until the 1920s and very infrequently played until the 1950s/60s).
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 01, 2016, 07:07:28 PM
Add to the Five Fragments (which is a far better work than, say, the Leningrad) the Aphorisms for piano, the early operas, the Symphonies both before and after #5 (and isn't #4 a more truly mature work than the several that followed it?). I would say the quartets as well; although Shostakovich's language is simpler than Schoenberg's, especially in terms of harmony, he did at times draw from Schoenberg's lyricism and humanity. At any rate, you skipped over the main evidence, which was Shostakovich's own words.
Shostakovich liking Schoenberg's music is not evidence of influence. It is a reason to look for evidence. Or in your case, apparently, a reason to imagine it or make it up.
The symphonies after 4? Not 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, or 13, etc. I have no idea what it would mean to say 4 is "more truly mature" than say, 6 or 8 or 10 — that it sounds more like Schoenberg — to you? I know all of the quartets and have no idea what you are talking about. You'll need to be more specific.
Draws from Schoenberg's lyricism and humanity??? Because he knew no other human composers? Because there are no other lyrical composers?
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 01, 2016, 07:07:28 PMOkay, granted on that count. I will say that without the existence of Schoenberg's music, every composer working in the tradition would not have had his music to respond to. Given that everyone was listening to it, everyone was taking up a position for or against it, even the arch-conservatism of the Soviet Union's leaders would have to be counted as a fear of the unknown opened up by Schoenberg's work. To suggest that one would be able to remove it from music history and retain the personalities of the musical world shows a very shallow understanding of how influence works and how artistic traditions develop and feed into each other.
No one suggested this. It is a straw man you invented. You claimed that the best work of Shostakovich and Prokofiev would not have existed without Schoenberg. Extraordinary claims require — well, some evidence anyway! More than naming a couple of obscure works and vaguely naming whole genres at least.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 01, 2016, 07:07:28 PMOne could say that we could remove Beethoven from the 19th century and all kinds of personalities would be left unaffected, but even someone like Chopin who kept aloof from Beethoven was aware of and responded to the challenges posed by his music.
Chopin's piano sonatas, especially 2, show Beethoven's influence pretty clearly I think.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 02, 2016, 01:13:54 AM
I think we also tend to treat some music a little unfairly because we lost some of the historical context and see only the towering masterpieces, some of which were not really typical within that context. E.g. Beethoven's piano concerti with their serious and "symphonic" character are actually outliers. If one listens to a bunch of the concerti from the first half of the 19th century in a series like hyperion's most of them are focussed on virtuose piano writing and seem rather shallow. Compared to Moscheles' Hummel's or Weber's concerti stick out as pretty good. Similarly with piano sonatas and still, Weber's were probably more popular throughout the 19th century than any of Schubert's (they were virtually forgotten until the 1920s and very infrequently played until the 1950s/60s).
If you can read French I recommend you this article, published in January 1867 in
Revue des Deux Mondes. It is very illuminating about how Weber and his work were viewed back then. The most interesting part is where the author wax poetic about...
Aufforderung zum Tanz.
http://rddm.revuedesdeuxmondes.fr/archive/article.php?code=64586 (http://rddm.revuedesdeuxmondes.fr/archive/article.php?code=64586)
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 02, 2016, 03:50:57 AM
Shostakovich liking Schoenberg's music is not evidence of influence. It is a reason to look for evidence. Or in your case, apparently, a reason to imagine it or make it up.
The symphonies after 4? Not 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, or 13, etc. I have no idea what it would mean to say 4 is "more truly mature" than say, 6 or 8 or 10 — that it sounds more like Schoenberg — to you? I know all of the quartets and have no idea what you are talking about. You'll need to be more specific.
Draws from Schoenberg's lyricism and humanity??? Because he knew no other human composers? Because there are no other lyrical composers?
Going back to the original source in Laurel Fay's biography:
Quote"In his high-profile role as model young Soviet composer during the year leading up to the condemnation of Lady Macbeth, Shostakovich had been candid about the influence the music of such contemporary composers as Berg, Schoenberg, Krenek, Hindemith, and especially Stravinsky had exerted on his development, especially in the three years after completing Conservatory."
So I was wrong about the precise context and wording, but in a way that actually supports my point.
4 is a more mature work than the symphonies that followed it (and Shostakovich himself said this) because it presents a greater variety of content and of expression, and because instead of the constant repetition of 5, 7, or 10, its music is constantly developing.
At any rate, this is not a matter of me making things up, but me hearing things that you don't. Your lack of good faith in this conversation is irritating.
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 02, 2016, 03:50:57 AMNo one suggested this. It is a straw man you invented. You claimed that the best work of Shostakovich and Prokofiev would not have existed without Schoenberg. Extraordinary claims require — well, some evidence anyway! More than naming a couple of obscure works and vaguely naming whole genres at least.
Actually, the original discussion was about removing composers from music history entirely, presumably for the good of music overall. No need to jump into hostility.
What I meant was not that they would not have written any great works without Schoenberg, but that the specific great works they did write could only have existed in a world that had Schoenberg in it.
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 02, 2016, 03:50:57 AMChopin's piano sonatas, especially 2, show Beethoven's influence pretty clearly I think.
And Chopin was markedly ambivalent about Beethoven's music, just as Shostakovich and Prokofiev were about Schoenberg's.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 01, 2016, 03:02:44 PM
...To be plain, I don't get the value of the question, or at least if there is a point of discussion there, it is to me lost in the particular wording.
Points well taken. If we wished to be more precise, perhaps we could word the question: Are there certain composers who, having written things in a particular genre, should not inflict them on the public?
