Arnold Schoenberg - String Quartet No. 4
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มิ.ย. 2024
- - Composer: Arnold Schönberg {Schoenberg after 1934} (13 September 1874 -- 13 July 1951)
- Performers: LaSalle Quartet
- Year of recording: 1969
String Quartet No. 4, Op. 37, written in 1936.
00:00 - I. Allegro molto, Energico
09:16 - II. Comodo
16:31 - III. Largo
24:09 - IV. Allegro
Schoenberg composed his Fourth String Quartet, Op. 37, on a commission from Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge, an American patron of the arts who had created a foundation in her name at the Library of Congress. The première of the Fourth Quartet was given in 1937 in Los Angeles by the Kolisch Quartet, founded, as the Wiener Streichquartett, by first violinist Rudolf Kolisch (1896-1978) in 1922. By 1927, the name of the ensemble was changed to the Kolisch Quartet. Both the Kolisch Quartet and Ms. Coolidge received the dedication of the Fourth String Quartet.
Composed in April-July 1936, the Fourth Quartet was one the first pieces Schoenberg began after immigrating to the United States and settling in Brentwood, CA. It is also one of his first twelve-note compositions since his work on the opera Moses und Aron, after which he began to re-explore the tonal idiom. In a letter to Elizabeth Coolidge, Schoenberg describes the Fourth Quartet as "more pleasant" than the Third Quartet, Op. 30, of 1927.
The four movements of the quartet are based on a single, twelve-note row, although the style is somewhat more free than that of the Third Quartet and certainly of Schoenberg's earliest twelve-note works.
- The first movement, marked Allegro molto, energico, is in an abstract sonata form. The main theme is one of Schoenberg's most nearly periodic in years. Numerous repeated tones reveal the composer's free approach to the use of row forms, while the varied repetitions of the theme somewhat obscure the overall organization of the movement. Occasionally the only recognizable aspect of the theme is a group of four repeated eighth notes. Transitions are generally built around a hesitant, chromatically sighing theme that first appears in the first violin. Schoenberg's developmental skill comes to the fore as a motive from the main theme appears in the cello as an accompaniment to a prominent viola passage.
- Marked Comodo (leisurely), the second movement is an intermezzo in A-B-A form. Although the central section presents new material, the combination of this material with preceding elements gives it a developmental function. The arpeggio-based main theme finds itself combined with numerous connecting motives, creating a dense contrapuntal texture before the recapitulation, which itself includes some of the combinations of the developmental section.
- The recitative-like main theme of the Largo third movement first sounds in unison. Individual instruments begin to break away with their own lines, and a gradual decrescendo leads to a genuine secondary theme. In contrast to the first theme, the secondary theme is regular, periodic, and has an arch shape comprising six measures. The movement is in a binary form (ABAB) and the final return of the opening unison is in inversion.
- Variation technique is prominent in the rondo finale, marked Allegro. Transformations of the main theme are so great that it is occasionally difficult to recognize its return. In the first such instance, the theme is inverted and Schoenberg sets it to a different row form. Near the end of the movement, the main theme appears in variations much closer to the original in a pseudo-recapitulatory fashion. - เพลง
I first listened to this quartet a couple years ago. I've returned a few times between then and now, it always being highly difficult to listen to. Now, somehow, unimaginably, it sounds completely musical. Fantastic piece.
@Lee S I hate to break it to you, but all of music is just noises when you really get down to it. Heck even language itself in its audible form is just noises, it's our brains that perceive patterns and interpret things accordingly based on accumulated knowledge. So when you listen to a traditional piece of music, your brain has already accumulated a great deal of knowledge about what kind of patterns to expect when listening to music based on past listening experiences. It's only when a genuinely original piece of music comes along, one that doesn't aim to imitate anything that's come before it, that your brain fails to use its past experiences to perceive any patterns in it and to digest it, that's when you go back to square one, to the realization of a fact that your brain so often ignores by default due to the way it's been primed, which is that music is just a bunch of noises. I hope that if you give yourself the chance to listen to it time and time again, you'll be able to use it as a reference point to its own self and will be able to appreciate something about it.
@@linkinpark4everize you're a bigger buzzkill than buzz-Killington.
@@linkinpark4everize So Are saying that all the noises are inerentely music, and there is no way to discern quality between then?
@@gustavomatos6522 No, where'd you even get that from? Going back to my spoken speech analogy, you can make random noises with your mouth without any rhyme or reason, or you can actually speak an existent language; in both cases it's still just noises, but one has specific established patterns to it while the other is just completely random gibberish: if you try listening to a language you don't speak, I can guarantee all you're gonna hear is just random noises, even though they aren't actually random and ,they sound like they are because you're not used to them, and the proof is that the people speaking it can perfectly decipher it because they've been sufficiently exposed to it. That's the case with original music, it could actually be random noises or it could be something more with patterns you'll only get to notice and understand after having been exposed to it enough. Explore the guy's music more and try to be patient with it and perhaps it'll start making sense to you at some point, perhaps not , after all I doubt that listening to cats meowing at each other will help you understand much about cats' language, because you're not a cat; likewise if your taste in music doesn't match the composer's , then his music is bound to remain mostly just gibberish to you, so what you refer to as quality is purely subjective , and yes you can observe random noises in the world around you and interpret them musically , it's not impossible, music is purely abstract and heavily subjective , much like language if you can't make sense of it, you can't make sense of it simple.
@@gustavomatos6522 Also I have to admire how you fallaciously turned my statement upside down. I said all music is just noises and you rephrased as all noises are music: two different statements from a purely mathematical/logical perspective.
I feel insulted just by how large the time signature is.
And it's impossible to feel the meter.
I have noticed any online Schönberg work prints the time signature a little to exorbitantly.
That's kinda the "Bauhaus" style of the 1920s and 30s. With new music comes new notation design.
