Schoenberg Problem

[Cato]

I see Snyprr is back on that Mountain Dew/Snickers Diet!   0:)

[Karl Henning]

I see Snyprr is back on that Mountain Dew/Snickers Diet!   0:)

LOL

[petrarch]

Here's my problem with this WHOLE CONVERSATION: everyone here is ragging on my examples, but, NO ONE has said they actually LIKE (and would further study/listen) any of these examples. petrarch,... you said "if it doesn't float your boat",... well, my REAL INTEREST here is... Does it float YOUR boat? That's what I'm really at here.

It does. Remember that there are several dimensions to a piece of art, and a whole half of it all is in the 'perceiver'. I don't care if it is simply two sine tones stacked together a fifth apart, I am more interested in analyzing how my ears and listening are reacting to the piece.

I want the 'defenders' of this stuff to come out and openly declare that they LOOOVE this stuff and that's the way of the future, and, it's the only thing I listen to because everything else sucks by comparison. If the world were to end today, you would rather hear this stuff than LvB (or whatever else).

See, this is where you got it wrong. You persist in creating these false oppositions, from which there is one single 'true way' at the exclusion of all others. Why is Schoenberg's Trio suddenly part of your preserve-for-eternity set of pieces? Where was it before you realized its worthiness?

Do you still have time for the Young, or, do you realize you had better get crackin' on the real Masters? Surely, if it were between Bach and Cage,... it is my heartfelt belief that 100% of you would choose Bach,... not counting the sarcastic and Maher-inspired (sarcasm at all costs) amongst us. Surely, if there WERE an Eternity after we die, you would choose your 10 Desert Island Disc VERY VERY carefully,... and,... I DARE SAY, La Monte Young's oscillator 'Composition' WILL NOT BE ON THAT LIST!! If I bet my life on it, you would only choose the Young to punish me, and, I AM SURE, you would really rather have had the Bach. Thinking of my punishment will wane in Eternity, and, you will still be left with the oscillator.

Intellectual masturbation. Again, why do you care? I, for one, am glad I don't have to make that desert island disc choice, as there are far more than 10 interesting discs in my collection--every single one of them is interesting to me. If you are so worried about choosing "The 10", why don't you make that choice now and bin all others? After all, they are not worth your time...

Liberal commie composers write this kind of stuff to destroy western civ.

How very open-minded of you.

[xochitl]

this thread just gets better and better :popcorn:

[Brahmsian]

Why are people defending sound as Art?

Not necessarily, but one could argue that any sound can be considered 'music'.  After all, music is a collection of sounds.

Music is in the ear of the beholder.

There is no 'Schoenberg Problem'.  We either like his music, or don't....or will revisit it and it may resonate with us.

[snyprrr]

1960.

Really? You're ranting about a piece from over fifty years ago? And on a Schoenberg thread. Come on, dude! You should be ranting about pieces from over a century ago!!

It's because the '60s are 'partially' to blame for the collapse of western civ and all that jazz. Young's soul sucking fifths-drones have contributed to the degeneration of the moral fibre of the yada yada... I would like to know which Composers worked for the CIA or whatever. You ARE familiar with Laurel Canyon? All our music heros were spies. Nothing is real.

Of COURSE I'm ranting about the '60s!!


Look, I was born a bleeding heart, but I've grown up. I changed sides but immediately saw both sides working together against the people. Schoenberg represents Emotional Totalitarianism to me. I'm getting sleepy... haha

snypsss, to bring the discussion back on topic . . . and while I see that you have, in that capacious judicial chamber which for convenience's sake we shall call your mind, partly rehabilitated the magnificent Op.45 String Trio . . . what (if any) quarrel do you have with the Schoenberg string quartets (since I seem to recall this is an idiom you particularly favor — I very nearly said obsess over)?

I probably like 3-4 better than comparable Hindemith, or Bartok, maybe Hartmann. I find them much more deliciously creepy than the more overtly humanistic struggle of the String Trio. The main drawback to these SQs,... which I count as a plus... is the fact that, though the TONES are serial, the RHYTHM is still stuck in a fair amount of tradition. That is why I have to label Schoenberg 'Black Neo-Classicism'. He still retains a degree of humanness, which, for the sake of argument, Webern shies from (you know what I mean?,... Webern going ALL the way,... Berg being the 'most' human). It's like a movie that's good except for its special effects,... or something.

I'm just saying that Schoenberg seemed to be dealing with the rhythmic issue, the results being those last two chamber works which exhibit a level of metrical freedom I don't hear in the earlier works.


As for SQ 1, it's a pot boiler for sure. I have the Arditti and the very good Bern SQ on Koch. My favorite moments are those two 'half tone' sections towards the middle-end.

As for SQ 2, the singer's probably the thing here, and, you can surely read my raves of Upshaw in the OTHER Schoenberg Thread. She's the only one for me here, very harrowing indeed. I also like the way the SQ starts almost innocently, and progressively gets more 'debauched' in its goth cred.

I HAVE not like the first D Major SQ, hearing only Dvorak.

Anyhow, I do NOT have a Schoenberg Problem. Schoenberg is perfectly 'right sized' in my estimation and has his place, but it is not at the head of the table (as I'm sure he would have wished).

