Bernstein on Schoenberg Part II
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 เม.ย. 2014
- Lenny Teaches us a bit about Dodecaphonic procedure . Here we eat our spinach the next 2 posts get really interesting .
P.S. To truly know and I suspect love a thing one must know it's antithesis . - เพลง
This footage needs to be preserved. This guy really knew music in such a deep level
Preserved before it gets taken down because it's someone holding their phone in front of a tv, you mean?
Bernstein is truly one of the great teachers of music. He gets to the essence of the issue, explaining simply, accessible to all yet without 'dumbing down'.
Thank you for posting, paxwallacejazz.
You're most welcome sir
paxwallacejazz Is there anywhere I could get a hold of this whole series?
redKELLYMHRCH Amazon ; also the entire series is also posted numerous places on You tube for free these are intended to be sort of video cliff notes intended to pique curiosity . I guess I succeeded in this case .
redKELLYMHRCH Bernstein's Harvard ,Norton ,Lectures (The Unanswered Question 1973)
Can we take a moment to apprreciate Bernstein's extraordinary ability to conceptualise and understand music at around ~3:00 when he started playing Schöenberg's "Waltz" ?
He describes this better in 10 minutes than a full week of lecture I received back in music school. BTW: When Bernstein was talking about "top and bottom" notes, I immediately began trying to think of an example of the use of an ostinato in serialism. Anything come to mind here?
1:33 the girl in the audience really liked that comparison.
3:00 "Hell I didn't know" That had me laughing my ass off, probably because you read my mind, ha ha. This is spectacular by the way, I am finally understanding this concept!
doh ! glad to hear that you're enjoying this .
Bernstein. The greatest musical communicator ever. Not yet replaced. Sadly missed
Only 20% of us who saw the first video stayed on this "ride."
What a wonderful lecture on the 12-tone system! Mr. Bernstein revealed some insights to Schoenberg's music that brought me a bit closer to understanding the structural concepts. Thank you for posting this video.
I have to say that I always like listening to Schoenberg and have really enjoyed the few opportunities I have had to play his music. (I am a cellist). If you ditch the tonality you tend to listen to lots of other stuff in the music like rhythm and texture. Harmonic structures that emerge are really different than anything you have heard before.
Amazing footage. Thanks for posting.
This new covenant is far more terrifying than the old! Death has gained its sting.
I know what you mean.
I think it is a great technique, not a compositional end. My favorite Schoenberg pieces are the ones with tonality incorporated. It is like a bitter taste. Bitter can be very tasty in the right context, but a dish that is only bitter well that might be interesting but most people will get sick of it pretty quickly.
Lester Brunt You know I have been exposed to many comparisons between food and music in my life but they've always seemed off target and very thin to me but still I get what you're saying . Anyway most 12 tone compositions contain tonal moments. especially Berg.
It's called a Waltz? If I tried to dance to that, I'd twist an ankle.
hahahah!!!!
I just love listening to Bernstein explain. But I will probably never enjoy listening to twelve-tone music. It remains an alien language for me. Now I have a rough idea that there is a grammar and words with meaning here, but it still sounds as if someone wants to talk Klingon to me.
I know there are many people who understand and like it. However to me it remains incomprehensible how this music could have such an influence on modern music or how one can listen to a complete concert. But at least it slowly dawns on me what the point of it all was.
Thank you for posting. I personally think that all TV shows from Bernstein should be remastered and released on dvd or other media. And preferably with subtitles in as many languages as possible. While he speaks very clearly the subject is quite complicated. I would definitely benefit from subtitles.
Hi y'all so Bernstein states somewhere in these lectures that perhaps a true atonality can't be found using the 12 well tempered tones of Bach . (1st of all, all you just intonation people that's not what he was advocating I am pretty damn positive ok?) what he meant is that "do what you will the ghost of tonality lingers" because the human ear is always looking for it . That includes the brilliant work of Anton Webern as well . HOWEVER Schoenberg and his followers have established something that contrasts with tonality in a way that sheds an invaluable new light on it. To truly know a thing one must know it's antithesis . Those of us who truly love tonality appreciate this music .
