I agree with you If you focus so much of what music "has to be" you lose the very mysterious nature of what music is.
I have really learned to expand my appreciation of music and sound because great musicians like Schoenberg test the norm of how people interpret music. I would of never liked bands like Skinny Puppy, Venetian Snares, Autechre, Mr.Bungle or Devo if I confined myself to listening to music from 1 perspective.
I don't know about being deliberately incomprehensible or malevolent. I just listen to his stuff.
Sometimes when you've so ingrained a concept of what music (or anything) should be, you end up perceiving anything that acts against this as an assault on a reified, sacred ideal.
Too modern a thought for anyone?
I just have a problem with people declaring that Debussy/Scriabin produced music that is righteous, while Schoenberg is evil simply because he attacked those established ideas.
If the audience appreciates what is being played then so be it. Those with an actual neural disconnection between harmony and emotion might enjoy it on the level of texture and rhythm. Those with an approval reflex for anything touted by fringe anarchist-artists can continue to force themselves to enjoy this. Harmony is not purely cultural subjectivity, it is a product of acoustic physics. You don't 'choose' your reaction to music, it's involuntary. John Cage's et al. philosophies are spurious.
John Cage's philosophies aren't contrary at all to the inane blather you're spewing, you dunderhead. Atonality was just an inevitable new system of arranging sound after Debussy and Scriabin's emancipation from restricted tonality, and tonality itself was beginning to reach a level of go-nowhere pastiche.
@gubbbies Yes, yes, keep spewing what you've read in all your textbooks and what your professors have told you--very original. Seems to me that plenty of tonal composers had a lot to say in the twentieth century, though.
Here's the main difference between Debussy and Scriabin versus Schoenberg, et.al.: they had good ears and were attempting to produce sounds that explored new overtones, usually in an attempt to create something beautiful. Schoenberg's system is another matter.
I don't understand what all the arguing is about. Some people like this music, others don't. I don't think anyone is trying to make themselves appear better than others. I like some of Schoenberg's music, but some of his other stuff I think is crap. It's an opinion, for Chrissake, not a commandment from a god.
I have the same reservation about this as about some other of Schoenberg's music - it sounds like he's TRYING to be avant garde, but his four-square rhythms hold him back. There are times when the music flows better, but the opening of this concerto simply sounds like "square" music with "wrong notes". Webern and Berg never give that impression - their music is far more organic.
But there are times when Shoenberg really hits the mark - the String Trio for example.
I just have one question, is there any thought/ music theory put into making these songs? I REALLY like these atonal melodies, but are they just random, or are they carefully thought out?
That said, I think there could be something fundamental about the way music is heard that makes it incredibly difficult to convince an audience that there is actual content in a poly/atonal piece, even if the composer intended it.
There's a fine line between common practice and arbitrary experimentation that the whole modernist craze has run afoul of. If the intent is to depict chaos or angst, then it should at least be framed by some coherent tonality or the audience won't be convinced.
Before Gutenberg, most of the stories people knew were designed to be memorized almost word for word. Structure was essential so the brain could hold on to verbal patterns and common themes.
If you gathered a crowd and spoke with verbal austerity or told a story with an abridged/ambiguous ending, you would lose them or be stiffed.
I think people have a deep urge to admire patterns rather than interpret something unfamiliar, regardless of "content".
@reginacaeli123 hey! I'm 14 and love music like schoenburg and also many of those you mentioned. Try to hear the atmosphere in the music and see the beauty in the clashes! I love this music because it's unpredictable!
Somebody help me! I'm 17 and absolutely love classical music (Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Wagner, Chopin, Bach, etc.) but many of the composers of the second half of the 20th century (Cage, Ades, Corigliano) I just don't "understand." The music of Mozart, Verdi etc. moves me with its beauty. Much of the music from Schoenberg on strikes me as pretentious and, well, not very beautiful. Do I just need to "listen better?" I really do want to appreciate this, I just can't bring myself to. HELP!
@reginacaeli123 The problem is that trying to "appreciate" this is like trying to appreciate Jackson Pollock. There is nothing to "appreciate" just a bunch of critics who nod and say "yes"
do not listen based on whats already in your brain. look for the beauty in it in a different and free way, detached from all previous musical knowledge, as a clean canvas.
@reginacaeli123 Bach was baroque, Wagner, Berlioz, Chopin and Schubert were Romantic, and Beethoven was transitionally both Classical and Romantic. It's an insult to refer to all -serious- (that is, music as opposed to popular music) as classical.
@MELONMOVIES I can understand some people finding his music tolerable or even enjoyable.My main problem with him is that he was MALEVOLENT; deliberately, aggressively incoherent and anti-reason.His music wasn't innocent failed experimentation (as one might say of Stravinsky), with some intention of creating some new beauty--but was an ugly mockery by design.
On the perceptual level, I merely find it an assault on the senses. It's its philosophic roots which make it absolutely irredeemable.
It's also amusing how these serialist "liberators" of music were also the most virulent when it came to throwing out insults to other (more talented) composers, not to mention their entire method of composition which is the musical equivalent of a totalitarianism which was never quite achieved, even in Stalinist Russia.
Nice hyperbolic cliches. Schoenberg actually broke his own 12 tone rules when he deemed appropriate, and ONLY taught the system to one or two students; a far cry from totalitarianism, I'd say. But please continue to repeat things you heard other people say.
@gubbbies He taught it to more than "one or two students." He was also very polemical in his writings, though his successors like Boulez were far worse.
Obviously you misunderstand what I mean by musical totalitarianism. I am referring to their obsession with coldly and mathematically ordering many aspects of musical expression, in addition to their belief that their way was the only real and intelligent way forward for music. Not particularly open-minded from people who thought they were.
@sybo59 and why is antireason whatever that is in context of music and incoherence such a bad thing this is art creativity freedom and emotions rule not reason in the realm of art
@lefthandovRA So I take it all art is equal to you. If so, I've got some canvases of smeared feces to sell you. If not, what is your criteria of good art? Also, if art is necessarily disconnected from reason, what is its purpose in your opinion?
@sybo59 no not all things are art...but all art is equal in some aspect..what i consider "good" art is not the same as what i consider the minimum of what art should be..and ur the one who is trying to put a criteria not me..iam here showing that ur criteria is bad iam not giving my own...u said antireason is a bad thing but why ? cant nonsense give the same emotions as proreason art??
just because its not traditionally beautiful and described as ugly, doesnt mean its less emotional or human. real dissonance is a lot harder to achieve than most ppl would believe. try it once yourself before you seriously criticize
first time you listened to Shostakovich Cello Concerto #1, you probably percieved it to be ugly too. but then you horizon expanded and you loved it. hopfully!
@cnabaie "you probably percieved it to be ugly too"
There is a huge difference between a challenging piece that may grow on you, a piece you can appreciate but don't personally enjoy, and music that is devoid of content BY DESIGN. The Weimar Expressionist movement and Dada epitomize the latter; and people that begin to take a mockery serious epitomize pretentiousness.
