DQ for Watkins, 24-37

Please be prepared to respond in either seminar meeting or in "Comments" on the course blog. In all venues, you must be prepared to cite specific passages (by page, paragraph, line, and quotation) in support of your responses—and specific works.

The over-arching goal of this section is to create a deeper, more sophisticated, and more nuanced picture of Schoenberg in a crucially under-examined period: in the pre-serial, indeed pre-atonal period, and to find links in these works (approx 1899-1916) both to works and approaches of his immediate predecessors, and to Schoenberg characteristics which would become more central and visible in the atonal and serial works.

(1) As we have said in seminar, Schoenberg himself was at pains to argue his own rootedness in the Austro-German tradition, linking his music to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, and Brahms. What is his stance on Debussy? What does he argue are the motives of the “Latin/Slav” types (essentially he is speaking of French and Russian composers); what sort of alternative does he believe his own music to represent? Do we agree with his historical analysis of the “Latin and Slav hopes of hegemony”? If not, to what might we attribute his stance?

(2) Pay particular attention to Watkins’s discussion of Verklaerte Nacht and Pelleas. While Watkins draws apt comparisons to approaches and programmaticism in Mahler and Strauss, it should also be borne in mind that Debussy himself wrote a setting of the same French myth. Is there a Debussy connection with Schoenberg’s version that goes beyond text and topic? Listen to the music for answers; consider this in terms of Question (1).

(3) In light of Watkins’s discussion of the Gurre-Lieder, what connections can be drawn, to what other composers? What other composers—German or otherwise—were working in similar areas of “antiquity,” “the folk,” and more broadly in late Romanticism? If there are such connections, what SHMRG characteristics would we expect these vocal pieces to reveal, shared with what composers?

(4) In the discussion “Two String Quartets and a Symphony,” what concerns (particularly formal concerns) does Watkins attribute to Schoenberg in the Opp. 7, 9, & 10? To what extent were these formal concerns shared by other composers of the period? What solutions to these formal concerns have we seen employed by Wagner, Strauss, and Mahler? Does Schoenberg employ any related solutions? Is this one of the links between Schoenberg and these others? Finally (very important) what drove these formal concerns; why was form such a concern, in this particular period?

(5) To open outward the above question: were these formal concerns impacting composers outside the Austro-German orbit? Were French, Eastern European, Russian, or other national composers grappling with similar issues? Were their solutions similar, or different?

(6) In the questions above, we have been addressing perhaps-underexamined aspects of Schoenberg’s music which link him to his Austro-German predecessors and contemporaries. In contrast, in pp28-31, Watkins finds Schoenberg employing organizational (especially thematic) strategies that point toward his later, atonal and serial works. What are these strategies? A challenge for you: can you link these thematic strategies both to Schoenberg’s predecessors and to his own post-tonal music? (Hint: look at issues of counterpoint.)

(7) In pp32-36, Watkins explicates Schoenberg’s theories about harmony and about timbre, and about the links between them. What does Schoenberg himself say about these relationships? How and through what techniques do these links play out in his music of the period? How do they impact the sound of his music? Suggestion: think about other modernist composers, working outside the Austro-German tradition, who in the years just before WWI were also exploring issues of sound. Despite the strong contrasts in the “surface” of, say, Stravinsky or Bartok’s music versus Schoenberg’s in this period, in what way do their analogous strategies (even if realized in very different-sounding music) reveal a shared sense of the problems that confronted composers in these years?

DQ for Watkins, 2-23

[Also watch this space for DQ for Watkins, 24-37]

DQ for Watkins, 2-23

Please be prepared to respond in either seminar meeting or in "Comments" on the course blog. In all venues, you must be prepared to cite specific passages (by page, paragraph, line, and quotation) in support of your responses—and specific works.

The section explores reception and conception of certain Austro-German composers, principally Strauss and Mahler, in the final decade of the 19^th-century, and uses observations about each of these composers’ stylistic development to both demonstrate the continuity of Romanticism-Modernism (Expressionism) and that of Beethoven-Wagner-Mahler (Schoenberg/Berg/1980s Neo-Romanticism).

(1) The conventional/received histories have suggested that the crucial threads of compositional experimentation and development are most legitimately traced through the radical methodological experiments of the Modernists (Debussy, Ravel, Satie, Stravinsky before WWI) and subsequently the German serialists (Schoenberg & Webern) and their post-WWII disciples). Watkins, like Burkholder, wants to problematize the received histories, to suggest that composers like Wagner were more traditionalist—more members of than outcasts from the Austro-German tradition—than the histories have suggested, and that composers like Mahler were more modernist, and influential upon modernism, than the histories have claimed. Explain, cite pieces, describe both procedures and philosophies that rationalize Wagner as a lineage-member and Mahler as a modernist.

