Serial Killers
I'd doubt this is near the top of anybody's priority list, but this contrarian article entitled "Beethoven was a narcissistic hooligan" has got me madder than a post-op tranny with a protruding adam's apple. Here's a long quote that gives the gist of the argument:
Beethoven certainly changed the way that people thought about music, but this change was a change for the worse. From the speculations of Pythagoras about the "music of the spheres" in ancient Greece onwards, most western musicians had agreed that musical beauty was based on a mysterious connection between sound and mathematics, and that this provided music with an objective goal, something that transcended the individual composer's idiosyncrasies and aspired to the universal. Beethoven managed to put an end to this noble tradition by inaugurating a barbaric U-turn away from an other-directed music to an inward-directed, narcissistic focus on the composer himself and his own tortured soul.
This was a ghastly inversion that led slowly but inevitably to the awful atonal music of Schoenberg and Webern. In other words, almost everything that went wrong with music in the 19th and 20th centuries is ultimately Beethoven's fault. Poor old Schoenberg was simply taking Beethoven's original mistake to its ultimate, monstrous logical conclusion…
With Beethoven…we leave behind the lofty aspirations of the Enlightenment and begin the descent into the narcissistic inwardness of Romanticism.
Although subsequent investigations have shown that the "music of the spheres" does not actually exist, my beef isn't with the author's assumption that mathematical perfection is the supreme goal of music. And this article is in general agreement with the current notion that twentieth-century modernism was not so much a revolutionary movement as a continuation of the nineteenth-century romantic cult of the individual. No, what's got my dickie in a flap is the umpteen-millionth gratuitous slam against Arnold Schoenberg. Now I'm not a big Schoenberg fan—but that's just the point: Practically nobody is a big Schoenberg fan. So why is it that the inventor of 12-tone serial music—which nobody listens to, that has been abandoned by history, and that may or may not have dominated classical music academia for a period of less than a decade—gets blamed for everything from ruining classical music to inspiring bureaucratic bloat? (I'll leave aside the slam against Anton Webern, who certainly was a victim of hooliganism—first of the Nazis who hounded him out of public life for his association with Schoenberg's "Jewish" musical style and then of the drunken American soldier who shot and killed him during the postwar occupation.)
Even Pope Benedict XVI has to take a sidelong swipe at poor Schoenberg. In his more celebrated comments about the evils of rock and/or roll, the pontiff also condemned "Modern so-called 'classical' music" that "has maneuvered itself, with some exceptions, into an elitist ghetto, which only specialists may enter—and even they do so with what may sometimes be mixed feelings."
Schoenberg is the Andres Serrano of classical music complaints, somebody who's only kept around as an example of wretched excess—usually referred to by people who have never seen or heard the original wretchedness. (You can sample some of his super sounds here.) To listen to the complaints, you wouldn't know that in his own lifetime, Schoenberg saw himself as an embattled standard-bearer holding up the true faith of German Romanticism against neoclassical backsliders like Igor Stravinsky and the post-deBussy French school. The mid-century French guys like Francis Poulenc, Jacques Ibert, Darius Milhaud, etc., were all occasional enlightenment-style composers whose stuff is neither atonal nor offputting. Listening to them, or to Olivier Messiaen, who lived into the 1990s, you don't hear a peep of 12-tone horror. (Messiaen should have a special place in Il Papa's heart because he not only rejected fads like serialism but was a big Catholic; his opera based on the life of St. Francis of Assisi is so long I don't think even Messiaen ever listened to the whole thing.) But still people refer to serial music as if it's responsible for killing people.
The final unfairness is that serial music was actually a pretty interesting thought experiment that opened up how people think about notes and composition. And it yielded at least one great work: Schoenberg's opera Moses & Aron. That one got a performance at the New York City Opera in the early nineties, and it was pure nitro. So like Mussolini, I say Hands off Schoenberg!
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yyyyyyyaaaaaawwwwwn....what time is it?
