Try as I might, I can't count myself as part of that group. Schoenberg and Berg are perfectly logical (though they took work), but Webern just doesn't engage me at all
@@michaelwu7678 Some of it was listening to more tonal but still very dissonant works (things like Schoenberg's first two quartets, Chamber Symphonies, and Verklärte Nacht, or Berg's Piano Sonata and Violin Concerto). It might even be worth really getting Mahler before moving onto Shoenberg and Berg (and maybe Brahms before you move to Mahler). At the very least, with Schoenberg and Berg, you'll realise that the music is essentially the same, just with different harmonic rules - counterpoint, melody, and rhythm are treated pretty much the same. Alternatively, you can try listening to some of the really complicated composers, like Sorabji or Boulez, and getting to a point where that's even slightly comprehensible - then returning to Schoenberg is surprisingly easy. Either way, though, there will have to be repeated listenings of the stuff you're not used to, to both check your progress and just incresse your familiarity with the work. And, even withing one composer's output, some pieces are easier to get than others - I personally find Schoenberg's piano music much harder to get than his other stuff (especislly his concerti).
@@michaelwu7678 Get to know the sound of the BACH cypher, backwards and forwards, with octave leaps added between the notes. Then go back to this. All of a sudden you will hear nothing else, especially in the sections where Webern really wants to emphasize four-note groupings.
Wow! Amazing music! This is very serious work. Until now I have dismissed the second Viennese twelve tone technique as being purely reactionary and intellectual, simply groping for something different. But having given it the consideration I now understand that it deserves, I have to admit that I was completely wrong and that these guys were onto something of a rare beauty and not some little significance. Bravo Anton Webern, and thank you at last Arnold Schoenberg for discovering this wonder! These two together with Alban Berg are truly masters of a compelling beauty, which I now hope and believe the world will one day fully understand and appreciate.
I sueegest to you to pay attantion to Webern's Concert of 9 instruments op. 24, its grouping by 3 pitches with quite specific serial features, and the way how these 3 sound groups interact with the colours and rythms. This is indeed a clear prefiguration of the "genealized serialism" of the Darmstadt school just after WW2, with such names as Boulez, Stockhausen, Nono, Berio, Maderna.
This music is quite old. The world has understood it and absorbed it. It's mainly for other composers, musicians and academics. I don't think it's supposed to appeal to the general public. Webern's music is extremely limited and made to be so on purpose. Extremely limited music would gain an extremely limited audience. It's amazing that Webern was this influential at all. I'm not a fan but I respect the artist and his quest at creating something personal.
This is a fascinating piece. We have to remember that Webern excised all emotion from his music and worked towards a pure, condensed, almost mathematically precise style of atonal composition (looking at the score you can see it is very contrapuntal in places). Webern's achievement in music is similar to that achieved by Piet Mondrian in painting. He produced few works and had a great influence on Boulez and Stockhausen.
Text book chatter that just doesn't apply. He heard this in his head and wrote it down. Doesn't matter that after the fact it is shown to be mathematically symmetrical in structure. It's just music.
I don't agree with anything. How can you say there is no emotion in this work? It is nothing else than emotion. After the war a lot of people tried to emulate his 'style' but no one ever succeeded.
That is the way forward with serialism (dodecaphony i guess strictly speaking in this case). Faith in the composer that there is a reason to listen. The traditional idiom post Mahler had little if anything left to say. Words like logic, harmony, tempo, rhythm and melody are pretty much moot at this point.
@@stueystuey1962 And yet people manage to write new music including any and all of those. Not discounting Webern and onwards, but I don't think that we can look at contemporary music and just discount harmony/rhythm/tempo/etc. Also, serialism is heavily based on logic.
@@ledaswan5990 That's just not the case. Music, like any form of communication, must be understood before you can really form an opinion. The pure aesthetics, I suppose, can be "like it or not", but the actual content is possible to 'get' or not. It's like poetry - if you don't understand Italian, you can't rreally form an opinion on whether Dante's Inferno is well-written. (Obviously Dante's Inferno has a narrative element that _can_ be translated, but there's no way of knowing how well Dante himself writes from a translation.) Basically, you absolutely _can_ learn how different musical styles work. I myself had to get used to Brahms, even. Once you understand something (at least to the point where it's coherent), you can form an opinion of it. The gut reaction is a response to _only_ the basic aesthetic aspect of it - which, to be clear, it's entirely fair not to like (my brother, for example, isn't a big fan of Schumann's style), but is still a fairly shallow evaluation.