(2) Watkins begins his detailed discussion with Strauss, a composer who (with 100 years hindsight) is not conventionally regarded as wielding anywhere near the “lasting influence” of either Brahms (his senior) or Mahler (his contemporary). How does this “hindsight-view” match or contrast with the view of Strauss’s contemporaries? Have critical receptions of Strauss and Mahler shifted over that 100 years? If so, why? How can we know and demonstrate this? Finally, what factors might explain such shifts?

(3) It could be argued (and not only by Watkins) that Strauss was simultaneously a quintessential Romantic (in some works and periods) and a quintessential Modernist (in other works and/or periods)—and that there is not a strict chronological shift from one to the other. Why and on the basis of what works can Strauss be claimed as a Romantic? Why and on what works can he be claimed as a Modernist? Can we understand Strauss’s stylistic diversity, and can that in turn help us understand the questions, problems, or “new ways” that composers were grappling with in this period? [Observation: evidently Watkins thinks so: he begins his history with Strauss]

(4) What is the impact of “lyric”—and specifically “German lyric”—on Mahler and other late-19^th-century composers? What are the roots of this literary influence? What Romantic motives does it reflect? What nationalist motives? Now turn these questions around: how does an emphasis on lyric or narrative song impact upon the musical parameters of harmony and form in this period? Cite specific pieces.

(5) Look closely at the texts of the various Wunderhorn songs Watkins transcribes, listen closely to the specifics of the settings, and be prepared to articulate the philosophical and aesthetic goals which underlie Mahler’s compositional choices.

(6) To go back to Question 1, and to our previous discussions: at the fin-de-siecle, who were the composers believed to be most effectively pointing the way to the future? What elements in those composers’ works shaped that reception? Contrarily, how does Watkins re-order and re-conceive the “Viennese succession”? What, in Watkins’s view, is the significance of the Beethovenian legacy (both stylistic and philosophical) at the fin-de-siecle? Does it impact on the Strauss/Mahler generation? Does it impact later Viennese composers? Did Mahler represent, for these later/younger composers, a model for coping with the issue of this succession?

lilee + want to read some posts

Dear class,
Come on, post something! Aren't we supposed to post something on Watkins? I haven't found any questions from Dr. Smith on the Watkins reading, but I might be missing something. Mahler's songs Der Schildwache Nachtlied and Revelge (on listening week 2) are perfectly suited for this weather; somehow, I have always viewed German/Austrian soldiers in the snow and ice. Seriously, the listening selections are amazing company for this weather. I somehow managed to complete my earlier undergraduate and graduate studies without listening to Mahler; in my twentieth-century music courses, he was accorded recognition for his influence upon the Second Viennese School without much more than passing acknowledgment--his worth was measured in his influence only. In my nineteenth-century music courses, he was accorded worth in his own right, but unfortunately fell into the latter part of the courses, and we always seem to run out of time for latter parts of courses, don't we? One thing that I had never thought about was Viennese fin-de-siecle and early twentieth-century interest in what used to be called "The Orient," although I knew about Bethge's "Chinese Flute," of course; I always thought only about France's/Debussy's interest through the Paris International Exposition for that time period. Watkins had some interesting things to say about Klimt and Loos in this vein. Of course, interest in "the East" (another term not used now because it implies "the other") is an important part of twentieth-century appropriation, similar to the historical appropriation from one's "own tradition," for example, the appropriation that we studied with Brahms' Symphony 4 Mvmt. IV/Bach. Any thoughts? Lisa Lee

lilee + Mass Culture discussion questions

I have written a beautiful Word document that discusses every discussion question in detail, almost five pages of carefully considered response--but how the @#$%^&*! can I copy it to this blog instead of retyping it? Here is my response to the first discussion question.