Gotta love Schoenberg... love him or hate him, when it's well played his music is expressive and it makes you think, feel and react. That fact alone I think validates his music as art.
@davidofpiano423 El holocausto también provoca sensación, da que pensar, etc., pero no creo q te atrevas a decir que éso es arte ni de lejos ¿me equivoco? xD
@Alemaxman yo en ningún momento dije que no fuera arte, aunque discuto que sea el mejor desde luego, lo que dije es que decir que es arte porque provoca sensaciones y hace pensar es erróneo, pues evidentemente hay más cosas que hacen pensar y producen sensaciones, y nadie, (o casi nadie en su sano juicio),lo llamaría como tal. xD, yo sólo hice ver que esa definición no era verdadera, si me puedes dar tú una exacta y que concuerde con la realidad..... yo encantada.
@davidofpiano423 El holocausto también provoca sensación, da que pensar, etc., pero no creo que te atrevas a decir que éso es arte ni de lejos ¿me equivoco? xD
This cerebral engagement is pleasurable to some, like me, and unpleasant to others. Just because a song uses dissonant chords doesn't mean that it is ugly. Dissonance is used to evoke specific feelings in the listener, to make him/her to feel a certain way, which is sometimes meant to be unpleasant, and is a way for the composer to express his/her inner thoughts and feelings. It is this that turns ugliness into beauty.
@pyrochild1618 no se puede convertir lo feo en bello, a lo sumo las cosas podrán tener aspectos de ambos. Hitler también expresó sus sentimientos.... vaya que si lo hizo, y como ya he dicho no creo que se atrevan a decir que éso es arte
Stop the clusterfuck of arguments and pay attention to the music. The definition of beauty is the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest). This is an intense piece that engages the mind to try to follow the complicated rhythms and harmonies.
first impressions, this is not my kind of music. but unlike most youtubers who denounce it in the style of stalin to shostakovich, i'm going to buy a cd and listen to it more.
@ilovemrtoast Schoenberg was deliberately incomprehensible. Don't feel bad, this is not good music; it embraces the ugly BECAUSE it is ugly. You may find the romantic composers more agreeable.
@sybo59 Yes, of course – because 'agreeability' is the obvious quality by which we should judge the value of all music. Let's not concern ourselves with the reality that the music by many visionary Romantic composers (and even earlier) was also considered 'incomprehensible' or 'ugly' by their contemporaries. It's clearly a matter of historical perspective. I also love your it's "ugly BECAUSE it is ugly" line of reasoning. Circular logic always works, because it's 'circular' and 'logical'.
@ninjapunk76 His music, as Schoenberg himself put it, "treats dissonances like consonances" and represents the "emancipation of the dissonance."
As I said, he was DELIBERATELY incomprehensible. In its time, this genre's admirers praised it for not being beautiful, but "profound." Profound because it was ugly. Shoe goes on [1924]: "I cannot be understood, and I content myself with respect." Wow, it's almost as if I didn't base my statement on "historical perspective" at all!
@Easleytee I said: "MALEVOLENT; deliberately, aggressively incoherent and anti-reason", not simply "malevolent. I explained my context, which wasn't "he beat his kids" or anything. Care to enlighten me?
@Easleytee By the way, the wording of your snappy comment implies that, despite your intention, I have a HIGH level of knowledge of Schoe. Now please explain the beauty and genius of this particular piece, without sounding pretentious or rambling in vagaries such as "well, like, that's not what music is about, maaaan. Like, you gotta, like...."
@sybo59 Firstly, when you insult people held in high esteem by most of the viewers of this video, prepare for some steam, because you're asking for trouble.
That said, your complaints against atonality are completely valid. It holds no emotion in it, no one's going to leave this concert with mascara pouring down their cheeks. But that's not what it's trying to do. Atonality is pure conflict, grotesque for the sake of being grotesque. Like Munch's The Scream, it's ugly, yet compelling.
@koopakidshyguy Oh, I completely expect disagreement; I've no complaints there.
"grotesque for the sake of being grotesque"
I completely agree with you. In fact, if you look back at older comments of mine, you'll see I've said exactly the same. To me, the only thing that can possibly redeem atonality or noise is an attachment to some form of "program." ie. Played in conjunction w/ appropriate prose, verse, or piece of cinema. It simply cannot be good art as stand-alone inexplicable audio.
@koopakidshyguy cont. I firmly believe that a piece of art must be judged independent of any proclaimed or perceived intention of the artist. Given that ground rule, I've never heard an unpretentious or rational explanation of the beauty some insist for guys like Schoe, Cage, etc.
You make another great point when you say "yet compelling." I listen to Varese, and find some of it very interesting--but am I then compelled to demand that it is high art? No. Few seem capable of this distinction.
@ninjapunk76 Cont. Now, take the context of my statement: I was talking to a guy that clearly disliked it, but masochistically yearned to appreciate it. The answer is, you're not supposed to appreciate it, but, if anything, respect it. He thought the defect was with himself, which is ridiculous.
Your circular logic comment makes no sense. In reality, can't people praise something ugly for being ugly? Circular logic is characterized by FAULTY logic trying to prove itself.
@J4m3z1 Thanks. I checked your profile and see that you are a student of philosophy. You seem to place a dichotomy between knowledge and happiness; have you considered that no such divide need exist? I'd go even further and say that rationality, though no guarantee, is the only way to achieve your values and obtain happiness (as opposed to mere sensations from acting on whim or faith).
As you say, there is no guarantee, and that's why I believe in a dichotomy between knowledge and happiness. Some people may derive happiness from having a wealth of knowledge, but this is just a contingent fact. You can get happy stupid people.
@J4m3z1 Fair enough; I was just curious. Though we disagree on the main point, I believe we both recognize that the choice between either knowledge or happiness is a fatuous and artificial one. Reason is practical by its nature, but isn't good BECAUSE it is practical (ie. pragmatism).
@sybo59 NO you cannot. Thats like saying bad art is is beautiful for being bad. In terms of music, thats like saying, hey look I made a piece that uses all the wrong notes in the wrong order to make chaos, but it was done in an interesting way. Isnt it beautiful? NO IT ISN'T. For fucks sake's, not every experiment in art, interesting though it may be, is going to be beautiful.
@SOSTacoJohnson "NO you cannot" -I don't know what you're referencing here. My only comment to you was a question. I hope you are not trying to say that it is impossible to like something for being ugly (humans are volitional creatures; of course they can).
"not every experiment in art...is going to be beautiful" -Where did I say otherwise?
@sybo59 It was nothing more than an assumption. I don't understand why you would listen to music when it is ugly, and then praise it for at least being different. I think its barely noteworthy, and if anything, the definition of a failed expedition into the abstract. Honestly, there is too much good music out there to waste time on this.
& personally, I find it next to impossible to enjoy an ugly painting, even if the methods of painting it are different or creative. It is only a bad study.
@SOSTacoJohnson "I don't understand why you would listen to music when it is ugly..."
I'm not a defender of praising the ugly at all. The Expressionist movement was irrational by design; I disagree with everything it stands for, but was just pointing out its history to someone. We may be in agreement, except where you consider this a mere failed experiment. The distinction here is that it wasn't striving to be good in the first place. It's related to Dada in this respect.
