Mendelssohn vs. Schoenberg

[Luke]

I think Saul's 'point' in posting that Bernstein clip, as he saw it, was to expose some monstrous trends in modernist thinking. He said it blew up in our faces and reduced our argument to nothing. But it remains unclear as to what point he was actually trying to make. I certainly didn't feel like anything had exploded in my face.

[Saul]

But you still have not explained using a factual objective basis why Schoenberg is a bad composer.

Teresa, do you know where they sell ear plugs?

I think some folks here would be wise to use them. If your ears cheat you that much, plug'em.

Beethoven had natural plugs, but he at least created beautiful music.

[Saul]

Teresa, do you know where they sell ear plugs?

I think some folks here would be wise to use them. If your ears cheat you that much, plug'em.

Beethoven had natural plugs, but he at least created beautiful music.

The explosion thing was allegorical...!

I thought that was self evident, don't take every word I write literally.

[Saul]

That's a pretty lame attempt to convince me that Schoenberg is a bad composer.

Is that the best you can do?

Sometimes the simplest remedy, is the answer.

[Luke]

But you still have not explained using a factual objective basis why Schoenberg is a bad composer.

No, I've asked him to do that, yesterday and again today, but he won't. No one's saying it, but clearly we all suspect that he can't.

So instead, when I asked him a second time to do this, he tried to say the onus was on me, instead, to explain why I thought that Mendelssohn was a bad composer. But seeing as I don't think that, and have never said that, have only said, repeatedly, that he is one of the great composers (and that has generally been the line of everyone on this thread - we have nothing against Mendelssohn himself, though Saul thinks we do; we just don't think he is quite as much the 'King of Music' as Saul does), that line of reasoning doesn't really fly, it seems to me.

[Luke]

The explosion thing was allegorical...!

I thought that was self evident, don't take every word I write literally.

Yes, Saul, so was my answer. Metaphorical, perhaps, more than allegorical, but whatever.

I thought that was evident too.

[Saul]

No, I've asked him to do that, yesterday and again today, but he won't. No one's saying it, but clearly we all suspect that he can't.

So instead, when I asked him a second time to do this, he tried to say the onus was on me, instead, to explain why I thought that Mendelssohn was a bad composer. But seeing as I don't think that, and have never said that, have only said, repeatedly, that he is one of the great composers (and that has generally been the line of everyone on this thread - we have nothing against Mendelssohn himself, though Saul thinks we do; we just don't think he is quite as much the 'King of Music' as Saul does), that line of reasoning doesn't really fly, it seems to me.

Its up to you to explain why Schoenberg is superior, because the suggestion itself is ludicrous, and anyone who wants to justify such as thing the onus falls on him to explain.

[Luke]

I already gave you a few pointers as to why I think Schoenberg is in general terms the composer I think of as more important, greater, better, whatever word you want to choose, a few pages ago. But, you see, and this is important, try to pay attention - I am not claiming that Mendelssohn is a bad composer, as you are claiming of Schoenberg, so I'm not going to root about in his scores looking for 'bad' stuff that isn't there. Much more fun looking for the good stuff in Schoenberg!

My reasons for rating Schoenberg more highly in my mind are to do with his attitude to composition as much as anything, his lack of timidity compared to Mendelssohn. I'm not talking about his innovations or anything like that, because innovation does not necessarily mean greatness, and I don't think anyone is saying it does, either. I'm talking sheerly about his compositional stance - it made him a composer unafraid to use his incomparable technique to dazzling ends. In that Mendelssohn Symphony you posted earlier you have a perfectly acceptable, skillful piece which plays by the rules. I forgot it the moment I turned it off (not true of all Mendelssohn, for me, but true of much). In Schoenberg's first symphonic piece (his op 9 Chamber Symphony) you have the most exuberant counterpoint imaginable, instrumental virtuosity of a type uncalled for before, a wholly audible and stunningly new formal scheme, articulated through the spectacular use of harmonic types  (fourths, augmented chords/whole tone music) as formal elements and markers, memorable moments from start to finish (after two listens I could reply the whole piece in my head when I first got to know it years ago) ...and it still pays by the rules too. That, that compositional wizardry, which dazzles and delights me every time I listen to it, is why I rate Schoenberg so highly. Not because he was a 'leader in atonal music' or whatever you and Teresa think is the line of reasoning over here. No, just because he was a supremely talented composer whose music has balls!

[Saul]

Saul, I've already posted that I will stipulate that M is a superior composer to S.  I only am asking you to demonstrate why S is not only inferior to M but a BAD composer, using some kind of objective argument.

Can you do that?  Or are you only able to blurt out, over and over, that you don't like his music?

Even the suggestion is an insult. How in the world HOW? Is it possible to compare Schoenberg to Mendelssohn?

You know even in the jungle, when the fox thinks that he is in the same level as the Lion, one swift stroke of the Lion's paw is enough to demonstrate. No skillful analysis, or discussion is needed. The lion is not required to summon the court of the animals so they might hear his reason as to why he is the king. To suggest a discussion like this is ludicrous as of itself, and is not worthy of explanation. And I said it before in this thread that this comparison is not worthy.