Bo You think huh ? You are ignorant of lots of stuff that made that statement even possible. Besides if you think all the serial composers wern't also extreamly competent tonal composers you're also wrong.
Thank you for sharing this
Thank you for watching
Love Bernstein and the inserted comments!
thank You
Best Regards
Thank you sir and, thank you for watching .
This is great; do you have the ones where he talks about Brian Wilson and Bob Dylan?
Also did he ever discuss: Bartok, Shostakovich?
Christopher Jones I am only posting excerpts from that fabled 6 part Harvard (Norton series ) from 1973 that aired that following year on PBS when I was 14 . So he does not actually deal with pop, folk,or jazz in this series except in passing . Unfortunately he does not deal with Bartok or Shostakovich either; however he does deal at great length with Igor Stravinsky (whom Bernstein was in awe of) and those wheels he both erected and set in motion and, Mahler's 9th in lecture 6 . Mozart in lecture 1 Beethoven lecture 2 Berlioz and many other Romantics in #3 . Lecture 4 very interesting with Wagner and Debussy and the esthetic results of high levels of harmonic Ambiguity i.e. chromatic density i.e. many notes outside the key . And lecture 5 is Called the "Twentieth Century Crisis" of which these "Schoenberg Posts" are edited excerpts , Lecture 6 is called "Poetry of the Earth" . Through out the entire series because of it's highly interdisciplinary nature he is constantly also interweaving the other Arts Literature,Painting,Poetry,etc.(underlying strings) Social/Cultural Criticism pulled from history and Linguistics as well as Philosophy and History and some Physical Science regarding acoustics and the harmonic series . The only other series that approaches the startling brilliance educational originality of this series is "The Day the Universe Changed" by James Burke regarding history and why we are who we are .
It's woth noticing that (AFAIK) Bernstein never made a commercial recording of Schoenberg's music. I'm not sure he ever even conducted it. Somebody put me right!
I'm not sure I understand this. I can't clearly see why Serialism is considered "music" rather than an purely intellectual aesthetic excercise!
As far as I can gather from this, Schoenberg's system seems most concerned with form and technique over and above function. Doesn't this render Serialism hermetically sealed, so to speak, as an art form, addressed purely in its appeal to the intellect of other musicians as opposed to communicating anything to any audience not versed in (then) cutting edge musical theory?
I can understand that composers needed to break out of strict adherence to the diatonic relationships and into chromaticism but, surely, chromaticism is best applied as a tool to colour diatonic relations, as Wagner and Debussy had already shown. If EVERYTHING in a composition is REQUIRED to be chromatic purely in order to avoid diatonic relationships, doesn't this just result in a sophistry and an intellectual conceit? Given that harmonic relations within the diatonic scale, - between the tonic and the dominant for example, - are governed by physics (synergy of vibrational frequency etc) and so, not merely a result of tradition and familiar habit, isn't any attempt to apply Serialism's dictates EXCLUSIVELY, as pointless as tilting at windmills, railing at the waves or attempting to square the circle?
I am well aware of the modernist exhortation to: "MAKE IT NEW" (Pound, I think) and Joyce's statement that one must construct one's own system in order to avoid being enslaved by another's. Further to this, I am also a musician myself and so, in part, I do "get" the incentive behind this form of experimentation. What always baffles me in regards to adventuring such as this however, is the extremes to which the technique is taken: once conceived, why do we need complete Serialist compositions? We'd surely "get" the idea from demonstrations and explanations such as Bernstein's here, allowing us to then take the approach and apply it ourselves. What more would one draw by listening to, say, a fourty minute composition structured along these lines?
What am I missing?
Just look at how many atonal composers there were and how popular they were compared to tonal ones. It's not even a comparison. I think they're about as popular as they should be. I like atonal music but I like other types more. Atonality is just one of myriad compositional styles.
You were missing that Schoenberg quoted Schoenberg for warning that "following the rules is not at good idea, learn or view the system and then just compose". The quirky thing with the 12-tone rules is that you avoid having a piece sound as if you just maltreat, break, wring a harmony sequence through a wringer; you get another style, which in the case of Schoenberg sometimes is quite interesting.