Jeez Tim, next time I'll skip the sleeping pills and read (skim) one of your music articles
i don't think schoenberg is offensive. it's just weird, is all. a bit tedious, but he did help expand the available pallette of sounds, didn't he?
maybe there's some sort of parallel involving that old line about moralists being afraid that someone is having fun; this is a fear that someone knows something different, and is making fun. perhaps?
very strange stuff indeed.
I predict that gaius marius will have something to say about how this relates to the collapse of Western civilization.
Whatever Schoenberg's musical crimes, he can't be as bad as the guy who invented the drum machine.
most western musicians had agreed that musical beauty was based on a mysterious connection between sound and mathematics, and that this provided music with an objective goal, something that transcended the individual composer's idiosyncrasies and aspired to the universal. Beethoven managed to put an end to this noble tradition by inaugurating a barbaric U-turn away from an other-directed music to an inward-directed, narcissistic focus on the composer himself and his own tortured soul.
This was a ghastly inversion that led slowly but inevitably to the awful atonal music of Schoenberg and Webern. In other words, almost everything that went wrong with music in the 19th and 20th centuries is ultimately Beethoven's fault.
Gaius, your editor puts in capitals for you? S/he kicks ass. 😉
Hey, I know nothing about the subject of this post, but I thought "madder than a post-op tranny with a protruding adam's apple" and "what's got my dickie in a flap is..." made it worth reading. In fact, I'm going to use the latter in my own conversations -- "Now, this is what really has my dickie in a flap" -- as often as possible. Maybe in our next staff meeting.
I'm also interested in seeing whether gaius marius has an opinion on this. Seems like his thing.
My post was composed in response to the first post by ed, by the way.
That should be: Intellectual pretension and enjoyable music don't seem to mix very well.
Tim, you read like a writer over at SoloHQ.com, excpet with a sense of humor on the subject of music -- (i'm not sure yet if this is a complement...)
I admire with sincerity your musical ardor, Tim, but I'm afraid your opening sentence was correct: this is nowhere near the top of my priority list. As a musician myself I feel guilty writing that, but my ability to play music should not obligate me to passionately follow every single form of it (modern country music, I'm looking in your direction).
However, out of respect to the Award-Winning Mr. Cavanaugh, I will attempt to catch a listen of some Schoenberg or Webern this evening. Whether that's before or after I toke up, however, is a matter still under deliberation.
elite music is necessary to sustain the soul of a civilization. when the masses rebel and insist that they can all be their own artists and enjoy whatever they want, the end is near.
it's a shame that benedict doesn't realize this. benedict should be applauding elitism in music. if even the pope has turned against elitism then the last bulwark has been removed and all of civilization will collapse under the weight of 31 ice cream flavors and countless other monuments to the false god that is "choice."
I never really found Schoenberg's music any less natural-sounding than stuff using the traditional scales. Really, both seemed kind of absurdly limited - it's never really been intuitive to me why so much music uses these select few frequencies over all others.
Then again, I did grow up listening to a lot of electronic music where John Cage was already an old master and tone was depreciated in favor of portamento-tastic 303 rhythms.
"Jeez Tim, next time I'll skip the sleeping pills and read (skim) one of your music articles."
Show some respect, ed. The man just won a Southern California Journalism award. He could kill you without a thought and cops won't be able to lay a hand on him.
I join Stevo Darkly in saluting this masterful turn of phrase:
madder than a post-op tranny with a protruding adam's apple
Bravo! Bravo! It may not be Elite and Good, but it is funny as all hell!
I'm probably not the most objective commentator here; I have Beehoven's 9th, 2nd movement, on right now. Still, I'm consistantly astounded by the silliness of some musical criticism. I simply do not see how it makes sense to describe one peice of music as excessively inward-looking and individualistic and another as outward looking and communitarian. Seriously, what the hell does that mean in the first place?
Maybe I'm a nekulturny philistine, but to me good music is good music and only suffers at the hands of pretentious snobs. As a wiser person that I put it: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
Why do post-op trannies make you angry?
I am constantly confusing Arnold Schoenberg with Neal Schon, formerly of Journey. Once I realized my confusion, and reread Tim's post, it made slightly more sense to me.
