Talk:Arnold Schoenberg

mention students in the intro?

Shouldn't there also be a list of his students in the introduction? His devoted students (Webern, Berg, Adorno), as well as those who reacted against him while still acknowledging his impact (Weill, Cage) -- are tremendous forces in more recent music history, and that's an important aspect of Schoenberg's legacy.

Neither Adorno nor Weill ever took lessons from Schoenberg, if I'm not mistaken. And Schoenberg didn't particularly care for Adorno (not that that necessarily matters). Adorno was Berg's student briefly. As for the rest, Schoenberg's legacy is important, but perhaps you could find a good way to mention it concisely (that is, in a manner appropriate for an introduction). The list of names was a bit unwieldy, wasn't it? Dunkelweizen (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks...

--Dan Vactor? I'm removing this name, because Schoenberg taught hundreds of students, and Dan Vactor isn't among those who are the most well known. Earl Kim is far more widely known than Vactor, for example, but if we mention him there are about 12 others as well known as Kim that would probably qualify.

(BLC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blcarson (talk • contribs) 07:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is "Dan" Vactor? You removed the name David Van Vactor—was he known as "Dan" to his friends? I'm not at all sure that Earl Kim is all that much better-known, to be truthful, but it is a fact that Van Vactor's visibility has diminished since his heyday in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as since his retirement from conducting in 1972. It seems to me that either both composers' names should stay, or both be removed, depending on how high the bar is set for notability.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is becoming more and more ridiculous. Dan Van Vactor!? Earl-Kim!!??? Where do you get all these names from? How many musicians have ever heard of them? Are they better known than Hanns Eisler, Oscar Levant or Nikos Skalkottas, all of whom have been omitted from the introduction? 84.251.222.189 (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Måns

As far as I am aware, there is no-one called "Dan Van Vactor" (or indeed, "Dan Vactor", as I queried). There was in fact a Schoenberg student named David Van Vactor, who was quite well-known, both as a composer and (perhaps even better-known) as a conductor in the 1960s and the 1970s (check the Wikipedia article on him, though it does not do him justice). Most musicians, both American and European, old enough to remember those decades would be familiar with his name. Probably more familiar than with Skalkottas, at least, who fell into nearly complete obscurity for many decades after his death, until the resurgence of interest in his work that began in the 1990s. Earl Kim is better known in America than abroad, I imagine, and my expressed skepticism about removing Van Vactor in favor of Kim is largely based on this fact. Both composers are and were doubtless better-known by musicians involved with new music than by musicians generally, or the public at large. I would imagine that the same would be true of Eisler. Levant, of course, would be more generally familiar, as a radio performer and film artist. As the Wikipedia article on him declares in its lede, "He was more famous for his mordant character and witticisms, on the radio and in movies and television, than for his music".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Mark Wessel? Nobody even knows if he is alive or dead, even though his age of 115 makes me inclined towards the latter. I applaud this article for its originality! 84.251.222.189 (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Måns

Kim was known widely in France, Japan, and Korea, in addition to the states; his fame in the US is connected to Schoenberg's circle in the U.S., but also extends to the more venerable institutions on the east coast.

We need to establish a general principle for how to decide what list of names goes here. I don't know who Mark Wessel or David Van Vactor were. They seem to have traveled in minor circles. Earl Kim's music was played by several major symphony orchestras, and at major festivals, including Tanglewood and Aspen. He was a significant participant in the uptown new york scene, heavily involved at Princeton, endowed by Koussevitsky foundation, Ford foundation, NEA, Prix de Paris, and of course the Guggenheim foundation. You don't have to like these organizations to confer some significance upon them. Kim was a major composer. I have great respect for dozens of composers who couldn't get out of the shadows of the mainstream (I am one such composer)...but it doesn't make practical sense to include their names here. I am removing Wessel's name. As per Kohl's comment, however, I am adding Eisler.

Best, Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blcarson (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know who David Van Vactor or Mark Wessel were, you could start by reading the Wikipedia articles on them. Wessel really does disappear from the radar after the Second World War (he was extremely prominent as a composer in the 1930s), but Van Vactor really wasn't that much less prominent than Kim, but (as already mentioned) best-known as a conductor. This raises an interesting point, though—why are Schoenberg's prominent students required to be best-known as composers?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that point would be worth pursuing especially if Schoenberg had influenced his students toward prominent and extraordinary work in other areas. If, for example, David Van Vactor's esteem as a conductor was related to Schoenberg's teaching, I would be more inclined to your point.

I have removed Wayne Barlow's name. The point needs to be made here that Schoenberg influenced and taught 100s of musicians. He was known as a great teacher. If fans of Barlow, or Vactor, or Mark Wessel, want those artists' lineage amplified through connection to this article, they need to justify how those artists played a role in the larger disciplines and aesthetics that Schoenberg so profoundly influenced. I spent time listening to Barlow's music and found it really seems more in the tradition of Bartok Ernst Kurth -- a kind of Romantic linear counterpoint that Schoenberg was the first to speak out against. Not that it's the contrast that matters, as no one could contrast more intensely from Schoenberg than John Cage. But the burden falls on Barlow's (and Wessel's, and Vactor's) advocates to show how a figure contributed significantly to a post-Schoenbergian conversation. With Earl Kim, the case could not be more clear...first because he was more widely recorded, celebrated, and honored, than Vactor, Barlow, Wessel. The argument could end there, but he was also the first serialist to make significant in-roads to the East Asian community, and yet he was firmly, constantly, and devoutly supported by the very same performers who played Babbitt, Martino, and the major post-war serial composers. I'm not a great fan of Kim's but it's of obvious interest that he developed serialism in a direction that was compatible with non-European/non-Anglo-American views on modernity. Earl Kim in turn influences Nam Jun Paek and Toru Takemitsu, whose relationships to Cagean and Schoenbergean thinking, respectively, open a broad forment of Pacific-Rim high modernity.

In brief, Barlow hasn't contributed meaningfully to the history of musical practices in such a way as to make his music or ideas easily distinguishible from dozens of contemporaries. That doesn't mean he isn't great -- it just means he isn't of interest in a discussion of Schoenberg's influence over future generations. Please don't take it personally. And please don't keep adding his name back in to the article without discussing it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.30.186 (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So what happened to Aaron Copland? He was an important composer and definitely a pupil of Schoenberg's. AlterBerg (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)AlterBergAlterBerg (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Although they had contact, and Copland was something of an acolyte, I'm pretty sure he was never an actual student of Schoenberg (he studied under Nadia Boulanger). Another user removed Copland from the entry with the edit summary "Copland never studied with Schoenberg". Hairhorn (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I was the editor who removed Copland from the list of Schoenberg's pupils, and provided that edit summary. My opinion is only based on the New Grove, the standard biographies of Copland (Pollock, Berger, Oja and Tick, Dobrin, Butterworth, etc.), and his own writings (where one might have thought he would somewhere mention such an important thing). As such, of course it is evidence of omission: none of these sources actually states "Copland never studied with Schoenberg"—they merely fail to mention that he ever did. User:AlterBerg seems very certain that this is an oversight and, if a reliable source can be brought forward to support this (to me, startling) claim, I would cheerfully withdraw my objection.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Levant, moreover, commissioned the piano concerto (or at least, the piano concerto stemmed from a commission of his) so he certainly deserves a mention anycase! :) Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Though as to Nikos Skalkottas, the recent collection of CDs of his music on the (not all that obscure) Swedish label BIS is giving him some more exposure, I think ( (Well, maybe. Their recordings of certain other composers I might mention's works haven't done that much for their visibility, I guess, unfortunately.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"atonal motivic development"?