Now I'm really sleepy...zzz...

[Karl Henning]

Explain to us again why you count a "main drawback" as "a plus" . . . .

; )

[snyprrr]

Explain to us again why you count a "main drawback" as "a plus" . . . .

; )

If his music was more totally serially integrated, there would be no 'humanness', a la Boulez, but, because the notes are serial, and the rhythm is not, it sets up, for me, a 'personality conflict'. It's psychologically off-kilter, hence, representing perfectly the mental illness of the time. SQ 4, especially, sounds like the soundtrack for 'M', or, something happening in the seedy part of town. Only Schoenberg sounds like this. Frankly, I find his music perfectly represents the mental states illustrated is AS's own paintings (uh... they ARE his paintings, right?).

[CRCulver]

If his music was more totally serially integrated, there would be no 'humanness', a la Boulez...

Boulez only wrote one total serialist work, and immediately backtracked from it. The vast majority of his output definitely has a humanness to it, because he tends to reuse certain stock gestures that he likes but which don't appeal to other composers. Also, it's worth watching his talk to French schoolchildren on the Juxtapositions DVD to see that his inspirations are not as abstract as his detractors make them out to be.

but, because the notes are serial, and the rhythm is not, it sets up, for me, a 'personality conflict'. It's psychologically off-kilter, hence, representing perfectly the mental illness of the time.

But both Berg and Schoenberg married serial pitch selection to traditional Viennese rhythms, but Berg doesn't come across as neurotic to the same degree as Schoenberg. I think that the neuroticism of Schoenberg is credited too much to the 12-tone method and not enough to larger issues of form.

[some guy]

And I would say that the putative neuroticism of Schoenberg's music is chimerical.

And I would also say that anything a human does is human. Machines are often pointed to as examples of things that are non-human or even de-humanizing. But machines, all of them, are things that were created by humans. Machines are more "human" in that respect than trees or clouds or bunny rabbits, for sure.

The same for compositional systems.

[snyprrr]

Boulez only wrote one total serialist work, and immediately backtracked from it. The vast majority of his output definitely has a humanness to it, because he tends to reuse certain stock gestures that he likes but which don't appeal to other composers. Also, it's worth watching his talk to French schoolchildren on the Juxtapositions DVD to see that his inspirations are not as abstract as his detractors make them out to be.

But both Berg and Schoenberg married serial pitch selection to traditional Viennese rhythms, but Berg doesn't come across as neurotic to the same degree as Schoenberg. I think that the neuroticism of Schoenberg is credited too much to the 12-tone method and not enough to larger issues of form.

And I would say that the putative neuroticism of Schoenberg's music is chimerical.

And I would also say that anything a human does is human. Machines are often pointed to as examples of things that are non-human or even de-humanizing. But machines, all of them, are things that were created by humans. Machines are more "human" in that respect than trees or clouds or bunny rabbits, for sure.

The same for compositional systems.

I agree with both of you. See, I'm not hard to get along with! Maybe I just use hyperbolae to goad good answers out of you guys?!

I do think the work 'neurotic' is married to Schoenberg,... probably serialism... no, tee hee, it's funny in my head, but I'm not going to say it out loud.  :Ptitter

[ibanezmonster]

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.

That movement is great; and yes, it's quite nostalgic. Actually, it doesn't sound completely atonal, like his later stuff. The 5 Pieces is definitely among my favorite 2nd Viennese works.

[Mirror Image]

That movement is great; and yes, it's quite nostalgic. Actually, it doesn't sound completely atonal, like his later stuff. The 5 Pieces is definitely among my favorite 2nd Viennese works.

Yeah, it's a favorite of mine as well. Each movement is a universe unto itself.

[snyprrr]

Boulez's music is a little cooler & more austere in character, much like his conducting style .. cool, clear, dispassionate; plus it aims for perfection and exists on an emotionally abstract higher consciousness plane .. but it's also got many hidden layers & dimensions upon closer examination, it doesn't reveal itself at first .., a kind-of of highly organized delirium, vertically oriented .. it certainly owes a lot to what came before and is a synthesis of what had been opened up & prepared by the masters of the 1st half of the twentieth century. Boulez is the synthesis / result / meeting point of 3 musical streams. Mainly the 2nd Viennesse School (harmony), Bartok-Stravinsky (rhythm), and it's also in line with the sonorous French tradition of Debussy-Ravel, and Messiaen (his mentor) .. his early close association with major contemporaries like Stockhausen (the only composer he saw as his equal) & technology (used in much deeper ways) had also been influences in shaping 'his thing' musically. He's carved his own little voice within this, to create his own unique musical language with which to communicate. Now if he can bring forth a few finished or new compositions anytime soon that would be great!

I'm sorry, but we're not accepting Thread Derailing Posts here!! How daaare you mention Stockhausen in the Schoenberg Thread!! uh... the nerve

[snyprrr]

He has to be mentioned in every post! COME ON!

You're right.