Wow if that article is correct then Beethoven was the original punk. I wonder if couldn't even play the piano worth a crap, called his audience "f*cking wankers" and killed his girlfriend (an accident, of course). Come to think of it, his 5th symphony does seem to use the same 3 chords over and over. God save the Hapsburgs!
"Madder than a post-op tranny with a protruding adam's apple" is coming this close to inspiring a cheap quip about Ann Coulter, but I am a gentleman and it wouldn't be right. And actually, I think she's kind of roarkable.
Number 6, if the music has you patting your lap, it is inward directed. If it has you patting the patron's lap next to you, it is outer directed.
I'm with Cavanaugh on this--good writeup--except for the description of the article as "contrarian." I almost never hear anything different.
I went to music school in the '90s, and this moralizing antimusical crap seemed to take up half of our studies--except back then it was Susan McClary "profiling" composers like a TV FBI agent, analogizing the same compositional procedures and formal characteristics to rape, and the same composers to rapists (and arriving at all the same conclusions, as femists and illiberal righties always do).
--one of Schoenberg's ten or so actual fans
I simply do not see how it makes sense to describe one peice of music as excessively inward-looking and individualistic and another as outward looking and communitarian. Seriously, what the hell does that mean in the first place?
You just don't get it, do you? That is the purpose of classical music, to celebrate the magnificent achievement of the individual over the violence and looterism of the collectivist masses.
I thought that classical music just sounded kind of nice.
I am constantly confusing Arnold Schoenberg with Neal Schon, formerly of Journey. Once I realized my confusion, and reread Tim's post, it made slightly more sense to me.
LMAO!
Above is regarding Stevo Darkly earlier comment...
What a great post. I'll now go dig out my Alban Berg mp3's and load them onto my iPod.
Cheerio.
Moan
By the by, another truly great dodecaphonic opera (re my last comment) is Alban Berg's "Lulu."
Tra la
badius mockerius of gaius marius
i invoke charles caleb colton. 🙂
what i would say about this is probably predictable, but this, mr dogzilla
Beethoven was the original punk
is spot-on.
mr cavanaugh, i'd say that schoenberg's slaughter is one of the rare instances of institutional criticism still functioning. i'm happy he gets destroyed (and i have been subjected to some listening, lest you call me ignorant) because it shows a shred of critical institution at work, dismissing trivial ideas (eg., abandoning tonality) in defense of the artform.
but before we glorify schoenberg as the exponent of the cult of the new. he returned to tonality later in his career -- out of, i like to think, abhorrence for what the cult of the romantic idealist individual had wrought in the germany he was forced to flee.
now, if only it didn't take the ultimate horror of serial music to wake the critics.
fwiw, the degeneracy of criticism between 1913 and 1975 can be illustrated by the critical reaction to his chamber symphony #1 and lou reed's metal machine music.
dude, you've just crossed the rubicon from posting to Art.
Richard Halley- Ah, in that case, I'll have to buy more classical music. I thought only Rush celebrted the triumph of the individual. By the way, where can I find a CD of your fifth symphony?
"what he cult of the romantic individualist idealist had wrought in the Germany he was forced to flee"? You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. There have been two times when it would have made sense to flee Germany, and one when it would have made sense to flee East Germany. In all those cases, the horror was due to nationalism (a varient, and perhaps an inevitable one, of communitarianism). And please spare me the tired contention that the Nazi's evil was due to Nietzschean love of the ubermench- anyone who has so much as read the back cover of one of Nietzsche's works should realize that his thought and herding behavior do not mix.
but he did help expand the available pallette of sounds, didn't he?
Not at all sure that really needed doing...
Sorry for the serial posting, but that should have been "There have been two periods in this century when it would have made sense..."
"Not at all sure that really needed doing..."
1) it totally needed doing
2) it helped in a very small way to usher in the most decadent of musics
3) that being music made by machines, for machines (and the gays) - house music
4) house music leads down a primrose path which eventually connects back up with academica EM pap - most of which is fucking hellishly bad - and produces the most individualistic, isolated, anti-social musical interface on earth - the laptop
5) how fucking awesome is that?
