Schoenberg Problem

[Lethevich]

You are proud the pronounce your own personal reaction as "fact."

It kinda reminds me that many seem to think that Brahms declined in ability after his first symphony and piano concerto.

Schoenberg's early works are nice, but for the most part they are run of the mill compared to his exciting free atonal music. Also it is worth a would-be Schoenberg explorer trying to come to terms with the composers multi-phased career - the five pieces and Pierrot Lunaire are different from the last quartet and string trio - if anything the latter two are more classically structured, the former more Romantic.

[Grazioso]

maybe I have to dig it out of that old digital collection of mine.  My problem is that he is known as the father of 12 tone and atonal music, which to me is as silly as trying to get everyone to speak esperanto.  I just don't dig what he and his second Viennese cronies did with music, manipulating it in a clever but fairly pointless way and being indirectly responsible for the rarely musical avant garde kak that flourished after his death.

Have you by chance listened to the symphonies of Benjamin Frankel? He takes some of Schoenberg's ideas in directions you might be surprised and entertained by.

[Mirror Image]

I wonder if Scots John is still having trouble with Schoenberg after all of this time? I personally started off hating all things Second Viennese School. One of the things I couldn't get past was that 12-tone method Schoenberg used. I thought to myself "Why did he devise this hideous thing?" After a year or so neglecting Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern, who I now consider three of the most important composers of the 20th Century, I finally heard Berg's "Violin Concerto." This was my gateway into 12-tone music and what a remarkable and influential work this continues to be for me. For Schoenberg, I was only familiar with his Romantic works: Gurre-lieder, Verklarte Nacht, and Pelleas und Melisande. I was just too scared to move forward into that darkened abyss, but the Berg VC gave me much more confidence so I marched forward. One of the first post-Romantic Schoenberg works I loved was his Five Pieces for Orchestra, which is an incredibly thought-provoking work that contains echoes of the past. In fact, the second movement is titled The Past. I love how this work just glides across an endless stream of uncertainty and ambiguity. This was new territory for sure. I just admire this composer so much and watching Simon Rattle's first episode of Leaving Home titled Dancing On A Volcano last night has given me more insight into this important composer.

[Mirror Image]

I think it's a shame that there's still so many people that don't "get" Schoenberg and the Second Viennese School. One of the things that I don't like is people that try to make the claim that these composers were the bane of classical music (GMG's own Dave Ross is a good example). The problem doesn't lie with their music but rather the listeners. It's always been the listeners. To deny their influence is to deny the 20th Century. These composers tore down the walls of convention and broke new ground. Schoenberg may very well not be liked by many here, but I think there's something utterly fascinating, disturbing, and genuine in his music. The man simply followed his muse and, for this, he gets my admiration.

[Mirror Image]

Voicing that Schoenbergs second viennese stuff is unacceptable as music, and so is all the rest of it, seems to be the equivalent of being aetheist in a church full of worshippers.  There may be some nice, strategic note placement in the atonal, but never any clear and present music, as in music. 
I may rocket down in estimation with my tabloid like views, but no-one else will say it (probably because I'm so completely wrong)  .
I am not degrading anyones listening to it, not intentionally anyway.   I love people who find spiritual pleasure in music, and if it comes through Schoenberg, good on em, but not for me.
Oh well.  Back to Suitners Dvorak...

I think you've seriously blown the whole thing out of proportion, John. You don't like Schoenberg's or Berg's music. That's certainly fine by me, but what I don't agree with is the fact that you've chosen to insult their music throughout this thread and feel that Berg and Webern were some kind of lackeys to Schoenberg. You must realize that Schoenberg was their teacher and mentor. He was their source of inspiration for many years. They all went their own ways in the end. Each of them were incredibly unique composers. Schoenberg's music inhabits a kind of nightmarish dimension where reality is distorted. Schoenberg was also an outstanding orchestrator and there's always a crystalline precision in his music. Berg's highly emotional, lush music carried on with the notion of Romanticism and used this notion as a facade to hide the more troubling undercurrents of his music. Webern's music is more concerned with the sound rather than projected an emotional truth of any kind. His music is more chiseled and impeccably shaped. It's like a diamond or a precious jewel. It's not about filling up space, it's about the space between the notes. Webern is the toughest nut to crack of the Second Viennese School for me, but you won't hear me insulting his music. Continue to listen and try and keep an open-mind. I think once you find your gateway piece, there will be no turning back.

[Opus106]

I think it's a shame that there's still so many people that don't "get" Schoenberg and the Second Viennese School.

Not surprising at all; there are even people who dismiss Bach and Beethoven (a maverick in his own right... the arch-maverick!) off-handedly!

[xochitl]

i wonder what the op thinks of people like partch 

btw, i dont like most mozart, but who cares?  he's still one of the top 5 composers in the history of humanity and i cant deny it.

[mahler10th]

I wonder if Scots John is still having trouble with Schoenberg after all of this time?