I was going to write a comment on how futile it is to want none of tonality in your composition - a tone, beautifully formed and phrased, is the basis for my joy of music now, that I am going through a tough medical cure. Even in the samples which Bernstein plays THAT is the case, the beautiful sound of the piano and the harmonies arising from more tones clashing. But melody is my favourite: The Cellosuites by Bach for example. The meditative quality of Schoenberg's "Nie erhörte Klänge", never before heard harmonies, is a completely different quality. The samples which Bernstein plays are wonderful in their own way, but the serialism is maybe not the whole reason! :)
Brilliant, thanks for posting. I like to own stuff- is this lecture series available for purchase anywhere?
Used to be on Amazon but don't think it is anymore you should try perhaps. But it's all on several channel's like cagin or Shawn Bay. So there's that.
What is not known is that Schoenberg was slipped some mushrooms when he visited Bali and was introduced to Gamelan music
When he returned home he started his 12 tone journey.
thx!
@3:57 omg I finally get it
creo k la musica serial es demasiado cerebral
Is there a text version of these lectures available?
Enrico Winkler I've seen the book.
Bernstein talks about the democracy of the row. Milan Kundera described it as the perfect expression of totalitarianism. The Death row, one might say
Well said. Why would anyone would listen to this ugly atonal stuff when they could listen to Sibelius instead only God knows. Arvo Pärt is the only living composer I regard as truly great.
Oh lord all the hating comments, if you don't dig it just leave it! I find this music so beautiful and moving
I didnt know either
The belief that one must know how the twelve-tone system works in order to enjoy the music written using the system is false. Schoenberg’s music is meant to be appreciated like other music of the common-practice period. Melody, harmony, counterpoint, development, timbre and emotional communicativeness are all present, and function generally as they did in Brahms, Beethoven and Mozart. The difference in Schoenberg’s music, and the source of its difficulty, is the rapidity of change and the variegation of motivic, rhythmic and harmonic materials. Earlier composers made their materials available, apprehendable, recognizable, and finally memorable using sequencing, patterns and symmetry. Schoenberg partially dispenses with some of those for greater concision, and for the immediacy of emotional impact.
Most people simply don’t KNOW whether they enjoy Schoenberg’s music. The reason this is is because Schoenberg’s music requires multiple, multiple listenings to even first get to stage where an aesthetic evaluation is possible. For example, I listened to the First Chamber Symphony and the Serenade for Septet about 20 times before I understood them. And incidentally, they are two of my favorite 20th century pieces. I heard the String Trio and Variations for Orchestra five times each before even making an evaluation. I love them as well. I still dislike the Violin Concerto (though it is growing on me) and the Phantasy for Violin and Piano (which I find utterly hideous). The Three Pieces for Piano I find boring and ungainly. Whereas the Five Pieces for Orchestra and Pierrot are masterpieces in my opinion.
I sing and hum Schoenberg all the time-he was a great tunesmith-a true melodist. My father and I play “Name That Tune” and Schoenberg comes up frequently. We can usually pinpoint the composer and piece.
I consider myself a lover of music-I have thousands of CDs from all time periods-from Medieval to loving composers. My favorite composers are tonal-Beethoven and Bach. But after them come a few modal composers and a few serial composers. It took me a long time and a lot of sweat to assimilate Schoenberg’s style and technique; but now that I have (somewhat) he is one of my very favorite composers, I love his music deeply (not just respect it). I sing it and look forward to playing it in my home and in the car. And look forward to getting to know more. I don’t consent myself to be over-intellectual or elitist whatsoever. My father told me when I was young that Schoeneberg was amazing, so I put in the effort to get to know him and it paid off.
I recommend Schoenberg to every music lover, and if you truly want a great experience with some awesome, super interesting and expressive music, don’t be dismayed by an initial difficulty, be patient and keep listening and I have a feeling you will not be dissapointed.
That "as you know" was so optimistic...
He's actually saying, "as you SHOULD know".
I'd have a lot less trouble getting into this if the lack of a tonal center were compensated by a strong rhythmic sense, but the waltz doesn't feel like a waltz rhythmically, so the notes just seem to wander aimlessly in every dimension.