Well, I'd have to refer you to whole books on aesthetics. Since evidently you feel a youtube comment box is proper for such an explanation, why don't you tell me what you think beauty is (Is "flow" your answer? What does that mean?)?
@ninjapunk76 Oh, and I didn't say that it IS ugly BECAUSE it is ugly -- that would be a tautology. It [the Weimar Expressionist movement] EMBRACES the ugly BECAUSE it is ugly.
Arnold Schoenberg is the greatest 20th century composer.
Oh, I know, many will say its Stravinsky, but Schoenberg really formed a new music movement & school that revolutionalized music and created a whole new tonal language. Stravinsky was showier, but Schoenberg's music was the buried 'bomb' that musicians (from the 20's and 30's on), knew was there--and had to unearth--which they did. S.'s sound world changed everything and we are still living with it in film scores, etc.
@windstorm1000 He definitely is one of the greates. However, you cannot just say he's the best composer just because he formed a new music movement. The question is what the point of composing is then. Is it to explore new music and bring music to its limits or is it to satisfy the listeners? :D
Good question. When I compose the first thing I do is grasp and attach myself to something that has a very obvious pattern which I know will satisfy many listeners. But I find myself disatisfied because it doesn't feel innovative to go for the very obvious pattern. But then I try something a little more innovative, perhaps too innovative, and I feel equally disatisfied because it's not so easy to listen to, which makes me feel like it's not good music.
@rumpwrestler lol, 0/10 troll. Same people who are purist jazz fans only say similar things about music like this. Being unable to relate to music does not justify one's opinion on calling an ENTIRE genre crap.
No easy scale passages here! Nicely done. You can here his classicism behind the modernism. I don't believe his 12-tone technique is best applied to the concerto form; the musical fragments in the piano don't sound soloistic. Nice recording and video.
@PurplePlayer99 I have listen to every kind of modern music, so I can very freely say that it is 99% garbage, especially jazz and rock, it can hardly be called music.
@Grondorn Idk dude, Jazz can be considered the best type of music even though that opinion is subjective. Try Pat Metheny, his technical guitar ability and rhythm is undeniable. He's my main man, good luck!
schoenberg thought people would be whistling serial music on the streets by the end of the 20th century. instead, they were whistling minimalism and booty clapping songs.
Regrettably, Schoenberg's volcanic expressivity remains untenable for most non-musicians. Concert patrons wish their sensibilities to remain unchallenged, homogenized and undisturbed.
Schoenberg's artistic genius is beyond both category and reproach.
For those who may have difficulty, please allow me to advise that you listen carefully to the opening theme, which has the character of a Ländler. Everything that comes after the complete statement of this theme is a variation on the opening motif or some other aspect of that theme. It is precisely the same compositional procedure used by Brahms or Beethoven. The only difference is the total chromaticism of the musical language.
after reading about schoenberg in a few places, i expected this music to be impossible to listen to. but i dont think this is that bad. i probably would think it was worse if i hadnt read about the whole concept behind it.
@alienalienss oh and YES,BEETHOVEN,MOZART DID WITH OTHER COMPOSERS TOO,i heard all my life,PSYCHEDELIC ROCK,AKA,JIMI HENDRIX,THE DEAD,AIRPLANE,ECT,were just blues,well THEY'RE NOT,MUDDY WATERS NEVER DID "GO ASK ALICE",all music IS MODELED SOMEWHERE TO SOMETHING,IDIOTS SAY PATSY CLINE AND ROY ORBISON ARE "COUNTRY",WELL,WHERE'S THE COMPARISON,"COMPARED TO WHAT",THESE GENIUS' PEOPLE ARE PURE CABARET ART,
Uchida has the hype and sex appeal but this is NOT a sensitive rendition she thinks she is playing list with her overwrought gesticulations. to appreciate how good she can be check out her Mozart sonata recordings
@NLSJ Creo que se "fumaron" el conocimiento de tres siglos... Son tres siglos de reconocimiento de nuevas formas de composición. Y, a decir verdad, ya en el 2010 no debería sonar TAN raro ¿no crees?
I think the rhythmic patterns and the shorter motifs are easier to grasp. I've listened to this excerpt several times. Orchestration of atonal music can definitely make it more accessible but It's tough to really "get it" unless you listen to it several times or really have an ear for it.
I think the rhythmic patterns and the shorter motifs are easier to grasp. I've listened to this excerpt several times. Orchestration of atonal music can definitely make it more accessible but It's tough to really "get it" unless you listen to it several times or really have an ear for it.
@PedroDiPedro just because you dont understand schoenberg's musical language (a fact which you made painfully clear in your laughably presumptive post) doesnt mean its not a valid musical language. You are the quintessential doo doo headed know it all. people like you are the reason geniuses toil away in relative obscurity while hacks rake in cash hand over fist.
This is amazing! Schoenberg was a genius! This piece is incredibly expressive, intensly emotional, has so much dissonance, atonal harmonies and never sticks with the same musical idea, yet it works! it is truely a work of art.
Es una pena enorme que nos acarrea dia con dia, que personas de mi edad (tengo 18 años), no valoren y desprestigien a esta música, que es tan poderosa que hace sentir mil cosas a la vez y en vez de esto prefieran llenar sus oídos de cualquier vulgaridad.
Rspecto a este sentido es ofensivo el modo en el que hoy en día se produce la música, que ha perdido en la mayoría de la gente aquel sentido bello, filosófico, inexplicable, mágico...
If you hear the beginning of this piece and hate it, stop listening to it and go listen to something your mind can comprehend. But if you've fallen in love with the sound and admire its complexity, you should agree, this is magnificent.
@ASirensSoliloquy But there is nothing in this piece, there is nothing to comprehend. These are just an abstract and bloodless walls of sounds. All this outer complexity and obnoxious loudness distracts you from the total inner voidness.
This is not music, it is more like an drug to stimulate the nerves.
Okay, to make you all hate me... Those of you criticizing others for not liking this, stop being retarded; music is subjective by its own definition. Those of you complaining that this is too mechanical, rigid, emotionless, etc. just listen to it. It's clear that Schoenberg put tons of thought into the dynamics, timbre, and everything. Even the melody is only vaguely bound by his "rules." I personally like this, but I could see why others wouldn't. Also, @GeorgeMaj15: more "correct?" riiiight...
It is more structurally perfect than the 7 tonal system. The structure behind twelve tone not only controls pitches being played, but the order in which they're played, unlike the 7 tone system, which only has "suggestions" for chord progressions. To correct this, we have structure forms, like the rondo, which in time were also cast aside because they're additive. Note pattern is written INTO 12 tone, it's beautiful and complex. Hard to understand, yes, and I get your point, but still.
Nature has been described as complex and wild, with no structure and seeming chaos. Yet zoom in, and notice ecosystems, and leaves, and the structures of nature--it has footwork. I feel that 12 tone is similar; it is chaotic and unpleasant at times, but zoom in and you notice the structure behind it, it only looks and feels free and wild. In that aspect I sometimes consider 12 tone the music to most accurately portray nature, not in actual sounds of nature, but in the nature of nature.