What's "atonal motivic development"? *All* 11 of the google entries on that exact phrase (there are only 11), are derived from the same sentence, popping up all over the web. Is this someone's original research, then? I don't find references to it the books I have in front of me, but that doesn't mean it's not imporant...I just want some help here.

The advances in motivic development for which Schoenberg is responsible are not limited to his atonal music. The innovation that most distinguishes him in this area is the treatment of the differences between steps in a developmental process as objects in and of themselves, so that the subject in Schoenberg's music is decentered. (See writings by Ferneyhough, Dahlhaus, etc)...I'll look up specific citations later, but for the moment I'm just curious what the author means by "atonal motivic development." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.240.121 (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

These Wikipedia articles are often plagiarized versions of other documents. It looks, however, as though you get the gist of this phrase's meaning. Maybe you should render it in a more precise way. It's Wikipedia, after all. Dunkelweizen (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The gist of the phrase's meaning contradicts what I know of Schoenberg's approach to motive, and I corrected it earlier. The author (or someone) put things back the way I found them before my edit. So I wanted to ask for that someone's collaboration, rather than getting into a back-and-forth. I thought if someone could tell me what s/he meant by "atonal motivic development," then we'd have a start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.240.121 (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, here. The word "atonal" is irrelevant and misleading in that phrase. - Rainwarrior (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, issue is resolved.

Worklist

the list of works woo, organised by medium, seems much friendlier than the list by opus numbers;should they be merged? in any event, Von Heute auf Morgen needs to be identified as a stage work, and one for four singers with a single spoken line for the child.Sparafucil 08:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Also, I'm tempted to delete "selected compositions" there being no obvious criterion (not all or famous or representative). The categories:compositions page is under utilized; maybe everything needs to be merged into one list? Sparafucil 04:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked the article history, but I assume the separate categories of "Selected works", "Works with opus numbers", etc. are a product of different people working at different times. I wholeheartedly agree that "Selected works" is a pointless category next to the complete lists and, although it is the habit of some specialist writers to refer to Schoenberg's works by opus number alone (where they exist), I don't see why a merged list of with-and-without opus numbers would be a handicap to anyone. I'd say, "go for it!"--Jerome Kohl 06:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I being Tom-Sawyered? Did the vocal works already, w/o attempting chronological order. Sparafucil 07:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Tom-Sawyered"? I'm sure I don't know what you are talking about. I thought you were volunteering to do what you saw as some much-needed cleanup ;-) Certainly your efforts are much appreciated.--Jerome Kohl 20:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem now is that the list by genre is woefully incomplete because many of the works w/ opus numbers now aren't classified properly. I will get chamber music done now, but this type of change needs to (basically) be done all at once or not at all if we want to be a reliable reference. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Schönberg redirects to Arnold Schoenberg. ...... Why? I can understand 'Arnold Schönberg' redirecting here perfectly, but not just the last name. He may be the most famous person with that name, but he's certainly far from the only one - see Claude-Michel Schönberg too. --Lobby

Sounds like you want to start a Schönberg disambig page, ala Kennedy or Miller or something like that. Go for it! --Ds13 18:43, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Hyacinth 20:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I just wanted to check here first to make sure I wasn't missing something, some reason for it being the way it currently is, before making the disambig page. (Actually, I wanted someone else to do the work for me; damn your mere helpfulness!.. So, yeah, I'll go do that now.) --Lobby/Silence 18:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to call "Schoenberg" the anglicized version of "Schönberg"; it is exactly how a German speaker would type or write the name without the letter "ö". I also doubt very many English speakers would be helped by the change. More than likely, the composer got a lot of SHOWN-bergs or even SHOW-en-bergs. Without any text to the contrary, my guess would be the change was a matter of typographical ease of use. Ben L. 15:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ben L. Chris 01:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Phobia

The article claims that Schoenberg "feared turning 76, because its digits add up to thirteen." Did he also fear turning 49, 58, and 67? —Caesura 21:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Though you pose a good question, a phobia is an irrational fear and there is nothing strange if he did not fear those similar numbers. Hyacinth 21:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Schoenberg was not afraid of turning 76 until just prior to his birthday, when an astrologer acquaintance sent him a warning that the year was ominous. Prior to that, he had only been afraid of ages that were multiples of 13, 65 in particular.

Humph01 12:45, 1 April 2005 (UTC)

That's fascinating, genuinely...such logical music but illogical phobias! Fatboy06 21:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

He technically died in his 77th year, he had lived for 76 full years and died in the 10th month of his 77th.

That makes it 77 - 10 = 67 (6 + 7 = 13) Bad luck ! --Shandris^{the azylean} 15:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Subtracting the years will give you the number 77, but if you notice, july comes before september, therefore he had not quite reached his 77th year.--Psydude 19:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've spent some time searching and can't find any corroborating information for the claim of his specific time of death, saying "harmony" etc only that he died on that day. Could we get an external link? I am interested to confirm this because not only is it a very strange coincidence but it seems rather odd that his wife would be telling him to "wake up and quit this nonsense" just before midnight as not only would normal people be sleeping, but the day would have been over shortly anyway. Sounds very dubious to me. 203.97.162.200 06:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have heard many tellings of the story in many places... if it's not true it's at least a very widespread rumour. (But it would be nice to know the truth.) I can't seem to find reference to this on schoenberg.at, which gives me at least a little bit of suspicion about it. Rainwarrior 04:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, i've only found the phobia story here. And its only in the article about Triskaidekaphobia, its not even in his main article. Can someone verify this outside, perhaps by a published biography? Until it can be verified one way or the other, i've added in the story about his death into the main article, because, true or not, it is pretty creepy. --Psydude 19:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

While I don't really care to make the change in this article myself (due mostly to my wiki-ignorance), this triskaidekaphobia thing is actually documented in a book by Malcolm MacDonald called "Schoenberg," London: J.M. Deat and Sons Ltd., 1986, pg.50, or there roundabouts. If that's enough evidence to keep that in the main article, go ahead and throw it back in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.230.115.32 (talk • contribs).

Then add this to article, why there's no telling of his death nor his strange grave?

