Jump to content

Magna Carta

Old Members
  • Content Count

    575
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Magna Carta last won the day on August 29 2010

Magna Carta had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Magna Carta

  • Rank
    Funny, right?

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    yesyes
  • MSN
    yes@yes.yes
  • Website URL
    http://yes.yes
  • ICQ
    123456789
  • Yahoo
    yesyes
  • Jabber
    yesyes
  • Skype
    yessiree123420

Profile Information

  • Biography
    No.
  • Gender
    Male
  • My Compositional Styles
    All of them.
  1. lol @ the fact posts were deleted in this thread
  2. Not that your commentary actually has any sort of bearing over whether or not it should continue, but uh, no. Objectively the best statement ever said in 2011.
  3. Actually, no one actually claimed you "found serial composition to be pretentious" or that you considered it simply to arise from a necessity on these composers' part to subvert tradition. In fact, those suggestions wouldn't make much sense given that you are placing Schoenberg and Webern on a higher pedestal for somehow "shaking Western music by its very roots", a commentary that doesn't really make much sense given that they are demonstrably very much rooted in Western tradition with regard to compositional approach. To be perfectly honest, your argument seems to stem from the notion that the music of Schoenberg and Webern have much more a lack of tonal centricity than does Berg's, which is neither sensical nor even the driving factor of their music. But good job on the straw man there. Seriously, A+. If you want to hold your misguided beliefs on Berg, then by all means please continue to do so. However, this isn't a substantive reason why I shouldn't demonstrate why it is misguided. Not all opinions are of equal merit, and those that lack any sort of data to support them should be given less credence and should be addressed. Music being an "abstract art form" does not excuse it from being subject to discourse. Yeah, that's a cool red herring or whatever, but you're explicitly making the claim that Berg "is less innovative than Schoenberg and/or Webern" and that he as an "innovator" is therefore "overrated". The burden of proof is ultimately on you to demonstrate why you feel this is so, and so far you've failed to provide any outside of ambiguous rhetoric.
  4. Actually it certainly does come into play when a person makes rash claims about a composer's perceived "lack of innovation" when compared to other two composers and still fails to provide any. The burden of proof is ultimately on him, especially since he's been shown numerous time his "argument" (well, if he had one, honestly) is misguided.
  5. I'll admit to misinterpreting the Adorno quote (I misread that portion of the post), but honestly that doesn't change my point at all, especially since in your original post you're exceptionally dismissive of Berg saying that he's only cared about because he "studied under Schoenberg"; that sort of disparaging remark would only lead me to believe that you wouldn't like him at all, even if that's not the case. Well yes, I'd imagine you'd have to explain further especially given you entered the thread with a sort of dismissive attitude regarding Berg, only to be slightly clearer on your already-warped opinion on him anyhow, claiming that you enjoy his music yet at the same time swipe him for his "lack of innovation" in reach of a goal that he never even had in the first place. But to continue: Well, Schoenberg did espouse a divergence from tonality during his middle years but once again it was under the mindset that this was the natural progression of musical language, which Schoenberg himself then abandoned during the later years of his life when he simultaneously composed tonal and serial music. Additionally, the contributions that the school made with regard to the serial method were arguably indirect, what with the integral serial composers of the 50s picking up from the remnants of the Second Viennese School and using the serial method with a significantly different approach than their Viennese predecessors. Most serial composers of the 50s onward were made aware of musical parameterization through third parties and not directly from the Schoenberg school (e.g. Stravinsky learning twelve-tone technique from Ernst Krenek, American serialists learning of the technique from Cowell and Wolpe). The critical difference between the Second Viennese School and their so-called descendants is with regard to the approach to pitch. As I mentioned, the Schoenberg school was concerned with using the row as an opportunity to determine motivic shape and articulate formal regions, which was very much influenced by the course of music history; this is the thread that relates Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, and the rest of the school. Integral serialists had various approaches to the row but many were unconcerned with the same motivic, formal relations as the Schoenberg school was, and so while the concept of parameterization in the music of the SVS did influence the next generations of composers this is ultimately where the similarity ends. To say, therefore, that Schoenberg and Webern contributed more than or was "more successful than" Berg did would miss a fundamental point of Schoenberg's school in the first place. And this is why I can't really get behind: because all of the above composers applied the twelve-tone system in unique ways, each with the potential of being considered innovative when examined in the context of history. Yes, it is true that their position as innovators can be debated, but I'm contending that it's foolish to place Berg aside and the other two on pedestals mainly for a completely imaginary reason (that the two were somehow more successful in escaping from tradition), and that what innovations lie behind the music of Schoenberg and Webern also exist in Berg as well.
  6. Yeah, what's cool about most of these responses so far is that they completely deny the reality of the music school graduate: jobless and with a degree of very little substance. And in this economic climate (what with major American orchestras declaring bankruptcy), you're a moron if you think you can actually grab a music-related job out of school. If you're going to go to school for music, remember that you are charged with the responsibility of making connections during your time in college, which may not be a benefit your school will provide. If you want to establish a name for yourself, venture outside school.
  7. *sigh* If you're making a contribution to a thread called "Most Overrated Composers", you're going to be making the implication that you possess a negative opinion on the composer you're talking about. This is reinforced when you cite a quote by Adorno calling Berg a "failure" and then set up a straw man that the Second Viennese School not only somehow existed with the intent to act against tradition but that Berg as a member of the school failed to live up to this goal. Yes, it actually does, especially when the two entities were/are generally viewed as polar opposites, demonstrating that the two can be compromised forming a whole that is perceived as greater than the sum of its two parts. Then why did you post? You never said anything about Berg being overrated as an "innovator," and you're still claiming to hold a high opinion of him. Besides, your argument that he's not an innovator is a point of contention for me, which I've already explained above but the message seems to have failed to pass. Yeah, I think it's fair to be annoyed about an unfair, untrue stereotype that's existed for nearly half a century and is ultimately baseless and does harm to the understanding of the Second Viennese School and twelve-tone method in general.
×
×
  • Create New...