Well my perspective is that it's silly to call one more perfect than the other. Yes, 12-tone is more mathematical and precise (which could be interpreted as perfection) but it could also be seen as limiting and unpalatable. As to the parallel with nature, it could be argued that tonal (or any non-serialist) music is more perfect. There are a few basic laws that can be infinitely expanded and recombined in new and unexpected ways. It depends on your perspective; music is subjective.
Comment removed
jg326444 1 week ago
Can't stop listening to this.
CheeseCakeee 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
OnlyTheBestDnB 1 month ago
@ Saremo
I agree with you If you focus so much of what music "has to be" you lose the very mysterious nature of what music is.
I have really learned to expand my appreciation of music and sound because great musicians like Schoenberg test the norm of how people interpret music. I would of never liked bands like Skinny Puppy, Venetian Snares, Autechre, Mr.Bungle or Devo if I confined myself to listening to music from 1 perspective.
pinstripe01 2 months ago
I love atonality, dodecaphony and serialism. And Sno Balls. Gimme more.
mrpankau 2 months ago
@mrpankau I like turtles.
HisLordDudeness 2 months ago
I don't know about being deliberately incomprehensible or malevolent. I just listen to his stuff.
Sometimes when you've so ingrained a concept of what music (or anything) should be, you end up perceiving anything that acts against this as an assault on a reified, sacred ideal.
Too modern a thought for anyone?
I just have a problem with people declaring that Debussy/Scriabin produced music that is righteous, while Schoenberg is evil simply because he attacked those established ideas.
saremo 2 months ago
Guys, you all have interesting points. Why are you going about describing them like slighted youths? Take a deep breath.
jobriath85 3 months ago 4
at 1:00 the violinist on Uchida's right looks like Stephen Hough with a moustache!
dommboi69 4 months ago
If the audience appreciates what is being played then so be it. Those with an actual neural disconnection between harmony and emotion might enjoy it on the level of texture and rhythm. Those with an approval reflex for anything touted by fringe anarchist-artists can continue to force themselves to enjoy this. Harmony is not purely cultural subjectivity, it is a product of acoustic physics. You don't 'choose' your reaction to music, it's involuntary. John Cage's et al. philosophies are spurious.
MrFaceHead 5 months ago
@MrFaceHead
John Cage's philosophies aren't contrary at all to the inane blather you're spewing, you dunderhead. Atonality was just an inevitable new system of arranging sound after Debussy and Scriabin's emancipation from restricted tonality, and tonality itself was beginning to reach a level of go-nowhere pastiche.
gubbbies 5 months ago
@gubbbies Yes, yes, keep spewing what you've read in all your textbooks and what your professors have told you--very original. Seems to me that plenty of tonal composers had a lot to say in the twentieth century, though.
Here's the main difference between Debussy and Scriabin versus Schoenberg, et.al.: they had good ears and were attempting to produce sounds that explored new overtones, usually in an attempt to create something beautiful. Schoenberg's system is another matter.
MaestroTJS 5 months ago
AUTECHRE are much more complex than that !
claus4 5 months ago
I don't understand what all the arguing is about. Some people like this music, others don't. I don't think anyone is trying to make themselves appear better than others. I like some of Schoenberg's music, but some of his other stuff I think is crap. It's an opinion, for Chrissake, not a commandment from a god.
dammitdepinna 5 months ago
@dammitdepinna Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy, and it is worth pursuing.
The people that share your "who's to say what's better?" mentality in the realm of ethics are called Relativists, and it's fucking tragic.
sybo59 5 months ago
I have the same reservation about this as about some other of Schoenberg's music - it sounds like he's TRYING to be avant garde, but his four-square rhythms hold him back. There are times when the music flows better, but the opening of this concerto simply sounds like "square" music with "wrong notes". Webern and Berg never give that impression - their music is far more organic.
But there are times when Shoenberg really hits the mark - the String Trio for example.
rjr1967 6 months ago
I just have one question, is there any thought/ music theory put into making these songs? I REALLY like these atonal melodies, but are they just random, or are they carefully thought out?
mechwarreir2 6 months ago
@mechwarreir2 This is the most advanced shit you'll ever hear. Google him.
amjan 6 months ago
@amjan I DID google him, I didn't get much information on how atonal melodies are made >_>
mechwarreir2 6 months ago
@mechwarreir2 try searching 'schoenberg 12 tone matrix' not all his work was made via this process but gives you an idea.
seenmelately 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That said, I think there could be something fundamental about the way music is heard that makes it incredibly difficult to convince an audience that there is actual content in a poly/atonal piece, even if the composer intended it.
There's a fine line between common practice and arbitrary experimentation that the whole modernist craze has run afoul of. If the intent is to depict chaos or angst, then it should at least be framed by some coherent tonality or the audience won't be convinced.
SigmaOxygen 6 months ago
Comment removed
SigmaOxygen 6 months ago
Before Gutenberg, most of the stories people knew were designed to be memorized almost word for word. Structure was essential so the brain could hold on to verbal patterns and common themes.
If you gathered a crowd and spoke with verbal austerity or told a story with an abridged/ambiguous ending, you would lose them or be stiffed.
I think people have a deep urge to admire patterns rather than interpret something unfamiliar, regardless of "content".
Even frivolous patterns are loved: Escher.
SigmaOxygen 6 months ago 2
@reginacaeli123 hey! I'm 14 and love music like schoenburg and also many of those you mentioned. Try to hear the atmosphere in the music and see the beauty in the clashes! I love this music because it's unpredictable!
MELONMOVIES 7 months ago
@MELONMOVIES Hey it's awesome that you like this stuff. It's easy for older people to criticize stuff they don't get.
DaJayManable 6 months ago
@DaJayManable I'm also a giant metal fan, saw SlipKnoT last weekend. I just dig music :D
MELONMOVIES 6 months ago
Somebody help me! I'm 17 and absolutely love classical music (Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Wagner, Chopin, Bach, etc.) but many of the composers of the second half of the 20th century (Cage, Ades, Corigliano) I just don't "understand." The music of Mozart, Verdi etc. moves me with its beauty. Much of the music from Schoenberg on strikes me as pretentious and, well, not very beautiful. Do I just need to "listen better?" I really do want to appreciate this, I just can't bring myself to. HELP!
reginacaeli123 7 months ago
@reginacaeli123 The problem is that trying to "appreciate" this is like trying to appreciate Jackson Pollock. There is nothing to "appreciate" just a bunch of critics who nod and say "yes"
NLSJ 7 months ago
do not listen based on whats already in your brain. look for the beauty in it in a different and free way, detached from all previous musical knowledge, as a clean canvas.