The composer Arnold Schoenberg (ironically born on the 13th) suffered from triskaidekaphobia. He was convinced that he would die aged 76 (because 7+6 = 13). Not only did his premonition come true, he also died on Friday 13 July 1951 (another 13: Friday is the sixth day of the week - beginning on Sunday - and July is the seventh month, making 6 + 7 = 13; 1951: 19 - 5 - 1 = 13) at 11:47 PM - 13 minutes to midnight. Also, adding the numbers 1, 1, 4, and 7 brings up a total of 13.

--Shandris^{the azylean} 15:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Extramusical interests

Maybe his triskaidekaphobia should be placed under a different title, as I'm not sure how a phobia can be an extramusical interest. I presume interest refers to Schoenberg himself and not the reader. thedarkestclear 13:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I've removed the triskaedekaphobio bit for lack of references. When references are found, it can be re-added. Mak (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that it has been re-added, but the "reference" cited is [[1]], which is merely a website telling this story, not what could reasonably be called a reliable source. I have just checked a few biographies (certainly not all of them) and find it extraordinary that none of them mentions this at all, even though one or two go into excruciating detail about Schoenberg's final months. It seems to me that, unless a more convincing citation can be found, that this triskaidekaphobia business should be removed again.--Jerome Kohl 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

His trisodekophobia is documented pretty well, and is also mentioned on page 148 of Alan Shawn's book Arnold Schoenberg's Journey, if that legitimizes the claim at all. --Adam P! 23:03, 9 Nov 2007

I think you are a little behind the times. A lot of triskaidekaphobia (not "trisodekophobia") water has flowed under the bridge sibnce last June. If you look at the article itself, you will find it is adequately covered here, though perhaps you would like to add the Shawn reference. On the other hand, the unsubstantiated legend about Schoenberg's death certificate has been removed, owing to no one having come forward with any better evidence than Gertrude Schoenberg's testimony.--Jerome Kohl 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did Schoenberg Travel To Berlin?

I have read elsewhere how Schoenberg was pretty much rejected by the Vienna scene, wife and kids to feed, totally down on his luck with only enough money for a train ticket, and he spent that money to travel to Berlin (1911?) where he was immediately hailed as a genius and accepted into the musical society, and the rest, as they say, is history.

But what I cannot uncover is why did he travel to Berlin?

he'd been there before, briefly, but why did he suddenly go back? Even the Official Schoenberg site simply has him talking to Kandinsky one moment, the next he's in a new apartment in Berlin. But why did he go there? Was he invited? Was he taking up an appointment or a commission? Was there someone he hoped to meet (as when John Cage, also penniless, travelled to NYC hoping to meet Max Ernst) Or did he have reason to expect they would be friendlier to his un-pretty music?

It puzzles me greatly, it has become my Why did the Bodhisattva travel to China? life-koan -- I can find no reasons given in any references, only as we find here, one day he's in Vienna, the next sentence he's in Berlin, and if they later appointed him head of the music academy, it would seem they really did appreciate his talents.

Does anyone know why Schoenberg risked his savings on Berlin?

Or is the whole story just a myth?

Teledyn 02:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you not find the explanation in New Grove sufficient? His financial position in Vienna had deteriorated badly. "In 1910 he offered his services to the Kaiserliche-Königliche Akademie für Musik und Darstellende Kunst as an external lecturer in theory and composition. His application was successful, but his hopes that this might lead to a professorship were thwarted. A question was asked in parliament, and he was subjected to virulent attacks on racial grounds. By the end of the academic year his circumstances had so far deteriorated that he decided to try his luck once again in Berlin, and moved there with his family in the autumn of 1911." So, he went there on spec, as it were. He managed to obtain a lectureship at the Stern Conservatory, though his lectures were poorly attended at first. New Grove does not say how he managed that post, but does mention hostile comments in the Berlin press upon his arrival, which might account for the poor attendance.--Jerome Kohl 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Austrian-American

Does living in the U.S. after he was 59 make him an Austrian-American? Atavi 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It does if he took American citizenship. CRCulver 05:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Which he did. OK. Atavi 06:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Death of Mathilde Schoenberg

I do not know the details of her death offhand, but it was Gerstl who committed suicide after she returned to Schoenberg. The Schoenberg Centre Biography says that she died much later in 1923, but doesn't give the details. (I seem to recall cancer as the reason in the back of my mind, but I can't find a reference offhand to back it up.) - Rainwarrior 18:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be in the category

Category:Compositions by composer - perhaps someone put in the line [[Category:Compositions by composer]] (without initial colon after the bracketpair) instead somewhere? Since there is a category Category:Compositions by Arnold Schoenberg which does belong. Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(fixed already, or something. Though the category Category:Compositions by Arnold Schoenberg lists Arnold Schönberg as the main article, which I hope isn't intentional, planning to change that in a bit just to be slightly picky. Thanks. Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This article contains a list of compositions by Arnold Schönberg. Why wouldn't it belong in this category? (It is indeed the main article for his compositions). - Rainwarrior 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The category I pointed to is a list of categories and pages. The pages are all of the form "List of works by ----" - specifically, not mixed with biography etc., and also importantly, so named. (It was, when I wrote that, (edit - almost!!) the only page in that category in fact that wasn't of the form "List of compositions by x", and tended to stand out. It's not there anymore. Hrm. RobertG's recent edit might account for that. Ok, didn't imagine that- non-trivial I sometimes think...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 23:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Schoenberg's political views

I know Schoenberg was a communist, or at least held communist/socialist views and leaned far to the left. It directly relates to one of the principles of of atonal theory (the destruction of tonal heirarchy). Does anyone have a source for this? I think it should definitely be added to the article. A quick Google search didn't reveal much, and I don't have my library card with me, so I can't access my library's online databases like Grove and JSTOR; but if someone has a biography or something of the like, it'd save some time. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 10:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that many of the postwar composers interested in serialism are/were communists. Luigi Nono springs very quickly to mind, but there are many others.

Schoenberg, however, was not a communist. He was also opposed to the term "atonal", and the phrase "destruction of tonal heirarchy" doesn't really fit with the way he described what he was doing (he considered it more of an extension beyond tonality, not the destruction of it). Even in his writings on music (published as "Style and Idea") you can see right wing tendencies; his argument for stronger copyright, for instance; his view of the composer as a privileged expert; etc, and there are articles more directly related to his political views in journals out there (sorry, I can't come up with a citation offhand), and these views also correlate directly with his religious beliefs. - Rainwarrior 14:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, let me say that I completely unsure of Schoenberg's political views. However, I do not think there is any contradiction between having Communist sympathies and arguments for strong copyright or the composer as a superior being. To me such views are variations on authoritarianism, and Russian Communism, at least, certainly had no problem with that. Chris 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hans Eisler wrote of his trepidation in introducing AS to Brecht, on account of the formers conservative politics.Sparafucil 08:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Schoenberg himself wrote, in a short essay titled "My Attitude toward Politics" (1950), published on pp. 551–52 of H. H. Stuckenschmidt's Schoenberg: His Life, World and Work (New York: Schirmer Books, 1977), that "before I was twenty-five, I had already discovered the difference betwen me and a labourer; I then found out that I was a bourgeois and turned away from all political contacts." He goes on to say that his experience during World War I turned him into a monarchist, and remained a quiet monarchist for many years, "though the chance for a restoration was at zero." The essay ends with the flat statement, "I was never a communist."--Jerome Kohl 03:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From Schoenberg's letters at http://www.schoenberg.at/4_exhibits/asc/Kandinsky/letters_e.htm#

-"What have I to do with communism? I’m not one and never was one!"

