Jump to content

Talk:Second Viennese School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Schönberg's teaching

[edit]
  • "though Schoenberg's teaching (as his various published textbooks demonstrate) was highly traditional and conservative, and did not include discussion of his serial method."

I think that in his Vienna period, Schönberg did teach the twelve tone method. Isn't there an anecdote of Schönberg correcting a piece of Berg's, commenting that the row is "wrong" - or something to that extent... Selfinformation 12:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(i) What is Schoenberg's 'Vienna period' supposed to be? (ii) Why would Schoenberg have 'corrected' a 12-tone piece of Berg's when Berg's lessons with Schoenberg ended 10 years before the discovery of serial technique? (iii) If you think there is an anecdote about Schoenberg finding something 'wrong' in Berg's use of a row, please provide a cite. Pf.
(i) The Vienna period as opposed to the Hollywood period. (ii) Berg adapted the Schönberg's 12-tone technique (iii) I can't provide a cite, I was hoping that somebody else can, or at least support my claim that Schönberg did teach the 12-tone method. Best, Selfinformation 18:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to learn something about this subject before you try to contribute to an encyclopaedia: what you imagine to be Schoenberg's 'Vienna period' actually included three sojourns in Berlin (the last being from 1926 to 1933). Your other replies are equally vacuous. Pf.
As mentioned above, Schoenberg had more than one ‘Vienna Period’; he also had three ‘Berlin Periods’, the third of which (1926-33) is most interesting in this connexion as it occurred in the early years of developing the 12-note method. As to the question of his criticising Berg, I believe this was to do with the row of Berg’s Lyric Suite – Schoenberg questioned his love of what Sch felt to be ‘unnecessary’ retrogrades and mirror forms. (I haven’t got the reference for this to hand.) In any case, this was long after Berg had ceased to be a pupil of Schoenberg. In his Berlin Masterclass Schoenberg didn’t teach 12-note technique as such but it was clearly known about by his pupils, some of whom were composing in their own versions of the method and bringing works to him for criticism in class. Norbert von Hannenheim was one of whom Schoenberg seems to have approved. He is said to have criticized Nikos Skalkottas for using several rows in one work rather than just one, but the details of this dispute are obscure. Erich Schmid recalled showing Schoenberg a 12-note string quartet in which Schoenberg immediately started suggesting melodic improvements – when Schmid pointed out that the suggestions would violate the order of the row, Schoenberg said ‘Well, you’ll just have to change the row, won’t you?’. Schmid also recalled Schoenberg discussing his Wind Quintet and Orchestral Variations, both 12-note works, in the Masterclass, but entirely from the point of view of his adaptation of classical formal principles, never mentioning the operation of the 12-note method in them. See ‘ ”… my duty to defend the truth”: Erich Schmid in Schoenberg’s Berlin Composition Class’ by Chris Walton, Tempo No.218, October 2001. Cenedi 09:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, Pf., this is not the way to treat one another on Wikipedia. Bear in mind that I never made any actual changes to the article; I merely suggested something - in retrospect it was a stupid and uninformed remark. In any case, Cenedi's excellent reply enlightened me, not your (sexually?) frustrated ranting. You must have nothing better to do. Hence, get a life. Selfinformation 12:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cenedi, your contributon was, as usual, highly informative; but there are one or two things that are nagging me w.r.t. Schoenberg's supposed criticism of Berg's "love of ... 'unnecessary' retrogrades and mirror forms". In the 'Lyric Suite', it so happens that the symmetrical all-interval series with which the first movement mostly operates doesn't have an independent retrograde: the R is the same as the tritone transposition of the P (and the same goes for the R and RI). And if Schbg's criticism was actually aimed at the 12-tone movements and sections (with their modified rows...) that come after the 1st mvt, there's the issue that Schbg himself explicitly described retrograde and inverted forms as appropriate in the later stages of a work (even though he himself usually had no compunction about using them very early on!). What's more, Berg tends to associate rows with thematic contours, with the result that his mirror-forms are (i) rare, and (ii) usually much closer to the 'surface' than Schbg's; and in any case, the R and RI forms of the 12-note series of the 3rd mvt and the two 12-note series of the 6th mvt never appear independently of actual written-out palindromes! So what on earth was Schbg objecting to?!? I think we need to ask you to try and remember where this story comes from: it needs the most careful examination! With all good wishes, Pf.
Pf, I am not 100% certain (ie I'm certain Schoenberg somewhere questioned Berg's attachment to retrogrades and mirror-forms in 12-note composition 'just for the sake of it', but I'm not wholly sure it was to do with the Lyric Suite). I thought I had it in the Schbg-Berg-Webern quartet correspondence published by DG in the early 1970s, but don't now find it there. Possibly the exchange was about the Chamber Concerto...? I have the Schoenberg-Berg correspondence ed Hailey et al and will check when I have time - I just have a distinct impression I read this particular letter before the ed Hailey volume came out. Cenedi 09:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the above. I've had a quick (and dog-tired...) trawl through the volume of Berg-Schbg correspondence: can't see anything on this topic in any of the passages indexed under 'Lyric Suite' -- unless there's a clue in the letter from B. to S. (1 Sept 1928) on pp.372-3...?? Pf.

Cleanup

[edit]

How does this article need to be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it does! It seems absolutely fine to me! Pfistermeister (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not cite sources. The information appears to be anywhere between original research (as it has been tagged) and based in Leibowitz (1947). Hyacinth (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the word "celebrated" describing Glenn Gould; no-one else in this article is described in similarly subjective terms and it seemed not only unnecessary but out of place.HRH Nin (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Second Viennese School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Viennese School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The First Viennese School

[edit]

About the claim that "Mozart and Haydn admired each other": Is there first-hand, authentic evidence that the admiration was reciprocal/mutual? (Not something "made up" by Haydn-favoring 19th, 20th century scholars such as C. F. Pohl, H. C. Robbins Landon, Charles Rosen, or writers influenced by Haydn's fame in the final decade of the 18th century and the first decade of the 19th century, such as F. X. Niemetschek, in the form of dubious anecdotes or arguments)? Wikiwickedness (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "Haydn and Mozart influenced each other" is also debatable. For example, "Bonds himself admits: ‘All in all, however, the list of acknowledged specific parallels between Mozart’s quartets and Haydn’s earlier works in this genre is surprisingly meager.’" https://academic.oup.com/ml/article/97/4/575/3072292 Wikiwickedness (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Viennese_School&oldid=1210291756"