[Scarpia]

Even the suggestion is an insult. How in the world HOW? Is it possible to compare Schoenberg to Mendelssohn?

Is there any stronger indication that it is time to stop feeding the troll?   Is there any indication that this person will respond to any reasonable argument at all?  What is the point?

[Luke]

Is there any stronger indication that it is time to stop feeding the troll?   Is there any indication that this person will respond to any reasonable argument at all?  What is the point?

Good point. G'night, folks! 

[Saul]

Is there any stronger indication that it is time to stop feeding the troll?   Is there any indication that this person will respond to any reasonable argument at all?  What is the point?

I have responded more then you ever will to anything.
But its always nice to take a nice swing , a short cut and use the word 'Troll' when you can't win an argument.
As they say, 'been there done that'...

[Scarpia]

I have responded more then you ever will to anything.
But its always nice to take a nice swing , a short cut and use the word 'Troll' when you can't win an argument.
As they say, 'been there done that'...

You've already stated that you post controversial claims just to wind people up and stimulate "discussion" for your own amusement.   That sort of manipulation of other posters on this board is despicable, and the definition of a "troll."   Perhaps it is standard on internet discussion board, but given the knowledge and talent of some of the posters here, it is a shame that people like you have to make things unpleasant for everyone.

[(poco) Sforzando]

You've already stated that you post controversial claims just to wind people up and stimulate "discussion" for your own amusement.   That sort of manipulation of other posters on this board is despicable, and the definition of a "troll."   Perhaps it is standard on internet discussion board, but given the knowledge and talent of some of the posters here, it is a shame that people like you have to make things unpleasant for everyone.

I think he was given his walking papers on That Other Board, and so he comes here to regale us with his wit and wisdom, as well as leaving his little droppings on the Composers' Board.

[Bulldog]

Guys like Saul endeavor to get the biggest response for the buck.  In that respect his success here has been phenomenal.  Each of you knows what you need to do in order for that success to vanish.

[petrarch]

Nice what...? did you ask him who said it? maybe an atonal modern composer that had to say it in order to save his music from ruin?

To paraphrase another one: There you stand, "like an ox looking at a palace."

I'm amazed at the zeal with which some people put blinders on.

(excuse the mixed animal metaphor)

[jochanaan]

No, I've asked him to do that, yesterday and again today, but he won't. No one's saying it, but clearly we all suspect that he can't...

And he hasn't picked up the gauntlet I threw down pages ago, either.

[Gurn Blanston]

To paraphrase another one: There you stand, "like an ox looking at a palace."

I'm amazed at the zeal with which some people put blinders on.

(excuse the mixed animal metaphor)

  Here in Texas we say "like a calf looking at a new gate". Either is appropriate.

I used to be amazed too. After being here every day for 8 years, well, now not so much...  


----------------
Now playing:
Musicae Antiquae Collegium Varsoviense \ Viviana Sofronitzki - K 467 Concerto in C for Keyboard 1st mvmt - Allegro maestoso

[Teresa]

I never said Beethoven was not great.

It was Stravinsky who didn't like Beethoven.  Even though Beethoven is not one of my favorite composers I agree he was great.  And he was a positive influence on some of my favorite composers.  I can clearly hear the birth of Impressionism in Beethoven's far reaching "Pastorale Symphony" which paved the way for Debussy's "La Mer (The Sea)" and the colorful orchestral suites of Ferde Grofé.

"To understand Schoenberg is to better understand Bach".

Bah, humbug

...I'd really like you to quantify and precisely elaborate on that "considerably worse" of yours...

First try listening to the dozen or so YouTubes of the godawful noise posted in this thread that Schoenberg passed off as music.  Then try reading the musical scores and see how offensive the placement of every musical note is.  It is his so-called music that FIRMLY qualifies him as a bad composer!

IMHO Schoenberg's music and that of the other members of the Second Viennese School Berg and Webern is an illegitimate farce, and his 12 tone system is a scam.  I personally have written a 12 tone row as it was an exercise in composition class.  There was unanimous agreement among the students that serial and severe atonal music was a total waste of time!

The sad fact is Intellectuals everywhere fell for his scam.  He was a clever, clever man but in no way shape or form a REAL classical composer. 

Thank god Schoenberg's corrupting influence is disappearing, and modern composers are actually writing music that can be listened to with real human ears.

For example: Niagara Falls (written in 1997) by Michael Daugherty (1954-

http://www.youtube.com/v/cBkkhaUVD3U

[Mirror Image]

I'm not sure why you guys continue to even argue with Saul. I'm basically done with that, because 1. he doesn't offer any serious opinions, 2. he doesn't bother explaining why he feels the way he does, 3. he believes that his opinion is the only one and anybody who likes somebody he doesn't (i. e. Stravinsky, Schoenberg) is somehow wrong when the reality is he's masking some deep, inferiority towards people who have more of an open-mind than he does.


Mendelssohn was great in his time, but his influence on other composers was not as great as Schoenberg's, hence why Schoenberg will always win a poll like this. I'm not particularly fond of everything Schoenberg composed and I hardly ever even listen to Mendelssohn, but Schoenberg broke new ground by continuing to push the envelope of what classical music could be.