I don't get it! I mean on the surface, it sounds like rubbish, but lots of musical "geniuses" talk about the profound depth of their music! Sure, it may have interesting structure and theoretical worth, but does that make it any good?

I think most famous composers long before Schoenberg, etc. stumbled upon strange theoretical systems of their own and rejected them almost completely becauase they realized that just because it's clever and intellectual, doesn't mean anyone wants to listen to it. Schoenberg just happened to dispose of good taste and go with his cleverness in the end. But it still pains the ears unless you've spent time immuning yourself to it's oddities and keep telling yourself 'oh, this is great stuff. The musicologists say so.. I guess I'd better like it so I don't look stupid."

I think history gives it's own verdict as to what people want to listen to and perform, and I don't think there's going to be some Schoenberg revival in a hundred years with musicologists saying things like "they just weren't ready for it" or "he was ahead of his time". They say that now, and personally I think it's with the hope that they are remembered fondly in history someday. You know - the one who GOT it, unlike all those other musical barbarians.

Of course, there will be some who disagree and claim that I don't understand it and that's why I don't care for it - and that's fine. They can have their Schoenberg and kin and revel in his failed attempt at a new musical world order. Yuck. There's too much great music to spend time trying to understand Schoenberg and his pals technically interesting music, but awful-sounding music.

Attempting a substantive discussion about such things in this forum is utterly futile.

Picking up yes women and yes men and forming a mob, on the other hand . . .

What totally infuriates me is when people talk about Schoenberg in these dismissive tones when early Schoenberg (such as Verklärte Nacht, Pelleas und Melisande, Gurrelieder) is actually ultra romantic and totally different to the atonal music which followed, which in turn is very different to his serial music.

Do people actually listen to Schoenberg's music before making these fatuous remarks?

(But then why let knowledge interfere with one's prejudices.)

A tiny bit of history...

While I was growing up I was never a fan of classical music to begin with, even if my folks would take me to concerts occasionally only to fall asleep most of the times.

I did love music though A LOT! Loved playing the piano (my own works mainly even at the age of 7 or so... :D). Loved pop/rock music.

When I went to high school I met this very cool lad who would listen to Queen (before Freddie had died) and other various stuff which seemed 'classical' (Beethoven's 9th, The phantom of the opera and other rather 'easy listening' stuff). I started listening to these stuff and enjoying it. Later I played at some concerts and grew to love Grieg, Mozart (the Fantasy in Dm is one of my all time favorite works!) and other works, probably too difficult for me (Pathetique sonata, Moonlight sonata, Waldstein and other). And Prokofiev! Yes, Prokofiev was my man. Full of strange chords and harmonies, not 'classical'. Harsh, dissonant at times, used sfx in at least one of his works, etc.

And then, I got introduced to Bartok, who I thought was contemporary, back then, and other stuff, including Schoenberg, which I didn't fully understand, comprehend or enjoy.

Fast forward 7-8 years ago. I tried entering the Conservatory of Paris, and I had Ligeti's 2nd quartet for analysis! Yikes! I had no idea, failed and that was it. The guy had written one of the most peculiar and useless things I had ever seen or heard. I went back to Greece, heard the work and forgot about it. Until a year ago. I had this student in composition and I had to provide something to analyse. So I gave him the same quartet and found a youtube performance to provide. I was stunned! This thing had life! It was interesting after all! It wasn't beautiful, not in that sense, but it was musical!

I still do not enjoy Webern or Schoenberg, but my life is filled with contemporary music!

Here's the two ideas I'm trying to bring out:

1. Listeners can also be trained and educated to like something. Contemporary music is not for the brain damaged, nor it can cause something like that. But it does take effort to enjoy it. If it's worth it or not, this is left for each individual to answer. But for me it was worth it and I feel that I have 'evolved' (like in changed, not become better necessarily) through my listening experiences and my 'advancement' (again in time rather than in quality) through contemporary music.

2. I still do not enjoy most of Schoenberg's works or Webern's works (is there echo in here?). But I like my Ligeti, Messiaen, Schnittke, Penderevski and tons of other well or lesser known composers.

I would like to think that the music out there is endless and infinite. And I'm putting my tiny (like 0,00000000000001%) stone in this infinite amount of music. I'd hate to think that music has stopped around the 18xx or 19xx or even 200x and there's nothing else to be found, new or old. Yes, Mattardo, there is an amazing amount of great music out there, but as you say, there are people who like a bit more spice in their food...