6) i've managed to connect the dots between serial music and poppers AND nerds in 4 steps.
7) seriously though, i don't know about the new autechre. it's a bit much, i think.
Beethoven managed to put an end to this noble tradition by inaugurating a barbaric U-turn away from an other-directed music to an inward-directed, narcissistic focus on the composer himself and his own tortured soul.
Uh, didn't this fit in with the romantic period? While Beethoven is often credited for bridging the classical and romantic periods in music, I have a hard time believing that it was entirely just his fault that romanticism entered into music. It sounds to me like his beef should be with the romantic era in Europe, not just with one of its practitioners in one particular art form.
There are fans of Schoenberg, but they tend to be fans of a particular period- academics who might be enamored of his serial music, or the rest of us who might enjoy something pre-serial, like Verklarte Nacht.
As for serialism, it can be done well or not well, like anything else.
Whatever Schoenberg's musical crimes, he can't be as bad as the guy who invented the drum machine.
I think his name was Roland.
In response to Webern's Cigar (bonus point for the reference, BTW):
I also went to music school in the '90s, and got to witness the rebirth of tonality. It really was like waking up hungover, with no clear idea about what you did last night, you're alone, and yet you're sleeping on the wet spot...
Some professors hated it, and muttered about their music being "pissed on," and others were busy nailing the coffin shut a second time, just to be sure.
Moralizing antimusical crap is one of the constants of the academic world. McClary is hardly the originator of it (you've heard of Richard Taruskin, right?), but at least she's interesting and witty. She once graded a paper I wrote for her as "A+: Why don't you do better on your exams?"
The second Viennese school's influence lasted far longer than the "10 years" Mr. Cavanaugh refers to, pulling way too many composers into too narrow of a niche. Copland, Stravinsky, Bernstein, even lessers like Harris all went through periods of atonal music... we don't hear any of it today because it's all failed the test of time. It's dull.
It remains that the best way to clear out a music store five minutes prior to closing is to pop in Schoenberg's "Five Pieces for Orchestra." Allows you to close early every night!
-Natebrau
"I think his name was Roland."
No, he was Raymond Scott - http://raymondscott.com/circle.html , and he was truly unique and cool individual indeed.
Which relates to this post: don't blame an artisitic innovator for the suckage committed by his followers.
Speaking of suckage, Autechre has since Tri Repatae.
Someone's been watching "A Clockwork Orange" lately:
"NOOOOO! NOT THE GLORIOUS NINTH BY THE GLORIUS LUDWIG VAN!"
Whoops: that should be "GLORIOUS" and "VON."
I must have drunk a little too much milko plus.
"Speaking of suckage, Autechre has since Tri Repatae."
dude, chiastic slide eats your lunch. it doesn't even leave you a pickle.
Hey, who cares if you listen, anyway?
http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html
(BTW, Babbitt insists that it was *High Fidelity*, not him, that gave the article its notorious title...)
BTW, serialism has very little to do with either "romanticism" or "classicism" as such. Twelve-tone works can be very severely "classsical" as with Webern, or very "romantic" as in Berg.
dhex, I don't know what you listened to for pre-Schoenberg examples, but there was plenty of atonality in the palette before he ever came along. His concern was very Classical and German: zere vas no ORDER! "Any note could follow any other note" was the exact phrase (translated), IIRC.
Unless you were at a cutting edge school in the 90's, you still had to worship at the altar of the Serialists, including the evil Babbit. The problem I had was that music is to be listened to, and they don't even agree that listening is important. Structure is important, listening not. Isn't it odd that music never really went through much of a deconstructionist phase? That's because the horrors of overconstructivism were too rampant to even have an ironic twist on it.
Minimalism was the primary intellectual challenger, and even it was quite formalistic.
Tim C: The reason we hates the Schoenberg so much is that it was shoved down our collective throats and institutionalized through (state-supported) guardians of the (state-provided) grant committees and (state-funded) professorial appointments in music schools. And much as with jazz and literary criticism, once it was firmly ensconced in safe seats funded by the nanny state and its hangers on, it quickly flew to heights of irrelevancy.