Yes I understand I'm a jazz pianist. But the arts must be taken as they are. Let me add I've grown fond of this piece.
the main thing that concerns me is that feelings and emotions are never mentioned. One can dream up any 'system' of putting notes together, but if it does not generate music that engages the emotions as well as the entirely rational then, frankly, it is worthless
Frankly worthless is this assessment. A little knowledge is dangerous.. you take a short snippet from a 6 part series about the tonal evolution of western European Art Music from Bach to Stravinsky and extrapolate this brilliant conclusion. I am sure that this most celebrated conductor of the 20th century has no useful insights that might impact your world view your personal musical inquiry eh? Bernstein would have nothing to say about human affective response that you are so fixated on huh?
? A little knowledge is dangerous? I have formally studied music, taught music and worked as a musician for over 30 years. I know Bernstein is brilliant. I have watched many of his lectures and listened to many of his concerts. If you care to re-read my post you will understand that I am not criticising Bernstein whatsoever. If I am criticising anything at all it is Schoenberg's mechanical tone row system which does not mention emotional connections at any point. Also, from listening to Schoenberg's tone row compositions I struggle to feel anything other than that I am listening to a very complex technical exercise. That may well be very interesting in itself, but so far as I am concerned if music does not engage the emotions then I am not interested in it. If I described a jazz musician who had a technique consisting of, say, total chromaticism, or, say, putting together strings of fourths, or, say, superimposing consecutive pentatonic scales over a chord sequence then it may well be technically interesting, but if they become simply technical exercises in generating notes in a repetitive systematic manner then they entirely miss the point. I did not at any point criticise Bernstein.
@@paxwallacejazz First and foremost, thank you for posting all of this fascinating content. That said, this is the educational side of youtube. Can we please make this an environment where people are free to post their questions or opinions without fear of feeling attacked or judged?
@@stevedd50 tonality or any other system doesn’t talk about emotions, just about the structure of the system, the same way that grammar language doesn’t talk about emotions. It is how you use the system to compose music or write poetry that you get those emotions, and Schoenberg’s music is full of them
One wonders if any of Schoenberg's ardent detractors who appear on this blog have read Schoenberg's "Style and Idea?" Or for that matter...Arnold Schoenberg: The Musical idea by Patricia Carpenter and Severine Neff, and/or Charles Rosen's diminutive "Arnold Schoenberg?"
7:00 - Cats do eat Bats.
Do bats eat cats?
Yaaaas.
I mean I am from that time so I can just imagine multiple trips to multiple libraries both public and university maybe a bit of record buying might also have been involved . The internet can ,with only a modicum of determination, be the greatest learning tool since the printing press .
paxwallacejazz I know man. I think all of the time about how we live in this amazing time with all of this knowledge at our fingertips. I've listened to Scriabin's entire output, all of the Beach Boys' albums (even the awful ones 😂), all of the Beatles albums, all of Allan Holdsworth's albums, and on and on. I was born in '79 so I definitely remember that time just before this era blew up and the library WAS the place to track this stuff down. And even then, getting a hold of the less commonly performed/recorded stuff was still a challenge. Here it seems almost anything is a clever search wording and a click away.
Wouldn't you need a system of harmony first before the creation of atonality? Otherwise, how would we know it was atonal?
powergirl901 I am not sure I understand . I mean the system of harmony was , everything preceding the early 20th century meaning since the adoption of the tempered system around the time of J.S. Bach . The history of western art music was among other things the history of the accepted acquisition of more and more notes outside the key . This was a composer driven thing . It includes all our favorites . So over time music became more and more chromatic . This happened in all ways melodically , and through increased frequency of modulation and, the adoption of chromatically altered harmonies . In the early 20th century however, there came a time when any further increase of chromatic density would and did result in either polytonality as in Stravinsky and Bartok or atonality . Is this Maggie in Seattle ? PS Schoenberg was the expert in all the expressions of tonality that preceded his break with tonality .
No this is Powergirl in Miami Beach, Fl. USA...um...
Nice answer. I checked out this AH-NOLD, not that other Austrian guy in movies, because apparently sixties composers like Gerald Fried and Domenic Frontiere got some major inspiration for chromatic composing from this 12 tone system.
That's really my major influence.
