Luigi Dallapiccola is an important and underrated composer. Most composers came to serialism under the influence of Schoznberg, but Dallapiccola was mainly influenced by Webern - aunique figure before Boulz and the Damstadt school. Here we have a rather late orchestral score. I have no explanation for its odd title.
@@lxuaes6915 the question is indeed quite complex. After, say 1950 or just before, Dallapiccola followed a rather strict serialism, adding rythm cells handling of his own, quite diffrent of say Boulez's concept. As foer the différance in the styles of Schoenberg vs Webern, it would need thick books to analyze them- and actually thick books were written. let us say in onr sentence, which is obviously much too sharp, Schoenberg was rather a post-romantic or expressionist, conceiving the series or its derivatives as more or less a new concept of "theme", which is a basically a "conservative" vision in a very progressive language, while Webern has no care of these aspects but was basically a constructivist interested in the interaction of cells (a bit like Mondriaan in painting - the evolution of Webern can be compared to Mondriaan's more and more abstract series of trees or to the set of quite abstract geometric paintings , which he tried to escape in his very last painting). So, when comparing to Schoenberg, Webern had a promising modernist vision in a similar progressive language.
Obrigasdo.
Luigi Dallapiccola is an important and underrated composer. Most composers came to serialism under the influence of Schoznberg, but Dallapiccola was mainly influenced by Webern - aunique figure before Boulz and the Damstadt school. Here we have a rather late orchestral score. I have no explanation for its odd title.
Are you saying that Luigi isn't following strict serialism? What specifically is differnt in the styles of Schoenberg vs Webern?
@@lxuaes6915 the question is indeed quite complex. After, say 1950 or just before, Dallapiccola followed a rather strict serialism, adding rythm cells handling of his own, quite diffrent of say Boulez's concept. As foer the différance in the styles of Schoenberg vs Webern, it would need thick books to analyze them- and actually thick books were written. let us say in onr sentence, which is obviously much too sharp, Schoenberg was rather a post-romantic or expressionist, conceiving the series or its derivatives as more or less a new concept of "theme", which is a basically a "conservative" vision in a very progressive language, while Webern has no care of these aspects but was basically a constructivist interested in the interaction of cells (a bit like Mondriaan in painting - the evolution of Webern can be compared to Mondriaan's more and more abstract series of trees or to the set of quite abstract geometric paintings , which he tried to escape in his very last painting). So, when comparing to Schoenberg, Webern had a promising modernist vision in a similar progressive language.