Such an intellectual composer - the only composer that frightens more or less all western society fifty years after his death.
"Ignorant" indeed! The quality of being experimental is not a sufficient critique of a work: I am sure, if examined, you tastes would not exclude 'experimental' tonal works.Because to my "ignorant" ears, I don't hear touching music, I hear experimental, intellectual excercises take the place of lyricism and a more traditional humanism. That's right, "more traditional."
The reason he's avoiding the questions is simple: he doesn't have the necessary credentials to evaluate and give an educated analysis of why he dislikes something in particular music.I just asked him as well (see the .. what was it.. 10 Greatest Symphonists thread, I believe) - seemed to ignore me too. Silly boy. Naughty. Probably studies music tech at some poly.. *gasp* what a snob.
http://edhelper.com/language/Reading_Skills.htmVide t'other thread. You can ask this until you're blue in the face; I shall take great pleasure in ensuring my personal details remain safely undisclosed.
I agree with this.You know at the end of the day I'm not worrying about if I like Schoenberg or not. It's not important to me. What is important is listening to what I enjoy and not what everybody else enjoys and unfortunately Schoenberg doesn't make my listening list.
For all who like Schoenberg, listen to him and enjoy him. Who cares if somebody doesn't like him or understands him the way you do. That will never change and trying to change people's opinion of a composer who they obviously do not like is their own prerogative.
Just out of curiosity where would you place his "Chamber Sym #2 Op38", I have this work and find it quite Bland an uninteresting, I suppose this will encourage all the wrath of his admirers and they will have a go at me, I will add that I find this particular piece a bit more accessible than some of his other works that I have heard in the past.Back to Schoenberg & not these rather futile arguments...
Schoenberg's music sounds very serious & profound, it garners all of your attention, much like the works of earlier composers in the Germanic tradition, like Beethoven, Brahms & Mahler. Perhaps this is part of the baggage that he inherited & is really apparent in his earlier works like Verklarte Nacht & the Gurrelieder. Even in his atonal works, like the Violin Concerto & Chamber Symphony No. 2, there is a sense of this stolidness and seriousness. .
I looked on Wikipedia, and it gives some info about the content of Verklarte Nacht, based on Richard Dehmel's poem of the same name. You might already know this, but at least this post is about Schoenberg, unlike some of the convoluted arguments we have seen above:To be subjective, does this mean I enjoy his music, of course not, but to hear "Verkarte Nacht" is a thing of pure beauty...Does anyone know the philosophical ideals behind this piece? I already know the technical origins of the piece. It had been arranged from his string quartet, but I'm anxious to know more about it philosophically.
Wikipedia said:Dehmel's powerful poem is about a man and a woman walking through a dark forest on a moonlit night, wherein the woman shares a dark secret with her new lover; she bears the child of a stranger. The mood of Dehmel's poem is reflected throughout the composition in five sections, beginning with the sadness of the woman's confession; a neutral interlude wherein the man reflects upon the confession; and a finale, the man's bright acceptance (and forgiveness) of the woman: O sieh, wie klar das Weltall schimmert! Es ist ein Glanz um Alles her (see how brightly the universe gleams! There is a radiance on everything).
Thanks for providing the poem, msegers. I think JTech will appreciate it too, since he has been enjoying Schoenberg's work so much. It also brings this thread back to focus, as it unfortunately seems to have become a forum to air people's differences about eachother in a very unsavoury way (it was even locked down for a while, as I recall...)Transfigured Night (Verklärte Nacht)
by Richard Dehmel (1863-1920, written in 1896)
I agree that he departed very significantly from his earlier style once he established the atonal system. But, as I said earlier, there still seems to be something stolidly Germanic in his mature works. They still sound very serious & Teutonic to me, much more than Berg, who let in a bit more light into his orchestration, or Webern, who was more technical, or Eisler, who was more concerned with left wing politics. Out of all those contemporaries (or disciples, really), it is in his works that I still hear traces of where he came from. I suppose it's still relatively slight, say, in a way a Brahms symphony sounds German. But it's still there, to my ears, anyway. I think his style was still attached to his European roots, at least somewhat more than Stravinsky or Varese....That's my take on Schoenberg. He was a man who started out influenced by the very culture he was brought up in, but he turned his back on them when that culture demanded he make music the way they wanted instead of the way he wanted to make it, so he developed a new way of composing music and went in his own direction.
I happened to listen to the two R3 broadcasts you refer to. It was mainly to hear the three Beethoven Piano Concertos played by Daniel Barenboim and the Berlin Staatskapelle. I already have most of Schoenberg's best rated works, so it was no surprise to me to hear the two that were played: Pelleas und Melisande and Five Orchestral Pieces.I was just wondering what all you lovely people of Schoenberg's music.
First works by Webern are quite romantic/expressionist and not difficult to listen to, even though atonal.It's interesting you say you'll move on to Schoenberg after Webern. It's Webern and his followers such as Boulez that I have had the most difficulty with.