Lenny B. was saying that A.S. couldn't entirely resolve chording to atonality--some tonality was used in pieces; so that really answers my question as well.
Thanks.
powergirl901 Yeah Bernstein is basically saying that the ghost of tonality haunts Schoenberg's compositions whether they are freely atonal i.e. pre-1923 or dodecaphonic . Bernstein seems to be intimating that this was at least partly intentional I would agree . Now you should listen to his very different most famous students : Alban Berg (Violin Concerto) and anything by Anton Webern they nicely demonstrate how extreamly different Schoenberg's system can sound in the hands of very different composers .
"He's haunted by the ghost of tonality" hahahahaha
And what follows the 2nd viennese school is even more amazing.Athematicism.movement and light and dark taking delight in its pure self .Free yourselves composers out there.Nothing is more boring than the usual that will take us not deeper into art and the mysteries of nature which go beyond the realm of the manmade.Art becomes like nature when we think on it and realize it goes beyond ourselves and beyond even human knowledge.Epistemology of art cannot be forgotten .Most of all :follow that which is not what you already know.Hear my music or others and ask yourself .How How is it different from the experiences I'm already aquainted with -nor anywhere we have not been before .
Of the Second Viennese School, the only composer who I would argue wrote "enjoyable" 12-tone music was Berg, who, despite using atonality in his music, has a fantastic sense of drama, best seen in Wozzeck and Lulu. Schönberg only really impressed me with Moses und Aron, and Webern...well...his Five String Pieces were fun?
I enthusiastically agree about Berg however I can honestly say that Schoenberg who always intrigued me has truly grown on me "Variations for Orchestra" and Webern in his completely uncompromising minimal sculptural purity is a powerful thing isolated and rare . Webern is the sound that launched a 1000 well at least a few hundred ships/composers who's work will also be ignored for now . I know this because I used to hangout around Composition Departments at various places .
paxwallacejazz Schönberg intrigues me insofar as his inventiveness is concerned, but his music bores me - no insult to him, he was a great composer, just not for me. Webern's rigidity works sometimes, and his chamber music is quite interesting to listen to for sheer craftsmanship. That said, I prefer composers who think like Bernstein and Schönberg: "don't compose in my method. Learn my method, then compose". Modern composers get so ridiculously wrapped up in atonality and trying to expand the tonal palette that they lose sight of what it actually means to compose: the expression of one's soul through music. Now, do I like modern methods in my own compositions, such as polytonality and rapid key changes? Of course. But I also like to compose music I would want to listen to, not write by equation.
Well since you're a composer look over to the right and see if Winter Adagio is there and check out my only attempt at orchestral writing.
My 2 cents: most of music lovers , musicians, theorists, teachers seem to be obsessed by analyzing everything based on rationality, comparison with the "golden laws " of Harmony (?) and so on...I kinda like Shoenberg, even if, when it comes to "atonality" (anti-tonality, as Shoenberg says in his Theory book) I really prefer composers like Charles Ives, who has, in my view, a better aestetichs/musicality in his compostitions (i.e. Central Park in the dark) . Bernstein is doing his best to explain to the audience a complex subject- complex not only because of the "concept" that is behind the whole thing, but also because dodecaphonic music was never "accepted" by the masses (in large scale). We all love horror movies soundtracks, the best ones use, sometimes, concepts derived from this kind of music - but once again, to quote Debussy, chords, notes don't need explanations but the pleasure of sound
The problem with Bernstein -even though he conducted all the new music with conviction is that he used many old systems of aesthetics to judge the quality and meaning of much art. Formalism doesn't care about what we call grotesque or catastrophic .there is art that has no system but intuition . He seems to forget this .The idea that value hangs on systems and difficulties and rules to be learned is a valueable one but it does not go far enough. Athematicism, spectator theory and countless ways to "see " have come about since even the 70's .fin d out .
Music is not a creation of man. We are constantly discovering new things about it. It has an eternal quality and provokes spiritual thoughts and moods and memories.
Big Lenny - Big Schoenberg...
I love the way Bernstein at first rationalizes his inversion of the Strauss waltz at approx. 7:27 but finally reconsiders with an uninhibited shrug and concedes, "It's just lousy"!