The Sibelius brass piece I mentioned is a good example. As I said, I don't know if Sibelius just didn't write well for brass alone (unlikely, given the fine brass writing in his orchestral music, but possible), or if it was just an "off" time for him, but that piece should have never seen the light of day. (And maybe Sibelius himself never intended that it should.)
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 02, 2016, 08:12:40 AM
Going back to the original source in Laurel Fay's biography:
So I was wrong about the precise context and wording, but in a way that actually supports my point.
Not really. An influence on his development in his immediate post-student days does not equate to an influence on his music, which would need to be supported by musical evidence in any case. Stravinsky is the composer emphasized and Schoenberg is part of a pretty long list. You didn't just miss the context and precise wording, you said something completely different.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 02, 2016, 08:12:40 AM4 is a more mature work than the symphonies that followed it (and Shostakovich himself said this) because it presents a greater variety of content and of expression, and because instead of the constant repetition of 5, 7, or 10, its music is constantly developing.
I asked about 6, 8 and 10. All of these have a great variety of content and expression (not that I accept this criterion as a sure sign of aesthetic value.) The longest movements in these works have very little literal repetition.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 02, 2016, 08:12:40 AM
At any rate, this is not a matter of me making things up, but me hearing things that you don't. Your lack of good faith in this conversation is irritating.
Actually, the original discussion was about removing composers from music history entirely, presumably for the good of music overall. No need to jump into hostility.
My lack of faith might be a result of seeing that after refuting every point you made in your original post and several follow ups, you still repeat your far reaching conclusion (next quotation below) without having cited a bit of musical evidence or credible documentary evidence. What you interpret as hostility might better be described as exasperation.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 02, 2016, 08:12:40 AMWhat I meant was not that they would not have written any great works without Schoenberg, but that the specific great works they did write could only have existed in a world that had Schoenberg in it.
I know many of his best works in great detail and hear nothing of note that required the existence of Schoenberg.
Actually the premise of the original thread referred to was if you HAD TO eliminate a composer from history, not whom would you wish or want eliminated. Nothing about "for the good of music" at all.
Quote from: Ken B on November 02, 2016, 01:52:57 PM
Actually the premise of the original thread referred to was if you HAD TO eliminate a composer from history, not whom would you wish or want eliminated. Nothing about "for the good of music" at all.
The choice is still made to remove a major composer like Schoenberg over a comparatively minor one like Dittersdorf, which indicates a preference, wouldn't you say?
My original point absolutely stands that Schoenberg's influence reached far beyond simply those who followed him directly.
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 02, 2016, 01:28:26 PM
Not really. An influence on his development in his immediate post-student days does not equate to an influence on his music, which would need to be supported by musical evidence in any case. Stravinsky is the composer emphasized and Schoenberg is part of a pretty long list. You didn't just miss the context and precise wording, you said something completely different.
...Never mind. You won't listen to any evidence I present, clearly, because you've made up your mind.
Simply because you personally can't hear any influence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination) doesn't trump the perception of influence elsewhere, especially when it's been stated by the composer himself.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 02, 2016, 02:04:33 PM
...Never mind. You won't listen to any evidence I present, clearly, because you've made up your mind.
Simply because you personally can't hear any influence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination) doesn't trump the perception of influence elsewhere, especially when it's been stated by the composer himself.
I've been reading your exchange with BasilValentine about whether Schoenberg influenced Shostakovich or not. I agree with you that Schoenberg was such a major voice in the 20th century, his influence albeit implicit in many major composers such as Shostakovich, ought to be undeniable by most informed observers of the 20th century musical scene. There is no serious composer in the 20th century whose music was not affected because of Schoenberg.
The 20th century without Schoenberg's
oeuvre and it would be hard to imagine what kind of music would have been written. Probably no Serialism, and then no neo-Romanticism or Minimalism both responses to Serialism. Even John Cage, who was a student and presumably influenced, for sure as a counter-example, but influenced nonetheless.
Which is why I consider Schoenberg the most important composer of the 20th century.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 03:21:50 PM
There is no serious composer in the 20th century whose music was not affected because of Schoenberg.
Let´s take Rachmaninoff, Enescu and Ravel. Where is Schoenberg´s influence to be found in their music?
I think it is fair to take the statement about composers not of the same generation as Schoenberg, but younger, so it would not apply to Ravel, Rachmaninoff, Enescu etc.
Why has this thread completely changed the topic? Moderators, please moderate, especially if there is already a thread for the Schoenberg's influence topic.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 03, 2016, 01:59:16 AM
Why has this thread completely changed the topic?
Because the High Priest of the Schoenbergian Church never misses an opportunity to preach the one true religion and to scold heretics and atheists. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2016, 01:20:50 AM
Let´s take ... Ravel. Where is Schoenberg´s influence to be found in [his] music?
Trois poèmes de Stéphane Mallarmé...just saying. ;)
Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2016, 01:20:50 AM
Let´s take Rachmaninoff, Enescu and Ravel. Where is Schoenberg´s influence to be found in their music?
Well, if
Stravinsky hadn't told
Ravel about working on
Trois poésies de la lyrique japonaise after having heard
Pierrot lunaire, we wouldn't have
Trois poèmes de Stéphane Mallarmé, all three works sharing the same scoring.
Quote from: ritter on November 03, 2016, 02:19:54 AM
Trois poèmes de Stéphane Mallarmé...just saying. ;)
G'day,
Rafael!
...I shouldn't have taken so much time to write the above :P
Quote from: North Star on November 03, 2016, 02:24:24 AM
G'day, Rafael!
