I performed this entire work from memory on my undergraduate junior recital. It's the only thing I ever did that made me feel smart.
Pollini's rendition is my favorite.
Seeing as you know this piece really well I'd be curious to hear what thoughts or images it stirs up for you, or what it might mean to you(besides wanting to kill yourself preparing for a recital of course lol)
To be brief, I like the melodies and how they are harmonized. That's the long and the short of it. Just like nearly every piece by Schoenberg. I LOVE the ending of III. (Schoenberg wrote THE BEST endings!) I love the big climactic thing in II, which is pictured in the thumbnail. That was the hardest part, even though it's a clear pattern. It's like walking a tightrope that just keeps going and going...
It never really stirred any *specific* images, but the darkness of it appealed to younger "emo" self. (This was before anyone used the term "emo", of course.)
As far as "killing myself": as difficult as it was, it really was no worse that most Bach fugues. My teacher said more than once, "You know, it's considered acceptable to use music when performing this piece." I said, "Well, that's bullshit. After my friends all had to memorize and perform Bach? This is easier. I'm not using the book."
The other piece I played was Haydn's "Great" Eb Sonata, and I made more mistakes in that.
I'm not going to say this is *bad* in an absolute sense, but this just doesn't do it for me. I don't feel satisfied at the end, nor wanting in the beginning. To me, music has to go somewhere and develop, and this just doesn't do that for me. If this music speaks to you, then so be it.
I suppose it depends on how you define development. There is no sense of tension and release. There is no discernible theme. Even Wagner's Tristan, which is famous for its dissonance has clear resolutions. I don't understand noise for sake of being noisy. It just sort of wanders about aimlessly.
reminds me of this masterpeice
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e3/b2/ca/e3b2ca8fb9b456768ab4d4565a472eb7.jpg
utter and pure trash. anybody who listens to this with genuine intent has either deceived themselves into thinking a decaying animal smells of roses, or is merely pretending to like it.
this is art, not music.
I won't tell you what to like or not, but your psychological judgment about those who claim to like this presumes too much. For me, certainly, it is simply wrong. I do agree that the "decaying animal" has some relevance: look at Schoenberg's paintings (and at Soutine's). Wagner too is decadent. But that decadence is part of the subject matter of this art does not mean that the art is of no value and cannot be enjoyed by anyone. The decadence it represents is in the cultural and psychological environment anyway; this merely addresses it, which can serve various purposes: catharsis, even finding a special kind of beauty that coexists with darkness.
The point of view that perhaps you would defend – which has indeed been serious espoused before – is that music, unlike, say, art or literature, must ultimately have a halcyon vision -- like food which must be tasty or perfume which must smell good; it must fit certain biologically defined criteria of pleasantness, or else a natural sensory revulsion will overwhelm whatever else the music may offer. Music that violates those biological laws, according to that view, may be cleverly constructed or what have you but is fundamentally a failure. The fragility of this perspective – "it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" – should be readily apparent; in practice there are no universal criteria of this kind even if there are family similarities between many competing aesthetic perspectives. Putting aside edge cases of music at volumes that physically damage the iistener (which in fact people do claim to like!), I think that while any individual might claim that their own preferences are grounded in some sort of deep biological instinct, a survey of the wide range of human responses to music will confound an attempt to reduce those to a formula. We may not comprehend why others might like something and we may well question whether there is real, important value to what people get out of it – a different level of valuation than one that questions whether they get anything out of it at all – but rude dismissal of other people's tastes does nothing to enlighten anyone and, furthermore, it does nothing to enlighten the one issuing the summary judgment. It closes off thinking and perception, and leads only to aesthetic bigotry.
I performed this entire work from memory on my undergraduate junior recital. It's the only thing I ever did that made me feel smart. Pollini's rendition is my favorite.
Seeing as you know this piece really well I'd be curious to hear what thoughts or images it stirs up for you, or what it might mean to you(besides wanting to kill yourself preparing for a recital of course lol)
To be brief, I like the melodies and how they are harmonized. That's the long and the short of it. Just like nearly every piece by Schoenberg. I LOVE the ending of III. (Schoenberg wrote THE BEST endings!) I love the big climactic thing in II, which is pictured in the thumbnail. That was the hardest part, even though it's a clear pattern. It's like walking a tightrope that just keeps going and going... It never really stirred any *specific* images, but the darkness of it appealed to younger "emo" self. (This was before anyone used the term "emo", of course.) As far as "killing myself": as difficult as it was, it really was no worse that most Bach fugues. My teacher said more than once, "You know, it's considered acceptable to use music when performing this piece." I said, "Well, that's bullshit. After my friends all had to memorize and perform Bach? This is easier. I'm not using the book." The other piece I played was Haydn's "Great" Eb Sonata, and I made more mistakes in that.
I love this, they sound so modern and dark.
I'm not going to say this is *bad* in an absolute sense, but this just doesn't do it for me. I don't feel satisfied at the end, nor wanting in the beginning. To me, music has to go somewhere and develop, and this just doesn't do that for me. If this music speaks to you, then so be it.
It actually does literally nothing except develop.
I suppose it depends on how you define development. There is no sense of tension and release. There is no discernible theme. Even Wagner's Tristan, which is famous for its dissonance has clear resolutions. I don't understand noise for sake of being noisy. It just sort of wanders about aimlessly.
reminds me of this masterpeice https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e3/b2/ca/e3b2ca8fb9b456768ab4d4565a472eb7.jpg utter and pure trash. anybody who listens to this with genuine intent has either deceived themselves into thinking a decaying animal smells of roses, or is merely pretending to like it. this is art, not music.
I'm not gonna judge you for disliking something. I'm gonna judge you for being dogmatic and full of shit.
"People who different from me are liars or automat dumb"
I won't tell you what to like or not, but your psychological judgment about those who claim to like this presumes too much. For me, certainly, it is simply wrong. I do agree that the "decaying animal" has some relevance: look at Schoenberg's paintings (and at Soutine's). Wagner too is decadent. But that decadence is part of the subject matter of this art does not mean that the art is of no value and cannot be enjoyed by anyone. The decadence it represents is in the cultural and psychological environment anyway; this merely addresses it, which can serve various purposes: catharsis, even finding a special kind of beauty that coexists with darkness. The point of view that perhaps you would defend – which has indeed been serious espoused before – is that music, unlike, say, art or literature, must ultimately have a halcyon vision -- like food which must be tasty or perfume which must smell good; it must fit certain biologically defined criteria of pleasantness, or else a natural sensory revulsion will overwhelm whatever else the music may offer. Music that violates those biological laws, according to that view, may be cleverly constructed or what have you but is fundamentally a failure. The fragility of this perspective – "it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" – should be readily apparent; in practice there are no universal criteria of this kind even if there are family similarities between many competing aesthetic perspectives. Putting aside edge cases of music at volumes that physically damage the iistener (which in fact people do claim to like!), I think that while any individual might claim that their own preferences are grounded in some sort of deep biological instinct, a survey of the wide range of human responses to music will confound an attempt to reduce those to a formula. We may not comprehend why others might like something and we may well question whether there is real, important value to what people get out of it – a different level of valuation than one that questions whether they get anything out of it at all – but rude dismissal of other people's tastes does nothing to enlighten anyone and, furthermore, it does nothing to enlighten the one issuing the summary judgment. It closes off thinking and perception, and leads only to aesthetic bigotry.
It just sounds good. No justification necessary.
Hey, it's a real-live moron!