I am reminded of comedienne, Anna Russel, describing "modern music" where she says, "We never know whether the composer has reached great new heights; or if he is just trying to put one over on us." Ha Ha
Language? Bernstein Yoda never met.
It would be a good laugh trying to waltz to that nonsense
I note one thing : noone can play atonal music without a partition (even Bernstein). Doesn't that tell you something about this so called "music" ?
Ask a atonal composer at what time do you hear this part of your composition ? He wont be able to tell you. Ask him to play his composition without a partition, he wont be able to play it.
Noone? What about the opera singers that sing atonal music for 3 hours straight?
That's silly. Bernstein reads charts for Debussy too. I can play the Suite without a chart (limited of course by my ability and technique, I don't have Bernstein's chops). And I'm sure Bernstein could (if he wished) memorize an "atonal" piece. Bernstein (for all his praise) doesn't enjoy Schoenberg in his own right. Bernstein was brought up in tonality, and he admits that "atonality" makes him anxious. Bernstein's problem is that he thinks tonality is "innate". It ain't necessarily so. Music without a tonal base can still be "whistleable". I "recite" parts of Pierrot Lunaire and sing Le Marteau sans Maitre in my head and out loud all the time. It's a different way of listening, not just a different way of composing. Anyone who thinks that those pieces are just strict rules without expressiveness (or "form without content") is just wrong.
I've seen plenty of guitaristd play atonal music from memory so I'm not sure you listen to enough to make that claim
Melpheos1er lel plenty of players play this great music from memory. Seen various videos of Gould playing from memory. And even if that wasn't the case what's the deal? You think players of this music just read it first sight carelessly? There is a lot of work behind to get the musicality out of course just like any other music
Setting up a system for playing notes which no one finds attractive? Who's the funny man.
Making "music" out of strict rules without any interest into making an actual melody is not making music.
All you have to do is apply the so call rules set up by those scam artists et voila, you become a great composer
That's true of any system. Anyone can randomly play on the black keys of a piano and pretend to be a great composer. Does that prove that using the pentatonic scale is "not making music"? No, it doesn't. You're full of shit.
Market forces apply here - producer and consumer. Composers only survive in performance if there is a demand for their art. I found Schoenberg difficult listening for many years. But I grew up and realised that he hadn't destroyed anything that went before and I didn't have to listen if I didn't want to. And now I want to. He's a significant figure in the evolution of modern music and I can still listen to Mozart or Motown when I'm in the mood to.
Unfortunate that his premise about the “democracy” or “equality” of all notes is Incorrect and he veers into bullsh*t at 5 minutes in with some absurd statement about “rules” concerning high and low, and long and short notes, that is the opposite of true. 12 tone music is structured in hierarchies of notes and interval collection by use of register, duration, articulation, relative loudness. The only things he said that were true was that a row forms a underlying structure for the unity of a composition, and that it was much more complicated than he had time to explain. But the nonsense about “equality” of the pitches, or that each of the 12 must be sounded before one may be repeated, is thrown around even by music teachers, and it’s annoying.
20th Century Jazz, Stravinsky & etc succeeded whereas Schoenberg wasted both his time and a bit of ours. Try memorising his music or playing it by ear. Try finding a natural equivalent from the roots of music evolved over hundreds of millions of years, such as birdsong or even whales calls. His unnatural set of rules just made his false direction worse. Any possible sequence of notes does not necessarily make music and his rules were aimed at ensuring that the result would be "anti music". It reminds me of awful 60's "brutalist" Architecture and the way that the creators tried to explain and justify it, (whilst there was only one Architect in the who ever tried living in it and I bet he hated it).
As much as this might infuriate you you aren't able to assemble an accurate big picture here ; because I can see you would like too and this is very commendable . All of post tempered western art music i.e. since J.S.Bach was in fact a composer driven headlong power dive into higher and higher levels of chromatic density expressed in all terms (melodically and modulation and chromatically altered harmonies) This resulted in a state of affairs by the very early 20th century where any further chromatic density could not be accommodated by tonal music theory . So enter Modern music .Schoenberg who loved tonality and was it's most central academic authority is the result of the direct line of evolution of the west . If you love tonality you should bother to (take a look around these lectures for real ). Hey I love the great Igor and am a Jazz Pianist and only play tonal music .Even freest jazz is tonal . And I can more and more really hear the 2nd Viennese thing .
