Talk:Expressionist music

Needs sources

This article doesn't reference any sources. It seems like and essay that someone has decided to post here. Some of the information is useful but I'm not sure where it stands regarding NPOV and original research.80.7.59.211 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Conscious vs unconscious

This page implies that the use of the conscious mind contradicts the Expressionist ideals and that, as a result, Berg's Wozzeck achieved popularity at the expense of the ideals of the movement. This must be false or Expressionism never existed because virtually all of Schoenberg and his pupil's music shows the influence of the conscious mind. Pierrot Lunaire, undoubtedly a part of Schoenberg's Expressionist phase, contains many canonic and imitative devices. What was important to the Expressionists was more the expression of the subjective and subconscious self than the abolition of the conscious. The article as a whole needs work. I'll probably rewrite most of it, but that will have to wait a while. Carlmi03 (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Musical adjectives

Is it not possible to get some music descriptions here, other than 'atonal'? There's a lot of history and detail about the dramatic themes, but none about the content of the music. This article should give the reader an intuition into what an expressionist piece would sound like. Perhaps this is a difficult task, but it seems the author hasn't even tried... 86.167.15.92 (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Strauss

Some argue that Strauss's Elektra and Salome are expressionists. Suitable?

--Jdiazch (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just checked here to see if Salome was described as such. Will add if I find a source saying so. In rehearsals Strauss apparently said the orchestra should sound like "wild beasts", which made me think of Fauvism, but that seems much more of a stretch. Pfly (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Checking the book on Salome I have I could only find this bit, in a passage comparing Strauss with Wagner:

"Salome...contains ideas Wagner would never have thought of.... This is partly a matter of orchestral sound, partly a matter of the whole-tone and other non-diatonic configurations that were not a regular part of Wagner's vocabulary. But in addition to these, the sudden departures, changes of subject, wanderings of attention on Herod's part--in their musical realisation also a matter of pace--create an atmosphere not unlike that of Wozzeck, as has often been remarked. 'Expressionism' is only just around the corner."

Heh, so much for that! "Almost" expressionist, according to this book anyway, doh! Pfly (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Albright box

This seems to have nothing to do with musical expressionism: it relates to the visual arts. I can see the point (sort of) but anyone without an artistic or musical background/education will be confused. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. However, even assuming this table should be deleted, should there not be a paragraph early on concerning the close relationship between expressionism in the visual arts, literature, and music? As it is, this relationship is only approached obliquely—and late on in the article—in respect to Schoenberg and Kandinsky, who were certainly not the only actors in this field, either in music or in painting.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

By "this" and "Albright box" I assume you mean the table distinguishing expressionism and post-expressionism.

Albright was writing about music, as you may have noticed if you had looked at what source "this" cites, what subject that source covers, and thus what "this" has to do with. Because of this I think only people who don't understand comparisons will be confused by "this box" and I'm not sure how to help those folks. Hyacinth (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What about Bartok, Stravinsky?

I'm a bit hesitant to have "musical expressionism" boiled down to "It's what Schoenberg, Berg and Webern wrote at a certain time"... Bartok's "Bluebeard's castle" is mentioned in passing, but I'd say most of his music (especially his ballets) from that time falls into that category. Stravinsky examples from that time would be Sacre du printemps, Petrouchka, Histoire Du Soldat. Or do I mistake Expressionism for something else...? -- megA (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

None of the Stravinsky examples you cite have anything at all to do with Expressionism. Stravinsky is generally regarded as belonging to the opposite camp of Objectivism, though it is true that this label fits him much better after 1920 than during his preceding, "Russian" period.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's really hard to understand a subject like "Expressionist music", whose definition (at least according to the wikipedia article) is so different from the definition of "Expressionism" itself... "Its typical trait is to present the world in an utterly subjective perspective, radically distorting it for emotional effect, to evoke moods or ideas." (Expressionism article) Perhaps I'm misled because in Germany, The Miraculous Mandarin and Sacre Du Printemps are indeed often seen as "expressionistic" in its literal definition. Here's a short quote from the MM article: "Der wunderbare Mandarin gehört wie Strawinskis Sacre du printemps zum musikalischen Expressionismus", and you may compare the de:wikipedia article on Expressionist music: de:Expressionismus (Musik), (albeit unsourced) which lists the Vienna school as core group, but also adds Strawinsky, Bartok, Hindemith, Prokofiev, Krenek, Honegger as having at least for a certain time used this style. -- megA (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You will have noticed that I did not mention Bartók, whose ballets The Miraculous Mandarin and The Wooden Prince, and the opera Bluebeard's Castle fall clearly into the expressionist area. (His later compositions are perhaps another matter.) I am intrigued by the assertion that Le Sacre belongs in the same category as the Mandarin, since the scenario of Stravinsky's ballet is essentially ritualistic and impersonal (generally true of neo-primitivism), which is quite a different thing from the Mandarin's admittedly inhuman and dreamlike but nevertheless psychologically based story of personal struggle and will. Petrushka may come a little closer to the personal-nightmare character, depending on how we view the puppet's symbolism. L'Histoire du soldat, on the other hand, is nothing to do with personal nightmarish expression (compared, for example, to Erwartung), but rather is a morality play in a mode detached from any real affect (the Devil's triumphant exultation aside). If the present article (which I admit I have not reviewed lately) does not conform with the general article on Expressionism (especially on this question of the subjective and the subconsious) then a revision is clearly indicated. Ich werde auch Ihre Empfehlung nehmen, die unzitierter deutschen Wikipedia Artikel zu lesen. Es mag auch Berichtigung verlangen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)