In other words, it was shielded from market pressures and became GM circa 1980.
There is a hilarious comedy piece posed as a discussion by two German professors appreciating a new serialist work. Highlights include "a twelve-beat rest for the entire orchestra--and this is important--which is the only time that all ze instruments are unmuted!"
Go ahead, there's some Berg and Boulez and a couple of early Schoenberg pieces that are semi-listenable (Webern does better actually), but most of it is crap. EVERYTHING Babbit has ever written is complete excrement. It's even bad mathematics.
Go ahead. Listen to it. Then switch over to the lamest punk band you can find, and you'll find yourself enjoying it more. That's because, sucky or not, they actually care whether somebody listens and arrange it accordingly.
Schoenberg deserves all the approbrium he's gotten and then some. Beethoven deserves a knock, too, for starting the cult of genius (do what thout wilt is the whole of the law because I'm a frickin' GEINUS). However, that's not responsible for Schoenberg.
100 years from now, nobody will be forced to listen to that crap except for a couple of examples to show what a deep, dark, shithole "serious" music dove into during the latter part of the 20th Century before people finally woke up and realized they needed audiences or the grants would stop coming.
Is this guy seriously complaining that the problem with Schoenberg et al. is *insufficient* mathematical formalism?
There were little bits of atonality before Schoenberg -- Liszt wrote Bagatelle without Tonality, for example -- but Schoenberg is considered the first real atonal composer, at least in textbooks. Atonal music sounds horribly bad, ergo the demonization on Schoenberg. All of that has absolutely nothing to do with Beethoven.
I always thought that Beethoven's genius lay in taking his miserable life and making it universally understandable and accessible - how can one listen to the 1st, 5th, 6th or 9th symphonies and not be moved at some visceral level? It's the opposite of navel-gazing, where you expect everybody to be interested in your peculiar pain - Beethoven used his personal agony to illuminate a universal angst. He wasn't a complete downer, though - the Prisoners' Chorus in Fidelio and the Ode to Joy in the final movement of the 9th Symphony are two of the most uplifting, positive musical works ever written.
Well, Tim, I think this is one of the best things you've ever posted. Encore!
Re: Ann Coulter:
"I think she's kind of roarkable."
I looked all over...what does that -mean-?
roarkable: doable, humpable; more particularly, grudge-fuckable. It's a reference to the protagonist of some Ayn Rand novel who engaged in "rape by engraved invitation".
I just made up the term off the cuff, but joe has picked up the gist of it, I think. I never heard the term "grudge fuck" before, though. But basically, it means a rough, impassioned coupling with a person with whom you may feel some personal antagonism, but all the spicier for all that.
Probably not a good idea in real life.
Although you could always pretend with someone who's into role-playing -- e.g., "the haughty spoiled English noblewoman and the roguish Highlander outlaw," etc. Or even "the contemptuous socialite and the stiff-necked, hihgly independent architect."
Sorry to wander off-topic, but the musical discussion is completely over my head.
There have been two times when it would have made sense to flee Germany, and one when it would have made sense to flee East Germany. In all those cases, the horror was due to nationalism (a varient, and perhaps an inevitable one, of communitarianism). And please spare me the tired contention that the Nazi's evil was due to Nietzschean love of the ubermench- anyone who has so much as read the back cover of one of Nietzsche's works should realize that his thought and herding behavior do not mix.
i think there's simply a lot more to the anthropology of german nationalism than perhaps you're aware, mr 6. nietzsche and the cult of the individual had everything to do with its formulation, every bit as much as hegel.
Why don't Schoenberg bashers stop whining about past academic injustices and put forward their own movement? I am waiting any day now for neo-tonalist composers to just grab the attention of the music world and save it from the dark forces of serialism. The public won't care either which way.
Classical music is in a coolness crisis and has been for at least half a century. Face it: Jazz and Rock music won the battle fair and square, and not against 12 tone composers (who the public has never heard). It was against film composers, Copland, and Bernstein. All those great populist tonal guys.
Schoenberg rocks. At least he puts some red meat in his music. Go Schoenberg!