The meter is very clear....perhaps too much so. Almost like Hindemith.
@@mateushayasaka Really? I think it's the exact opposite that the downbeats are very clear. On the other hand Berg's meters are very hard to follow
Mature-sounding Schoenberg work. Very beautiful, sounds fairly complex for an a-tonal composition.I love it! It stretches the "a-tonal psyche" of the aural mind.... Schoenberg displays his genius in this work...
utterly bullshit
And again, this is the reason why, Teachers always says than is even easier to compose for a large orchestra than for a string quartet. Lovely Music!
This music is highly accessible and for me, as a modern jazz musician, somewhat cool and not foreign at all.
paul amrod you are fallen
Lucky jerk, I wish I could understand this.
Schoenberg was doing modern stuff but in his mind it was an extension of the classical styles development. Although harmony has mostly gone, to be replaced by his “composition with all 12 notes”, this like melody and especially development of themes and motifs still exist for him (as do classical forms, which are heavily based around development etc)
I agree about it being accesible. It really is still the romantic aesthetic, the inaccesiblity of Schoenberg should last very short if the listener gives it time to get used to atonality and some complexity aspects. Then it should be pretty enjoyable.
@@davidfu4742 Repeated listening helps. One or two listens probably won't be enough. You don't need to "understand" anything. You just have to give your brain ample time to really hear the music. I hear a musical conversation which is true of most string quartets.
The surprise is how much LIKE music from the past Schoenberg is; the differences are obvious. One generally listens to his music in the same WAY he listens to older music. But his music requires much effort at first to appreciate. Many listeners give up before they can even make the assessment whether they like it, and then carry that initial impression with them for years. I put in many, many hours of listening when I was about 20 and Schoenberg's music and ideas influenced me greatly ever since, so I'm glad I suspended by initial reactions and put in the work.
I am the same.
Listening to Bartók has been a great gateway to serialism; I've listened to the Bartók solo violin sonata several times, as well as many of his other works, which makes the listening of other early 20th-century composers a lot easier
@@ogorangeduck Bartok's string quartets are also good.
They are the successor to Beethoven's late string quartets.
Anyone else loves the harmony in this piece?
When the drop comes but it's the whole piece.
Schoenberg once wrote to a pupil, "You have dug out the series of my piece correctly. Do think that this helps you in any way?" Quite. Serialism is a compositional device in Schoenberg. Unlike with Anton von Webern and, to a lesser extent, Berg, it is not necessary to understand the system in order to appreciate Schoenberg's music any more than it is necessary to understand Schenkerian analysis in order to appreciate Brahms.
I would even argue that it’s not necessary to understand it to appreciate Webern, and most of that mindset comes from deliberate post-war misinterpretations of his music (which served an important aesthetic purpose at the time, but which Webern would have been horrified at). Webern’s processes are either out in the open and immediately perceivable (like the palindromes and pitch mirror reflections in the piano variations, or the orchestral piece which ends as soon as all twelve chromatic notes are stated) or they’re deep processes hidden in layers of compositional work and not meant to be understood by anyone. Webern himself frequently used an image created by Goethe to illustrate how he perceived the twelve tone technique: you have a plant, with all different parts (stem, roots, bark, leaves, flowers, seeds, etc). They are all different from one another, and in many cases it’s impossible to find similarities on the surface, but you still perceive them as being part of the same larger whole because they’re all created of the same essence (what during and after webern’s time was discovered to be DNA) and thus have a unity far greater than does a group of leaves of all different plants. I.e., even though you can’t perceive *why* something has that kind of ultimate unity, you can still perceive the fact that it does have it, and you can still appreciate it on a purely aesthetic level (for instance, he compared the second movement of the piano variations to the famous Bach b minor badinerie)
sounds like schoenberg was a jerk. we know brahms was uncouth.
it helps the student to know that the master has the social skills of an anvil.
Disagree, they can all be listened to without studying or knowing much about technique. It depends a lot on the specific work you are talking about though, and of course the period, expressionist Schoenberg is usually a lot more difficult to listen for me than later Schoenberg. Both Schoenberg and Berg (Webern not so much) have had very different works, at least superficially. If you think Berg and Webern are harder to listen to you probably have to search for the right pieces. Also, for me, analyzing is not a much, but appreciating a piece of music is usually a lot better after you analyze it, because you already know it, specially stuff that is complex formally and harmonically like Schoenberg gets 100x better for me after knowing how the whole thing works and is organized and having the piece somewhat in your head.
Philip Vietri
Good old Schenkerian analysis. Reducing whole movements to 'Three Blind Mice' (well, that's reducing Schenker considerably, I'll admit). But I think you are absolutely right about Schoenberg's music. The method probably helped him to generate pitch material with even greater facility than he had done before. It also systematizes a geometric conception of harmony which had been developing for some time, as the hierarchical functional relations of common practice were being challenged and slowly replaced.
At any rate, a bean counter Schoenberg was not. And as the quote in the video shows, he was concerned to show himself as a guardian of classical tradition. (Comparison of himself with Mozart also reveals a substantial ego.)
It was Stravinsky in his 'pandiatonic' neo-classical mode that Schoenberg mocked as 'Modernsky'. Evidently he felt that his own modernism proceeded naturally from the past, whereas there was something artificial about Stravinsky's stylistic pastiche.
In somewhat similar fashion, many of us contemporary Christians believe that our faith proceeds naturally from the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whether we are Jewish or not-------------------this despite the huge difference in external observances.
absolutely exceptional how precisely these four guys realize the complicated score and all of Schoenberg's descriptions! many thx for sharing!
one of my favourite schoenberg works - i find it quite obvious and very accessible
Ending the decade with a re-visit to a seminal work of Good 'Ol 12-Tonality! For some reason (perhaps acoustic, i.e timbres), music that remains in constant tension because it highlights dissonant pitch combinations, works well (for me) when the instrumentation is chamber strings (e.g. quartet), for piano, or for percussion. This is especially the case in fast, ENERGETIC sections: the constant cycling of row forms and dissonance is not overwhelmingly tiring (same reason I enjoy Bartok's quartets). Long live dissonance ... and consonance! Of course, it helps if the composer is A. Schoenberg, one of the great musical minds in history.