-"Trotsky and Lenin spilt rivers of blood (which, by the way, no revolution in the history of the world could ever avoid doing!), in order to turn a theory – false, it goes without saying (but which, like those of the philanthropists who brought about previous revolutions, was well meant) – into reality. It is a thing to be cursed and a thing that shall be punished, for he who sets his hand to such things must not make mistakes!"

-"The anti-Semites are, after all, world-reforming busybodies with no more perspicacity and with just as little insight as the communists."

If there is still anyone unconvinced, expect him to show us stronger evidence. User: kansallinenkokoomus

Citations?

Some Schoenberg expert should really substantiate this article with citations... I've never seen an article with so many unreferenced claims.[This unsigned entry was made on 23 May 2007 by 128.135.96.6]

As the person responsible for the majority of the calls for verification now peppering this article, I couldn't agree with you more, though it would hardly take a "Schoenberg expert" to fill many of the gaps. I notice that a few of these calls have been answered, though in at least one case the "citation" is to a website opinion/rumor page which itself is unverifiable. Care needs to be taken to cite only credible sources.--Jerome Kohl 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a great many statements in the article that are marked as requiring citations, but do not in fact require any, except perhaps the most general ones. For example, it is certainly the case that around the turn of the twentieth century many intellectuals felt that thought had been developed as far as it could go; there is no need to find an instance of an historian saying it in another source. Another example is the sentence about the second string quartet; the music is the source, and may be examined by anyone. There are, on the other hand, other statements for which citations would be entirely appropriate, though I am generally disturbed by the citation mania that has overtaken the Wikipedia project in recent months. Such a thing as common knowledge exists, and to deny it is rather silly.Vaux 03:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Vaux. Of course we could include a reference to an easily accessible edition of the 2nd string quartet and many more references. The question is however: will this really improve the article? Wouldn't anyone interested in the musical text of that quartet be able to find the score without any problems? Matthias Röder 22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I was the one who put in that call for a citation about the Second String Quartet, and I should perhaps clarify my intent. Of course there is no need for a citation to establish that there is a soprano singer, nor for the characterizations of the harmonies in the various movements. The issue is to do with the use of a soprano vocalist "breaking with several decades of string-quartet practice". I was astounded to learn of an earlier practice of adding voices to string quartets, abandoned for twenty or thirty years until Schoenberg revived it in 1908; indeed, I suspect this statement is erroneous, but would be a lot easier to demonstrate its truth (cite a score or two, or a book or article describing these works) than its untruth.--Jerome Kohl 01:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I should have realized that, Jerome; the request for a citation is after the clause in question, after all. I'm intrigued by this earlier practice of quartets with voices, as I've never seen reference to it anywhere. I just checked the latest Grove, and in it Paul Griffiths implies that Schoenberg's introduction of the voice is the first instance that he knows of, for example. Do you remember where you found out about it?Vaux 05:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I always figured it was sort of an homage to Beethoven bringing in a chorus to end the Ninth. - Rainwarrior 06:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed remember exactly where I first found out about this practice, Vaux: right here in the Wikipedia Schoenberg article! As I said, it astounded me and I suspect it is an error, but demonstrating a nonexistence is much more difficult than demonstrating an existence. I imagine that Paul Griffiths is likely correct, and perhaps that reference should be inserted as a counterfoil, until and unless someone can find a reference for the claim that there was once a flourishing practice of this nature. I would say that Rainwarrior's speculation sounds plausible, too, but I suspect that Wikipedia policies would prevent us from inserting such observations without documentiation, since it would consititute "original research", would it not?--Jerome Kohl 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research, and just an offhand guess as well. But anyhow... we can't prove that a previous string quartet featuring a soprano doesn't exist, so we can't prove that it's the first. It's seems reasonable though for a well researched published source to suggest that it is the first. However, if we can't attribute a source that's willing to suggest this, is it so important that we have to mention it? I mean, might it be just as good to say that it was unusual in its use of a soprano and leave it at that? Why settle for an unattributed statement that's just "probably" true? - Rainwarrior 05:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see some source attributed to this quote: "My music is not modern, it is merely badly played.", or else I feel the quote should be deleted. I can't specifically question its accuracy, but personally, it doesn't (necessarily) sound like a quote that Schoenberg would have said. I know that isn't much to go on (simply that it "doesn't sound right"), but given that the other two quotes have sources, and this one doesn't and just sounds SO offhanded, I question it's validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.177.199 (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the most widely cited witticisms attributed to Schoenberg, so it was not difficult to find a citable source, which I have now added. Of course, as with the great majority of such bon mots, it is another thing entirely to demonstrate that Schoenberg actually said it, much less prove he was its creator.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can someone add a pronunciation for his name? Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've done my best, though I am not expert in the use of the IPA. Perhaps other, more adept editors will refine this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In Los Angeles, where Schoenberg spent part of his life, I've heard announcers on radio stations use the Americanized pronunciation "shernberg" ('ʃərnbərg), since the correct pronunciation contains sounds that most Americans don't say regularly. Richard K. Carson (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Twelve Tone Technique

Schoenberg used the phrase system of composing with twelve tones to identify his "technique". Slonimsky's Music Since 1900 can be used as a reference. Should we add this in parenthetically or replace Twelve Tone Technique?--Roivas (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be pedantic, the phrase Schoenberg actually used was Methode der Komponierens mit zwölf nur aufeinander bezogenen Tönen. It really is no wonder that this has been boiled down to "Zwölftontechnik" or, in English, "twelve-tone technique" (mainly American usage) or "twelve-note technique" (mainly UK usage). (Slonimsky's version must be an intermediate form, changing "method" to "system" and omitting the phrase "related only to each other".) The interested reader can follow the link to the article "Twelve-tone music", where this is discussed at some length, and the other common term "dodecaphony" is also mentioned. If other editors think this is important enough to warrant a separate notice here, it seems to me that a parenthetical addition—with a citation perhaps to Style and Idea, p. 218, as in the article on the technique—would be far preferable to altering the familiar and usual term.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"System" is my mistake. I don't think adding in a brief mention regarding Schoenberg's preferred name for his own composition technique would be overly pedantic. I have no interest in challenging a commonly used word. I gave the wrong impression. Parenthetical is best. I'm sure many readers will find the little piece of info interesting.--Roivas (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it is mentioned in the Twelve-tone music article you linked for me, I'm not all that inclined to change the present article.