[PaulSC]

Boulez's music is a little cooler & more austere in character, much like his conducting style .. cool, clear, dispassionate; plus it aims for perfection and exists on an emotionally abstract higher consciousness plane .. but it's also got many hidden layers & dimensions upon closer examination, it doesn't reveal itself at first .., a kind-of of highly organized delirium, vertically oriented .. it certainly owes a lot to what came before and is a synthesis of what had been opened up & prepared by the masters of the 1st half of the twentieth century. Boulez is the synthesis / result / meeting point of 3 musical streams. Mainly the 2nd Viennesse School (harmony), Bartok-Stravinsky (rhythm), and it's also in line with the sonorous French tradition of Debussy-Ravel, and Messiaen (his mentor) .. his early close association with major contemporaries like Stockhausen (the only composer he saw as his equal) & technology (used in much deeper ways) had also been influences in shaping 'his thing' musically. He's carved his own little voice within this, to create his own unique musical language with which to communicate. Now if he can bring forth a few finished or new compositions anytime soon that would be great!

This is all very well said, although there is a sensual quality to some works (Pli selon pli, the third piano sonata)  that keeps them from being wholly cool and dispassionate. And I can't resist noting that later in his career, Boulez also acknowledged Carter as an "equal." After all, it's my job to mention Carter in every thread.

Back to Schoenberg! For me, The Book of the Hanging Gardens is the pinnacle. There is a deliberately neoclassical facet to many of the serial works — he wanted to work with classical forms, and as Boulez has noted, his rhythmic language remained relatively conservative (in fact, he returned to a more conservative idiom, compared to what is found in Hanging Gardens and other pre-serial, atonal works). In the string trio, the violin/piano fantasy, and maybe other late works, his rhythms become less square again. A return to his earlier, Expressionist practices? A response to the more rhythmically adventurous work of his younger contemporaries? Hard to say.

Of course, there is a flipside to the squareness of the bulk of his twelve-tone music. Its metrical clarity allows it to involve various effects of syncopation (which you really can't have unless the beat itself is reasonably clear) and metrical shifts and reconfigurations of the sort that Schoenberg so admired in Mozart, Brahms, and his other heroes. I don't think it's right to say that these "old-fashioned" rhythms were a way of hedging against the risks Schoenberg was taking in the domain of pitch. I think he was pursuing what he loved most in both cases.

[Mirror Image]

We also shouldn't forget that Schoenberg showed admiration for another American composer:

"There is a great Man living in this country — a composer. He has solved the problem how to preserve one's self and to learn. He responds to negligence by contempt. He is not forced to accept praise or blame. His name is Ives."

[Cato]

I would use the word 'seductive' as opposed to 'sensual' when describing Boulez & the French musical experience/sonority, its more compelling that way, less compelling as argument.

By contrast, (and this ties into Schoenberg) .. Germanic composers, Schoenberg, Berg & Stockhausen .. concede in that grand sense of harmonic & formal continuity as an organizational priority, emphasizing 'the horizontal' by stressing the unstable & transitional nature of instantaneous harmonies (a trait not unknown to the students of the on-the-beat dissonances of J.S. Bach) .. and the other indicators like continuous changes of tempo, dynamics, pitch (smooth melodic outlines), dance rhythms, physical and emotional display .. all of which belong in the horizontal domain. Naturally there are broad overlaps.

I have not mentioned this in some time, but there is a supremely stupid book by a certain E. Michael Jones called Dionysos Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution Out of the Spirit of Music , where the adultery of Schoenberg's wife is blamed on...the rise of chromatic harmony and its descendant, "atonalism" !

According to Jones, by "eliminating" or "loosening" the rules of traditional harmony, composers sent subliminal messages to listeners that rules for sexual morality could be similarly loosened and eliminated.

My astonishment at this claim was Brobdingnagian!  Talk about "sensual" and "seductive" !  0:)

[Karl Henning]

I have not mentioned this in some time, but there is a supremely stupid book by a certain E. Michael Jones called Dionysos Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution Out of the Spirit of Music , where the adultery of Schoenberg's wife is blamed on...the rise of chromatic harmony and its descendant, "atonalism" !

According to Jones, by "eliminating" or "loosening" the rules of traditional harmony, composers sent subliminal messages to listeners that rules for sexual morality could be similarly loosened and eliminated.

My astonishment at this claim was Brobdingnagian!  Talk about "sensual" and "seductive" !  0:)

A new society: Fine Upstanding Citizens For Atonality

[snyprrr]

I have not mentioned this in some time, but there is a supremely stupid book by a certain E. Michael Jones called Dionysos Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution Out of the Spirit of Music , where the adultery of Schoenberg's wife is blamed on...the rise of chromatic harmony and its descendant, "atonalism" !

According to Jones, by "eliminating" or "loosening" the rules of traditional harmony, composers sent subliminal messages to listeners that rules for sexual morality could be similarly loosened and eliminated.

My astonishment at this claim was Brobdingnagian!  Talk about "sensual" and "seductive" !  0:)

I'm sorry, but that sounds just about right. Sheesh,... why WOULDN'T she? I can't imagine 'sexy Ahnold' being anything but a human pill in a marriage. Good for her!! I would love to know the marriage-lives-of-the-serialist-composers. Are you saying Boulez is gay?