It might help to know Stravinsky said he heard crystals when he listened to Webern, and Webern himself also loved to collect rock crystals on his walks. And he also insisted on lyricism when rehearsing his works. There is the formal and logical side of his music, but it serves an emotional purpose. The time period saw people really into psychology after seeing the horrors of WWI, which was extremely violent in its time and ushered in an era where life wasn't so romanticized. Webern's music reflects that kind of uneasiness but it also portrays the stream of consciousness that appear with life. The feelings I get when listening to this is a sparse and crystalline depiction of the darker emotions of everyday life, as if each line represents a stream of thought laid bare to the absolute minimum and without Romantic era "decorations". So follow the melodic lines knowing the psychological, social, and historical context and you will surely get it.
Interesting sound world. The more the merrier, I submit. Some days, sounds better than other days. Depends on my mood at the time. Some performers have ability to perform this Music so that it makes perfect sense.
Well, since I started in late 2019 with classical music I was into Romanticism. It was not until last year where I got a bit more modern with Prokofiev and in late 2022 with Shostakovich. Now I'm very into 20th century music, and even some actually new stuff (like Marqués' Danzón Nro 2 or Fear II from Rule of the Rose), and I had heard Webern some days ago, and I kinda liked it, it gave me Shostakovich vibes, but this one... uh... I liked it when it began to be faster in the first movement, but then it slowed down again so... Yeah, I think Webern is too modern for me.
i hate (most) of weberns attempts at 12 time technique; id much rather prefer bergs or eislers serialism than this, weberns freely atonal period is so much better. the only good twelve tone work he's made that ive listened to is his symphony
Me too has written "Twelve-Tone" Music, but when I do, often I end up feeling like I'm spitting out random words on an otherwise perfect grammar and syntax...
This music is quite old. The world has understood it and absorbed it. It's mainly for other composers, musicians and academics. I don't think it's supposed to appeal to the general public. Webern's music is extremely limited and made to be so on purpose. Extremely limited music would gain an extremely limited audience. It's amazing that Webern was this influential at all. I'm not a fan but I respect the artist and his quest at creating something personal.
"Though American composers have sought to create art that is indigenous to the artists of the New World and without European influence"... yes, sure, only that they emulated terribly to European composers, in a very cheesy way, and merely adding to it some new age stuff that was a very cheesy and superficial interpretation of Oriental religions/philosophies.
It's hard to tell who emulated who, honestly. Cage, Feldman and Brown started working with graphic scores, improvisation, open form, extended instrumental techniques and chance a few years before Stockhausen and Boulez. The interchange between American and European composers became quite intense in post-1945 avant-garde music, with the international festivals and all. Figures like virtuoso pianist David Tudor, who was basically the only one around who could play Cagez Boulez and Stockhausen, also played a great part in this
You are concerning yourself to a limited and less than important group of composers. While Webern is certainly one of my favorite composers i include numerous Americans in that group and i an certain you couldn't even name them let alone appreciate their contribution to the western tradition.
![Anton Webern - Kantate I op. 29 (1938-39) [vocal score]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eQ0nqtsbWHs/mqdefault.jpg)
Webern's music is understood and appreciated by very few. I don't think he would mind.
Try as I might, I can't count myself as part of that group. Schoenberg and Berg are perfectly logical (though they took work), but Webern just doesn't engage me at all
@@klop4228 Could you elaborate on what "work" it took? I'm still trying to get into atonal music but I'm not really succeeding.
@@michaelwu7678 Some of it was listening to more tonal but still very dissonant works (things like Schoenberg's first two quartets, Chamber Symphonies, and Verklärte Nacht, or Berg's Piano Sonata and Violin Concerto). It might even be worth really getting Mahler before moving onto Shoenberg and Berg (and maybe Brahms before you move to Mahler). At the very least, with Schoenberg and Berg, you'll realise that the music is essentially the same, just with different harmonic rules - counterpoint, melody, and rhythm are treated pretty much the same.