PianoPopular 7 months ago
@reginacaeli123 Bach was baroque, Wagner, Berlioz, Chopin and Schubert were Romantic, and Beethoven was transitionally both Classical and Romantic. It's an insult to refer to all -serious- (that is, music as opposed to popular music) as classical.
smitty01209 6 months ago
@smitty01209 I think he was referring to it as classical as opposed to contemporary music, not as in the period... :)
MELONMOVIES 6 months ago
@MELONMOVIES Oh, I know. I'm just a bit anal when people DO refer to it as classical. xD
smitty01209 6 months ago
@reginacaeli123 "Do I just need to 'listen better?'"
No. See my comment to "ninjapunk76" at the top. Cage, Varese, Schoenburg and co. are not only shit, but deliberately shit. There is nothing to "get."
sybo59 6 months ago 4
@sybo59 I actually really enjoy Schoenburg's music, and find it very beautiful. It is not shit in my opinion.
MELONMOVIES 6 months ago
@MELONMOVIES I can understand some people finding his music tolerable or even enjoyable.My main problem with him is that he was MALEVOLENT; deliberately, aggressively incoherent and anti-reason.His music wasn't innocent failed experimentation (as one might say of Stravinsky), with some intention of creating some new beauty--but was an ugly mockery by design.
On the perceptual level, I merely find it an assault on the senses. It's its philosophic roots which make it absolutely irredeemable.
sybo59 6 months ago 4
@sybo59 Excellent!
It's also amusing how these serialist "liberators" of music were also the most virulent when it came to throwing out insults to other (more talented) composers, not to mention their entire method of composition which is the musical equivalent of a totalitarianism which was never quite achieved, even in Stalinist Russia.
MaestroTJS 5 months ago 4
@MaestroTJS
Nice hyperbolic cliches. Schoenberg actually broke his own 12 tone rules when he deemed appropriate, and ONLY taught the system to one or two students; a far cry from totalitarianism, I'd say. But please continue to repeat things you heard other people say.
gubbbies 5 months ago
@gubbbies He taught it to more than "one or two students." He was also very polemical in his writings, though his successors like Boulez were far worse.
Obviously you misunderstand what I mean by musical totalitarianism. I am referring to their obsession with coldly and mathematically ordering many aspects of musical expression, in addition to their belief that their way was the only real and intelligent way forward for music. Not particularly open-minded from people who thought they were.
MaestroTJS 5 months ago
@sybo59 and why is antireason whatever that is in context of music and incoherence such a bad thing this is art creativity freedom and emotions rule not reason in the realm of art
lefthandovRA 2 months ago
@lefthandovRA So I take it all art is equal to you. If so, I've got some canvases of smeared feces to sell you. If not, what is your criteria of good art? Also, if art is necessarily disconnected from reason, what is its purpose in your opinion?
sybo59 3 weeks ago
@sybo59 no not all things are art...but all art is equal in some aspect..what i consider "good" art is not the same as what i consider the minimum of what art should be..and ur the one who is trying to put a criteria not me..iam here showing that ur criteria is bad iam not giving my own...u said antireason is a bad thing but why ? cant nonsense give the same emotions as proreason art??
lefthandovRA 3 weeks ago
I actually find it quite melodic. Maybe I'm crazy.
AmgNoWai 8 months ago 11
@AmgNoWai you probably are.
TheAnbessa 2 months ago
Stephen King is conducting lol
carnubial 8 months ago 2
Comment removed
carnubial 8 months ago
just because its not traditionally beautiful and described as ugly, doesnt mean its less emotional or human. real dissonance is a lot harder to achieve than most ppl would believe. try it once yourself before you seriously criticize
h0tpoop 8 months ago
Dear sybo59,
first time you listened to Shostakovich Cello Concerto #1, you probably percieved it to be ugly too. but then you horizon expanded and you loved it. hopfully!
cnabaie 8 months ago
@cnabaie "you probably percieved it to be ugly too"
There is a huge difference between a challenging piece that may grow on you, a piece you can appreciate but don't personally enjoy, and music that is devoid of content BY DESIGN. The Weimar Expressionist movement and Dada epitomize the latter; and people that begin to take a mockery serious epitomize pretentiousness.
sybo59 6 months ago
Fantastica follia!!! Bravi pianista e orchestra.
lirica2011 9 months ago
... and btw, Mitsuko Uchida was a total babe when she was young. =)
davidofpiano423 9 months ago
Gotta love Schoenberg... love him or hate him, when it's well played his music is expressive and it makes you think, feel and react. That fact alone I think validates his music as art.
davidofpiano423 9 months ago
@davidofpiano423 If you blare a siren loud enough, it too will cause people to think, feel, and react; this does not make it art.
sybo59 9 months ago
@davidofpiano423 El holocausto también provoca sensación, da que pensar, etc., pero no creo q te atrevas a decir que éso es arte ni de lejos ¿me equivoco? xD
MrEsterpiscore 9 months ago
@MrEsterpiscore Si es Arte Davido, es "Expresionismo".
Alemaxman 9 months ago
@Alemaxman yo en ningún momento dije que no fuera arte, aunque discuto que sea el mejor desde luego, lo que dije es que decir que es arte porque provoca sensaciones y hace pensar es erróneo, pues evidentemente hay más cosas que hacen pensar y producen sensaciones, y nadie, (o casi nadie en su sano juicio),lo llamaría como tal. xD, yo sólo hice ver que esa definición no era verdadera, si me puedes dar tú una exacta y que concuerde con la realidad..... yo encantada.
MrEsterpiscore 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrEsterpiscore Dijiste o escribste: "...pero no creo q te atrevas a decir que éso es arte ni de lejos"
El arte tiene que ver con la expresion, la originalidad. A mi tampoco m gusta, pero es arte.
Alemaxman 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@davidofpiano423 El holocausto también provoca sensación, da que pensar, etc., pero no creo que te atrevas a decir que éso es arte ni de lejos ¿me equivoco? xD
MrEsterpiscore 9 months ago
does anyone know what kind of mutes the trombonists are using? you can see them at 3:17
antobag 9 months ago
Continued:
This cerebral engagement is pleasurable to some, like me, and unpleasant to others. Just because a song uses dissonant chords doesn't mean that it is ugly. Dissonance is used to evoke specific feelings in the listener, to make him/her to feel a certain way, which is sometimes meant to be unpleasant, and is a way for the composer to express his/her inner thoughts and feelings. It is this that turns ugliness into beauty.
pyrochild1618 9 months ago
@pyrochild1618 no se puede convertir lo feo en bello, a lo sumo las cosas podrán tener aspectos de ambos. Hitler también expresó sus sentimientos.... vaya que si lo hizo, y como ya he dicho no creo que se atrevan a decir que éso es arte
MrEsterpiscore 9 months ago
Stop the clusterfuck of arguments and pay attention to the music. The definition of beauty is the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest). This is an intense piece that engages the mind to try to follow the complicated rhythms and harmonies.
pyrochild1618 9 months ago
kandinsky of music...