This music tells a story much better than anything I've ever listened to. I love it. It's something with which you can close your eyes and enter a whole new world
my guess is that this is a kind of mirror image of Mozart String Quartet 18. when listened to simultaneously, there is an uncanny "fit" between the two pieces
What really?!?!
@@kofiLjunggren open two youtubes on your screen. play both at the same time. see what you think!
The later pieces in some cases are very traditional sounding. When I was a young man there was this food product a TV dinner and the product was brought to us by Libby the kid. The tagline went that's Billy the kid spelled sideways sort of. This is Mozart composed sideways sort of. Not to mention that Schoenberg acknowledges a heavy debt to Mozart. In his earlier works I hear much of Brahms. Though sch does not acknowledge that debt. Either because it's not there or more likely he doesn't want to acknowledge the debt because to do so would have indicated just how far Brahms had pushed things. This is my least favorite of the quartets. But I'm giving it listen after listen to rectify the situation.
wunderbar - emotional und intelligent . Leidenschaft und Struktur - Wissenschaft und Zärtlichkeit . Ich liebe es .
So beautiful.
From listening to this, I wouldn't be surprised if Schoenberg was a huge influence on Bernard Herrmann.
Wonderful.
I felt so relaxed ... after the concert has finished.
Good. Now you can go bach with your boring life.
Questo quartetto è semplicemente meraviglioso.
Start 00:10
Theme 2-1 0:54
Theme 2-2 1:22
Coda 2:15
Development 3:14
Recapitulation 5:11
Arnold Schoenberg's stream of conscience composing ,evokes a wonderful feeling of freedom to me.
@dougunnis1911
If you think Schoenberg would use stream of consciousness to derive his music, then you clearly have no idea about the man.
00:10 - I. Allegro molto, Energico
00:54 Theme 2-1
01:22 Theme 2-2
02:15 Coda
03:14 Development
05:11 Recapitulation
09:16 - II. Comodo
16:31 - III. Largo
24:09 - IV. Allegro
How do you actually differentiate between themes in the same theme grous when there is no tonality?
And thanks for this!
Very uplifting music.
That Largo is beautiful.
Благодарю вам
Of the four official string quartets, this one has taken the longest to catch on. I'm able to listen all the way through many many times. But just now able to follow the chain of thought from movement to movement and the work as a whole. I listen to upwards of 20 works by him. Why this one has taken the longest to follow I really dont know. I do know that his cycle of quartets is the most important of the early 20th century. Followed by Bartok a little later. Then Webern who doesn't have what we call a cycle, just the one. Then EC and Babbitt which gets us to the 70's and finally Ferneyhough. The latter is extrem6difficult to crack but I'm getting there! Then who?
The Henze quartets are criminally underrated, I guess
16:31 This is fantastic!!!
Masterpiece.
Most modern quartet players perform from the full score, because it's easier to keep the ensemble together. When you consider that, the extremely large and bold time-signatures and expressive directions make more sense. You still need to be able to see them even if you're trying to read the viola part in the middle of the score and the music is going a million miles an hour.
If one stops trying to decipher melodic phrases and tries to focus on its rhythmic vibes this pretty immediately becomes an amazing experience. As vibrant as a Raga.
Ironically, this one is more melodic than the previous experimental phase of Schoenberg.
@@segmentsAndCurves The 12-tone works after coming to the United States are genuine.
@@machida5114 Oh, about that, do you have some Schoenberg to listen? I'm getting into him more and find him very hard to enjoy, so where should I started?
(I'm fine with his tonal works, tho)
@@segmentsAndCurves String Quartet No. 2 is recommended.
@@machida5114 Love it already.
I’m studying 12-tone rows in theory 4 right now and i had to come to hear the piece from which i was doing inversions from.
Funny isn't it? I love Haydn, Schumann, Rachmaninov, Glazunov, Elgar... And yet I can't understand what some people's problem is with music such as this quartet. Schoenberg' music has always struck me as one of a number of logical and valid continuations of music from Germany and its surroundings. From Wagner, Brahms etc. There's Reger, Schoenberg, Mahler, Franz Schmitt, Hindemith, Weill... What on earth is people's problem with Schoenberg in particular? I don't get it.
edit: I must admit that I think Webern's 3 Little Pieces for cello & piano, Op 11 is a bit silly and that Hans Werner Henze's music is largely a load of old bollocks.
Please note I'm talking about the Germanic music tradition and not about dodecaphonic music in particular.
I think a large part of it is modern anti-semitism.
@@1333x_x You may well be right.
@Dave Smith I was probably exaggerating about Henze. It's true that I haven't heard all that much if his output. But I think music for accompanying films is a bit different.
On the one hand there are things by Brits like Ron Goodwin & Ron Grainer that I would never listen to (not leaden & boring enough for me) but which work a treat as film music.
On the other hand there is film music by the likes of Roberto Gerhard & Elisabeth Lutyens that some woud find "horribly dissonant and serialist" which in the context of the films they accomoany are just about perfect imo. As a couple of random examples, Gerhard's music for "This Sporting Life" and loads of stuff for Hammer Horror Films by Lutyens. Few would dispute their effectiveness.
You certainty make a very good point. And one I fully agree with.
@@1333x_x Das Judenthum in der Musik
has more truth in it that you will ever admit.
I think people have a problem with a) music that is not pleasant, and b) music that makes them feel stupid. This music definitely makes me feel stupid, but I still try to listen to it. This is very very different music from stuff most people listen to, so of course a lot of them will just write it off.