--Roivas (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Vienna Academy of Music

It says here that in 1912 he was appointed Professor of Music Theory at the Vienna Academy of Music. Is this correct. It's not in the article and I've been unable to verify this on the internet.--Atavi (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Most probably, the reason I could not find any verification for this is that Schoenberg actually declined the appointment. The page is from the official web site of the Vienna University of Music and Performing Arts (successor institution to the "Vienna Academy of Music") and they probably did not want to mention the refusal. I added a few minutes ago text detailing this, drawing from a book by Christopher Hailey on Franz Schreker.

--Atavi (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

12 > twelve

This is the ultimate nitpik: User:Jerome Kohl changed the numeral 12 to the word "twelve" in his last edit. It has been a long time since I read style manuals, but as I recall, the Chicago, McGraw Hill and Associated Press style manuals all agreed that numbers up to 10 should be written out, numbers 10 or greater should be written as numerals. Does Wikipedia have a different opinion on this? --Ravpapa (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, numbers up to twenty are commonly written as words. In any case, whenever we refer to the twelve tones in the twelve tone technique we should use the word. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I made this change based on Str1977's previous alteration. There are as it happens two standards for treatment of numbers: the "one through ten" standard, and the "one through ninety-nine" standard. You will find both of these discussed in the Chicago Manual, sections 8.3 and following. (I don't happen to have the McGraw Hill or AP manuals to hand, but I believe they will confirm this dichotomy). In any case, Str1977 was correct, in that this article has inconsistencies in the application of this rule, and the majority of cases seems to favor the "one through ninety-nine" standard. Hence, the change.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And I know of a one to twenty standard. But my actual point was that the twelve in twelve-tone technique should be spelled out as a word. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation style

I don't see why anyone could object to using the citation style commonly used in WP, using footnotes etc. Is there any reason for it? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for not replying on talk.

Using footnotes makes the article much more readable and avoids repeating similar information again and again.

And aah ... Sailor Moon? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there are many citation styles "commonly used in WP". The changes that you have been attempting to impose on this article (without discussion up to now) actually involve two distinct format changes: (1) replacing author-date citations with short-title citations, and (2) replacing intext citations with footnotes.

If no one objected to your proposed style, it would be Wikipedia policy (or at least, preference), but this is not the case. Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style states: "There is currently no consensus on a preferred citation style or system for Wikipedia." Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles says: "There are a number of citation styles and systems used in different fields, all including the same information, with different punctuation use, and with the order of appearance varying for the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style or system used by the first editor to use one should be respected" (emphases added).

This article has for a long time used Chicago-format citations, which shares the author-date referencing style with several other similar formats widely used on Wikipedia (such as the Harvard Referencing system followed by the APA and Oxford University Press). The Chicago Manual of Style gives its reasons for preferring this system in section 15.4: "The system of documentation generally most economical in space, in time (for author, editor, and typesetter), and in cost (to publisher and public)—in short, the most practical—is the author-date system."

For me, personally, using Chicago intext citations with author-date format has the advantage of making the article "much more readable and avoids repeating similar information again and again" (in other words, precisely the same reason you give for changing the system). However, author-date intext citations particularly are advantagious because footnote references (which on Wikipedia, as with all HTML documents, are technically endnotes), in the words of the Footnote article, "may cause inconvenience for the reader that has to move back and forth between the main text and the endnotes." I find hyperlinking back and forth extremely distracting.

The Chicago citation format is also the one most widely used in the field of music scholarship.

The short-title format that you additionally are recommending I find unsuitable for Wikipedia, because it requires that the full bibliographical citation occurs in the first footnote citing that source, with the short-title form only in subsequent notes. Because of the fluid nature of Wikipedia articles, reference citations may come and go as material is added or deleted. Thus, it requires extraordinary editorial vigilance to ensure that this system does not become corrupted.

While I shall send these opinions via email, as requested on you User page, "not replying on talk" is inappropriate when a change of this nature is being proposed, since the input of other editors is desirable, and they need to see the full discussion.

Finally, I have no idea what you are referring to by "Sailor Moon". If it is pertinent to this discussion, please explain.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things:

• The "thanks ..." message was ironic. And nowhere did I request that discussing should go via emails. My user page definitely does not say this.
• In your edit summary you referred me to WP:SM. Go have a look.

Str1977 ^(talk) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, irony. It doesn't always come across well in email and talk pages. I suppose I must be a little dim, because I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Since I took your "thanks for not replying on talk" to mean "please don't respond on talk, thanks", I put this together with the message on your User page reading "I am busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. For more urgent matters, please send me an e-mail" to mean that you wished for any reply to be emailed, rather than posted on either the Schoenberg or your Use talk pages. My apologies for putting 2 and 2 togeher and getting 5.

Yes, I linked there, because I found that the phrase has a Wikipedia article. I still don't see the relevance to the present discussion, sorry.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What I wanted to say was "you should have replied on the talk page". Well, now you have. Aparantly here we have two preferences standing against each other and though I strongly believe that mine is superior, I cannot make you comply. And I am not willing to fight over this.

The relevance is that you pointed my to WP:SM, which is about Sailor Moon. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the suggestion to use the Talk page actually originated with me, but let's not quibble. And no, I see no reason to engage in a battle over citations formats, since my beliefs are just as strong as yours.

My bafflement about Sailor Moon is not about the relevance of your subsequent comment, which is perfectly plain, but rather about the relevance to the present discussion of bringing up Sailor Moon in the first place.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The source of the SM confusion is that Jerome Kohl wrote in his edit summary that Str1977 should look in the Wikipedia Style Manual, which he abbreviated as WP:SM. Str1977 conscientiously followed that link to the Wikiproject on Sailor Moon.

I feel now that I have lived up to my username. Ravpapa was a Rabbi of the Sanhedrin, famous for his clear commentaries on abstruse Mishnaic texts. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So that's what all this Sailor Moon nonsense was about! I typoed WP:SM instead of WP:MOS, and that way back in an edit summary, not here on the Talk page!! Thank you, Ravpapa, you have indeed lived up to your username!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in section 2.2

> Schoenberg was not fond of Igor Stravinsky, and in 1926 wrote a poem titled "Der neue Klassizismus" (in which he derogates Neoclassicism and obliquely refers to Stravinsky as "Der kleine Modernsky"), which he used as text for the third of his Drei Satiren, op. 28 (H. C. Schonberg 1970, 503).
op. 28 no. 3 is indeed titled "Der neue Klassizismus" but the part containing the words "Der kleine Modernsky" is no. 2 titled "Vielseitigkeit". I do not know about the original poem, so I don't think, I'd be the right one to edit the section.
(The text to "Drei Satiren" can be found at http://www.schoenberg.at/6_archiv/music/works/op/compositions_op28_texts.htm)

Why ballet?