EDIT: john. Yes I've also heard that. But would you agree that a composer can change aesthetic direction throughout his/her life? I mean Stravinsky is known to have had 3 different parts in his output in music. The early 'Rite of Spring' part, the middle neo-classical and the late serialistic part. Why can't this be happening with Schoenberg's works as well? Just because it doesn't fit YOUR definition of 'romantism' it doens't mean that Verklärte Nacht is not that. (Actually I'd say that it's a rather surrealistic work but anyhow... I don't particularly like genre naming anyways...)

When asked why he didn't continue writing music like his early works (Verklärte Nacht, etc.), Schoenberg replied that his later works are like his early works, but nobody notices.

I very much enjoy Schoenberg. One thing that helped me was being assigned a serial work - I don't remember which one, but it was a Webern song for voice and piano - and actually doing the full 12x12 grid of permutations, then figuring out how the composer put the thing together. Now that I was able to actually see the decisions that were made, suddenly this mathematical, cold technique came to life and I had something that I could highlight in a performance.

Of course, the early "expressionist" Schoenberg is another matter. I love it, the next guy probably never will. But I think the 6 Kleine Klavierstucke Op. 19 is an enduring classic which deserves a lot more play than it gets.

Xenakis, I had an album of his music once and it was fairly nauseating. That's a different level of "out there" compared with a Schoenberg.

Notice the OP: "Rubbish" and "geniouses". This is what turns me sick all the time. All the negativity. I don't recall anyone going around proclaiming how "rubbish" this lad, this "genious" called Bach was. So why so much negativity? (this post has nothing to do with jeffrey, above, but this forum makes it look like it does. Sorry Jeffrey!)

Bach isn't spared -- btb and cruiser (amongst others) have bashed him.

I'm puzzled by your comment to me. Perhaps I'm getting paranoid but I get the impression you are 'attacking' the views I posted. Puzzled, because I am in agreement with what you say. For the life of me I can't see why you disagree with me saying that Verklärte Nacht, etc are ultra-romantic. I didn't mean it in a 'slushy' sense but rather pushing the bounds of romanticism, but I would have no argument with 'surreal' either.

There have been many composers who wrote music that was incomprehensible to me at first, and which I later grew to enjoy, and sometimes even love. Some was tonal, some wasn't; some was relatively modern, some was older.

The lesson to me was to at least make the attempt to avoid judging music until I really "got it", because there always was a chance it would make sense to me, even if it seemed like noise or meaningless gestures at first, i.e., "rubbish". It is true that once in a while, I still think some composer really did write music of mediocre quality even after I learned to listen to it, but that has been rare.

To my ears, Schoenberg and Xenakis both wrote some good non-tonal music, but it took me a while to learn how to listen to their idioms.

Terribly sorry here. I misread your post and thought you meant that you think they ARE the same... So sorry about this... :$

I must give credit to old Arnold himself: he said that he composed as 'romatically' as ever when confronted with criticism aboout his later works, it's indeed the case, only take the time to become familiar with his 'soundworld', it takes a while, but it's entirely wothwile, between Verklärte Nacht/Erwartung/A survivor from Warsaw/ maight seem to be a world/universe, but it all came from the same heart/mind, and it's very audible!

Don't miss Schoenberg's Pelleas und Melisande. It's an exceedingly charismatic composition, and recommended to anyone for getting started with Schoenberg. And for those who want to sample his impish, mischievous side, try the orchestral transcription of the Brahms G minor Piano Quartet. Schoenberg wrote it in all seriousness and nobility of intent, but, sorry, it comes off more as Brahms on acid.

I won't make any claims that I've mastered all of Schoenberg's sound world -there are several works which continue to flummox me- but I've always had a fascination with Moses und Aron, and along with Dr. Faust, Palestrina and Death in Venice it's an opera I very much hope to see someday.

I haven't gotten much into Schoenberg, other than listening to Pierrot Lunaire, which to be brutally honest, was a turn-off.



Thanks for the suggestion! I'll give it a try.

just listen to the pianoconcerto with an open mind and even a more open ear or two, I think a valid effort if not just a good piece.

I don't think Pierrot Lunaire is the most approachable of Schoenberg's works (but I confess not having listened to it for many years). If you want to test the waters I would go for Verklärte Nacht - not too long at 25-30 mins. (It is helpful to know the rough outline of the story portrayed in the music.)

Strange you should say that - I've just listened to it as well (Mitsuko Uchida's recording).