This is LIIIIIIIT 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🙌🏻😻
me parece una obra muy bonita, extraña, de una belleza rara, pero muy hermosa
This one is actually quite tame for Schoenberg...I was surprised!
Could you point me towards his rather "non-tame" works? Thanks in advance.
Assuming that you are not asking sarcastically, I would say listen String Quartet no. 3 and also Fantasy for Violin and Piano, op. 47. I also rather enjoy his String Trio, op. 45, and that one can be rather intense!
Thank you for the quick answer. I wasn't being sarcastic.
@@vilmoskaskoto4411 I second the Trio. That one is so intense (violin and viola squeaking away constantly) that I can hardly listen to it, and I say this as a fan. I also find the Variations for Orchestra very difficult. It has a much nicer, warmer sound than the trio, but after a while there are so many layers going on with such complex counterpoint that my ears don't know what to do with it sometimes.
@@vilmoskaskoto4411 Pierrot lunaire?
There are already several comments about the huge time signatures, but i wonder if there's any particular story behind them, and if he ever used them again....
I usually see them on hand written scores. They’re a lot easier for a conductor to see amidst the flurry of notes so the know how to conduct. Like Maslanka’s music.
When in doubt...just put in those massive time signatures
For those that understand, no explanation need be given. For those that do not understand, no explanation will be of value. Yes.
Man this such an annoyingly pretentious comment.
Chuffer Giggle.
@@chuffer595 He even took a moment to chuckle. I am a former pianist who enjoys many "modernists" - Scriabin, Shostakovich, Martinu, Hindemith, Schnittke - and Schoenberg sounds like disorganized atonal shit to me. I guess I'm one of those that doesn't understand . . . Wish somebody could explain it to me.
@@erika6651 non them but Schnittke was particularly modernist. And even if Schnittke is some kind of "modernist" (I'd rather say postmodernist) he was a tonal composer for a big part of his work so, I'd say you just dislike atonal music, and to a certain all of the 20th century's avant-garde, but you just aren't conscious about it
@@ha3vy That's quite the assumption to make! Webern and Berg I enjoy. Hell, I even like Ol' Arnie's 3 piano pieces and Verklarte Nacht. It's just everything else he wrote . . . 😱 🤮 👽
nice
Somehow I think of Gilbert Gotfied imitating Marlon Brando from Apocalypse Now saying "Da Howa, da Howa!" LMFAO. Aside from that, there's a certain type of angularity about this music I find intriguing!
40 years ahead of his time. Brave and beyond innovative.
This quartett wasn't ahead of its time at all in 1936. In 1916 it would've but in 1936 it was just *in* its time
@@arielorthmann4061 All of Schoenberg's music and the 2nd Viennese School was ahead of it's time. To argue otherwise is just being petty. Pierrot Lunaire and 5 pieces for Orchestra were way ahead and in that time frame you suggested 🥱
@@agramsci7976 I'm talking about the string quartet here. At the time it was written, Ives had written Central Park in the Dark 30 years prior. Stravinsky had written Le Sacre du Printemps and the Three pieces for string quartet 20 years prior. Webern had written the Three pieces for cello and piano 20 years prior. Ornstein had written his Sonata for violin and piano and Wild Man's Dance 20 years prior. Varèse had written Amériques 15 years prior and Ionisation 5 years prior. Antheil had written the Ballet Mécanique 15 years prior. Cowell had written the Banshee 10 years prior. At their time these were avant-garde pieces. In 1936, this type of music was *in* its time. Unless you want to argue that half of the music of the first half of the XXth century was ahead of its time ? What was *in* its time then, the few neo-classical composers ?
Schönberg himself hated being called modern. He viewed himself as the continuum of the first viennese school, followed by composers such has Wagner and Mahler. And his school of thought was later continued by post war serial composers and the Darmstadt school such as Boulez, Stockhausen, Leibowitz, Babbitt... In 1976 (40 years after it was written), Schönberg's string quartet would've seemed very soft compared to works by Xenakis, Penderecki, Ustvolskaya, Ferneyhough or Crumb from that time. So no, a music that follows a tradition and is followed by another, while being written 20 years after even more modern music, is anything but ahead of its time.
@@arielorthmann4061 You didn't need to write a wall of text to give me a history lesson on 20th century music. (Most of which I already knew). Sure, saying the quartet was 40 years ahead of it's time is hyperbole but dude take a chill pill. I'm a fan of Charles Ives but a lot of his music may have been revised later on to seem more modern than it was. Schoenberg wanted to consider himself part of the continuing tradition of western classical music, but saying the quartet was tame compared to Penderecki and the like who were obviously influenced by serialism? Intellectual fellatio I guess. Carry on.
Wonderful quartet, quite accessible, because Schönberg in his later works attained a kind of clarity in writing (also rythmically) - which I hesitatingly call neoclassical - that was not present in early works like the Klavierstücke op. 11 for instance (or in comparison with pieces of Alban Berg, such as the 3 pieces for orchestra). Anyway, beautiful performance as well, only Arditti could do better possibly. Thank you for sharing.
Yes, I agree with the neoclassical label here, same with his Wind Quintet, Suite op. 29 or even the Variations for orchestra. He made his dodecaphonic works to sound clear and very articulate. I personally find some earlier pieces more difficult to appreciate, like Erwartung and the Hand of Fate, or even Pierrot Lunaire and the 3 pieces, like you say. But this neoclassical tone is what pushing me back to really LOVE this work. It's too scholastic and somewhat "aristocratic" for my tastes
@@bernabefernandeztouceda7315it is especially the rhythm that gives this effect I think, a big contrast with the 'fluid' rhythms (which are basically a kind of Richard Straussian arabesques) of the earlier works. But I think that Schönberg was also influenced by other musical tendencies of that period, although he denied it.