Just curious: why is this article apparently within the scope of WikiProject Ballet? --RobertG ♬ talk 13:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably mainly because of George Balanchine's Brahms-Schoenberg Quartet and Antony Tudor's Pillar of Fire (to the music of Verklärte Nacht. There have been at least two other choreographies of Verklärte Nacht, Nacht by Anna Teresa De Keersmaeker, and Schoenberg, Verklärte Nacht by Jirí Kylián (the Finale is here). Then there are “Schoenberg Serenade” by James Sewell, and Schoenberg Variations by Richard Tanner.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So he's a "ballet composer" because choreographers have used his music. Fair enough. Thanks. Just wondered.  :) --RobertG ♬ talk 17:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is about the strength of it. Ballet is a funny business, where composers are concerned. It might well be a useful distinction to make, between music specifically composed for the purpose and more or less accidental appropriations of this sort, but in the ballet world, a composer must be thankful to get his name mentioned at all, even in cases where the music was so intended from the start (I had seen Don Quixote twice before I was able to discover that the music used actually had a composer, Ludwig Minkus!).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ballet is at least as much about the dance as it is about the music, so it makes sense that at least some ballets are known by their titles only, with no particular reference to the name of the composer. And then, to be even-handed, the choreographer's name would not be mentioned either (so, Appalachian Spring, e.g., is usually billed as just that, not as "Martha Graham's Appalachian Spring", or "Aaron Copland's Appalachian Spring"). But others are always associated primarily with the composer, almost as if the choreographer was some non-entity not worth mentioning, and whose contribution was trivial. I mean, we'll see ballets billed as "Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake", "Adolphe Adam's Giselle", "Delibes' Coppélia", etc. Sure, the music is great, but if that was all that mattered, we might as well stay at home and listen to it on radio or on a CD. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is B-class, but there are deficencies in the coverage of his early life. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 14:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Where's the numerology?

Numerology was hugely important to Schoenberg, although it was little discussed when he was alive. The entry mentions only his triskaidekaphobia, which far from exhausts the issue. There are even suggestions that it affected his music, which seems hardly surprising, given the sorts of things he's remembered for (ie the twelve tones). Hairhorn (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Style of citing

I presume all the bracketed names, dates and numbers are various books and page numbers (eg (Steinberg 1995, 463), (Foss 1951, 401), (Ross 2007, 45) in lead). However, they do not give the name of the book or ISBN etc, so no one except Schonberg experts can verify the info cited. I also feel that they disrupt the flow and should be in the footnotes. I have left them as they stand as I have no idea which books they refer to. If any one can tidy this up, that would be great. Cheers, Jubilee♫clipman 21:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's called Harvard referencing -- see Wikipedia:CITE#Parenthetical_referencing -- and is a fully acceptable method under Wikipedia's guidelines. The books are in the "References" section; for the (Steinberg 1995, 463) example, go down and look for the 1995 book by Steinberg. Frankly I wish we'd use this style more. Antandrus (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You will find all of the details for each citation in the References list at the end of the article. It does not require a Schoenberg expert to read these. There you will find, for example, that "Ross 2007" refers to "Ross, Alex. 2007. And the Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, ISBN 9780374249397". The numeral 45 in the reference following the comma is the page number where the citation may be found. Since you are apparently unfamiliar with this citation format, I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles, where you will find a discussion of the several variants of author-date citation systems used on Wikipedia. See also the discussion at the heading Citation style, a little further back on this same page. (And with due respect to Antandrus, who does know what he is talking about, the style in the present article is actually Chicago style, a slightly different variant from Harvard Referencing).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I actually checked up WP:CS and saw that after I wrote this. I also scrolled down and saw the List... Few other Wikis I have read use this style, and I have indeed never seen it anywhere else. It might be confusing to quite a few people who aren't familiar with this style. 20th-century classical music uses the same style and I have raised similar concerns there. BTW, wouldn't it be better to style it (Name 2009, p.25). That is actually the style used in Wikipedia:CITE#Parenthetical_referencing and would probably make it more obvious. Anyway, thanks for explaining. Jubilee♫clipman 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. If you are unaccustomed to seeing this format on Wikipedia, I suggest you survey articles on music, and particularly twentieth-century so-called "classical" music. Just a few examples: Karlheinz Stockhausen, Tomás Marco, Frans Geysen, Luigi Nono, Milton Babbitt, Serialism, New Simplicity, and Atonality. One reason this format tends to be used so often in this field is that the scholarly journals in the field tend to adhere to the Chicago Manual of Style in the US, and the Oxford Guide to Style (New Hart's Rules) in the UK, both of which advocate this format.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Schoenberg's own writings in "References" and "Further Reading" sections

I am not aware of the standard practices on biographies of musicians, who have published written word works. I only write this based on Wikipedia:Layout#Standard_appendices_and_footers, which I searched for and found because I saw on a separate biographical article that a written work by the article's subject was listed together with the written works of others on him (which struck me as odd). I actually came to this article first to look which heading was used for the writings of Schoenberg; I initially missed the fact that they were listed under "References" and "Further Reading" and thought that there weren't any listed at all - hence I looked for the guideline and then went to the Iannis Xenakis article, where I actually noticed the book authored by Xenakis and made the separation immediately myself. Then it dawned on me that I must have missed such entries on this article.

To the point now, always having in mind my first disclaimer: I suppose that Schoenberg's writings that are listed in "References" are actually references and as such perhaps they should stay there, but why should the rest go under "Further Reading"? Of course this distinction would in fact create a source of confusion, because some of Schoenberg's writings would not be listed under "Publications". This would be a reason not to make such a change; perhaps leave things as they are?

But I wanted to actually ask, so as to verify this practice (versus any other). If this article's treatment is the standard practice, perhaps the WP Manual of Style - Layout guide should be updated or expanded?

--Atavi (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent observation, which just goes to prove that fresh eyes will see things that tired old ones have missed for years! I think you are correct that the items actually cited in the text belong with the other references, but it is certainly inconsistent with most other Wikipedia articles to put works by the subject of the article into a "Further reading" section. The usual thing is to have a section titled "Writings" or "Publications" (or sometimes "Bibliography", though in my view this is confusing, since a bibliography normally is a list of references), and in articles on composers it is usually placed just before or after the list of compositions (see for example Alexander Goehr or Rob du Bois). This article as it stands does not represent standard practice, and should be changed, in my opinion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and the pointers to the other two articles.

