Modernism - the correct way to approach it

[Sydney Grew]

This discussion of Herr Schönberg and the Collapse of Criticism appeared a hundred years ago; but does it not remain just as true and applicable to-day?

[Quarky]

For an up to date view of musical criticism, I would refer Sidney to Andrew McGregor's reviews of current releases on H&N last night. Totally objective and full of interesting insights.

And free of bile, hatred and ignorance - in contrast to the review posted above.

[amateur51]

For an up to date view of musical criticism, I would refer Sidney to Andrew McGregor's reviews of current releases on H&N last night. Totally objective and full of interesting insights.

And free of bile, hatred and ignorance - in contrast to the review posted above.

Thanks for the reminder, Oddball

[Mr Pee]

And free of bile, hatred and ignorance - in contrast to the review posted above.

Bile, hatred, and ignorance? Where?

It's a fair view I think and one with which many might agree.

[MrGongGong]

Bile, hatred, and ignorance? Where?

It's a fair view I think and one with which many might agree.

Many people believe all sorts of nonsense

I love the bit about his "anarchical methods" .... you might dismiss serialism for some things
but to describe it as "anarchical" means you really haven't being paying attention

[amateur51]

Bile, hatred, and ignorance? Where?

It's a fair view I think and one with which many might agree.

So sweet how this member constantly has to invoke support from an entirely fictitious group to agree with and to validate his views.

[MrGongGong]

So sweet how this member constantly has to invoke support from an entirely fictitious group to agree with and to validate his views.

The "many" are on the march my friend and they are after your Webern

It's a "view" but it certainly isn't "fair"
it's actually nonsense but don't let that get in the way
thank god we have Eric Whitacre to save us

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It's a fair view I think and one with which many might agree.

A majority opinion does not guarantee a "fair view" - "many might agree" that Formula One racing is not a sport, but an idle pastime for rich boys with no talent who rely on a car to bring them success. I don't think you would accept this as "fair"? To call Schönberg's Music "anarchic" (even the pre-Serial works he was writing "a hundred years ago" when the article was written) indicates that the writer hasn't actually heard any of it - no specific works are cited for his [for want of a better word] "opinions" - which rules out any possibility of "fairness".

You may be right that "many" agree with the article's view of Schönberg's Music - but, you'd quite conceivably be equally correct if you were to assume that "many" would hold similarly negative views about Wagnerian singers, String Quartets, Bach Cantatas, the Eton Choirbook etc etc etc

[Mr Pee]

You may be right that "many" agree with the article's view of Schönberg's Music - but, you'd quite conceivably be equally correct if you were to assume that "many" would hold similarly negative views about Wagnerian singers, String Quartets, Bach Cantatas, the Eton Choirbook etc etc etc

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more.

But you can say that you don't like any or all of the above without being labelled a reactionary Philistine.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . To call Schönberg's Music "anarchic" (even the pre-Serial works he was writing "a hundred years ago" when the article was written) indicates that the writer hasn't actually heard any of it - no specific works are cited for his [for want of a better word] "opinions" - which rules out any possibility of "fairness". . . .

I should have said that the article appeared in the Spectator on the thirty-first of January 1914; it is likely to have been inspired by the performance of the Five Orchestrals in London earlier that month, conducted by Schönberg himself. Their first London performance had been in 1912 under Wood.

Do we find much method in those Five Pieces even to-day? The composer himself said that he found a difficulty in that regard, which led him on to dodecaphonism (and all that ensued); but my own view is that it is a good thing when form is not fixed in advance but is born directly from, and in tandem with, content. However the following caught my attention because it seems closely to reflect the policy of the Corporation in selecting items to be broadcast in their Hear and Now programme: "undiscriminating tolerance of all that is new simply because it is new, . . . is the opportunity for the crank and the charlatan, and puts a premium on violence, extravagance and anarchy."

[MrGongGong]

Oh get of your ridiculous high horse
If you don't like H&N don't listen to it !
To my ears it's often a bit "easy listening" ........

(and yes mrPeeee your last 2 words might be fairly accurate)

"Violence, Extravagance and Anarchy" is a great album title by the way !

http://ikeaordeath.com/

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But you can say that you don't like any or all of the above without being labelled a reactionary Philistine.

Well, you can nowadays, because the Music I mentioned has "historic security" (as does that of the Second Viennese school for most people, even if they don't like it). But the very word "Philistine" (in this context, of course!) was invented at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century precisely to describe listeners who were indiscriminately hostile to any and all new ideas in the Arts (hence the "reactionary" aspect). The article quoted in the OP, which makes sweeping allegations without citing specific pieces of Music (and which don't stand up to the evidence presented under cross-examination) can only be described as "reactionary Philistinism".

[Stephen Whitaker]

From an LA Phil programme note.............

Schoenberg’s Five Pieces, completed in 1909, had to wait three years to be heard in public, and then it was not the musicians of his native Vienna who took up the cudgels on his behalf but an enlightened Englishman, Sir Henry Wood, who led the premiere at one of his London Promenade concerts. The date: September 3, 1912.

Reviews were numerous, since Schoenberg’s reputation as an iconoclast had preceded him. Among the least scathing was that from the most respected of British musical observers, Ernest Newman, who related, “It is not often an English audience hisses music it does not like, but a good third of the people the other day permitted themselves that luxury after the performance of the Five Orchestral Pieces of Schoenberg. Another third of the audience was not hissing because it was laughing, and the remaining third seemed too puzzled either to laugh or to hiss.... Nevertheless, I take leave to suggest that Schoenberg is not the mere fool or madman that he is generally supposed to be.... May it not be that the new composer sees a logic in tonal relations that to the rest of us seem merely chaos at present, but the coherence of which may be clear enough to us all some day?”

Facetiously intended as Newman’s conclusion may be, it is on the mark. Furthermore, those early listeners who remarked on the score’s eccentricity had an ally in the composer himself, as witness the following in one of his letters to Richard Strauss: “The greatest difficulty in performing these pieces is that...it is really impossible to read the score. It would be almost imperative to perform them through blind faith. I can promise you something really colossal, especially in sound and mood. For that is what they are all about – completely unsymphonic, devoid of architecture or construction, just an uninterrupted changing of colors, rhythms, and moods.”

The temptation to quote more about music in response to which so many have recorded their impressions will end with the following from Schoenberg’s own program note: “The music seeks to express all that swells in us subconsciously like a dream; which is a great fluctuant power, and is built upon none of the lines that are familiar to us; which has a rhythm, as blood has a pulsating rhythm, as all life in us has its rhythm; which has a tonality, but only as the sea or the storm has its tonality; which has harmonies, though we cannot grasp or analyze them nor can we trace its themes. All its technical craft is submerged, made one and indivisible with the content of the work.”


The other quote I like is Goossens' recollection (he was in the orchestra) of Wood telling his recalcitrant players....

"Stick to it gentlemen! This is nothing to what you'll have to play in 25 years' time!"

[Stephen Whitaker]

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more.

But you can say that you don't like any or all of the above without being labelled a reactionary Philistine.

What you both fail to appreciate is that the true Philistine regards a fondness for Schoenberg, Wagnerian singers, String Quartets, Bach Cantatas, the Eton Choirbook etc etc etc as an affectation and a pose of liking something purely to impress others; when no 'normal' person could possibly put up with any of it.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What you both fail to appreciate is that the true Philistine regards a fondness for Schoenberg, Wagnerian singers, String Quartets, Bach Cantatas, the Eton Choirbook etc etc etc as an affectation and a pose of liking something purely to impress others; when no 'normal' person could possibly put up with any of it.