...I shouldn't have taken so much time to write the above :P
G'day,
Karlo! Mine was the short answer, yours is the well argued one. ;)
Quote from: North Star on November 03, 2016, 02:22:44 AM
Well, if Stravinsky hadn't told Ravel about working on Trois poésies de la lyrique japonaise after having heard Pierrot lunaire, we wouldn't have Trois poèmes de Stéphane Mallarmé, all three works sharing the same scoring.
We would never know what if
Stravinsky hadn´t, would we? Arguing by counterfactual hypotheses is not the strongest form of arguing. :)
Allow me to remind you that
before Pierrot Lunaire was composed,
Gabriel Faure arranged
La bonne chanson op. 61, originally written for tenor and piano, for tenor, piano and string quintet and that
Ernest Chausson´s
La chanson perpetuelle op. 37 was written in 1898 for soprano, piano and string quartet. Whether
Ravel was familiar with them is of course a matter of speculation.
Now, don´t get me wrong:
Schoenberg was hugely influential on a great many 20-th century composers, but to stretch this obvious fact to claiming that each and every composer in the 20-th century was influenced by
Schoenberg is to go a little too far.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 02, 2016, 02:04:33 PM
...Never mind. You won't listen to any evidence I present, clearly, because you've made up your mind.
Simply because you personally can't hear any influence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination) doesn't trump the perception of influence elsewhere, especially when it's been stated by the composer himself.
Funny you citing argument from ignorance in this context! You made a claim about an overwhelming debt Prokofiev and Shostakovich owed to Schoenberg, to the effect that the best of their work would not have existed without him. Then you admitted being mistaken about Prokofiev. You said the strongest evidence for Schoenberg's influence on Shostakovich was a statement made by Shostakovich himself. It turned out that he didn't say what you claimed. So you had no basis for Prokofiev and your strongest evidence for Shostakovich evaporated. You didn't cite a single example of a work by either composer — and remember, you set the standard as their best work, so the two obscure pieces you mentioned don't count — that supports your apparently ignorant assertion. Having nothing left you have now, finally, resorted to ad hominem characterizations of ignorance and lack of imagination —
on my part! What I wonder is: Given that Schoenberg was an enormously influential composer whose influence one could have demonstrated by citing countless other composers, why you chose the examples you did.
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 01, 2016, 02:56:44 PM
Strange assertion. Which of Shostakovich's best works have a debt Schoenberg and what is the nature of the debt?
SQ's no. 12 op. 133 & no. 13 op. 138, Symphony no. 14 op. 135, and Sonata for violin and piano, op. 134 all made use of twelve-tone techniques.
http://www.quartets.de/compositions/ssq12.html
I think to downright deny Schoenberg's impact on the 20th Century is to show a greater ignorance that even a simpleton like me doesn't even understand. :-\
Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2016, 02:42:59 AM
We would never know what if Stravinsky hadn´t, would we? Arguing by counterfactual hypotheses is not the strongest form of arguing. :)
Allow me to remind you that before Pierrot Lunaire was composed, Gabriel Faure arranged La bonne chanson op. 61, originally written for tenor and piano, for tenor, piano and string quintet and that Ernest Chausson´s La chanson perpetuelle op. 37 was written in 1898 for soprano, piano and string quartet. Whether Ravel was familiar with them is of course a matter of speculation.
Now, don´t get me wrong: Schoenberg was hugely influential on a great many 20-th century composers, but to stretch this obvious fact to claiming that each and every composer in the 20-th century was influenced by Schoenberg is to go a little too far.
In the case of Ravel, once again we have the composer's own words:
"In fact, the influence of Schoenberg may be overwhelming on his followers, but the significance of his art is to be identified with influences of a more subtle kind—not the system, but the aesthetic, of his art. I am quite conscious of the fact that my Chansons madécasses are in no way Schoenbergian, but I do not know whether I ever should have been able to write them had Schoenberg never written." - Maurice Ravel
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 03, 2016, 07:14:26 AM
I think to downright deny Schoenberg's impact on the 20th Century is to show a greater ignorance that even a simpleton like me doesn't even understand. :-\
The sense I get from some people's words on this forum is not a
denial that Schoenberg happened, but a
wish that he had never happened!
Quote from: jochanaan on November 03, 2016, 08:33:52 AM
The sense I get from some people's words on this forum is not a denial that Schoenberg happened, but a wish that he had never happened!
That's a high probability for sure. :)
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 03, 2016, 08:23:59 AM
In the case of Ravel, once again we have the composer's own words:
"In fact, the influence of Schoenberg may be overwhelming on his followers, but the significance of his art is to be identified with influences of a more subtle kind—not the system, but the aesthetic, of his art. I am quite conscious of the fact that my Chansons madécasses are in no way Schoenbergian, but I do not know whether I ever should have been able to write them had Schoenberg never written." - Maurice Ravel
Fair enough.
What do we have in the case of Rachmaninoff and Enescu?
Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2016, 08:38:02 AM
Fair enough.
What do we have in the case of Rachmaninoff and Enescu?
I didn't mean to make any claim for Rachmaninoff or Enescu, who were, as stated earlier, of approximately the same generation as Schoenberg. Like Debussy, who was also an epochal modern composer, their styles were fully developed before he could have influenced them, either in reaction to or sympathy with him.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 03, 2016, 08:45:09 AM
I didn't mean to make any claim for Rachmaninoff or Enescu, who were, as stated earlier, of approximately the same generation as Schoenberg.