(1) Weber includes among the factors that contributed to the emphasis upon composers' "names [that] seem [to have been] written into the heavens" the following: 1. the growth of the music publishing industry (p. 6, first full paragraph, line 4), the spread of retail outlets (p. 10, third full paragraph, lines 1 ff), and crafty merchandizing on the part of the publishers (p. 11, first full paragraph, lines 1 ff); 2. the growth of the large-scale concerts which appeared during the middle of the nineteenth century, which brought a new impersonal social structure to concert life (p. 6, second paragraph, lines 8-10), together with their leaders (p. 15, third full paragraph, lines 6-8); 3. the polarization of values between music for entertainment and for serious artistry, shaped by the repertoire of the large-scale concerts (p. 6, second paragraph, lines 10-12); 4. the growth of "highly trained, sometimes semi-professional listeners who poured their energies into advocating the music they regarded as the bastion of serious music culture" who by the mid-nineteenth century had become the "dominant force among the musical amateurs" and who dominated the concert hall (p. 19, the entire third full paragraph). My opinion on the above reasons is that a lot of this is determined by the phenomenon that everyone wants to "be cool"; the publisher, concert entrepreneur, and informed amateur set the standards for "what is cool" for the other, less-informed listeners or "wannabes" and thus for what would be demanded in the concert hall. Particularly, by defining music through the polarity of entertainment and art, or low- and high-brow culture, "informed" listeners could make themselves the artistic and elite standard and the non-informed listeners the "other." Weber seems to say this, as well (p. 19, first full paragraph, .ines 8-13).

DQ for Weber "Mass Culture and the Reshaping of European Musical Taste"

DQ for Weber, “Mass Culture and the Reshaping of European Musical Taste”

[Please read and by prepared to respond by Thurs 1.18 meeting]

Please be prepared to respond in either seminar meeting or in "Comments" on the course blog. In all venues, you must be prepared to cite specific passages (by page, paragraph, line, and quotation) in support of your responses.

(1) Though the model of “great works” and/or “great composers” have been ubiquitous in music history studies for at least the past 100 years, this model is in fact of relatively recent provenance—that is, prior to the 1850s-‘60s, according to Weber, the model of “great composers” did not really exist. Please cite at least four factors, overall, which Weber argues contributed to that period’s new emphasis upon composers’ “names seem written into the heavens.”

(2) Implicit in this article is the idea that perspectives in music historiography, just as is the case with musical style or musical usage, are themselves time- and context-bound. That is, models of music history may be seen as “going in and out of fashion.” What does this emphasis upon “greatness” of individuals or works reveal about cultural values (and arbiters) of the past hundred years?

(3) Despite the fact that the “great works” and/or the “great composers” have typically been associated with high art and social class, with an aristocracy of culture or economics, Weber suggests that the rise of the “great composers” was in fact a direct result of the rise of mass culture in mid-19^th-century Europe. How does Weber explain this paradox? Why did mass culture “need” great composers? What social/economic/class aspirations did this model serve?

(4) Related to (3) above: what other musical innovations or shifts of musical practice and behavior of the 19^th century can similarly be traced to the rise of European mass culture? Can we, in turn, relate these shifts (in “who’s paying,” “who’s playing,” “who’s listening,” “what’s it doing”) to the “great composers” model?

(5) In this great composers model, what were determined to be the markers or indiciators of greatness? In other words, how did a composer (or a composition) for inclusion in the ranks of the great? Did this lead to shifting critical perspectives on certain composers, genres, or SHMRG characteristics? Did it lead to shifts in composers’ own perspectives or approaches?

(6) In what ways can we find the roots of musical “modernism” in the modernist elements of mass culture as a whole? In other words, can we trace modernism in social/cultural/economic spheres to the mid-19^th-century, just as we can so trace it in compositional circles?

(7) How did “modern” mass culture trends change the makeup of orchestras? How did it change the makeup of audiences? What was/were the responses of those groups who had dominated audiences previously? (Hint: look at the implications of Kenner und Liebhaber; what are the literal translations of these terms, and what do those translations imply?)

(8) How were composers implicated in adapting to shifts of audience and of tastes? Which composers catered to these shifts? How and why were they or were they not successful?

(9) What genres were impacted by these shifts? Which went out of compositional favor as a result? Which became more dominant or were more extensively a focus of compositional attention?

Discussion Questions for Burkholder “Brahms and Twentieth-Century Classical Music”

Discussion Questions for Burkholder “Brahms and Twentieth-Century Classical Music”

Please be prepared to respond in either seminar meeting or in "Comments" on the course blog. In all venues, you must be prepared to cite specific passages (by page, paragraph, line, and quotation) in support of your responses.

(1) Burkholder describes a “traditional” or “standard” profile for Brahms as a musical stylist, in which profile Brahms is regarded as displaying a certain relationship to the musical past and to prior composers. What are the specific traits and assumptions which shape this profile, and on the basis of what considerations has this “traditionalist” label been attached to this composer?

(2) Burkholder suggests that the “traditional” model of Brahms is erroneous because it is based upon excessive emphasis on certain of Brahms’ traits. That is, the traditional model is “wrong” because it puts too much weight on Brahms characteristics which do not in fact reveal his goals and priorities. What are these “wrongly-emphasized” characteristics and [very importantly] why might scholars, critics, and other composers have chosen to wrongly emphasize them? [Hint: think about analytical tools.]