Incidentally, I have an off-air recording of an extended interview that Uchida did a few years ago in which she talks about Schoenberg, the Piano Concerto, working with Pierre Boulez and the state of the recording industry. If anyone is interested to hear it I will upload it onto Box.net. (I always find her wonderful to listen to when she talks about music.)

I definitely would not describe it as approachable. An acquired taste without doubt. However, I used to hate Prokofiev for similar reasons, so I think I'll come round eventually.

Thanks for the suggestion!

[edit] nm—I didn't notice it was in multiple parts!

and that is excactly one of those unmissable recordings to confirm that evn later/latest Schönberg is a really good musician, not just the man that the epochmaking idea to let tonality go, many had that idea, without substituting the vacuum they created, Skrjabin, still fine, Roslavets, what??, even some conservative like Reger can loose me, or Szymanovski for that matter, I might not like all his endeavours, but still hold him high, just read Th. Mann's Doktor Faustus as already mentioned, it's very revealing!

I clicked on the link you included in your post, before you edited it and removed the link. I was startled to see JB staring out at me. Barbirolli was a great part of my teenage music education. I lived in Manchester and regularly went to the Halle concerts, often conducted by Barbirolli. He is so etched into my memory and I feel great warmth towards him.

By the way Schoenberg's Pelleas is about 40 mins long!

Hehe, yeah, that's why I edited it...failed to notice that what I clicked on was merely a part of the whole. Now off to find the whole thing.

OT: Horowitz's 1941 Rach 3 with Barbirolli—despite it's poor sound—remains my favorite recording of the piece ever.

Following my earlier posting I've uploaded the extended interview with Mitsuko Uchida to box.net. She talks about the Schoenberg Piano Concerto and the Berg Chamber Concerto (with clips) and a bit about Vienna. I do urge people to listen. I find her very inspiring when she talks about music.

The file is in mp2 format (rather than the usual mp3) but it should play perfectly OK. Any problems - let me know.

(I trimmed the clip of the start of Schoenberg's Piano Concert that introduced the interview to get it under the 25MB box.net limit.)

Mitsuko Uchida talks about Schoenberg & Berg, etc

Generally speaking, it's also a matter of getting used to the idiom, I remember going to a concert where they played Hindemith, we didn't like it at all, and recalled the composer "Hin damit", wich means "away with it", we found this very funny, but later, not so much later, I was listening in at the rehearsal of the local symphony, who's conductor happened to be my neighbour, that always helps, and they did a piece of H.'s, and that learned me to listen differently, have a more open ear, and it worked! It was the same neighbour that had this pianist staying at his house, to play the Prokofiev 3rd concerto, me hearing them practice, and uttering the most imbecile criticism ever to the late Malcolm Frager: this is no music, I like Chopin and Rachmaninov, not this cacaphony...I was only 15 at that the time, Malcolm, forgive me...

I dont understand baroque music im not a fan.
Saint saens when he heard stravinsky 'bad music well written' or reviews on prokofievs 1st concerto when it was played ' a fine young man comes out sits at the piano and starts playing an exercise of pulverisation of the keys'
Just because you dont like it doesnt mean its bad music.
Once i had a teacher who hated everything and everyone 'i hate liszt, rachmaninov, most mozart, argerich, askenazy, polini and many others their music is garbadge' next lesson i quit lessons with him.

you were so right! BTW, openmindedness is not only a musical qualification, it's about life!

I wouldn't loose sleep over it. By all accounts, Mr. Frager was a very easy going man. I'm sure he considered your age and took it in stride.

Back when I was 15, I certainly had some silly opinions about music, and most of them I'd just as soon forget!

He was totally easy about it, just took me, very wisely completely serious, and tried to explain to me why there wasn't any difference to him in playing Prokofiev or Chopin, I was only baffled for some ten years, then I could see how right he was and I still remember him for that, we played Schubert's Fantasie and, although I in those days thought nothing of Sch. I still cherish the memory, and now, of course, Schubert is on Mt Olympos!

My playlist consits of:
Rach: concerto 1,2,3,4, paganini variations.
Scriabin concerto, op 8 no2 i think its that
Sibelius violin concerto
Both Liszt and chopin concertos
Liszt sonata
Mozart concerto no 20
Beethoven: tempest waldstein.
Prokofiev piano concerto 1+3
Mainly romantic piano few exceptions. It doesnt mean i dont like schumann or other composers

Tastes vary.
Tastes shouldnt comprimise the versatility, ability to analyze, interpret different pieces.