Then you might want to modify what you wrote, namely:
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 01, 2016, 07:07:28 PM
I will say that without the existence of Schoenberg's music, every composer working in the tradition would not have had his music to respond to. Given that everyone was listening to it, everyone was taking up a position for or against it.
Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2016, 08:50:45 AM
Then you might want to modify what you wrote, namely:
I meant that every composer who followed him in time responded to his work. Schoenberg's existence could not simply have been ignored by those working in the European tradition, and his influence continues to be strong today.
Obviously, composers like Saint-Saens or Stanford who were still railing against Debussy and Strauss into the 1910s didn't take much notice of Schoenberg, if at all.
Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2016, 02:13:50 AM
Because the High Priest of the Schoenbergian Church never misses an opportunity to preach the one true religion and to scold heretics and atheists. ;D ;D ;D
What?
What the more / most literal of participants
(who seem very busy looking for specific citations in words by the composers themselves or for concrete examples in other composers works that would directly show the influence of Schoenberg -- or more accurately 'his method') will miss here is a very simple truth....
The moment something so clear and fresh on the scene is disseminated -- and being airborne it travels quickly through the ether -- at the least, and without any concrete evidence to cite,
the aesthetic, as well as more specific harmonic implications, will have anyone who became even a bit aware of it
at least reviewing their private thoughts about their own working aesthetic and the music they write. Ergo, Schoenberg's music "affected almost every composer living and working at the time." So did Stravinsky's music.
It amounts to, within a circle of artists, a pan-global "Stop and Think."
So, if you're looking to write that paper, maybe there won't be very much in the way of concrete evidence (though the true pedant can virtually make something out of almost nothing.) While if we could go back in time, and test the Ether, as it were....
Well, these things happen from time to time.
Quote from: jochanaan on November 03, 2016, 08:33:52 AM
The sense I get from some people's words on this forum is not a denial that Schoenberg happened, but a wish that he had never happened!
I'm sure there are many, and at least a few more, who would be happy to stop the clock just prior December 22, 1894, in order that modern music never were....
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 03, 2016, 06:24:05 AMHaving nothing left you have now, finally, resorted to ad hominem characterizations of ignorance and lack of imagination — on my part!
...Yet another abuse of the term "ad hominem" to indicate something other an actual ad hominem. You may not like me saying it, and you may find it insulting, but neither of those means that characterizing your argument as an argument from ignorance is an ad hominem. Any argument which depends on the lack of knowledge of any example to the contrary is by definition an argument from ignorance. An ad hominem is an attempt to distract from the logic of the argument at hand by means of personal criticism. Criticizing your argument is the exact opposite of an ad hominem attack.
As for not giving specifics, it would have been pointless, as you have shown no interest in my argument or any evidence I could present. You haven't even shown an awareness that your position regarding Shostakovich is now that his formative musical development cannot be said to have influenced his later work...which is quite an extraordinary claim!
It's a shame this thread got derailed by the Schoenberg haters. I thought it was a really fun idea.
That said, anyone who listens to Shostakovich's late quartets and thinks Schoenberg had nothing to do with that is just in denial.
You don't have to like Schoenberg's music. But to ignore his influence at this point is absurd.
Quote from: Gaspard de la nuit on November 03, 2016, 02:07:59 PM
It's a shame this thread got derailed by the Schoenberg haters. I thought it was a really fun idea.
That said, anyone who listens to Shostakovich's late quartets and thinks Schoenberg had nothing to do with that is just in denial.
You don't have to like Schoenberg's music. But to ignore his influence at this point is absurd.
+1 & INDEED.
As far as the general listening public, it probably took no longer for the dust to settle re: Wagner's near total unbuttoning of common practice harmony. Schoenberg's further unbuttoning of common practice harmony (or at least Arnie's stamp on it, since Debussy had 'been there, done that,' in 1894) seems to take the same historic place... a century later, and some still
just hate it ;-)The thing is, even among the greenest of neophyte / n00bs, about Wagner there is a sense that if he is hated / disliked, there is at lease some accepted opinion/wisdom of these two most salient points when regarding such 'revolutionaries.'
1.) they changed the way most any composer thought about music.
2.) about everyone at least acknowledges they are 'great composers.'
So... taken how long it took for Wagner to reach this prickly balance on a pin of 'horrible to my taste, yet truly great,' it does not seem unreasonable that many of the general public are still going to grind their axes when it comes to Schoenberg.
IF they would consider the Wagner scenario, they might just realize that it is futile, and spouting a bit more than foolish, to denigrate the composer and the music, and that the
informed and more reasonable thing to say, as some still do about Wagner, "I really don't like it, though I know he is a great composer." (This is even more peculiar considering so many have no problem saying similar about many another great composer or entire era of music
of the past.) Since Schoenberg is also historically quite concretely "of the past," it is that much more puzzling that more people haven't come to the conclusion, 'like it, don't like it, but indisputably a great composer.'
But then, Arnie will be the chosen scapegoat and poster-boy for all that 'went wrong with music back then,' and that ruffles those who more exclusively prefer to wallow in the bathos of the hot tub / cholera-scented candle environment of the romantic and later romantic eras... just sayin'.
Talking about axes to grind:
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 04, 2016, 02:39:17 AM
the bathos of the hot tub / cholera-scented candle environment of the romantic and later romantic eras...
::) :D
The ridiculousness becomes even more delicious, as just a few lines above we have this:
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 04, 2016, 02:39:17 AM
they might just realize that it is futile, and spouting a bit more than foolish, to denigrate the composer and the music, and that the informed and more reasonable thing to say, as some still do about Wagner, "I really don't like it, though I know he is a great composer.