AlMachineKTC 9 months ago
first impressions, this is not my kind of music. but unlike most youtubers who denounce it in the style of stalin to shostakovich, i'm going to buy a cd and listen to it more.
imsleepyanddead 10 months ago
its so so bueatyful
i wish i understood him so amazing so fine
noogan3 10 months ago
its so so bueatyful
noogan3 10 months ago
I admire people who can listen to this kind of music, I wish I could learn to appreciate it more
ilovemrtoast 10 months ago
@ilovemrtoast Schoenberg was deliberately incomprehensible. Don't feel bad, this is not good music; it embraces the ugly BECAUSE it is ugly. You may find the romantic composers more agreeable.
sybo59 10 months ago
@sybo59 Yes, of course – because 'agreeability' is the obvious quality by which we should judge the value of all music. Let's not concern ourselves with the reality that the music by many visionary Romantic composers (and even earlier) was also considered 'incomprehensible' or 'ugly' by their contemporaries. It's clearly a matter of historical perspective. I also love your it's "ugly BECAUSE it is ugly" line of reasoning. Circular logic always works, because it's 'circular' and 'logical'.
ninjapunk76 9 months ago
@ninjapunk76 His music, as Schoenberg himself put it, "treats dissonances like consonances" and represents the "emancipation of the dissonance."
As I said, he was DELIBERATELY incomprehensible. In its time, this genre's admirers praised it for not being beautiful, but "profound." Profound because it was ugly. Shoe goes on [1924]: "I cannot be understood, and I content myself with respect." Wow, it's almost as if I didn't base my statement on "historical perspective" at all!
sybo59 9 months ago 15
@sybo59
Malevolent? Schoenberg?
Your knowledge of Schoenberg's art and genius is only rivaled by your unbridled stupidity.
Easleytee 6 months ago
@Easleytee I said: "MALEVOLENT; deliberately, aggressively incoherent and anti-reason", not simply "malevolent. I explained my context, which wasn't "he beat his kids" or anything. Care to enlighten me?
sybo59 6 months ago
@Easleytee By the way, the wording of your snappy comment implies that, despite your intention, I have a HIGH level of knowledge of Schoe. Now please explain the beauty and genius of this particular piece, without sounding pretentious or rambling in vagaries such as "well, like, that's not what music is about, maaaan. Like, you gotta, like...."
sybo59 6 months ago
@sybo59 Firstly, when you insult people held in high esteem by most of the viewers of this video, prepare for some steam, because you're asking for trouble.
That said, your complaints against atonality are completely valid. It holds no emotion in it, no one's going to leave this concert with mascara pouring down their cheeks. But that's not what it's trying to do. Atonality is pure conflict, grotesque for the sake of being grotesque. Like Munch's The Scream, it's ugly, yet compelling.
koopakidshyguy 6 months ago
@koopakidshyguy Oh, I completely expect disagreement; I've no complaints there.
"grotesque for the sake of being grotesque"
I completely agree with you. In fact, if you look back at older comments of mine, you'll see I've said exactly the same. To me, the only thing that can possibly redeem atonality or noise is an attachment to some form of "program." ie. Played in conjunction w/ appropriate prose, verse, or piece of cinema. It simply cannot be good art as stand-alone inexplicable audio.
sybo59 6 months ago
@koopakidshyguy cont. I firmly believe that a piece of art must be judged independent of any proclaimed or perceived intention of the artist. Given that ground rule, I've never heard an unpretentious or rational explanation of the beauty some insist for guys like Schoe, Cage, etc.
You make another great point when you say "yet compelling." I listen to Varese, and find some of it very interesting--but am I then compelled to demand that it is high art? No. Few seem capable of this distinction.
sybo59 6 months ago
@ninjapunk76 Cont. Now, take the context of my statement: I was talking to a guy that clearly disliked it, but masochistically yearned to appreciate it. The answer is, you're not supposed to appreciate it, but, if anything, respect it. He thought the defect was with himself, which is ridiculous.
Your circular logic comment makes no sense. In reality, can't people praise something ugly for being ugly? Circular logic is characterized by FAULTY logic trying to prove itself.
sybo59 9 months ago
@sybo59
What you say makes sense. I hate it when people bring up the "circular logic" challenge without even thinking.
J4m3z1 9 months ago
Comment removed
sybo59 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@J4m3z1 Thanks. I checked your profile and see that you are a student of philosophy. You seem to place a dichotomy between knowledge and happiness; have you considered that no such divide need exist? I'd go even further and say that rationality, though no guarantee, is the only way to achieve your values and obtain happiness (as opposed to mere sensations from acting on whim or faith).
sybo59 9 months ago
@sybo59
As you say, there is no guarantee, and that's why I believe in a dichotomy between knowledge and happiness. Some people may derive happiness from having a wealth of knowledge, but this is just a contingent fact. You can get happy stupid people.
J4m3z1 9 months ago
@J4m3z1 Fair enough; I was just curious. Though we disagree on the main point, I believe we both recognize that the choice between either knowledge or happiness is a fatuous and artificial one. Reason is practical by its nature, but isn't good BECAUSE it is practical (ie. pragmatism).
Have a good one!
sybo59 9 months ago
@sybo59 NO you cannot. Thats like saying bad art is is beautiful for being bad. In terms of music, thats like saying, hey look I made a piece that uses all the wrong notes in the wrong order to make chaos, but it was done in an interesting way. Isnt it beautiful? NO IT ISN'T. For fucks sake's, not every experiment in art, interesting though it may be, is going to be beautiful.
SOSTacoJohnson 9 months ago
@SOSTacoJohnson "NO you cannot" -I don't know what you're referencing here. My only comment to you was a question. I hope you are not trying to say that it is impossible to like something for being ugly (humans are volitional creatures; of course they can).
"not every experiment in art...is going to be beautiful" -Where did I say otherwise?
sybo59 9 months ago
Comment removed
SOSTacoJohnson 9 months ago
@sybo59 It was nothing more than an assumption. I don't understand why you would listen to music when it is ugly, and then praise it for at least being different. I think its barely noteworthy, and if anything, the definition of a failed expedition into the abstract. Honestly, there is too much good music out there to waste time on this.
& personally, I find it next to impossible to enjoy an ugly painting, even if the methods of painting it are different or creative. It is only a bad study.
SOSTacoJohnson 9 months ago
@SOSTacoJohnson "I don't understand why you would listen to music when it is ugly..."
I'm not a defender of praising the ugly at all. The Expressionist movement was irrational by design; I disagree with everything it stands for, but was just pointing out its history to someone. We may be in agreement, except where you consider this a mere failed experiment. The distinction here is that it wasn't striving to be good in the first place. It's related to Dada in this respect.
sybo59 9 months ago
@sybo59 what is beauty? Flow.
SOSTacoJohnson 9 months ago
@SOSTacoJohnson "what is beauty?"
Well, I'd have to refer you to whole books on aesthetics. Since evidently you feel a youtube comment box is proper for such an explanation, why don't you tell me what you think beauty is (Is "flow" your answer? What does that mean?)?
sybo59 9 months ago
@sybo59 figure it out Malthus
SOSTacoJohnson 9 months ago
@ninjapunk76 Oh, and I didn't say that it IS ugly BECAUSE it is ugly -- that would be a tautology. It [the Weimar Expressionist movement] EMBRACES the ugly BECAUSE it is ugly.
sybo59 9 months ago
This movement is amazing... I wish I could see this live....
