GMG Classical Music Forum

I'm voting for Schoenberg. Berg possibly could've won if he wrote a LOT more, but he didn't so Schoenberg gets my vote.

Dunno. I'd have to subject myself to them first.  ;D

Boulez

My reaction to them is somewhat like that of Goldilocks to the 3 bears' porridge. One (Berg) is too hot, the other (Webern) is too cold and the third (Schoenberg) is just right.

With Webern I feel as if he started with a big Romantic score and subtracted all but a few of the notes. I find I can't derive the kind of musical meaning he expects you to find with what he's given.

With Berg I feel as if he started with a big Romantic score, and added 50% more notes to it. He overwhelms you with meaning to the point of exhaustion. Fortunately, his two operas work wonderfully on stage (I have been fortunate to see both of them at the Met with Levine in the pit) and the Lyric Suite is drop dead gorgeous. And he wrote those nice pieces for clarinet and piano. So what am I complaining about anyway? Gee, I don't know.

But Schoenberg, the mature Schoenberg anyway*, always seems to strike the right balance. Somehow Schoenberg speaks to me more than the other two.


(* I have a hard time sitting through those early songs, op. 1-3)

Neither of the three was especially prolific (even thinking in these terms of Webern is a joke), so I can't vote on that score. Webern is too reticent to be truly satisfying, and the pieces I most love by Schoenberg (the early atonal period, from op. 10-22, and Moses und Aron) are offset by the works I dislike - such as the early Gurrelieder and such neoclassic 12-tone works as the Septet and Wind Quintet. But I have next to no reservations about anything Berg wrote, thus my vote.

A really tough one, since I love all three, but Berg by a tiny margin for Lulu and Wozzeck.  I recently bought the score to Wozzeck and am even more amazed, after browsing it and then following along while listening.

--Bruce

I prefer Schönberg but it's possibly because I still don't know very much about his two main pupils.

Quote from: James on September 25, 2007, 09:15:29 AM
especially as he develops his techniques from the commonly misnamed "atonality" (there's no such thing)

don't really agree

From among these three, my answer is likely to be the one to whom I've been listening most recently.

Webern > All.  ;D

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on September 25, 2007, 08:44:15 AM
With Webern I feel as if he started with a big Romantic score and subtracted all but a few of the notes.

Subtracted all but the most relevant notes while eschewing everything that was superfluous or redundant. This isn't as new as you think. Bach does the same thing, except on a lesser scale. Still, if you took one of his fugues and milked every particle of musical invention in a romantic fashion you may be surprised just how huge those works really are. Likewise for Webern, except he refines the process to it's extreme. The thing you need to keep in mind is that his polyphony works in a spiral, so even during rests there's still all sorts of implied counterpoint and harmony going all linked in a constant loop.

To be frank i don't really think the serialists really understood the true essence of Webern which is why their work is a bit of a failure in my eyes, starting with Boulez. The development of western harmony ends with Webern and that's that. Everything that happened afterwards is pure redundancy (though i guess Ligeti's micropolyphony was a pretty clever way to get around this, at least partially).

Quote from: bhodges on September 25, 2007, 09:51:49 AM
A really tough one, since I love all three, but Berg by a tiny margin for Lulu and Wozzeck.  I recently bought the score to Wozzeck and am even more amazed, after browsing it and then following along while listening.

--Bruce

Jeez, I'd LOVE to be able to afford the score for Lulu - and once the business of Northern Rock has quietened down I might apply for a mortgage to buy it.  I borrowed it but the library only allows 3 weeks if someone else reserves it.   A beautiful work - I have it on DVD in its original version.   Wozzeck is as great.   A heart-wreching ending.   Somehow, by nifty arrangement of his tone rows Berg managed to preserve an individuality so easily lost in Schoenberg's system.  (Yes, I concede that Webern was unique too but the serial output from many following composers sounds too samey).

So, Berg...
 

Schoenberg. The original and therefore the best.


(How's that for blatant, ignorant subjectivity? ;D)

Quote from: karlhenning on September 25, 2007, 10:06:31 AM
From among these three, my answer is likely to be the one to whom I've been listening most recently.

Seconded.

Quote from: Anancho on September 25, 2007, 11:05:24 AM
Jeez, I'd LOVE to be able to afford the score for Lulu - and once the business of Northern Rock has quietened down I might apply for a mortgage to buy it.  I borrowed it but the library only allows 3 weeks if someone else reserves it.

Scan it! (We won't tell.)