Hint: this also applies to composers, music and idioms, past and present, that don't follow your aesthetic dogma. Deal with it.
Quote from: Wanderer on November 04, 2016, 04:07:15 AMTalking about axes to grind.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 04, 2016, 02:39:17 AMBut then, Arnie will be the chosen scapegoat and poster-boy for all that 'went wrong with music back then,' and that ruffles those who more exclusively prefer to wallow in the bathos of the hot tub / cholera-scented candle environment of the romantic and later romantic eras... just sayin'.
I thought some might want to try that hat on and look at themselves in the mirror -- just to see if it fits
and goes well with the suit they are already wearing. :-)
I'm certain their are indiscriminate sensationalists who soak in the hot tub of Nothing But modernist / contemporary as well... while I don't think there are any of
that ilk chatting it up in this thread, lol.
Quote from: Wanderer on November 04, 2016, 04:07:15 AMHint: this also applies to composers, music and idioms, past and present, that don't follow your aesthetic dogma. Deal with it.
Well, this is the intent of paralleling the 'historic place' of Wagner and Schoenberg. Glad that point was communicated; because "deal with it" (+1 and thank you) is exactly what most everyone does. The huge difference if one mentions Bach, Wagner, Rameau, etc. is that it does not ring that alarm crying 'the Huns are at the gates of Vienna and our culture and arts are in dire peril,' and mention of other composers does not bring that sort of reflexive triggered offensive commentary against as a defense of that older rep... which is why the reflex trigger about, especially, Schoenberg, is more or less an anomalous phenomenon.
You'd seriously think just about anyone would 'be over it,' but then, back to that still present hard-ass split on Wagner....
Best regards.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 03, 2016, 01:10:23 PM
...Yet another abuse of the term "ad hominem" to indicate something other an actual ad hominem. You may not like me saying it, and you may find it insulting, but neither of those means that characterizing your argument as an argument from ignorance is an ad hominem. Any argument which depends on the lack of knowledge of any example to the contrary is by definition an argument from ignorance. An ad hominem is an attempt to distract from the logic of the argument at hand by means of personal criticism. Criticizing your argument is the exact opposite of an ad hominem attack.
As for not giving specifics, it would have been pointless, as you have shown no interest in my argument or any evidence I could present. You haven't even shown an awareness that your position regarding Shostakovich is now that his formative musical development cannot be said to have influenced his later work...which is quite an extraordinary claim!
If you are going to claim I am making an argument from ignorance please state what argument you are addressing. The only indication of what you might mean is the part in bold above. However, I said nothing of the kind. This is a fabrication of yours. If you are going to attribute this ridiculous position to me, please actually show that I said it by quoting my words. You won't be able to.
What is especially funny about your claim that I am making an argument from ignorance is that I have not been advancing any argument at all! I have just quoted your statements and asked you to support them with either documentary or musical evidence. You have failed to do so. One can speculate, as several have, that the music of Schoenberg had a pervasive influence through the ether everyone breathed. This might be true. But that is not remotely sufficient to support your overblown claim.
I think Stanford should have stayed away from orchestral music. So much of it that I've heard has been, for me, rather uninspired and lacking in interesting musical ideas. His choral music, however, is where he shines the brightest.
Quote from: North Star on November 03, 2016, 06:34:14 AM
SQ's no. 12 op. 133 & no. 13 op. 138, Symphony no. 14 op. 135, and Sonata for violin and piano, op. 134 all made use of twelve-tone techniques.
http://www.quartets.de/compositions/ssq12.html
This is true, although to a limited extent and in an extended tonal context. On this subject Shostakovich wrote:
"As far as the strictly technical devices from such musical 'systems' as dodecaphony or aleatory is concerned ... everything in good measure. If, let's say, a composer sets himself the obligatory task of writing dodecaphonic music, then he artificially limits his possibilities, his ideas. The use of elements from these complex systems is fully justified if it is dictated by the concept of the composition."
In the same interview, when pressed "to name the composers he considered 20thc classics, he cited Mahler, Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg and Britten." (Fay, 258) I think Berg is the likely touchstone for Shostakovich's rare and conservative dabbling with 12-tone materials in his last few years, especially given this list. I don't read anything into his failure to mention Schoenberg here. This could merely have been an oversight given that it was said on the spot in a public interview and not a considered and premeditated position.
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 04, 2016, 06:29:23 AM
This is true, although to a limited extent and in an extended tonal context. On this subject Shostakovich wrote:
"As far as the strictly technical devices from such musical 'systems' as dodecaphony or aleatory is concerned ... everything in good measure. If, let's say, a composer sets himself the obligatory task of writing dodecaphonic music, then he artificially limits his possibilities, his ideas. The use of elements from these complex systems is fully justified if it is dictated by the concept of the composition."
In the same interview, when pressed "to name the composers he considered 20thc classics, he cited Mahler, Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg and Britten." (Fay, 258) I think Berg is the likely touchstone for Shostakovich's rare and conservative dabbling with 12-tone materials in his last few years, especially given this list. I don't read anything into his failure to mention Schoenberg here. This could merely have been an oversight given that it said on the spot in a public interview and not a considered and premeditated position.
So what if Shostakovich doesn't mention Schoenberg? He thought highly of Berg and Berg was obviously a disciple of Schoenberg and was hugely influenced by his music. Whether one admits to it or not, Schoenberg was an influential composer and, as Mahlerian pointed out, this influence wasn't always fully manifested and noticeable in a composer's music. There were people who took to his methods and then there were reactionaries. I think you're arguing yourself into a hole that you can't get out of and have trouble admitting that you're wrong about this as many people have already given you evidence that Scheonberg was one of the most important composers of the 20th Century.