Alternatively, you can try listening to some of the really complicated composers, like Sorabji or Boulez, and getting to a point where that's even slightly comprehensible - then returning to Schoenberg is surprisingly easy.
Either way, though, there will have to be repeated listenings of the stuff you're not used to, to both check your progress and just incresse your familiarity with the work. And, even withing one composer's output, some pieces are easier to get than others - I personally find Schoenberg's piano music much harder to get than his other stuff (especislly his concerti).
@@michaelwu7678 keep g0ing
@@michaelwu7678 Get to know the sound of the BACH cypher, backwards and forwards, with octave leaps added between the notes. Then go back to this. All of a sudden you will hear nothing else, especially in the sections where Webern really wants to emphasize four-note groupings.
Still to this day one of my favorite composers, amazing string quartet
At 41 years I find this music to be very special, unique. Glad to appreciate it.
very good and simple
This is purity, beauty. This is Webern.
Wow! Amazing music! This is very serious work. Until now I have dismissed the second Viennese twelve tone technique as being purely reactionary and intellectual, simply groping for something different. But having given it the consideration I now understand that it deserves, I have to admit that I was completely wrong and that these guys were onto something of a rare beauty and not some little significance. Bravo Anton Webern, and thank you at last Arnold Schoenberg for discovering this wonder! These two together with Alban Berg are truly masters of a compelling beauty, which I now hope and believe the world will one day fully understand and appreciate.
I sueegest to you to pay attantion to Webern's Concert of 9 instruments op. 24, its grouping by 3 pitches with quite specific serial features, and the way how these 3 sound groups interact with the colours and rythms. This is indeed a clear prefiguration of the "genealized serialism" of the Darmstadt school just after WW2, with such names as Boulez, Stockhausen, Nono, Berio, Maderna.
This music is quite old. The world has understood it and absorbed it. It's mainly for other composers, musicians and academics. I don't think it's supposed to appeal to the general public. Webern's music is extremely limited and made to be so on purpose. Extremely limited music would gain an extremely limited audience. It's amazing that Webern was this influential at all. I'm not a fan but I respect the artist and his quest at creating something personal.
Reactionary? What an idea!
Anton Webern great sensibility!
This is a fascinating piece. We have to remember that Webern excised all emotion from his music and worked towards a pure, condensed, almost mathematically precise style of atonal composition (looking at the score you can see it is very contrapuntal in places). Webern's achievement in music is similar to that achieved by Piet Mondrian in painting. He produced few works and had a great influence on Boulez and Stockhausen.
Text book chatter that just doesn't apply. He heard this in his head and wrote it down. Doesn't matter that after the fact it is shown to be mathematically symmetrical in structure. It's just music.
@@stueystuey1962that’s not true. He used Schoenberg’s twelve tone technique and all the planned out inversion and retrograde that goes along with it
I don't agree with anything. How can you say there is no emotion in this work? It is nothing else than emotion. After the war a lot of people tried to emulate his 'style' but no one ever succeeded.
@@stueystuey1962 haha do you think composers just hear stuff in their heads and write it down? And any pattern or structure is happenstance?
Webern’s music is extremely emotional. Do your homework
those measure numbers are such an eyesore
I have listened to it for several times, but i don't get it.
But i don't give up.
That is the way forward with serialism (dodecaphony i guess strictly speaking in this case). Faith in the composer that there is a reason to listen. The traditional idiom post Mahler had little if anything left to say. Words like logic, harmony, tempo, rhythm and melody are pretty much moot at this point.
@@stueystuey1962 And yet people manage to write new music including any and all of those. Not discounting Webern and onwards, but I don't think that we can look at contemporary music and just discount harmony/rhythm/tempo/etc.
Also, serialism is heavily based on logic.
Theres nothing to"get". It's music, you either like it or not.
@@ledaswan5990 That's just not the case. Music, like any form of communication, must be understood before you can really form an opinion. The pure aesthetics, I suppose, can be "like it or not", but the actual content is possible to 'get' or not.
It's like poetry - if you don't understand Italian, you can't rreally form an opinion on whether Dante's Inferno is well-written. (Obviously Dante's Inferno has a narrative element that _can_ be translated, but there's no way of knowing how well Dante himself writes from a translation.)