@@christophedevos3760 yeah, you nailed it, this is way more staccato, and I see why people might like it more than the straussian legato blur, but at the same time I'm gravitating more to the romantic flavor of his earlier works than the "neoclassical" tone here, that sounds so "slick" and kind of "aristocratic" to me. It's a matter of taste and I'm more into the legato thing, that's why I've been lately fascinated by the orchestral works of Hans Henze, a great composer who's in danger to fall into oblivion imo
@@bernabefernandeztouceda7315 yes Henze... I must admit that I Iike the earlier works, like Ondine better than his turn to his more experimental works (and I don't know much of the later works so I can't judge about these), but yes, these pieces should stay in the repertoire. Regarding the Schoenberg-rhythms, it is remarkable that the avant-garde of the 1950-'60's, copied more the earlier arabesque- (at extremes) than the' aristocratic' (maybe we should name it 'hieratic'?) -style.
Also, I forgot I had Myst 5 playing in the background - and it actually blends quite nicely with this!!
Nice sing-along karaoke version.
Except it's not a song.
cette musique est simplementfascinante , aussi sombre qu'un roman de kafka , une toile de kirchner schiele , ou soutine , un film de murnau ,, l'atmosphère de prime abord semble noire , sans issue , un drame existentiel voulue par le compositeur qui rompait avec le classicisme viennois qu'on lui enseigna dans les écoles autrichiennes ,, la structure fondamentale ne pouvait plus supporter une façon de créer qui atteignit son paroxysme quelques années plutôt avec les brahms , bruckner , hugo , wolf ,, et l'impressionnisme français ,, la musique arrivait à un point de rupture inexorable que venait de découvrir la physique quantique, jamais rien ne serait comme avant ,, et c'était mieux ainsi , autrement captivant parce qu'inexorable ,, l'abstraction tonale prendrait la relève ,, le cycle des créations se poursuivait , et il en serait ainsi jusque ????
Based on a Theme by John Dowland
Thank you to this channel for matching audio and score. A very valuable and much-appreciated piece of work.
I've tried this piece so many times over the years but never quite manage to get all the way through before the constant major 7ths hurt just too many times and I have to stop. As we approach the centenary of its composition and the failure of non-specialist classical audiences (I mean not those dedicated to new music) to appreciate Schoenberg's genius [sarcasm] I wonder at what point there will be acceptance by the classical music establishment that it was an interesting technical experiment but ultimately a musical failure.
Music for platform 9 & 3/4 - makes you wonder what Mozart would have thought if he heard it. I think I can imagine...
+scottbos68 I think he would have admired Schoenberg's craftsmanship, but I don't think he would've liked it.
+olla-vogala He would've loved it.
or involved (where are we now?) (a clue: minimalism, pop and reggaeton)
sorry underdeveloped*
Mozart would have freaked out, and not slept until he had figured out its secrets
Шёнберг интересно и совершенно профессионально , филигранно пишет для струнного квартета. Он штудировал великие образцы Бетховена и т.д. Его квартеты можно ставить в разряд квартетов Шостаковича и Бартока в двадцатом веке.
Su quali argomenti si appoggia la critica musicale per valutare pezzi come questo?
L'ingegno di Schoenberg.
@@scriabinismydog2439 Ciao! Grazie per la risposta! Certamente hai ragione tu. Lui è stato un grande rivoluzionario. Spero che un giorno anch' io riesca a comprendere ed apprezzare i suoi brani con la giusta convinzione.
I always thought of Beethoven Gross Fugue.
we making it out of the hood with this one 🔥🔥🤑
"the style is somewhat more free than that of the Third Quartet and certainly of Schoenberg's earliest twelve-note works" I doubt this, if it refers to serial ordering. The first twelve-tone opus, Suite op. 25, is largely very "free" in this respect.
You could have plenty of freedom when you can juxtapose any form of the series (in any transposition) linearly while exchanging the material through instruments, and more if you organize your series by hexachords (half of the series would have certain quality, like scales; the other half another). And that's still serialism. Hell, I can have it sound triadic all the way by juxtaposing so I would bring those intervalic relationships, they mostly didn't because of aesthetic reasons. Remember, this is still a work from a composer of the early 20th century Germany (expressionistic), reacting against post-romanticism.
Berg's Violin Concerto is a not very far example of what you can do with the sound of your work (triadic, quartal, dissonant, you name it).
But there's a logic to it: if you are exploring a new form of music making (at that time), why would you make it sound like traditional music? With all the trouble, just make tonal music. From Wagner to early Schoenberg we have examples of how far can you go with tonal music.
As I understand it, 'free' in this context means in structure. Listen to the wind quintet (not one I like very much, but it illustrates my point). Every movement is in a standard form - sonata from, variations, scherzo, rondo (IIRC). The first movement even has the exposition repeated and the second theme transposed down a fifth (an odd decision, as the piece stays in the same number of keys (whether you call it atonal or pantonal, as Schoenberg called it)). This, I assume, is what is meant by this piece being 'freer' than his earlier music.
Schoenberg never “reacted against post-romanticism.” He extended it. It’s impossibel to draw a line between his own post-romantic works (verklärte Nacht, first chamber symphony, second string quartet, etc) and his freely atonal “expressionist” works (Pierrot, herzgewächse, five orchestral pieces, six small piano pieces, etc), because a line between the two doesn’t exist. And after WWI with the introduction of the twelve-tone technique, we even see a return to brahmsian “classical” forms: the Waltz, the Sonata, the suite, etc. Even in this comparatively later work, we find a Sonata-form first movement with strong hints at d minor, a poignant unison recitative opening to the slow, lyrical third movement, and a faster march-like finale.