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 04, 2016, 06:36:21 AM
So what that Shostakovich doesn't mention Schoenberg? He thought highly of Berg and Berg was obviously a disciple of Schoenberg and was hugely influenced by his music. Whether one admits to it or not, Schoenberg was an influential composer and, as Mahlerian pointed out, this influence wasn't always fully manifested and noticeable in a composer's music. There were people who took to his methods and then there were reactionaries. I think you're arguing yourself into a hole that you can't get out of and have trouble admitting that you're wrong about this as many people have already given you evidence that Scheonberg was one of the most important composers of the 20th Century.
In case you have failed to notice, I explicitly stated above thread that Schoenberg was, obviously, a hugely influential composer. I stand by it and I never argued anything to the contrary. You seem to be accepting Mahlerian's misquotations and misinterpretations of my words for things I actually argued. What I have been arguing is only that Mahlerian's statement that Prokofiev's and Shostakovich's best works would not have existed without Schoenberg is a ridiculous overreach. I have no idea how you got a denial of Schoenberg's historical importance and influence out of that. But I'm curious: How did you? :)
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 04, 2016, 06:46:48 AMIn case you have failed to notice, I explicitly stated above thread that Schoenberg was, obviously, a hugely influential composer. I never argued anything to the contrary. You are accepting Mahlerian's misquotations and misinterpretations of my words for things I actually argued. What I have been arguing is only that Mahlerian's statement that Prokofiev's and Shostakovich's best works would not have existed without Schoenberg is a ridiculous overreach.
Fair enough. I personally couldn't make a claim that Shostakovich's and Prokofiev's best music would have existed with or without Schoenberg's influence. That would be foreseeing a future that never happened.
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 04, 2016, 06:50:09 AM
Fair enough. I personally couldn't make a claim that Shostakovich's and Prokofiev's best music would have existed with or without Schoenberg's influence. That would be foreseeing a future that never happened.
Given that both were child prodigies generating original compositions from the age of 10, and that both had quite distinct musical personalities from a young age, why would you even wonder if such forces of nature would have existed or created in the way they did? As I pointed out above, Prokofiev had completed at least three of his piano sonatas and two of his piano concertos before being exposed to
The Rite of Spring. His style was in place and in line with its later development even before significant (or any?) exposure to Schoenberg.
To the bold part above: Well yes, granted. But would you not agree that if one is going to make such a far-reaching claims like Mahlerian's, one ought to be able to support it with something more than a blanket statement that Schoenberg influenced everyone? Especially given that writing like Schoenberg was more or less illegal in the USSR when Shostakovich was composing his best work? ;) I don't hear anything specific in most of his mature music that can't be traced to the influence (if one even thinks elevating influence to this extent over original thought is valid) of Mahler, Mussorgsky, Stravinsky, Rimsky-Korsakoff, Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, Bartok, and Britten, among others.
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 04, 2016, 05:27:01 AM
If you are going to claim I am making an argument from ignorance please state what argument you are addressing. The only indication of what you might mean is the part in bold above. However, I said nothing of the kind. This is a fabrication of yours. If you are going to attribute this ridiculous position to me, please actually show that I said it by quoting my words. You won't be able to.
What is especially funny about your claim that I am making an argument from ignorance is that I have not been advancing any argument at all! I have just quoted your statements and asked you to support them with either documentary or musical evidence. You have failed to do so. One can speculate, as several have, that the music of Schoenberg had a pervasive influence through the ether everyone breathed. This might be true. But that is not remotely sufficient to support your overblown claim.
It's simple, really. Your own statements have been that:
- Schoenberg's influence on Shostakovich's later music is non-existent. (Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing with me)
However,
- Shostakovich was undeniably influenced by Schoenberg during his formative years. (He said so himself.)
- So the influences of his formative years must not have had any effect whatsoever on his later music.
That's the only way to square your statements in this thread. At any rate, you seem not to have understood that my claim was in fact quite similar to the bolded portion, not anything "overblown."
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 04, 2016, 07:08:00 AM
Given that both were child prodigies generating original compositions from the age of 10, and that both had quite distinct musical personalities from a young age, why would you even wonder if such forces of nature would have existed or created in the way they did? As I pointed out above, Prokofiev had completed at least three of his piano sonatas and two of his piano concertos before being exposed to The Rite of Spring. His style was in place and in line with its later development even before significant (or any?) exposure to Schoenberg.
To the bold part above: Well yes, granted. But would you not agree that if one is going to make such a far-reaching claims like Mahlerian's, one ought to be able to support it with something more than a blanket statement that Schoenberg influenced everyone? Especially given that writing like Schoenberg was more or less illegal in the USSR when Shostakovich was composing his best work? ;) I don't hear anything specific in most of his mature music that can't be traced to the influence (if one even thinks elevating influence to this extent over original thought is valid) in Mahler, Mussorgsky, Stravinsky, Rimsky-Korsakoff, Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, Bartok, and Britten, among others.
There's no question that music would have taken off in a multitude of different directions had Schoenberg not been alive or made the impact he did, but this is all rather beside the point and doesn't matter as I'd rather talk about what actually happened rather than what didn't.
I'd actually love to see this thread actually get back on-topic. Too much derailment for my liking.
Not me. I have zero interest in hypothosizing what works a composer should NOT have written. Navel gazing. I much prefer an in-depth discussion of why Schoenberg is an important composer.
But YMMV.