As I said then as well, when I wrote my initial question I really had no idea what the standard practice was. I think it was actually what you mention, fresh eyes, since only reading those sections with no pre-conceptions other than what I found more intuitive made me notice it. After I did notice it, I could find arguments for and against several approaches, including the one that was being used at the time

Cheers, Atavi (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, fresh eyes can be an enormous help. Speaking of which, thanks for fixing the accidental inclusion of Steinberg in the new "writings" section. As you surmised, it got caught up by the steam shovel when I scooped up Schoenberg's writings from the list of sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Separate Compositions Entry

Schoenberg's compositions should be split out to a new article. He was both prolific and hugely influential, his works move through distinct stylistic periods, and the stages of his works correspond with increasingly complex usage of his 12-tone system. All of this can be highlighted and organized more clearly in a separate article. Michael Lee (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Support That would certainly clean up the article. Squandermania (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Qualified support. "Article", or "list"? If the latter, it would certainly be consistent with the treatment of other major composers, such as Balakirev, Bartók, Berio, Böhm, Boulez, and Britten—to mention only the Six Bs ;-) On the other hand, I can't think of any cases where an actual article exists, in which the works of a composer are discussed (style, techniques, forms, critical reception, etc.) separate from the biographical article on that composer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Stokowski and Schoenberg

In a BBC radio interview with Leopold Stokowski, broadcast on 12 September 1965 and issued on CD (BBC Legends BBCL 4018-2), Deryck Cooke remarked to the maestro: "Of course, you've done a lot of what we call the new music of our time. Somebody told me that you are the one conductor who presented all Schoenberg's orchestral works in his own lifetime." Stokowski replied: "That's true. Well, he and I were friends, you see, but it wasn't because we were friends. I have friends who are composers but I never conduct their music because I don't think it's inspired, I don't understand it. It seems like what I call 'paper music', it's notes on paper but it doesn't express something. But with Schoenberg that was different - this was an extraordinary man and I so much admired the music that was always experimental with him. He was always going into new directions in the growth of music, because music is always evolving, like everything in this universe is evolving all the time, all the planets and stars and space and everything, so was this man and that was why we performed everything during his lifetime."

Stokowski's first foray into Schoenberg's music was with the US Premiere of the first Kammersymphonie on 5 November 1915 with the Philadelphia Orchestra. The work was likened by critic Richard Aldrich in his press review to "a venomous toad." Stokowski also gave the US Premieres in Philadelphia of the Variations for Orchestra (18 October 1929), Die Gluckliche Hand (a staged performance on 11 April 1930), and Gurrelieder on 8 April 1932. Of the several performances of this work given at that time, two were recorded by RCA and one of them was issued in a set of fourteen 78rpm discs that remained its only recording in the catalogue until the advent of the LP.

Stokowski gave the World Premiere of Schoenberg's Violin Concerto (6 December 1940 with Louis Krasner and the Philadelphia Orchestra). He also conducted the World Premiere of the Piano Concerto (6 February 1944 with Eduard Steuermann and the NBC Symphony Orchestra) and told the NBC radio audience: "We are going to play music that may be difficult to understand at one hearing. I have been studying this music for months. In my opinion, it is one of the landmarks of musical history." It also infuriated Arturo Toscanini, who had declined to sign a new contract for the 1941-42 season, causing NBC to engage Stokowski in his place on a three-year contract. Toscanini then returned for the second and third of Stokowski's seasons as his co-conductor. However, as the NBC Symphony had been founded specially for Toscanini in 1937, he remained its senior conductor. When he heard the Schoenberg work he was incensed that "his orchestra" was playing a work "full of wrong notes" and saw to it that Stokowski's contract was not renewed.

As John Hunt's "Stokowski Concert Register" (published 1996) shows, Stokowski championed many other Schoenberg works which were not premieres, including the Chamber Symphony No. 2, the Five Pieces for Orchestra, Pierrot Lunaire and so on. He made two recordings of Verklaerte Nacht (in 1952 for RCA and in 1957 for Capitol) and also recorded the Song of the Wood-Dove for Columbia in 1949, with Martha Lipton, soprano, and the New York Philharmonic.

In 1961, Stokowski revived Gurrelieder twice: first in Philadelphia in March, and again in August where he and the London Symphony Orchestra opened the Edinburgh International Festival with the work. Both occasions were a tremendous success. Philipson55 (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And your point in quoting all of this on this here is somehow relevant to editing the article?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The top of my screen says "Discussion," so where you get the idea that my quoting all of this on this here (to coin your own quaint phrase) is 'relevant to editing the article' I don't know. I'd have thought it might be of interest to Schoenbergians to know that at least one conductor championed Schoenberg's music during his lifetime, since none are doing so these days. In fact, they steer well clear of it, knowing that his music is a notorious concert hall emptier (not a note of it is to be heard, for example, in this year's BBC Proms season). Philipson55 (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As you are evidently a newcomer to Wikipedia, and this particular Talk page did not include a caution about it previously (I have added it now), I refer you to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Maintain_Wikipedia_policy, which includes the statement: "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." I'm sure that all this material you have quoted about Stokowski is of general interest, but if you do not intend that it should in some way contribute to the article itself, it really has no place here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Biography

there aparts of the biography which claim to be references/paraphrase from books but a complete misleading from the facts, the biography needs an extsenive rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.250.194 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

How so? Hyacinth (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Monn arrangements -- were they really by Schoenberg?

I'm aware of other composers that faked compositions by actual obscure composers. As a guitarist, the most famous example is Manual Ponce, who wrote original music but claimed it was by SL Weiss. Segovia was in on it. People suspect this of Stravinsky with his Pulcinella suite. And of course, Paul McCartney also had hits under various aliases, like Bernard Webb for the hit Woman. The motivation would presumably be similar for any nom de plume: to see if a different author's name would help sell new material.

So I have a strong hunch that Schoenberg wrote the Monn concerti from whole cloth, including the G minor concerto. He says the D Major concerto is written "after Monn" -- fair enough. But what about the G Minor concerto. There are plenty of signs of this in the music as well. Does anyone else have any clues about this? And I'm also curious as to why Jacqueline Du Pre wound up being the one to champion this music. Perhaps there was a personal connection to Schoenberg?Danielbirns (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(a) Please sign your talk page posts, by typing 4 tildes (~) at the end.

(b) You may well be right about Monn/Schoenberg, but discussions on this page do not proceed from editorial speculation. Track down a cite that confirms - or debunks - your idea, and we'll have something to add to the article and possibly something to discuss here.

(c) The DuPré connection: I have no idea, maybe others know.