(3) Burkholder proposes to focus upon a different set of Brahms characteristics. What are these characteristics, and how does Burkholder justify them as being more accurate and revealing of Brahms’s significance? PLEASE BE PREPARED TO CITE SPECIFIC PASSAGES IN SUPPORT OF YOUR OPINION.

(4) What is the “narrative” through which traditional musicology has “explained” (or at least described) the gradual shift in 19^th-century style away from tonal/functional harmony and toward programmatic or descriptive harmony? What language is typically employed to tell this story? What flaws does Burkholder find in this standard explanation? CITE PASSAGES.

(5) How did Schoenberg make the claim that Brahms was a progressive? More to the point—why did he make this claim? What was Schoenberg’s own agenda in “claiming” Brahms?

(6) How, and using what specific language, does Burkholder define “musical modernism”? What are the implications of this specific definition? To cite language we employed in our Thursday discussion, what was modernism’s perspective on the “museum pieces”?

(7) Burkholder employs the Finale of Brahms’s 1885 Fourth Symphony to argue his thesis (and you should note this: Burkholder’s argument could serve as a very practical model for your own research presentation). On p78, Burkholder describes a wide range of prior composers and/or styles of the past which influence this Finale. How, then, can Burkholder claim that this is a modernist piece, when it is so heavily indebted to the music of the past? Explain this paradox.

(8) On 79, Burkholder uses the term “dialectic” (find a technical definition here). With or between whom was this debate enacted? What was being debated? To whom, or for what audience(s), are Brahms’s stylistic choices aimed? How does Burkholder use the analysis of Brahms’s goals to get at the Fourth’s meaning? In what way, then, is the Finale a kind of “music criticism”? CITE PASSAGES.

(9) What other composers of the period, both German and non-German, does Burkholder see as using similar strategies? Be prepared to add at least one more composer to this list, and to cite and discuss a specific piece by that composer which shows the same tendencies.

Discussion Questions for Burkholder's "Museum Pieces"

Discussion Questions for Burkholder, “Museum Pieces: The Historicist Mainstream in Music of the Last Hundred Years”

Please be prepared to respond in either seminar meeting or in "Comments" on the course blog. In all venues, you must be prepared to cite specific passages (by page, paragraph, line, and quotation) in support of your responses.

1. What does Burkholder believe to be the “problem” facing scholars who are seeking to understand what happened to music in the 20th century? What aspects of 20th-century music does he believe to be uniquely difficult, or resistant to historical analysis?

2. Be prepared to provide a precise definition of the word “historicist” as it is used in this article, and to relate that specific definition to the thesis which Burkholder argues to be the most appropriate and effective way of thinking about 20th-century music.

3. How does Burkholder employ William Weber’s insights to explain changes in musical behavior in the 20th-century? What types of evidence does he cite to describe these changes? Be prepared to offer, in your own words, a label which describes the nature of Burkholder’s analytical approach Hint: the types of evidence cited provide a clue to the type of analytical approach he suggests. Does Burkholder’s analytical approach reflect the attitudes or perspectives of composers in the period? How? Hint: look at p117, para 2.

4. What is the role of “historical self-consciousness” in 20th-century musical philosophies, style, and aesthetics? Provide 2 examples, a first cited by Burkholder and a second cited from your own outside listening and/or knowledge. Be prepared to relate these two examples for seminar colleagues.

5. What are the implications of Burkholder’s term “museum pieces”? Obviously, he believes this to be an important phrase, as he both employs it in his title and subsequently provides a detailed discussion (see p120 ff). Be prepared to describe in your own words, to cite other composers “writing for the museum,” and to explain the cultural factors which Burkholder argues drove this tendency.

6. Describe and unpack the dynamic relationship between 20th-century composers working within the Austro-German tradition and those working outside it. What were the motives of each group? How did each group deal with (a) “tradition”, (b) “innovation”, and (c) “nationality”?

7. Burkholder suggests that he will “turn the traditional method of writing histories of 20th-century music on its head.” Why does he say this is necessary: what is his rationale? (You must cite and interpret specific passages to support your response)

8. What criteria dictated whether new works would or would not “enter the museum”? What elements of 20th-century musical thinking do these criteria reveal? Do these criteria still obtain in the 21st century? Cite examples.

9. Summarize Burkholder’s conclusions in the form of a bullet-point list of no more than 4 items. Rank these items from most important to least important insights. Bring to class and be prepared to discuss your reasoning.