;)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 07:31:00 AM
Not me. I have zero interest in hypothosizing what works a composer should NOT have written. Navel gazing. I much prefer an in-depth discussion of why Schoenberg is an important composer.
But YMMV.
;)
But that's a discussion for another thread. Not this one.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 04, 2016, 07:09:12 AM
It's simple, really. Your own statements have been that:
- Schoenberg's influence on Shostakovich's later music is non-existent. (Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing with me)
However,
- Shostakovich was undeniably influenced by Schoenberg during his formative years. (He said so himself.)
- So the influences of his formative years must not have had any effect whatsoever on his later music.
That's the only way to square your statements in this thread. At any rate, you seem not to have understood that my claim was in fact quite similar to the bolded portion, not anything "overblown."
You are good at refuting your own contorted misinterpretations of what I have written, but of course you have failed to actually quote me —
once again. Guess I will have to: I said that Stravinsky was the central influence in the list of influences you cited and that Schoenberg was part of a long secondary list. I stated that influence in his immediate post student days
does not equate to influence on his later music. This sentence in no way denies influence on Shostakovich's music or even on his late music. It merely says that one cannot assume this to be the case — that there is not a one to one correspondence (equation) of early influence with mature style. Which is why I followed up with: this [alleged] influence would have to be demonstrated with musical evidence.
You stated that Shostakovich's (and Prokofiev's) best music would not have existed without the influence of Schoenberg. What I have been arguing all along is that this is an extraordinary claim that you have not adequately supported. This is the only thing that needs to be squared.
Now, however, since you persist in trying to misrepresent my statements and to deny responsibility for your overreaching claims, I will give my analysis of what is really going on here. Essentially the dynamic here is just the typical internet pissing contest in which someone claims: "My guy is the greatest. A vastly superior human being to whom all must bow from here to eternity. Why, the composers you like owe everything to my guy. They would'a been nuffin' without him, Nuffin' I tell ya." When confronted with the predictable response: "Prove it," or, in this case, "What exactly do they owe to your guy that their very existence depends on him?," we get . . . . . . . . . . squat.
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 04, 2016, 08:02:17 AMYou stated that Shostakovich's (and Prokofiev's) best music would not have existed without the influence of Schoenberg.
No I didn't.
I argued that those works would not have existed
as they exist now if it weren't for the existence of this particular influence.
Your complaints to the contrary, I made that statement and you took offense to it. Your disregard for the evidence I did present (and for logic generally) indicated the utter pointlessness of going any further to come up with specific examples.
I just wanted to say that I don't mind if this thread goes back to my OP or not. I made the thread to see if some interesting responses resulted.
Some think the OP is stupid. Somebody said it was navel gazing? I just have to laugh because it's not as though the question I positted, which can only have answers in the form of opinion, is very serious at all. It's just a random question to serve as a jumping off point for a hopefully entertaining discussion.
I'm any case, my opinion is that as long as the discussion is entertaining I don't care what direction it goes.
Bernstein
Masses
Segerstam - Symphonies
I think he quite possibly needs rehab.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 04, 2016, 04:48:46 AM
I thought some might want to try that hat on and look at themselves in the mirror -- just to see if it fits and goes well with the suit they are already wearing. :-)
I'm certain their are indiscriminate sensationalists who soak in the hot tub of Nothing But modernist / contemporary as well... while I don't think there are any of that ilk chatting it up in this thread, lol.
So, the modernist/contemporary "hot tub" is not cholera-scented, then?
For future reference, if you really don't have an axe to grind against tonal/romantic music, you should refrain from using ridiculous dismissive asides and remarks that demonstrate (your) apparent contempt for music other than contemporary, if your pretensions of objectivity are to be taken seriously. Try as one might to subsequently explain them by dressing them up with "hats", "mirrors" or vacuous verbiage, nasty comments of the sort are all too transparent as to their intent. (lol.)
Quote from: Wanderer on November 05, 2016, 11:38:12 PM
So, the modernist/contemporary "hot tub" is not cholera-scented, then?
Louis Andriesson said the American variety of minimalism was 'hot tub and scented candle music,' then added that he was a European, ergo his innate vibe was to produce music with more angst in it :-)
It is not important enough to call 'contemptuous,' but I do think those who pretty much 'dwell' in music of any one period are genuinely following their preferences (fine with that.)
It is when mention of another style or era seems to bug them or seems to be taken as a downright threat to the music they love where I take issue. The majority of that type of post and attitude seem to most regularly show up in threads on modern and contemporary music -- as if it is the last arena not protected by social political correctness, i.e. jokes and bashing of just about any race or culture are now pretty much no-no, while jokes about rednecks are still 'o.k.' It is similar with those who don't care for modern / contemporary.
To repeat, about every era has its fans and detractors, but you do not see folks so routinely bashing music from those eras other than the modern and contemporary. Find me a thread on Brahms; find me other than a polite comment that a poster has made saying they don't particularly care for it vs. the near free-for-all bashing that too often shows up in a very normal thread on modern / contemporary.
BTW, while I admittedly am least fond of a fair amount of the romantic rep, I have yet to say that any of those composers 'wrote crap / horrible music / not music / destroyed music / upset my stomach / couldn't write a tune'... etc. etc. Too, my musical loves cover a broad spectrum of time and styles, so I am not a 'sensationalist' with a penchant for only the modern / contemporary and most recent music being made.
My snarkier comments on this or that composer or piece are usually in the context of such a modern / contemporary thread where exactly this kind of heated bashing is going on. I will leave it to others to decide if those snarkier comments are wholly sincere or if they just might be a 'try it on for size and see how it feels' when someone bashes the music you are interested in.