Cheers -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

One might also fairly ask where in this article is Monn (or Schoenberg's arrangement of him) ever mentioned? Beyond that, idle speculation of this sort is quickly dealt with by consulting a basic reference or two. It should not be the function of article talk pages to point people to the New Grove or the pages of the Arnold Schoenberg Center's journal, where articles discussing Schoenberg's Bearbeitungen may readily be found. As to the G minor Cello Concerto, this work in its original form is discussed briefly in Judith Leah Schwartz's article on Monn (Matthias Georg, not Johann Christoph) in the New Grove, and the score is published in Wiener Instrumentalmusik vor und um 1750, vol. 2, edited by W. Fischer, Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Österreich 39, Jahrgang 19, no. 2 (1912). This makes it especially easy to decide for oneself whether O. W. Neighbour's description in the New Grove article on Schoenberg is accurate: "the concertos are new compositions to almost the same degree as a set of variations on another composer’s theme. Thus in each movement of the Cello Concerto he overlaid Monn’s exposition with additional counterpoints and harmonies reaching as far forward as Brahms, or even later, and then continued independently in the same style".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

One can often though not always use (have used) resources like RISM-online nowadays too (to look up e.g. the Monn works) for instance :) when such questions arise though of course all such have their limits... Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed one of the limits of RISM is that it does not permit one to examine Monn's scores (as the DTÖ does), in order to determine whether Schoenberg actually used them, or merely claimed to have done. It is nevertheless useful to the extent of determining whether Monn ever wrote the concertos Schoenberg (and his co-conspirator, O. W. Neighbour) claimed were reworked.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

With a few exceptions, that is - RISM online sometimes has links to digitized scans (e.g. from the Duben collection at Uppsala, or SBB, BSB, Jena, Juilliard, others...) (websearch "digitalisat" "rism.org" or something like that... :) ) - and also, their "incipits" feature is rather helpful (especially since it's remarkably searchable) - even though RISM online only covers a certain proportion of RISM-generally. But yes, generally, agreed far as I know. (And more useful for somewhat-earlier-though-not-too-early music, though even then I don't want to generalize- still, that takes one off Schoenberg. Apologies.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Name spelling change is still standard German

I'm not sure of the best way to edit this, but as far as Schönberg changing the spelling to Schoenberg, using "oe" as an alternate spelling of ö is allowed and not uncommon in standard German. For example, I've even seen Völker spelled as Voelker on a historic building in Berlin. Point being, he didn't make up a new spelling or Anglicize it.

Jrgsf 00:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrgsf (talk • contribs)

Ravel quote

I thought Ravel commented on Schoenberg's works at least twice- once after attending a concert with his first chamber symphony (which Ravel disliked) and once after hearing Pierrot Lunaire (which Ravel apparently quite liked... ) ? Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. It would be nice to have a quotation on Pierrot Lunaire to balance the rather sour one (presumably about the Kammersymphonie) currently in the article. Barbara Kelly writes in The Cambridge Companion to Ravel (p. 24) that, in the April 1923 issue of Le Courrier musical, Ravel "welcomed the performance of Schoenberg's Pierrot lunaire, which he had tried and failed to get performed … in May 1913", apparently after hearing a favourable report from Stravinsky. On the same page, Kelly says that Ravel acknowledged Schoenberg's influence on his Trois poèmes de Stéphane Mallarmé and the Chansons madécasses. On p. 111 of the same collection, Mark DeVoto remarks that the Sonata for Violin and Cello, which was in the process of composition when Ravel actually heard 'Pierrot Lunaire for the first time (in 1922), "includes melodic gestures suggestive of Schoenberg's second-decade atonality".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Schoenberg claims in an essay reprinted in Style and Idea that Puccini also reacted rather favorably to a performance of Pierrot Lunaire. Reaction to Schoenberg's music among performers, average concert-goers, composers, &c was of course divided, but for myself I dislike the way "divided" is sometimes taken to be a euphemism for "unreservedly hostile". And I can well believe that of the Ravel duo-sonata (pub.1922, so PD-US, so am able to take a quick look at the score @IMSLP right now and refresh my memory rather than going by my last recollection of hearing the piece - ah. Hrm. (Not just the melody, but the harmony- at least bitonal, anyway, the closing chord of the finale for starters... I do remember it as being one of his harder works to take in at one go :). Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Portraits

I have included much more interesting images of the composer, and also introduced some historical sequence (younger to older). 86.186.153.39 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia is supposed to be notable/encyclopedic, not "interesting". Photographs are usually preferable to paintings, as they generally display a subject in greater detail. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Art portraits are usually much more incisive, and are frequently preferable to poor photographs (such as the lead photo you have used). Portraits should also be in historic order not put in at random. I am thus reverting your edit. 86.186.153.39 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Comments on this from other editors are obviously welcome. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the diversity of images, but why exactly is younger-too-older sequence desirable? Usually, a composer is best known at an older age, so it seems to me that a reverse-chronological order would be slightly more logical. From the point of view of Wikipedia structure for biographical articles, a third alternative suggests itself: The lede section, as an overall summary, should be illustrated by the "most representative" portrait (in this case, I would say the 1948 Los Angeles photograph (which, contrary to 86's opinion, is not "poor", either technically as a photograph or as a portrait). The main "biographical" account should then be illustrated with images—portraits or otherwise—appropriate to the subject matter of successive paragraphs (presumably, this will be in chronological order). There may be further illustrations, including portraits, for which there is insufficient room in the biographical section or which do not plausibly match the discussion there, but serve well to accompany discussion of the subject's works, and so should be placed there, regardless of chronology. Just my opinion, of course.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: User:86.186.153.39 has done nothing on Wikipedia but spam images onto articles, often willy-nilly and without regard to copyright issues, and repeatedly replacing them even when they were removed for lack of relevance and/or for lack of non-free use rationale. For this reason I would find any images he posts on articles suspect, and subject to removal and/or warnings on his Talk page. He clearly doesn't "get" what Wikipedia images are about or what they are or should be used for or where and how they should be used. In terms of Schoenberg, paintings, especially stylized paintings, should NOT be used at the top of a biographical article. What should be used is the clearest and most applicable photograph that is available for use. Softlavender (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I find you comments both extraordinary and reactionary. Today is the anniversary of Shoenberg's death. His ideas were revolutionary and he was part of a much larger artistic movement(which the old article did not reflect at all). He was an accomplished expressionist painter for example, and I added his self-portrait to show his skills. If you want to keep pontificating, go ahead but beware for the quality of Wikipedia. 86.186.153.39 (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

So ... should the older version of this article be partially restored? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

In spite of Softlavender's warning, I do not see any non-free-use problems with the images added in this case (though I do wonder how the self-portrait image managed to pass the licensing requirements on Commons). Since 86 has declared the self-portrait was added to demonstrate Schoenberg's skill as a painter, it would seem logical to move it to the section on his "other activities", where his work as a visual artist is briefly discussed. Presumably the "part of a larger artistic movement" complaint has some connection to the 1917 portrait by Schiele, which therefore would best be moved to the corresponding place in the biography section. (At the same time, it may be advisable to consider left-alignment for one or two images, in order to avoid the kind of pile-up at the right that presently exists.) I have already expressed my opinion that the 1948 Los Angeles photographic portrait should be restored to its former position at the head of the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

German version vs this one

Compare article to German version: whether or not Schoenberg was "vacationing" in Paris or already living in exile.

Thanks,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arnold_Schoenberg&action=edit# Amy & Hauke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.215.180.115 (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)