As a college freshman in 1967 I bought the vocal score to the as yet incomplete Lulu - a huge, oversized volume - for $20, a decent sum at the time. I bought my study score to Wozzeck a year earlier for the same amount. Maybe ten years ago I found the 2-volume study score to Lulu second-hand for about $100. No, you can't have it!  :D

Quote from: bhodges on September 25, 2007, 09:51:49 AM
A really tough one, since I love all three, but Berg by a tiny margin for Lulu and Wozzeck.  I recently bought the score to Wozzeck and am even more amazed, after browsing it and then following along while listening.

--Bruce

Vocal score or study score?

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on September 25, 2007, 11:25:50 AM
Vocal score or study score?

It's the study score (see cover below).  I think I found it for around $25 on eBay. 

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on September 25, 2007, 12:16:29 PM
It's the study score (see cover below).  I think I found it for around $25 on eBay. 

--Bruce

You did very well. A new copy today costs over $80.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on September 25, 2007, 10:08:16 AM
Webern > All.  ;D

Agreed.  His music is lyrical, compact, complex and beautiful. :)

All three, but with Webern I'm glued to my chair. Will let up for a potty break with the others...

Schoenberg's output was far larger and more varied than either Berg's or Webern's. I accept that some people find some of his work dry and academic, but many of his works are wildly emotional and exciting. Gurrelieder, the two Chamber Symphonies, the Second String Quartet, the Five Pieces for Orchestra, Erwartung, Jacob's Ladder, the Piano Concerto, Music for an Imaginary Film, A Survivor From Warsaw and of course the astounding Moses und Aron are, to my ears, every bit as thrilling and beautiful as Stravinsky, Mahler or Nielsen.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on September 25, 2007, 10:20:26 AM
Subtracted all but the most relevant notes while eschewing everything that was superfluous or redundant. This isn't as new as you think. Bach does the same thing, except on a lesser scale. Still, if you took one of his fugues and milked every particle of musical invention in a romantic fashion you may be surprised just how huge those works really are.

You mean if you add romantic musical invention?

Quote from: James on September 25, 2007, 03:27:05 PM
Here is a little articulate thingy from youtube of Boulez (a great composer in his own right)
talking about discovering the 3, focusing on Webern...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIEDMMhlu1g

Folks here probably have seen it already but he makes a few strong, succinct points imo...

I've seen it, I uploaded it. :)

results are what i thought they'd be

Quote from: Corey on September 26, 2007, 12:23:58 PM
I've seen it, I uploaded it. :)

yep, i saw it too- and he does make a great point, to listen to someone like Webern you have to be very calm and have no distractions to be able to enjoy it. I've noticed this, too, but in a different composer- Norgard. Sure, they're not exactly alike, but the overall style of using so much in such a little time can only be understood/enjoyed when you're in a certain state of mind, and it's not easy to get into that state of mind (which makes me suspect that's the main reason a lot of people don't like their music on first listening). The same could probably be said for Boulez's music, too.

(http://www.ipl.org/div/mushist/images/schoenberg.gif)

"I am very happy!"

Schoenberg wins the beauty contest!   0:)

Quote from: Cato on September 27, 2007, 01:05:59 PM
(http://www.ipl.org/div/mushist/images/schoenberg.gif)

"I am very happy!"

Schoenberg wins the beauty contest!   0:)

lol, he'd never in a million years beat Berg and Webern in a beauty contest  ;D

but yeah, congratulations Arnold!
and to quote his most famous punchline, "I'll be back!"

(i'm just relieved no one posted the picture of him in his bathing suit)  0:)

I basically agree with Boulez's criticism in his famous (and overly polemic) "Schoenberg is Dead" essay which is that Schoenberg and Berg fall into trying to fit serial techniques into conventional models, i.e. "Brahms with wrong notes".  To a greater extent than Schoenberg or Berg, Webern "got" what these techniques could best express.

Quote from: bwv 1080 on September 28, 2007, 06:05:28 AM
I basically agree with Boulez's criticism in his famous (and overly polemic) "Schoenberg is Dead" essay which is that Schoenberg and Berg fall into trying to fit serial techniques into conventional models, i.e. "Brahms with wrong notes".  To a greater extent than Schoenberg or Berg, Webern "got" what these techniques could best express.

you voted for Webern, didn't you? i see that he has 8 votes now  ;D
(voting can only be so anonymous sometimes)

I have come to appreciate Webern much much more in recent years, but my favorite of the three has always been Berg. First and foremost, the two operas alone would put him over the top; secondly, the overwhelming emotionalism in his music (perfect reply to those who say 12 tone music is cold or academic) is irresistable.