Unfortunately I am nipping into town for a few things.  However, I will most certainly get back to this at some point later today...plenty to talk about on this!  The two Johns at loggerheads over Schoenberg!  Just the kind of bish bosh I love.      At the moment, the only thing I have in common with Schoenberg is our hairstyles and headshapes.    Will report back more seriously soon.

Me last night.

[North Star]

Unfortunately I am nipping into town for a few things.  However, I will most certainly get back to this at some point later today...plenty to talk about on this!  The two Johns at loggerheads over Schoenberg!  Just the kind of bish bosh I love.      At the moment, the only thing I have in common with Schoenberg is our hairstyles and headshapes.    Will report back more seriously soon.

Me last night.

I see you put on a suit for the election. 

[Opus106]

I see you put on a suit for the election. 

And had a shave! Looking nice, John!

[Mirror Image]

Not surprising at all; there are even people who dismiss Bach and Beethoven (a maverick in his own right... the arch-maverick!) off-handedly!

I never dismissed Bach or Beethoven off-handedly. That's not true at all. I don't like their music and I have mentioned many times that I don't, but I understand and could never deny their influence on future generations. I'll be willing to wager there are more people who get Bach and Beethoven than people who get Schoenberg, which proves that Schoenberg is still a controversial composer even in today's society.

[Mirror Image]

Unfortunately I am nipping into town for a few things.  However, I will most certainly get back to this at some point later today...plenty to talk about on this!  The two Johns at loggerheads over Schoenberg!  Just the kind of bish bosh I love.      At the moment, the only thing I have in common with Schoenberg is our hairstyles and headshapes.    Will report back more seriously soon.

Me last night.

I look forward to your commentary about Schoenberg, John. By the way, cool picture of ol' Arnold.

[Opus106]

I don't like their music and I have mentioned many times that I don't...

A shame, really. I hope you're looking for that gateway.

...but I understand and could never deny their influence on future generations. I'll be willing to wager there are more people who get Bach and Beethoven than people who get Schoenberg.

But I'm curious to know who said that they [Arnie and gang] were not influential in the music of the last century. (I'm not saying you're making it up, just that I may have missed these posts. ) Could you please redirect me to the posts?

Oh, and I was listening to Webern and Urbanner while waiting for a bus this evening. I'm not sure any of it made 'sense' to me, but for those twenty minutes or so, it felt 'right'.

[Mirror Image]

A shame, really. I hope you're looking for that gateway.

Truth be told, I like Beethoven a lot more than Bach. Beethoven's late SQs are AMAZING! Speaking of which, I need to give another listen to those pretty soon. I have the Takacs sets on DG. Great stuff.

But I'm curious to know who said that they [Arnie and gang] were not influential in the music of the last century. (I'm not saying you're making it up, just that I may have missed these posts. ) Could you please redirect me to the posts?

Oh, and I was listening to Webern and Urbanner while waiting for a bus this evening. I'm not sure any of it made 'sense' to me, but for those twenty minutes or so, it felt 'right'.

I never said that the Second Viennese School weren't influential. You're reading too much into my posts. I'm talking about Schoenberg, for listeners, is still a composer that causes some listeners' problems. The Second Viennese School were very influential. As somebody pointed out, history doesn't deny that influence either.

I'm not a big Webern fan at all. I only like a few works and that's about it whereas Schoenberg and Berg composed many works I love.

[Opus106]

I never said that the Second Viennese School weren't influential. You're reading too much into my posts.

And I never said that you did. I'm sorry if I didn't come across clearly.

I was referring to this:

One of the things that I don't like is people that try to make the claim that these composers were the bane of classical music (GMG's own Dave Ross is a good example). [...] To deny their influence is to deny the 20th Century.

Who are these people who deny/ied their influence?

[Mirror Image]

And I never said that you did. I'm sorry if I didn't come across clearly.

I was referring to this:

Who are these people who deny/ied their influence?

I have a few classical friends in real life that claim they weren't influential when I get out classical history books that tell them differently. I don't know if I ever read that Dave Ross denied their influence. I know he just doesn't like them at all, which is certainly his right.

[Mirror Image]

What does everybody think about Die Jakobsleiter? My understanding is this is an unfinished work and occupied Schoenberg for many, many years. Here's what Wikipedia said about it:

Die Jakobsleiter (Jacob's Ladder) is an oratorio by Arnold Schoenberg that marks his transition from a contextual or free atonality to the twelve-tone technique anticipated in the oratorio's use of hexachords. Though ultimately unfinished by Schoenberg the piece was prepared for performance by Schoenberg student Winfried Zillig at the request of Gertrude Schoenberg.

The piece is also notable for its use of developing variation.

Anyway, here's a video for John:

http://www.youtube.com/v/u5dOI2MtvbA

[some guy]

Does anyone truly believe that John ever had any serious desire to understand and appreciate twelve-tone music?

I know I don't.

[Mirror Image]

I thought this picture was funny:

[Mirror Image]

Does anyone truly believe that John ever had any serious desire to understand and appreciate twelve-tone music?

I know I don't.

I'm not sure, some guy, but why did he even start this thread if he had no interest in trying to understand the music?