I really don’t quite know what was meant by “somewhat more free than the third quartet,” considering in the third quartet he was already breaking down the “rules” of the twelve-tone technique. Maybe they’re referring to more traditional “stylistic” features like texture and rhythm, which are more stable in the third quartet, while the fourth quartet shifts more quickly and mediates between contrasts much more smoothly? It’s a pretty subtle difference though and definitely up to debate. Personally I see the difference as being one of experience: in the third quartet, he’s using a new method, and ends up writing a work that’s solid (there’s nothing “wrong” with it, even aesthetically) but uninteresting, because he is forced to focus more on making sure there’s nothing wrong with it, and he doesn’t have the confidence to trust his ideas (i.e. he restricts himself to using ideas he knows will work instead of allowing himself to use ideas with more diversity of character, because he doesn’t have the instincts yet to integrate them into a unified whole). By the fourth quartet, though, he has enough experience that using the method is effortless, and it allows him to write something with far more interest and draw because he can trust that it will come out well. Writing a quartet with the twelve-tone method that has unity and structural coherence has become second nature.
@Steven MooreBach can sound mathematical and not cold; his works sound like well polished architecture, proper and elevated but also human, so it depends on what is the intention.
It can sound "cold and mathematical" to you if you have an expectation and a demand that the emotional expression comes from harmonic diatonic practices. Modern jazz can be expressive and lots of uses colder sounds as lots of the structures are created with quartal constructions. That last one in the case of a fast work, about movement, it slower works they might use more
It depends also in what you are listening and what have you listened to an extend, so it is fair if you are used to listen to two-triad traditional compositions (four example), like joropo, than the uses of chord extensions (9ths of chords) sound out of place to you; in jazz playing they sound great.
I'm not listening to Schoenberg much these days, and when I do I listen to the 1st String Quartet, the way it portrays pain and plowing through... and some people find it "too" dissonant, whatever that means to themselves.
１２音技法って形式的に聴こえますね。
I like this better than classical.
A lot of classical is so in your face , it can be a bit irritating.
Yeah, past me is stupid.
I understand your feelings. I recommend contemporary music.
I think that this music would be more fun to play than to listen to.
no, orchestra players hate when they have to play 20th-21st century music
@@Whatismusic123 no lmfao
@@GUILLOM why do I hear that from all those I know then?
@@Whatismusic123 If you're a self taught pianist I doubt you know many musicians bruh
@@GUILLOM I am no longer a self tought pianists and know many musicians through my family.
Jazz ruined my taste of harmony hahaha... I didn't expect to be this good!
JAZZ!
Universal genius. Had to be to cause a riot at the premiere of one his works. They say Lou Reed is the g-dfather of punk rock. Nah.
Why do I feel comfortable practicing anime fighting games with this music? Maybe there is a correlation with numpad notation that Guilty Gear and DBFZ uses with the 12 tone row?
I listen to Schoenberg if I actively want to avoid falling into a rhythm. Maybe you're being kept on edge by the piece and using that lack of comfort to your advantage?
Altogether now , " soooomebody once told me ...."
This shit is on fire
Measure 819, time 27:53 . What exactly do you hear ?! Something electric ?! :O
Purple Haze?
It is a 12-tone work after coming to the United States. LaSalle's performance is a little slower than the Juilliard.
the, years,
STARTKEAAMMMIIIIIIIN
Ben Irwin andtheydontstopcominnnn!!!!
0:10 5:11
Went and listened to 4 Seasons by Vivaldi after this.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :)
4 Seasons
wow
borin
Why do so little composers say things like "I owe very much to Bach (J.S.). If you listen to my string quartets you'll see why". Are contrapunctus, polyphony and fugues out of fashion?
Because composers like Schoenberg and the lesser-known losers of the 20th and 21st centuries couldn't hope to compose anything even approaching 2 lines of Bachian polyphony.
@@MaestroTJS well no, shoenberg basically wrote dozens of books on counterpoint and how to write bach chorales. Shoenbergs early music was very listenable. His later works just add more to current academics than bachs work does.
@@achillessergios798 There is a big difference between being able to write something academically and being able to write something that is a work of art. I've seen plenty of "composers" say they can "write like Mozart," i.e., a simple melody that's supposed to sound like Mozart, but they CAN'T. It almost always sounds like complete garbage. So yes, I'm sure Arnold was well-skilled at "counterpoint," in a certain respect, but his tonal works are actually pretty awful pieces of music. In a typical Germanic, Straussian way, they impress because they're monumental and gigantic, but when you actually stop to think about it, the melodies are either derivative (Gurrelieder) or second-rate. I'll make an exception for the first 20 seconds of Verklarte Nacht, which is beautiful. Then the rest of it...isn't. For all his theories, I can't figure out why he didn't seem to learn that what made earlier music so interesting was the tension and RELEASE. His music ended up being all tension, all the time, but it was still largely in evidence even in the tonal works, where the chromaticism is so extreme that he often was just modulating constantly. Or maybe he did know and simply didn't care, which is the more likely scenario. I would never accuse him of not being a smart guy.
Max Reger hat genau das gesagt .. "Bach is the beginning and end of all music.” --> www.bachmuseumleipzig.de/en/shop/%C2%BBi-owe-simply-everything-j-s-bach%C2%AB-%E2%80%93-bach-and-reger
Doku über Reger: th-cam.com/video/XlK2BoOK6Co/w-d-xo.html
Beispiel --> th-cam.com/video/xnr7ZYDRE9c/w-d-xo.html
Partitur (der 4te Satz ist eine Doppel-Fuge) --> ks.imslp.net/files/imglnks/usimg/3/36/IMSLP366962-PMLP15020-Reger_op.106_Der_100.Psalm_fs_RGA_vol29.pdf
@@MaestroTJS Well, Berg succeeded where Schoenberg didn't, i.e. at creating compelling drama with his music. However, it should be noted that melody really isn't everything: German composers are known to have composed masterpieces without having to depend on long melodic strands (e.g. first movement of Beethoven's 9th). As for Mozart, he sure was a skilled melodist but most of his work is derivative, well, of his own work. To be fair, though, he didn't live long enough to have evolved significantly, but he could easily have turned into another Mendelssohn (i.e. young talent turned mediocre) had he grown older. Beethoven, on the other hand, was infamous for writing crappy melodies (god, his Fidelio is unlistenable) but also one of the most _relatively_ innovative composers that ever lived - all thanks to his conception of form, which radically changed how we all compose to this very day. Beethoven showed that drama doesn't come from melody but from structure, and Berg's work is a unique example of Beethoven's vision outside the confines of hierarchical harmony.