CalvinSomething 11 months ago
Menuda paranoia. Genial.
SenecioKlee 11 months ago
:o *speechless*
infernia7blade 11 months ago
In the beginning I was wondering whether that was the orchestra tune up or the concerto had already started.
alik1989 11 months ago 51
@alik1989 Very funny. It's been 100 years people make this joke. You'd better try another one, it's getting tiresome
johannjakobfroberger 7 months ago
very dark...
classicaddict2010 1 year ago
Mitsuko Uchida + Schoenberg= feel good :)
ONALTIKIRKALTI 1 year ago
Arnold Schoenberg is the greatest 20th century composer.
Oh, I know, many will say its Stravinsky, but Schoenberg really formed a new music movement & school that revolutionalized music and created a whole new tonal language. Stravinsky was showier, but Schoenberg's music was the buried 'bomb' that musicians (from the 20's and 30's on), knew was there--and had to unearth--which they did. S.'s sound world changed everything and we are still living with it in film scores, etc.
windstorm1000 1 year ago
@windstorm1000
bla,bla, bla
gr0mithtimon 1 year ago
@windstorm1000 He definitely is one of the greates. However, you cannot just say he's the best composer just because he formed a new music movement. The question is what the point of composing is then. Is it to explore new music and bring music to its limits or is it to satisfy the listeners? :D
PianoGod1990 1 year ago
@PianoGod1990
Good question. When I compose the first thing I do is grasp and attach myself to something that has a very obvious pattern which I know will satisfy many listeners. But I find myself disatisfied because it doesn't feel innovative to go for the very obvious pattern. But then I try something a little more innovative, perhaps too innovative, and I feel equally disatisfied because it's not so easy to listen to, which makes me feel like it's not good music.
J4m3z1 10 months ago
@J4m3z1 People fear the new, because it is uncomfortable the first time
xFesx 10 months ago
Amazingly brutal is the phrase
LordZephyroth 1 year ago
it starts at 0:52
stagesix6 1 year ago
It starts at 0.53
FeBlandMusic 1 year ago
Jazz, a bunch of musicians running around like sheep, chasing each other. This is a great piece of music here.... forget much of that jazz crap.
rumpwrestler 1 year ago
@rumpwrestler lol, 0/10 troll. Same people who are purist jazz fans only say similar things about music like this. Being unable to relate to music does not justify one's opinion on calling an ENTIRE genre crap.
JBT24 1 year ago
@rumpwrestler Maybe not for the composer(s) in question, but as far as the performers are concerned jazz musicians are at another level.
StevieHendrix92 11 months ago
No easy scale passages here! Nicely done. You can here his classicism behind the modernism. I don't believe his 12-tone technique is best applied to the concerto form; the musical fragments in the piano don't sound soloistic. Nice recording and video.
hotplate85 1 year ago
god! i don t know how i came to this video... but this is incredible!!!
vonpiro 1 year ago
This is dedicated to the victims to the Holocaust in 1947 :/
Timsta1010 1 year ago
That keyboard/orchestra sandwich shot was cool.
risrosen 1 year ago
derpa derp derp derpa derpderp derppity derp duppa doop doopydoopittydopdop. derbaderby derbittipitty derp derp derp.
dastechnoviking 1 year ago
@dastechnoviking ARE YOU SINGING MOZART BUFFOON,WAKE UP AND JOIN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
alezander666 1 year ago
@alezander666 The problem of this and the last century is that they are swarmed with utter morons like you
Grondorn 1 year ago
@Grondorn Sounds like you're a some ignorant conservative snob, go listen to jazz bro. Might change your mind about "this and last century"
PurplePlayer99 1 year ago
@PurplePlayer99 I have listen to every kind of modern music, so I can very freely say that it is 99% garbage, especially jazz and rock, it can hardly be called music.
Grondorn 1 year ago
@Grondorn Idk dude, Jazz can be considered the best type of music even though that opinion is subjective. Try Pat Metheny, his technical guitar ability and rhythm is undeniable. He's my main man, good luck!
PurplePlayer99 1 year ago
schoenberg thought people would be whistling serial music on the streets by the end of the 20th century. instead, they were whistling minimalism and booty clapping songs.
MrDJCrazyDiamond 1 year ago
Regrettably, Schoenberg's volcanic expressivity remains untenable for most non-musicians. Concert patrons wish their sensibilities to remain unchallenged, homogenized and undisturbed.
Schoenberg's artistic genius is beyond both category and reproach.
pooperscoopr69 1 year ago
I split my scull which was made up of conventional classical musical moods...unaffordable.
CHELL9001 1 year ago
For those who may have difficulty, please allow me to advise that you listen carefully to the opening theme, which has the character of a Ländler. Everything that comes after the complete statement of this theme is a variation on the opening motif or some other aspect of that theme. It is precisely the same compositional procedure used by Brahms or Beethoven. The only difference is the total chromaticism of the musical language.
Varese13 1 year ago
This guy only breaks one rule! The tonation. All other rules are followed to a tee.
jagless1 1 year ago
amazing !!!
ProggyDox 1 year ago
after reading about schoenberg in a few places, i expected this music to be impossible to listen to. but i dont think this is that bad. i probably would think it was worse if i hadnt read about the whole concept behind it.
thePhoenix1306 1 year ago
@thePhoenix1306
You should check out his incredibly beautiful "String sextet" and "Verklarte Nacht"
they were before he went 12 tone row, and are some of the most emotional and beautiful pieces ever written.
intervalkid 1 year ago
Comment removed
thePhoenix1306 1 year ago
After assimilating Schoenberg's musical reverie and inspired genius...Mozart sounds like Manilow to these ears.
pooperscoopr69 1 year ago
@pooperscoopr69 That's a bit harsh! Schoenberg modelled some of his string quartets on Mozart.
alienalienss 1 year ago
@alienalienss oh and YES,BEETHOVEN,MOZART DID WITH OTHER COMPOSERS TOO,i heard all my life,PSYCHEDELIC ROCK,AKA,JIMI HENDRIX,THE DEAD,AIRPLANE,ECT,were just blues,well THEY'RE NOT,MUDDY WATERS NEVER DID "GO ASK ALICE",all music IS MODELED SOMEWHERE TO SOMETHING,IDIOTS SAY PATSY CLINE AND ROY ORBISON ARE "COUNTRY",WELL,WHERE'S THE COMPARISON,"COMPARED TO WHAT",THESE GENIUS' PEOPLE ARE PURE CABARET ART,
alezander666 1 year ago
@alezander666 I like Schoenberg's music. But he himself repeatedly said that Mozart was a genius. You're disagreeing with Schoenberg here.
alienalienss 1 year ago
It seems as if they're playing backwards :D
TaeZX 1 year ago
i wish i could understand this music its like speaking only english and going to mexico u dont know wtf is going on but everything still works
formylaptop 1 year ago
Uchida has the hype and sex appeal but this is NOT a sensitive rendition she thinks she is playing list with her overwrought gesticulations. to appreciate how good she can be check out her Mozart sonata recordings
questions613 1 year ago
intense emotion and bitter sweet
nutsocket 1 year ago
For me -- very haunting, intense, and difficult to process.
lmcnellis 1 year ago
lol i actually liked it ¿:D
5U3N5QU1 1 year ago
Reminds me very much of Scriabin's Sonatas.
