Carl Nielsen...

[Concordia]

Mahler is also only partially a 20th-century composer. I think only the back half of his output came after 1900 (I'm too lazy to look up), although he was certainly adopted by the Second Viennese School as a spiritual father.

The symphonies are both better and worse than commonly believed. In the orchestra I was attached to we actually did an entire Mahler season-- 4 programs, plus one at the beginning of the next season. It was fun, but I'm not unhappy to turn elsewhere for stimulation these days.

[Algernon]

I've never really been convinced by Rachmaninov. But Martinu's symphonies are wonderful, and I rate him very highly. They're actually pretty consistent too, though I think one can tell that between no.5 and no. 6 he fell off a balcony. Perhaps my initial contention was too contentious - probably a product of the rather contrarian nature of university history...

If we're being strict, I think we can only really include Mahler 5 onwards - which to my mind leaves some of the best works in the cold. If we are being less strict, we might include some of Bruckner's late works too, which are only a few decades early and I seem to remember are contemporary with Mahler's.

Nielsen was a formidable artist and deserves more recognition outside Scandanavia I think.

[Gruto]

I notice there is at least one Danish member of the Lounge, so wonder if there are any fans of the work of Denmark's best composer, Carl Nielsen, amongst us? Would anyone agree with my contention that he's the best symphonist of the 20th Century? Any favourite performances or records?

Best wishes,
A.

I do like Carl Nielsen. Some years ago, I was crazy with Espansive. It is mighty Symphony, which magically lacks any German pathos. But I don't think iit would right to regard Carl Nielsen higher than Mahler or even Sibelius, if we consider them to be 20th Century composers.

[Sator]

Adrian Leverkühn though German fascinates me most .

Leverkühn however, only wrote two Kammersymphonien. And marvellous pieces they are too, especially the first one. I will take it over one of Mahler's inflated efforts any day, although Mahler did once hold me utterly enthralled - and for many years at that. But one grows out of such things.

[Sator]

Lutoslawski

His symphonies are stupendous. Absolutely wonderful works all of them.

You also forgot to mention a certain Leverkühn pupil, from whom I learned of the SATOR palindrome which can be found amongst the ruins of Pompeii. Indeed, the Sator user name is very much a tip of the hat in his direction.

SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS

He wrote a two movement Symphonie, which is very beautiful.

[Andre Yew]

[Leverkühn however, only wrote two Kammersymphonien.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't Leverkühn a fictional character? Or are you talking about Schoenberg? For my tastes, Webern's Opus 10 rules over them all for the 2nd Viennese school --- it is the essence of modernism. But serialism became interesting to me only after Stravinsky started using it (eg. Agon).

--Andre

[Sator]

[Leverkühn however, only wrote two Kammersymphonien.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't Leverkühn a fictional character? Or are you talking about Schoenberg? For my tastes, Webern's Opus 10 rules over them all for the 2nd Viennese school --- it is the essence of modernism. But serialism became interesting to me only after Stravinsky started using it (eg. Agon).

--Andre

Schoenberg had a falling out with Thomas Mann after the latter admitted that he based his character on Schoenberg, without acknowledging him. I see nothing modernist about Webern. He never thought of himself in such terms, and nor did Schoenberg. All of the Second Viennese School composers thought of themselves as thorough traditionalists.

[Andre Yew]

I see nothing modernist about Webern. He never thought of himself in such terms, and nor did Schoenberg. All of the Second Viennese School composers thought of themselves as thorough traditionalists.

Yes, they thought of themselves as continuing the great musical tradition in the line of Brahms, Beethoven , etc. but in retrospect what they did is modernism. Even Mahler was aready pointing in that direction, like with the last movement of the 9th symphony where the music disintegrates before our ears. Webern's op. 10 stands out in my mind because it is the most succinct expression of that school's musical thought.

--Andre

[Sator]

I see nothing modernist about Webern. He never thought of himself in such terms, and nor did Schoenberg. All of the Second Viennese School composers thought of themselves as thorough traditionalists.