I'm glad Bernstien has explained Shoenberg's ideas and you posted this, but there are so many other routes, scales including quarter notes, slides/ pitch bends. I haven't found any that you can't create music from that no-one wants to listen to. My daughter is only 9 and she is studying Grade 5 Jazz, so apart from all diatonic scales, also all Pentatonic & blues Major/minor , all the Modes, and she is also learning many other scales, Neapolitan, Hungarian, Gypsy, Morrocan and etc. She has also started to improvise on violin or piano over other scales.
I don't aim at big picture except to say that music is something more than what Shoenberg did.
Ligeti makes powerful music using harmonising and clashing overtones together and yet it is music and does have an audience, he created a direction. There are so many possibilities out there to create different sounding music without the need to even think about these dismal dead end results from Schoenberg that almost no-one wants to listen to, (with good reason).
Well hmm I truly truly love the micropolyphony of 2001 fame etc.and most of Ligeti's output and I would be very very surprised to hear that ,that man had much negative to say about the 2nd Viennese school ; all three of those guys . ANYWAY you know if you are looking at just intonation etc. I must say that I'm out the room at that point cause it just truly sounds sour to me . UNLIKE 12 tone music like say even Webern . Give me those 12 that Bach endorsed . But yooo know a man's gotta know his limitations huh? I am at the end of the day a son of the modern Piano in it's accepted form .
Blasphemy!. God represents harmony and order. Discord and disorder are what the Devil wants in opposition to God's aims. If you like Schoenberg's anti-music that's up to you, but get it right, Shoenberg was the Devil !
whole point is it's unnatural, not found in nature or history. It's the first piece of music that reflects the Human rather than the animal. And nature isn't pretty, although it appears it. Here Schoenberg perfectly comprehends this, the beauty in his work is it's alien, cathartic nature. Marx saw alienation and negativity as transformative, capable of re-orienting our horizon away from the deadlocks of nature.
Interesting that Bernstein talks about the "democratizing" effect of serialism: the twelve notes are given their "equal rights." Any note predominating over others is a thing to be worked against. The end result is that, if the notes are all equal, it simply doesn't matter which notes you choose! It can be this note, that note, any note at all. The end result is the overall feeling of RANDOMNESS plaguing modern music to this day. The normal reaction to the excerpts Bernstein plays in this clip, and to music similar to these excerpts, is that it's nonsense and there's a reason for that.
Kevin Daly if you apply this incomplete and deceptive understanding to nonserial music e.g. polytonal or free atonal music you will end up with deeply flawed conclusions. Bartok Copland Ginistera etc. Even within the world of Serial Composition the huge aesthetic difference between Berg and Webern illustrates the process is completely subserviant to the composer.
Are you saying it's MY understanding that's "incomplete and deceptive" or Bernstein's?
Kevin Daly What I am saying is that music ,all music, can be compelling if composed and played well. It is in keeping with the Faustian nature of Western civilization (and not surprising) that this 300 year long composer driven investigation into the aesthetic and affective ramifications of increasing chromatic density would eventually produce a music that might eventually ellude the grasp of the man on the street. But untill the 20th century we really didnt understand the size of the pool we were all swimming in so to speak. It turns out that if you compose music way out there at the far flung chromatic edges of the swimming pool a lot of folks can't get with it. Schoenberg can be seen as a map maker. Look not only is this usefull to a composers on so many practical levels but some more intrepid listeners feel that music out beyond the tonal precipice addresses reality and truth and it's ultimate incomprehensible nature beyond all our cozy constructs. Two last points an informed appreciation of the important musical and artistic advents of the 20th century creates an enhanced transformed understanding of what music is and what it can be in the future as well as renewed love of tonality in a much expanded sense. You can't know a thing if you don't understand it's antithesis. The second point is one for musicians like myself. The music between the edges of common tonal practice and atonality is a wonderful infinitely fascinating no-mans land full of really great hip jazzy possibilities that keeps being a very fertile productive garden.