I think some works would be better described as antitonal versus atonal. This being one such work. The 2nd string quartet has moments that while defying tonality, there are melodies, harmonies and chromatic modulations that coalesce into something classical. This work does not do that. The clashes of dissonance here do not relieve tension or if they do my conscious mind does not pick up on it.
You're wrong dude. Keep listening and you will find the same satifying build up of tension that is relieved via the same mechanisma used in classical music.
0:34 Super Mario Bros atonal version
This reminds me of an old cartoon soundtrack.
Time signatures are less important than the flow of each beat to another.
paul amrod
Definitely! That is what a music teacher tries hard to convey to students. But they must first learn the time signatures properly, and their significance. In the same way one must teach rules to children, otherwise how will they arrive at concepts like morality, justice, mercy, and love? Rules are a stepping-stone to understanding, yet tyrants may use them to exclude understanding.
There are people like that in religion (like the Pharisees who opposed the Lord Jesus). Though the consequences are less disastrous, there are also people like that in art.
@@jesusislordsavior6343
Tears of Jesus by Paul Amrod
As He sits before a lake meditating on mankind
Our Lord is pained while His heart begins to ache.
Thoughtless impulsivity shouting and maligned
warrants reconciliation as no soul He will forsake.
Tears then are shed from his impassioned eyes
accompanied by the Holy Spirit softly intertwined.
Call His Name to share His heartfelt misery
hallowing his Words of celestial mystery.
As He so profoundly uttered and deeply implores
"Lord, forgive them they know not what they do! "
In unconsciousness is evil possible to misconstrue?
He does sadly reflect upon his mission with remorse
urging all to embrace egolessness with humanistic joy.
Arising from emotions is a declaration of community
as a collective of warmth we sing with a seraphic chorus.
Our brotherhood will blossom as tolerance we employ
encompassing the essence of our fervor for ultimate unity,
a reciprocity with honest exchange bringing a moment divine.
Exhibiting our cordiality is what our counselor adores.
Exuding buoyancy brings benignity so supreme and sublime.
Whoever finds the meaning of these words will not taste death.
The one who seeks should not cease seeking until he finds.
Tears are subtly expressing with each sighing of a breath.
His inner desire for our livelihood is His wish as He outpours
His enlightenment and showers us with loving importunity.
Christ has taught to gleefully enfold righteous common dignity
blessing our compatriots with acceptance as it surely restores
faith in each other accentuating the importance of magnanimity.
He proclaims the kingdom is inside of you opening golden doors
"When you come to keenly know yourselves a light of radiancy shines
and you will then realize you are a descendant of the living God."
A humble elder will inquire from a youngster for some gentle wisdom.
Abandoning oneself to encounter him is to separate from egoism.
Transparency is the key to experiencing the miracles of Aaron's rod
with revelations unveiling undeniable truths our savoir underscores.
"I have cast flames upon the world and am guarding it until it blazes! "
said our Emmanuel to awaken the glow exuding from His rightful prism.
No matter where you originate you shall proceed to James the Just,
for whose sake Heaven and Earth came into being in sacred trust.
Each being conceived through birth has an origin so sanctified and praises
his life with jubilation. Therefore when all is forlorn our Messiah whines
in heartbreak when we go astray. His ultimate concern amazes
with dedication to our well-being as he anoints us with pacifism.
Supporting our brothers at hand will benefit us with beatified virtues
He pleads again, "Lord, forgive them they know not what they do! "
If we could remember He came to save us all from iniquity
giving us this Paradise of the intangibility of existence, our precious life
to guide us through tribulation, impossible stress and horrific strife.
We shall truly please Him exerting his principles and cherishing tomorrow
saving Him from turbulence as we pray to heal His fear of what may ensue.
Blessed are the peacemakers who are the children of our Host of Heaven
giving gratitude to the Holy Spirit who fills our soul with a last Amen.
We have the power to ignite a lasting love and console His bitter sorrow.
Hope is returning someday soon as goodness is spoken from every tongue
listening to hymns of peace resonating our bodies electric so superbly sung.
Paul Amrod
seeing score helps suss the complicated,which isn,t really
Before we see the score, it was just extended romantic music
What is the similarity between free jazz and Schönberg ? Can you explain ?
There is hardly any similarity. If you think the sonorities are similar maybe they are, but they are completely different things.
None
Noah LMAO "aimless improvisation" you're correct except when your disdain for free jazz showed. Free jazz has themes and rhythms which can be freely improvised but the musicians have to follow each other gradually into the next pre-decided vaguely STRUCTURED part of a song. Here the notes are exact every time but in free jazz the notes a free to change but it isn't "whatever the musicians want to play"
fair enough
Masterpicho
i came here from that E.M.M.P. noise marine attack comment
Do you call this music ??
It's easier to explain to people 'what the fuck this shit is' by giving them context. I always ask them to think of it as background to say a sequence in Tom and Jerry.
It really does sound like music for Tom and Jerry, and for slapstick in general (just a bit)
I think that's s an interesting idea, did anyone you know listen and appreciate Schoenberg that way? :D
please someone explain what is the mozart influence in this piece
@@garrysmodsketches To me, the influence is one idea after another. Mozart was criticized in his day for having too many ideas and too many notes in his music. How about that.
