Schoenberg Problem

[Homo Aestheticus]

I spot a link.... I suspect, Eric, that you'd even like Terry and June if it was given the operatic treatment!

Actually, it's Beatrice and Benedict !

   



But yes, I must confess that I do love some Schoenberg...

       

[Mark G. Simon]

One thing I guess I'd like to see defined is "kak."  What is it, and how does one know when one hears it?

It's like pornography. You can't say what it is, but you know it when you hear it.

One thing John made clear when he used the term "avant-garde kak" is that it is something that dates from after Schoenberg's death. I assumed he meant the total serial Darmstadt kind of music, which is a repertory that doesn't do very much for my ears either.

[sul G]

But yes, I must confess that I do love some Schoenberg...

Scho 'n' Berg, you mean....

[sul G]

It's like pornography. You can't say what it is, but you know it when you hear it.

One thing John made clear when he used the term "avant-garde kak" is that it is something that dates from after Schoenberg's death. I assumed he meant the total serial Darmstadt kind of music, which is a repertory that doesn't do very much for my ears either.

I assumed the same. The thing with this substandard-Darmstadt-type music, though, is that there's less of it around than the anti-modernists would have you believe.

[karlhenning]

I assumed the same. The thing with this substandard-Darmstadt-type music, though, is that there's less of it around than the anti-modernists would have you believe.

They're just enraged that any of it ever existed at all 

[Mark G. Simon]

And there's less and less of it as time goes on.

[karlhenning]

And there's less and less of it as time goes on.

Deo gratias.

[nut-job]

I've always found Webern the most approacable, due to his brevity, concentration of expression and clarity of orchestration.

I agree, Webern works have the advantage that they are over very quickly.

[sul G]

Just wanted to thank John - thanks to this thread's prompting, I've been blasting Schoenberg full volume these last two days. I come to this post fresh from the op 16 pieces. Why on earth aren't these spoken of as frequently as Berg's 3 or Webern 6? Or Ives' Three Places or even Holst's Planets - they are that accessible IMO, thanks to the sheer conviction and certainty of the writing. The orchestral virtuosity is astonishing, the invention unfailing, the ideas first rate. And like the op 11 piano pieces, there's something of everything in here, from the sublime retrospective of the second to the what-if textural innovations and klangfarbenmeoldie of the third; the ostinati and mensural canons of the first to the wild abandon of the fourth. And then that Endless Recitative to finish it off.

[karlhenning]

I agree, Webern works have the advantage that they are over very quickly.

That makes for greater ease of assimilation, indeed.

Although there was a patch when I much preferred Webern to the others, I've now returned to my original Eden of liking them all pretty well the same.

There are some early Schoenberg pieces which we've got here on disc, but I haven't yet made my way to listening to them (Pelleas und Melisande, e.g.)

[sul G]

My op 16 is on this wonderful CD, btw (though I have it with the original cover) - a great introduction to the Second Viennese, this one.

[Mark G. Simon]

op. 16 was the piece(s) that first turned me on to Schoenberg. It was a Robert Craft recording on Columbia, with the Altenberg Lieder and Webern op. 5. The Schoenberg grabbed me immediately, the Berg and Webern not nearly as much.

[bhodges]

Just wanted to thank John - thanks to this thread's prompting, I've been blasting Schoenberg full volume these last two days. I come to this post fresh from the op 16 pieces. Why on earth aren't these spoken of as frequently as Berg's 3 or Webern 6? Or Ives' Three Places or even Holst's Planets - they are that accessible IMO, thanks to the sheer conviction and certainty of the writing. The orchestral virtuosity is astonishing, the invention unfailing, the ideas first rate. And like the op 11 piano pieces, there's something of everything in here, from the sublime retrospective of the second to the what-if textural innovations and klangfarbenmeoldie of the third; the ostinati and mensural canons of the first to the wild abandon of the fourth. And then that Endless Recitative to finish it off.

I totally agree, especially with your comment about Op. 16.  PS, last November and again in February (twice, just three months apart), James Levine programmed it with the MET Chamber Ensemble, using the chamber version (c. 1920).  Although I prefer the one for full orchestra, it was a little amazing to me, how much of the spirit of the original survives the "downscaling."

--Bruce

[karlhenning]

I'll join in the cheer for the Opp. 11 & 16!

[Josquin des Prez]

I agree, Webern works have the advantage that they are over very quickly.

Webern works have the advantage of being written by a genius, where as the other two did not posses that distinction. Berg has his moments thought.

[karlhenning]

And now johnny two-note's been heard from.

[Dundonnell]

Schoenberg?

Hmm...let me see-what have I got? 'Gurreleider'(Chailly), 'Pelleas und Melisande'(Karajan and Boulez), Piano Concerto(Brendel/Gielen and Peter Serkin/Boulez), Violin Concerto(Pierre Amoyal/Boulez), Chamber Symphonies(Gielen), Cello Concerto, Variations for Orchestra(Boulez), Five Pieces, Concerto for String Quartet, 'Verklarte Nacht', Theme and Variations, Suite in G.....

Not bad for a composer I don't particularly like   Don't want to be accused of ignoring one of the giants of the 20th century in favour of all these obscure romantic and neo-romantic hacks

Seriously though...I certainly respect Schoenberg and I read Malcolm MacDonald's Master Musicians book on Schoenberg(well Malcolm sent me a copy, so I had to!). I don't loathe what he did-as the late Robert Simpson appears to have done(?)-but I can never really warm to the music(apart, of course, from 'Gurreleider' which I love ).

As has been said before though, there is nothing wrong with a serial symphony if those by Benjamin Frankel are anything to go by

[Josquin des Prez]

For the sake of amusing Karl even further, i'll add that it would have been interesting to see the direction taken by Webern if he hadn't been such a sycophant to Schoenberg.

And speaking of Schoenberg, it seems that his theoretical writings are just as abstruse as his music, if the reviews of this book are anything to go by:

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Harmony-California-Library-Reprint/dp/0520049446/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236957573&sr=1-1

Amusing stuff.

[karlhenning]

. . . Not bad for a composer I don't particularly like

You've certainly given him a solid try!

[nut-job]

And now johnny two-note's been heard from.

I must have missed something, what's the other note?