Quote from: springrite on September 28, 2007, 06:19:29 AM
I have come to appreciate Webern much much more in recent years, but my favorite of the three has always been Berg. First and foremost, the two operas alone would put him over the top; secondly, the overwhelming emotionalism in his music (perfect reply to those who say 12 tone music is cold or academic) is irresistable.

i think i said this in my opening post, Berg would probably have been my favorite if he wrote as much as Schoenberg did.

btw, i like the new avatar, springrite!  ;D

Quote from: greg on September 28, 2007, 06:28:36 AM
i think i said this in my opening post, Berg would probably have been my favorite if he wrote as much as Schoenberg did.

Yes, I saw that. But if you consider Lulu and Wozzeck, which comprises of so much music (especially if you read the score!), then he did write a lot of music!

Berg, and I don't feel any reason to justify it. 8)

Had the choices been between master and pupils without splitting votes, pupils would have a healthy lead by now. ;D

Sure, and tadpoles would out-tally frogs  8)

Quote from: karlhenning on September 28, 2007, 07:21:33 AM
Sure, and tadpoles would out-tally frogs  8)

Sounds like it could be a new topic or a sub-topic!

What would Berg and Webern sound like without their Obi-Wan Schoenberg?!!!    ???

Quote from: Cato on September 28, 2007, 09:38:32 AM
What would Berg and Webern sound like without their Obi-Wan Schoenberg?!!!    ???

Mahler?  ;D

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on September 28, 2007, 10:07:51 AM
Mahler?  ;D

There is a funny anecdote in Willi Reich's Berg biography about a meeting between S, B, W and Mahler. Webern was so humbled by his presence that he felt he needed to raise his hand like a schoolboy before he spoke!

I prefer Schönberg: like Brahms he composed masterpieces in all genres, from the Choral music to the Lied, the orchestra, Concerto, chamber music. Unlike Brahms, he even composed an extraordinary opera.
Schönberg can be heard in the sequence of the great German tradition of the XIX century. I would say that I see him as a sort of Brahms of the XX century.

Webern is completely different. Although, sometimes he is not very far of that German tradition, as in the first part of his piano Variations, in other works he creates a new world, very personal, that has perhaps more to do with his inner personality that to the wish of creating a revolutionary music.

In my preferences Alban Berg comes in 3rd place, although I love Wozzeck, the opus 6, the 2 quartets, the chamber concert. It may seem absurd, but I feel that he had a more deep influence in the next generation of composers than Schönberg or Webern.

Quote from: val on September 29, 2007, 04:01:14 AM
I prefer Schönberg: like Brahms he composed masterpieces in all genres, from the Choral music to the Lied, the orchestra, Concerto, chamber music. Unlike Brahms, he even composed an extraordinary opera.
Schönberg can be heard in the sequence of the great German tradition of the XIX century. I would say that I see him as a sort of Brahms of the XX century.

Certainly Schoenberg saw Brahms as a predecessor: despite the Mahler connection, and the Brahms vs. Wagner/Bruckner debates in Vienna at the time, Schoenberg seemingly saw no reason not to have a foot in both camps.

Georg Solti in his notes to Moses und Aron says that when he was not getting the right performance from the orchestra, he told them to imagine they were playing Brahms (not Mahler).

He then was satisfied.

I thought this was going to be another poll I couldn't participate in. My first thought: I love all three...equally. But pondering a bit I realized Schönberg is the man. As much as I love Berg's operas, I prefer Moses und Aron. And I couldn't live without those overheated romantic monsters, Guerrelieder, Pelleas und Melisande, Verklärte Nacht, the First and Second String Quartets; and later works like the Five Pieces Op.16, the Piano Concerto, Pierrot Lunaire, Variations for Orchestra, The Book of Hanging Gardens and so many more.

Sarge

Quote from: val on September 29, 2007, 04:01:14 AM
In my preferences Alban Berg comes in 3rd place, although I love Wozzeck, the opus 6, the 2 quartets, the chamber concert. It may seem absurd, but I feel that he had a more deep influence in the next generation of composers than Schönberg or Webern.

I don't think that absurd at all;  the impact and significance of Wozzeck's international success on the stage were great, indeed.

Talk about overheated!

I just re-listened to Webern's youthful Im Sommerwind which I heard for the first time in a humid recording from the late '60's.

Tristanesque/Siegfried-Idyllean, plus a good deal of the aromas from Richard Strauss and Schoenberg and even Scriabin float by.

One of my little Seventh-Grade roosters came by and listened to it for a moment and said: "Hey, I like that!"

Of course, who knows whether he is schmoozing the teacher or not?    8)

(First rule of education: trust nobody!)

Anyway, I have to agree with Sarge above: Schoenberg's the man!

Of course, you always have to agree with Sarge!    $:)

Just bumping up this topic since I see one of my favorite Schoenberg fans (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?action=profile;u=195) has logged on!  :D  How goes it?  (You have mail...)