Yes, they thought of themselves as continuing the great musical tradition in the line of Brahms, Beethoven , etc. but in retrospect what they did is modernism. Even Mahler was aready pointing in that direction, like with the last movement of the 9th symphony where the music disintegrates before our ears. Webern's op. 10 stands out in my mind because it is the most succinct expression of that school's musical thought.

--Andre

I guess we could argue forever about whether certain composers are "modernists". Personally, I think if you are going to call someone who died over half a century ago (and counting) a "modernist" you should also consider whether you ought to apply it to Mahler, Wagner, late Beethoven, C.P.E. Bach (very dissonant for his time), or even Monteverdi (Galileo condemned his radically innovative use of dissonant monody). Why stop there? - you might as well go all the way and include Ockeghem, Josquin and Obrecht. Indeed, the use of extremely complex polyphonic devices (Ockeghem is the father of the canon, and Obrecht the father of imitative counterpoint) is traditionally referred to as "modern" - as they are not described as occurring in the ancient world. Indeed, the very things that make Webern and Schoenberg musically complex can all be found in these Renaissance composer - little surprising perhaps given that Webern wrote his PhD on Heinrich Isaac.

[Andre Yew]

Modernism is an aesthetic movement of the early 20th century. There is no doubt that Mahler, Wagner, and Richard Strauss were already pointing the way to it --- someone just had to come along and put a label on what was happening as their successors took the art form to one of its logical conclusions. Earlier composers did have their dissonant and complex moments, but that's not really any indicator of modernism. And many modernist composers did admire the early music composers, too.

--Andre

[Sator]

I must confess a certain ignorance in that in all my years of reading around this subject I have never yet heard of the Second Viennese School composers being described as being exponents of "Modernism". However, I have heard of Schoenberg and Berg being described as "Romantic degeneracy". And if the Second Viennese School are Modernists then what are the Darmstadt Generation? I guess the predictable answer is going to be "Post-modernists". I have heard the claim that Schumann and Brahms are Romantics and that Liszt and Wagner are Post-Romantics!!! I have always found the way people create arbitrary pigeon holes to file composers into curious. In this case though, do you really think they will still call the Second Viennese School composers Modernists in 100 years?

[Concordia]

I guess we could argue forever about whether certain composers are "modernists". Personally, I think if you are going to call someone who died over half a century ago (and counting) a "modernist" you should also consider whether you ought to apply it to Mahler, Wagner, late Beethoven, C.P.E. Bach (very dissonant for his time), or even Monteverdi (Galileo condemned his radically innovative use of dissonant monody).

You understand that we're going to throw this back at you when you deplore such modern innovations as pleats on evening wear.

[RWS]

Sator, I'm a mere amateur of music, though one with extensive playing, listening, and reading over many years; and I have learned more from my only sibling, who not only has played, listened, and read over many years but also has done his doctoral work in musicology. As Andre stated, the "school" is indeed termed the "modernist". Whether that was a reasonable name may be disputed, of course, but it is, I think, the term all scholars use: comparable, then, to a "rule" (that is, a convention) in dressing: it may be ignored, but at the risk of being, obviously, ignorant.

[Sator]

I find the use of pigeon holes in music to be grossly inconsistent and I tend to personally dislike them. The use of terms like Romanticism is so widely different to that in other arts and so ill defined that they really serve only as pigeon holes, and nothing less. Ditto for Classicism and Impressionism. You will find that texts often wildly contradict each other in trying to define these terms. The last time I read up on which pigeon hole the Second Viennese School slotted into it was "Expressionism" . Modernism is a new one to me. But with each generation of writers you will get a new set of "-ism" pigeon boxes along with claims by writers to have definitively pinned down the correct definitions of them and which composer should be filed or refiled under each. I have long learned to ignore them and discussions such as "is Beethoven a Romantic?", "an anti-Romantic?" or "Romantic-Classicist?"

[Gruto]

Ready for summer? Carl is ...



- from the book "Moden 1890-1920" (1994).