Basically, you absolutely _can_ learn how different musical styles work. I myself had to get used to Brahms, even. Once you understand something (at least to the point where it's coherent), you can form an opinion of it. The gut reaction is a response to _only_ the basic aesthetic aspect of it - which, to be clear, it's entirely fair not to like (my brother, for example, isn't a big fan of Schumann's style), but is still a fairly shallow evaluation.
It might help to know Stravinsky said he heard crystals when he listened to Webern, and Webern himself also loved to collect rock crystals on his walks. And he also insisted on lyricism when rehearsing his works. There is the formal and logical side of his music, but it serves an emotional purpose. The time period saw people really into psychology after seeing the horrors of WWI, which was extremely violent in its time and ushered in an era where life wasn't so romanticized. Webern's music reflects that kind of uneasiness but it also portrays the stream of consciousness that appear with life. The feelings I get when listening to this is a sparse and crystalline depiction of the darker emotions of everyday life, as if each line represents a stream of thought laid bare to the absolute minimum and without Romantic era "decorations". So follow the melodic lines knowing the psychological, social, and historical context and you will surely get it.
This is amazing
Interesting sound world. The more the merrier, I submit. Some days, sounds better than other days. Depends on my mood at the time. Some performers have ability to perform this Music so that it makes perfect sense.
yeah
Webern makes the world beautiful.
Better than the Beatles
it's intimidating at first but it's not that bad. sounds quite clean and appealing in a quaint kind of sense.
Well, since I started in late 2019 with classical music I was into Romanticism. It was not until last year where I got a bit more modern with Prokofiev and in late 2022 with Shostakovich. Now I'm very into 20th century music, and even some actually new stuff (like Marqués' Danzón Nro 2 or Fear II from Rule of the Rose), and I had heard Webern some days ago, and I kinda liked it, it gave me Shostakovich vibes, but this one... uh... I liked it when it began to be faster in the first movement, but then it slowed down again so... Yeah, I think Webern is too modern for me.
Pretty cool if you ask me B)
Listening to this feels like trying to watch a bad movie in an old cryptic language that you just cannot understand.
i hate (most) of weberns attempts at 12 time technique; id much rather prefer bergs or eislers serialism than this, weberns freely atonal period is so much better. the only good twelve tone work he's made that ive listened to is his symphony
No?
I don't get it
Me too has written "Twelve-Tone" Music, but when I do, often I end up feeling like I'm spitting out random words on an otherwise perfect grammar and syntax...
i dont care
this is simple and very good way to put notes
this is more about dinamycs and attacks
That's the point.
I don't get it... I mean, I get it, but I don't get it, well, I get it
3:56
Based
This music is quite old. The world has understood it and absorbed it. It's mainly for other composers, musicians and academics. I don't think it's supposed to appeal to the general public. Webern's music is extremely limited and made to be so on purpose. Extremely limited music would gain an extremely limited audience. It's amazing that Webern was this influential at all. I'm not a fan but I respect the artist and his quest at creating something personal.
His music is just pure pride.
first movement
"Though American composers have sought to create art that is indigenous to the artists of the New World and without European influence"... yes, sure, only that they emulated terribly to European composers, in a very cheesy way, and merely adding to it some new age stuff that was a very cheesy and superficial interpretation of Oriental religions/philosophies.
It's hard to tell who emulated who, honestly. Cage, Feldman and Brown started working with graphic scores, improvisation, open form, extended instrumental techniques and chance a few years before Stockhausen and Boulez. The interchange between American and European composers became quite intense in post-1945 avant-garde music, with the international festivals and all. Figures like virtuoso pianist David Tudor, who was basically the only one around who could play Cagez Boulez and Stockhausen, also played a great part in this
@@Hist_da_Musica eita
You are concerning yourself to a limited and less than important group of composers. While Webern is certainly one of my favorite composers i include numerous Americans in that group and i an certain you couldn't even name them let alone appreciate their contribution to the western tradition.
All you have to do is listen.
Apparently an impossible task for some.
hallo
Garbi dago. Lau katuk borroka ederra antolatzen dute.Agian, hasieratik ez da ondo ulertzen,urteak pasatuta,bai, primeran.
Впервые вижу коммент на баскском! Что-то в этом есть.
3:56
3:57
1:36
3:57