--Bruce

Oh, and here I wondered who had survived the Punishing Smack-Down!  ;D

Quote from: karlhenning on May 29, 2008, 10:44:53 AM
Oh, and here I wondered who had survived the Punishing Smack-Down!  ;D

I suspect they have obliterated each other after driving at high speeds in major key neighborhoods, ending up in a fiery multiple-tone collision.  ;D

--Bruce

. . . and there are hexachords all over the highway in Mystic, Connecticut.

AHHHH!  Bruce! You found me!   :o   ;D

Well, do I need to answer this one?   :)  OK ....

ALBAN BERG  

At first I was more interested in Schoenberg, he got me started, then I found out about Webern and was very impressed. At that time Berg was to me, too old fashioned and backwards, and at that time before I understood the serial technique more fully, I was taken aback by his liberal use (or non-use) of the compositional system set forth by Schoenberg. Cut quickly into the future, after becoming more familar and seasoned with classical music (and using my ears more than my brain) in general I found I was more taken with Berg's music than either his teacher's or even Webern's.

This is not a major comeback ... but I would like to post here more often!! Gotta get in shape and do the right thing!

A big hello to everyone ... I knew I needed a 2nd Viennese School thread to wake me from my slumber. 0:)

Charles

Hey, nice to see you!  :D  Not that there aren't plenty of Berg fans running around here, but we need the fan club's president back!  ;D

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on May 29, 2008, 01:46:30 PM
Hey, nice to see you!  :D  Not that there aren't plenty of Berg fans running around here, but we need the fan club's president back!  ;D

--Bruce

grazie Bruce!

Ciao, Carlo!

Quote from: karlhenning on May 29, 2008, 03:46:17 PM
Ciao, Carlo!

Ah! Ciao Karl! Come sei stato in questi giorni?

Carlo

How come Hanns Eisler is so rarely mentioned as a part of the Second Vienna School? I suspect this is not only because he was younger from the others, but also because his atonal works weren't different enough from Schoenberg's in terms of style, whereas Berg created a language of his own using tonal elements, and Webern took Schoenberg's aesthetic to its extreme. I'm not convinced that Eisler had the ability to constantly create works of genius like the others, but I still see him as quite a competent composer. I hate to say this, because of his commitment to communism, but I don't know how I could deny it.

To me Eisler is a great composer - and ranks with Berg, Webern, Roberto Gerhard or Skalkottas as a Schoenberg pupil of genius. He is probably not mentioned in Anglo-Saxon countries so much because he was a communist sympathiser (who became a resident of the GDR, unlike Brecht). He experienced great disappointment in and with that country. I must point out, though, that only part of his output is dodecaphonic. The works that I love best are a) the lieder of the Hollywood Songbook, mostly very melodious, wry and achingly sad b) some of the great agit-prop recordings with Ernst Busch and others, the Brecht setting "O Fallada, da du hangest" being perhaps the most spin-chilling political song of the 20th C c) the wonderful ensemble music he was writing in the 30s and 40s (Suite No.5, Nonett No.1 and 2, Op.70 "Vierzehn Arten, den Regen zu beschreiben" etc), only some of which contains dodecaphonic elements - this is music of mid-20th C urban life that delights and charms as much as a Chaplin film, and in fact the Septet No. 2 is called "Zirkus"and contains music originally planned for the Chaplin film d) his last  masterpiece, Ernste Gesänge, containing elements of a) b) and c), plus a tragic element like that you find in the Deutsche Sinfonie (not completely successful IMO) and some use of 12-tone series. Just listen to this last great song-cycle: it is nothing at all like Schoenberg, though Eisler learned much from the older man. Of course, a full understanding requires some insight into the texts, which have not yet been translated for an international audience, and the historical moment of its composition. But even if you don't have that insight yet, the music is both light and sad, unbearably moving at the "utopian" end - you know he knows the free society he longs for isn't going to happen...

If we are getting into other early serialists/pupils, could anyone comment on Hans Erich Apostel, Josef Matthias Hauer and Fritz Heinrich Klein (all those middle names sure are a pain)? I've heard a smattering of piano music by them, but not enough to understand anything about their style.

Edit: mjwal - you might be right about Eisler's reception abroad - I do prefer Hartmann's music, despite both of them having an equal "dissident" status. Perhaps I just prefer more conventional tonality, though.

I chose Berg I appreciate the music more. I've already expressed my opinion of Berg's music, so I'm not going to launch into another tangent about why I like Berg more. This said, I do admire Schoenberg and Webern a lot, but I like Webern's music more than I do Schoenberg's.