@@garrysmodsketches Well, I have a theory about why so many people hate Schoenberg, and it's not what you think. It's not really because of the dissonance. It's because his music, the language he developed, brings us in touch with our pain. And when we feel that, subconsciously, we do everything we can to distance ourselves from it. So hating his music is a way of keeping it far away from us.
umm yes arnold, just like mozart ....
Not in a melodic sense, in a structural sense. About motivic development, in the form of tone row calculations
@@bmort1313 More Brahms.
Something I think with this type of music; you need to listen to a lot of dissonant modern stuff before you like. But when you do you're liking for particularly Romantic music will be diminished. I can now happily listen to this, not as background music especially mind you, but originally this would have sounded like horrible noise to me. Several late-ish Romantic composers, particularly Tchaikovsky, get on my nerves somewhat in their huge bloatedness. Not that they are necessarily bad pieces I should add, and no doubt a lot of people like this genre, which is their own preference. I just think that it's worth pushing yourself with modernist atonal or barely tonal pieces, because you might get more out of them in the future.
Strange that I just like this music upon finding it, but I still prefer tonal.
I find myself liking this as well as a lot of the tonal composers - Brahms, Mendelssohn, Dvorak.
I can't say I like Tchaikovsky that much, but that's mostly because of his apparent inability to develop his material to a satisfactory level.
w h a t
just what
It certainly has some appeal, but I personally favour Debussy, Bach, Schumann et al.😁
Some of the comments are so snobby and pretentious I must say: people snootily decrying tonal music. "Brahms, darling? Dear God, NO! So horribly commercial."
🙄
Scriabin :D
Each person has his or her own taste. I choose Schoenberg from 4 person + Beethoven.
Can someone help me understand why people enjoy this music?
Because it’s mentally stimulating. It’s not music you put on in the background to enjoy, you have to immerse yourself in the score and think of it as a mathematical system of pitches
@@bmort1313 I would say the above comment is by someone who definitely does not enjoy the music.
@@bmort1313 lol. Maths.
You are scared people of it.
Aaron Li
Repeated listening :D
personally, I like the dissonance. I feel like this music has drama that doesn't let up, and I like that. I hear artfulness and passion in this music... and a logic that I don't understand mentally as much as emotionally when listening. It's not often pretty-sounding, but when I want to listen to pretty-sounding music, there are composers who make it. A good comparison might be food... sometimes one has a taste for spicy food, sometimes ice cream. Anyway, this music exists in a spectrum with all the other music out there, and I'm glad someone made it so I can enjoy it :)
Se
There are two kinds of people. People who don't like this, and people who pretend to like it.
Grow up
Everyone keeps talking about how this sounds completely random and annoying. I really don’t see what so jarring about this. It’s a lot less puzzling than most of the atonal music that came out after. I’ve heard tonal stuff that’s more jarring than this. This isn’t even bad. It just kinda sounds like demonic circus music from the early 20th century. If a cartoonish evil laugh were to come out of nowhere at some point, it wouldn’t even sound out of place. Not nessessarly amazing though.
Honestly, I feel like any atonal work that has any almost lyrical line sounds like demonic circus music
@@rebeccavance4159 Well, lyrical music =/= good music. But even Schoenberg's atonal can sometimes be lyrical, like his earlier 2nd string quartet.
@@segmentsAndCurves I'll have to look into it
The notes make no sense. The gestures are 'like' classical music, but the structure is applied externally upon the chromatic material, but it is not rooted in the material. People who think they 'understand' this piece, take the gestures for the music.
If Mozart rised up from his grave, and listen to this music and read what A.S. said about him, he would probably spit on his face. 😂🤣
You are very disrespectful
I think the only positive comment can be applied to this piece is "interesting"...
Dramatic.
perhaps this piece is somehow better heard with the eyes and a slide rule, than with the ears of a species tuned to emotion and joy, that's fine, it just means I must expand before I can ever correctly approach this music.
Just think of how you might listen to a Bach fugue.
Ammetto i miei limiti....Musica difficile da capire....Senza una logica armonica sembra non esserci nessun senso, nessun colore, nessuna espressione. Cerco di apprezzarla, ma è molto dura per me.
You can understand it by listening to it repeatedly. The brain has that ability.
Ok but what...?
Your in a car, flying past empty buildings no life at all.
I don't like Schömberg sense of rhythm.
It’s funny I feel like it’s under discussed. I love it, but the fact we both have unique views on it shows that he really had something unique going on there that is oft overshadowed by the atonality.
Ok boomer.
Terrível.
o que? isso é ruim ou bom na sua opinião?
The first step is to listen to the work and have an impression.
my impression of it is that it is bad
@@Whatismusic123 your impression is wrong
I am simply no longer interested in this. I am tired of it. If I want to listen to a quartet, I go to Ravel or Bartok or Shostakovich or Schnittke or to Ligeti.
Cry about it.
Carter is also good.
@@GUILLOM learn to insult someone in a more original way, like how composers in the past were original with their works but people like schoenberg think that means playing random notes, because nothing is more unique than something that cannot be replicated due to how stupid it is
@@Whatismusic123 imagine thinking dodecaphonism is random notes lmfao
@@GUILLOM it is random notes, just because he chooses those notes, doesn't mean they are not random. if you had 12 items to choose from, and you choose one, was that choise not random? what if you tried every one of those items and arranged them, then arranged them again, then again, every time, even if you technically weren't randomly choosing them the second or third time because you didn't arrange them the same as the first by choise, it was still random, you fool yourself into believing there is logic to this music, when it's merely the illusion of logic, because with only 12 notes, there is not much choise.
To me this just sounds like shostakovich lol...
Not even close. Shostakovich is one of the most easily recognizable composers in his style.
The way Shostakovich treated dissonance is... let say different.
BRUH this is too funny, i just keep laughing what is this