As many composers of the XXth century, Egon Wellesz adopted a style of his own, rooted in an extended tonality . This outstanding quartet - the most demanding form of the western music since Haydn - is a definite proof. The language is sometimes close to tonal Schoenberg's.
Wellesz was a student of Schoenberg. In that quartet, he obviously looks for harsh tones and more quiet moments, both by the harmony used and the way how instruments are sometimes used. The stylistic influence of Schoenberg is more than obvious.
@@nemorable1 I think that such a question raises many other ones, like Russian matriochkas. This quartet was written in 1920. In that period, Schoenberg was an undisputed master of “extended tonality” (about which he gave later on courses in California to earn his life and wrote authoritative books such as ‘structural functions of harmony’) and made the decisive jump to atonality, but still did not find a way to structure it. He had written two quartets, the first one in D minor noticeable for its complex one movement architecture, and the second on in F# minor, noticeable for its harmony, its counterpoint and his atonal finale, although polarized by F# major. Atonality allowed him to switch completely from post-romantism to expressionism. Wellesz was not his pupil in the same way that Berg & Webern. They went along parallel paths, with some similar and some diverging trends, both in strictly technical terms and in aesthetics and expression. For instance, I can hear I that quartet some tiny similaratities with Bartok, which I do not find at all in Schoenberg’s music. Let us also remember that Schoenberg died in 1951, quite poor and unable to write all the music that he had in his mind (among others the third act of ‘Moses and Aaron’, which is a considerable loss) while Wellesz lived much longer, which allow a better appreciation of his medium and late evolution. To summarize my modest point of view, it appears to me that it is quite difficult and perhaps useless to compare Schoenberg’s and Wellesz’s string quartets outcomes in 1920.
"Velles". He was Austrian. Here you can find a really great article about him: forbiddenmusic.org/2014/06/04/egon-wellesz-1885-1974-the-forgotten-modernist/
bezuglich Hungarian ancestors, Austrian man. He finished his life in England where he was strongly loved. His only dodecaphonic work was his fifth symphony. He also was a musicologist expert in very old music (I don't remember the name of it) I like his music very much
As many composers of the XXth century, Egon Wellesz adopted a style of his own, rooted in an extended tonality . This outstanding quartet - the most demanding form of the western music since Haydn - is a definite proof. The language is sometimes close to tonal Schoenberg's.
Egon Wellesz had found a style of his own at this time where so many trends appeared.
Very fine expressionism.
Wellesz was a student of Schoenberg. In that quartet, he obviously looks for harsh tones and more quiet moments, both by the harmony used and the way how instruments are sometimes used. The stylistic influence of Schoenberg is more than obvious.
Yes, but it's a better quartet than Schoenberg would have come up with.
@@nemorable1
I think that such a question raises many other ones, like Russian matriochkas. This quartet was written in 1920. In that period, Schoenberg was an undisputed master of “extended tonality” (about which he gave later on courses in California to earn his life and wrote authoritative books such as ‘structural functions of harmony’) and made the decisive jump to atonality, but still did not find a way to structure it. He had written two quartets, the first one in D minor noticeable for its complex one movement architecture, and the second on in F# minor, noticeable for its harmony, its counterpoint and his atonal finale, although polarized by F# major. Atonality allowed him to switch completely from post-romantism to expressionism.
Wellesz was not his pupil in the same way that Berg & Webern. They went along parallel paths, with some similar and some diverging trends, both in strictly technical terms and in aesthetics and expression. For instance, I can hear I that quartet some tiny similaratities with Bartok, which I do not find at all in Schoenberg’s music.
Let us also remember that Schoenberg died in 1951, quite poor and unable to write all the music that he had in his mind (among others the third act of ‘Moses and Aaron’, which is a considerable loss) while Wellesz lived much longer, which allow a better appreciation of his medium and late evolution.
To summarize my modest point of view, it appears to me that it is quite difficult and perhaps useless to compare Schoenberg’s and Wellesz’s string quartets outcomes in 1920.
How do you pronounce his last name? It's Hungarian? German?
What a great compilation of 20th-century modernism
"Velles". He was Austrian. Here you can find a really great article about him:
forbiddenmusic.org/2014/06/04/egon-wellesz-1885-1974-the-forgotten-modernist/
MsFrancescaF Thanks, Francesca, that clears that up.
That's a great link. Thanks for providing it!
bezuglich Hungarian ancestors, Austrian man. He finished his life in England where he was strongly loved.
His only dodecaphonic work was his fifth symphony. He also was a musicologist expert in very old music (I don't remember the name of it)
I like his music very much
@@MsFrancescaF Thanks for posting that!