Butzopower 1 year ago
To me sounds new, modern. If you are fed up of listening to tonal music this is great (unpredictable) very logical if formula understood.
davidgrech1 1 year ago
2:47 - Whoops, her inner Gould is coming out.
amcint01 1 year ago
mozart si rivolta nella tomba che non ha
Kirty7 1 year ago
Like Schubert but sans the melody.
mikern2001 1 year ago
mann, you spelt schoenberg wrong..
listening to this for music gcse.. really powerful stuff! i think its really good
thehhnn 1 year ago
@thehhnn Haha you are the only person doing Music GCSE that likes this stuff haha. I like it but annoyingly didn't do music GCSE... ah well.
Guitareben 1 year ago
Esto... No, me quedo con Mozart, esto es demasiado... ¿Que se fumaron?
NLSJ 1 year ago
@NLSJ Creo que se "fumaron" el conocimiento de tres siglos... Son tres siglos de reconocimiento de nuevas formas de composición. Y, a decir verdad, ya en el 2010 no debería sonar TAN raro ¿no crees?
Daviduseche2 1 year ago
@Daviduseche2 Esto será raro hasta que el sol se convierta en nova y nos mate a todos.
NLSJ 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think the rhythmic patterns and the shorter motifs are easier to grasp. I've listened to this excerpt several times. Orchestration of atonal music can definitely make it more accessible but It's tough to really "get it" unless you listen to it several times or really have an ear for it.
ProgWill91 1 year ago
I think the rhythmic patterns and the shorter motifs are easier to grasp. I've listened to this excerpt several times. Orchestration of atonal music can definitely make it more accessible but It's tough to really "get it" unless you listen to it several times or really have an ear for it.
ProgWill91 1 year ago 2
This music haunts my soul!!
Words are not enough! Such power and genious!
jcsorez 1 year ago
brutal
GaryWRNY 1 year ago 15
@PedroDiPedro just because you dont understand schoenberg's musical language (a fact which you made painfully clear in your laughably presumptive post) doesnt mean its not a valid musical language. You are the quintessential doo doo headed know it all. people like you are the reason geniuses toil away in relative obscurity while hacks rake in cash hand over fist.
dancinginthestreet1 1 year ago
This woman is so passionate it scares me.
ElmariaSecret 1 year ago 40
@ElmariaSecret She is clearly and completely tripping!
utstarcom007 1 year ago
@ElmariaSecret Only Glenn Gould could play this.... now Uchida who is splendid.
rumpwrestler 1 year ago
This is amazing! Schoenberg was a genius! This piece is incredibly expressive, intensly emotional, has so much dissonance, atonal harmonies and never sticks with the same musical idea, yet it works! it is truely a work of art.
Mind boggling.
Eellenz 1 year ago 2
A trip to a totally surreal world
Kuromadooshi 1 year ago
is this 12 tone or free atonality?
fabiopalma 1 year ago
Wow, this is beautiful!!!! Schoenberg still sounds fresh!!!! His language is a reference towards the future even beyond integral serialism!!
jhg12989 1 year ago
drażniące dla ucha... gdzie w tym kurwa jakaś składnia ?
Krzysiek860 1 year ago
Es una pena enorme que nos acarrea dia con dia, que personas de mi edad (tengo 18 años), no valoren y desprestigien a esta música, que es tan poderosa que hace sentir mil cosas a la vez y en vez de esto prefieran llenar sus oídos de cualquier vulgaridad.
Rspecto a este sentido es ofensivo el modo en el que hoy en día se produce la música, que ha perdido en la mayoría de la gente aquel sentido bello, filosófico, inexplicable, mágico...
Lirian04 1 year ago
If you hear the beginning of this piece and hate it, stop listening to it and go listen to something your mind can comprehend. But if you've fallen in love with the sound and admire its complexity, you should agree, this is magnificent.
ASirensSoliloquy 1 year ago
@ASirensSoliloquy But there is nothing in this piece, there is nothing to comprehend. These are just an abstract and bloodless walls of sounds. All this outer complexity and obnoxious loudness distracts you from the total inner voidness.
This is not music, it is more like an drug to stimulate the nerves.
Grondorn 1 year ago
@Grondorn Could you be more specific about what there is instead of "voidness" in the music you do actually like?
alienalienss 1 year ago
@alienalienss The music I love is fullblooded, and it feels like it is weaved in the very essence of the whole universe
Grondorn 1 year ago
@Grondorn What, Holst?
alienalienss 1 year ago
This must be so challenging to play, following no key is a nightmare :P
YtseJam16 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrTanookiMario 1 year ago
Okay, to make you all hate me... Those of you criticizing others for not liking this, stop being retarded; music is subjective by its own definition. Those of you complaining that this is too mechanical, rigid, emotionless, etc. just listen to it. It's clear that Schoenberg put tons of thought into the dynamics, timbre, and everything. Even the melody is only vaguely bound by his "rules." I personally like this, but I could see why others wouldn't. Also, @GeorgeMaj15: more "correct?" riiiight...
MrTanookiMario 1 year ago
It is more structurally perfect than the 7 tonal system. The structure behind twelve tone not only controls pitches being played, but the order in which they're played, unlike the 7 tone system, which only has "suggestions" for chord progressions. To correct this, we have structure forms, like the rondo, which in time were also cast aside because they're additive. Note pattern is written INTO 12 tone, it's beautiful and complex. Hard to understand, yes, and I get your point, but still.
GeorgeMaj15 1 year ago
Nature has been described as complex and wild, with no structure and seeming chaos. Yet zoom in, and notice ecosystems, and leaves, and the structures of nature--it has footwork. I feel that 12 tone is similar; it is chaotic and unpleasant at times, but zoom in and you notice the structure behind it, it only looks and feels free and wild. In that aspect I sometimes consider 12 tone the music to most accurately portray nature, not in actual sounds of nature, but in the nature of nature.
GeorgeMaj15 1 year ago
@GeorgeMaj15
Well my perspective is that it's silly to call one more perfect than the other. Yes, 12-tone is more mathematical and precise (which could be interpreted as perfection) but it could also be seen as limiting and unpalatable. As to the parallel with nature, it could be argued that tonal (or any non-serialist) music is more perfect. There are a few basic laws that can be infinitely expanded and recombined in new and unexpected ways. It depends on your perspective; music is subjective.
MrTanookiMario 1 year ago 2
@MrTanookiMario I absolutely support your sentiment. (Also the sentiment that I like this piece a lot)
Hyardacil 1 year ago
Oh and where is the jazz. I dont here any swinging or even syncopation. If there is any its masked by the seemingly randomness of this piece.
kukucowking 1 year ago