The most salient questions addressing the bash the modern contemporary phenomenon are what and where the hell is the resentment / 'hate' coming from;
what is the apparent "threat" that leads some to react so against, and why? It seems no other post about music from any other era comes with the free license to come in and just bash the subject. And that is just, ya know, weird :-/
Best regards.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2016, 08:31:57 AM
I have spent many happy hours enjoying the music of "lesser" composers such as Hummel. I would hate to see a Hummeloscopy performed on music history.
;)
Quote from: Ken B on November 01, 2016, 08:59:21 AM
We had a thread on that. The plurality was for a Shostakovichoscopy, with a Glassoscopy neck and neck, but of course the smart money was on Schoenbergoscopy.
Pedants' Corner:
I shouldn't fear a Hummeloscopy, sanantonio. The suffix 'oscopy' means to look at, with a scope - the clue is in the word! ::) A Schoenbergoscopy would be a Schoenberg retrospective (using a retrospectoscope, presumably). What a nice thought that the smart money went there!
-ectomy, is what I believe you were looking for.
Quote from: Turbot nouveaux on November 06, 2016, 06:27:40 AM
Pedants' Corner:
I shouldn't fear a Hummeloscopy, sanantonio. The suffix 'oscopy' means to look at, with a scope (the clue is in the word! ::) ) A Schoenbergoscopy would be a Schoenberg retrospective (using a retrospectoscope, presumably). What a nice thought that the smart money went there!
-ectomy, is what I believe you were looking for.
Hah! Thanks for the correction.
;)
Quote from: Turbot nouveaux on November 06, 2016, 06:27:40 AM
Pedants' Corner:
I shouldn't fear a Hummeloscopy, sanantonio. The suffix 'oscopy' means to look at, with a scope - the clue is in the word! ::) A Schoenbergoscopy would be a Schoenberg retrospective (using a retrospectoscope, presumably). What a nice thought that the smart money went there!
-ectomy, is what I believe you were looking for.
Indeed!
And not pedantic, correct!
Quote from: Ken B on November 06, 2016, 11:06:38 AM
Indeed!
And not pedantic, correct!
Ah, but one may be correct
and pedantic! ;)
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 03, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
I'm sure there are many, and at least a few more, who would be happy to stop the clock just prior December 22, 1894, in order that modern music never were....
Before the Faun? A bit late to catch that horse; you'd have to go back to 10 June 1865 and stop Tristan und Isolde. And while one was at it, execute a hit on Liszt. :laugh: -- And I know many who would just as soon stop the clock at 1750. ::) Miniver Cheevy, anyone?
Quote from: jochanaan on November 07, 2016, 09:15:52 AM
Before the Faun? A bit late to catch that horse; you'd have to go back to 10 June 1865 and stop Tristan und Isolde. And while one was at it, execute a hit on Liszt. :laugh: -- And I know many who would just as soon stop the clock at 1750. ::) Miniver Cheevy, anyone?
:laugh:
Quote from: jochanaan on November 07, 2016, 09:15:52 AM
Before the Faun? A bit late to catch that horse; you'd have to go back to 10 June 1865 and stop Tristan und Isolde. And while one was at it, execute a hit on Liszt. :laugh: -- And I know many who would just as soon stop the clock at 1750. ::) Miniver Cheevy, anyone?
Oh come on! To be funny, humor has to have some basis in the plausible. They aren't going to do without Rachmaninoff, Strauss, Sibelius, Ravel, Vaughan-Williams, Prokofiev and many more, even if it means putting up with a few undesirables. Last time I was in Cincinnati the blue-haired ladies were even loving Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. I'm sure they will learn to love Webern very soon.
Am I the only one struck by the sheer inanity of the claim that in a world where 99.99999% of the music played was written in my lifetime "modern" music is the preserve of the elite few? I seem to be.
Quote from: Ken B on November 07, 2016, 12:01:26 PM
Am I the only one struck by the sheer inanity of the claim that in a world where 99.99999% of the music played was written in my lifetime "modern" music is the preserve of the elite few? I seem to be.
Well, I would never make such a claim. Contemporary classical music is there for anyone who wants it.
I am personally struck by the willfully myopic charges of elitism on a classical music forum, music that has long been considered the preserve of the elite, and which was never "popular" in the sense of mass popularity to begin with.
Boulez will never be as popular as this is right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT2_F-1esPk (#1 song in America, according to the Hot 100)
But it will be
more enduring in the long run, just as the modernist music of earlier decades has been.
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 07, 2016, 11:48:31 AM
Oh come on! To be funny, humor has to have some basis in the plausible. They aren't going to do without Rachmaninoff, Strauss, Sibelius, Ravel, Vaughan-Williams, Prokofiev and many more, even if it means putting up with a few undesirables. Last time I was in Cincinnati the blue-haired ladies were even loving Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. I'm sure they will learn to love Webern very soon.
It's not the blue-haired ladies who'd prefer to stay in the past, in my experience. Those chicks indeed have great taste and aren't afraid of dissonance. It's the younger folks, often men, who obsess over certain periods and, like the aforementioned Miniver, "miss the mediaeval grace/Of iron clothing."
Quote from: Don Carlo on October 31, 2016, 08:29:07 PM
Matter of taste I think.
Do you like lemon in your tea????
Quote from: Don Carlo on October 31, 2016, 08:29:07 PM
Matter of taste I think.
Quote from: EddieRUKiddingVarese on November 23, 2016, 09:52:09 PM
Do you like lemon in your tea????
Do not like tea / Like lemon.
Matter(s) of taste ~ Q.E.D.
Best regards