Webern

[Bryn]

On my cassette of Webern Day I have the announcer quoting Schoenberg as saying "Absence of self-pity", which has always struck me as implying something quite different from self-indulgence, which I would read as "indulgence in Self" as opposed to concentration on the matter in hand rather than investing it with hyper-emotional subjectivity. Assuming I've got this right this would imply a radical aesthetic shift away from the intense subjectivity of Op. 5 and other works up to that time.

O.K., I have now dug out my study score. Schoenberg's full introduction is, after all, rather longer. The German of the relevant paragraph reads:

"Man bedenke, welche Enthaltsamkeit dazu gehört, sich so kurz zu fassen. Jeder Blick läßt sich zu einem Gedicht, jeder Seufzer zu einem Roman ausdehnen. Aber: einen Roman durcheine einzige Geste, ein Glück durch ein einzigers Aufatmen ausdrücken: solche Konzentration findet sich nur, wo Wehleidigkeit in entsprechendem maße fehlt."

It also offers "self-pity" as the relevant translation.

[Mandryka]

Though the brevity of these pieces is a persuasive advocate for them, on the other hand that very brevity itself requires an advocate.

Consider what moderation is required to express oneself so briefly. You can stretch every glance out into a poem, every sigh into a novel. But to express a novel in a single gesture, a joy in a breath - such concentration can only be present in proportion to the absence of self-pity.

These pieces will only be understood by those who share the faith that music can say things that can only be expressed by music.

These pieces can face criticism as little as this - or any - belief.

If faith can move mountains, disbelief can deny their existence. And faith is impotent against such impotence.

Does the musician know how to play these pieces, does the listener know how to receive them? Can faithful musicians and listeners fail to surrender themselves to one another?

But what shall we do with the heathen? Fire and sword can keep them down; only believers need to be restrained.

May this silence sound for them.

Arnold Schoenberg
Modling, June 1924

Thanks Smittims, and thanks to everyone else for the interesting discussion.

[Mandryka]

I am advised that the German "Wehleidigkeit" does not mean self-pity (that would be "Selbstmitleid" apparently.) It rather means the opposite of toughness, being overly sensitive to pain and quick to complain. Hypersensitivity in English, maybe. Schoenberg is saying that compressing the emotional content à la Webern is only possible if you're not easily emotionally overwhelmed.


It's really interesting because it shows that Schoenberg did not see Webern's music as abstract, like (arguably) its development into the serialism of Stockhausen and Boulez. On the contrary, he saw him as writing music which was the sublimation of Mahler and Richard Strauss.

[Serial_Apologist]

I am advised that the German "Wehleidigkeit" does not mean self-pity (that would be "Selbstmitleid" apparently.) It rather means the opposite of toughness, being overly sensitive to pain and quick to complain. Hypersensitivity in English, maybe. Schoenberg is saying that compressing the emotional content à la Webern is only possible if you're not easily emotionally overwhelmed.


It's really interesting because it shows that Schoenberg did not see Webern's music as abstract, like (arguably) its development into the serialism of Stockhausen and Boulez. On the contrary, he saw him as writing music which was the sublimation of Mahler and Richard Strauss.

That is my understanding.

[smittims]

I suppose Schoenberg was privy to Webern's statement that all his work of that period were linked to his reaction to his mother's death, and those who knew Webern also knew of his inspiration in nature.

As long as I've known Webern's and Schoenberg's music I've felt it a misreading to see it as totally abstract. I was buying two books on Schoenberg in Waterstones once and the assistant commented, 'it's all very intellectual, isn't it? ' I said ' no Schoenberg's music is very passionate, very consciously human, as he was'.

I dont know who did the English translation of the preface; maybe one of Schoenberg;s english-speaking pupils such as Edward Clark or Erwin Stein, as Sch. didn't speak English until his American years; or it may have been a staff-translator at Universal Edition.

[RichardB]

As long as I've known Webern's and Schoenberg's music I've felt it a misreading to see it as totally abstract.

But surely the only people who would think that are people who haven't really engaged with it.

[Mandryka]

I think it would be surprising if we found that Rudolf Kolisch wasn't engaged with Schoenberg's and Webern's music. Maybe he wasn't engaged with it in the right way.

However someone has told me that in a letter dated 27 July 1932 Schoenberg cautioned his brother-in-law Kolisch against “unweaving” his musical works by perceiving them analytically in terms of their constituent parts, at the expense of "all their poetry". According to Felix Galimir, ''I think this is what caused the greatest damage [to Schoenberg’s music] - that his 12-tone theory is so much talked about that one overlooks the music. Like with Kolisch. Whenever Schoenberg finished something, he gave Kolisch the score. And the first thing Kolisch did was to find the row. This made Schoenberg absolutely furious.”

I havnt't checked these references by the way, so I could be guilty of spreading false information on the internet.


Here's The Kolisch Quartet with Webern op 5

https://open.spotify.com/album/5HfafChu7DsNKJ17nFsPY9

and for a point of comparison here's The Leipzig Quartet

https://open.spotify.com/album/0bLypcXamaI1WZHGG46XZu

I've been trying to tell, just by listening, whether the earlier recording is more abstract. But as I said, I'm just not sure -- I think so.

[smittims]

Unless Mr. Galimir witnessed such a scene he seems to me to be putting it rather strongly. Here's Schoenberg writing to Kolisch (his wife's brother) in July 1932:

'You have identified the row of my string quartet correctly... it must have taken a great deal of effort, and I do not think I would have had the patience. But do you think that knowing it serves any purpose? I cannot imagine how. ... I cannot caution enough that this kind of analysis must not be overestimated. ... But enough of this. I am glad that you are studying the quartet (op.30) and I am very anxious to hear it.'

Its a longish letter and I think the gist is that he prefers listeners to hear his music as an idea rather than as a construction.

[RichardB]

he prefers listeners to hear his music as an idea rather than as a construction.

And indeed pretty much every composer of 12-tone and serial music from Schoenberg onwards has said something similar - I wonder why so many people to this day don't seem to get it!