The purpose of the following paper is to make a concise discourse regarding the alleged dispute between Schoenberg and Stravinsky regarding the aspects of musical aesthetics. The objective of the paper will be therefore to concentrate on the individual perceptions of Schoenberg and Stravinsky regarding musical aesthetics. Arnold Schoenberg is considered as one of the most influential figures in the musical era of 20th century, while Igor Stravinsky was a neo-classicist who is remembered for reacting against the opinion of Romanticism that says there is an expressive nature in music (Zangwill 2014). However, the concern of the present paper is to identify whether there has been any particular dispute between the two aforementioned personas of musical world and history. Nevertheless, according to several scholars, both of the individuals used to share amiable acquaintances with each other. It has been from the year 1920, when the dispute between them started to emerge and the journalists of that time should be blamed as they deliberately quoted them in opposition to each other (Brandt 2013). Hence, the present concern is to identify the dispute and its authenticity along with elaborating individual perception regarding musical aesthetics.
Prior to discuss the alleged dispute, it would be essential to acquire a brief knowledge regarding each of the above-mentioned personalities’ work and philosophy. Igor Fyodorovich Stravinsky was an influential composer, conductor and pianist of the 20th century from Russia. The career of Igor Stravinsky regarding music composition has been remarkable due to his stylistic diversity (Kandinsky et al. 2015). Most of his compositions in the 1950s shared the traits of most of his earlier works like – rhythmic energy, extended melodic ideas and instrumentation. Igor Stravinsky is also known for making an accomplishing relationship between music and business with the help of the French Piano manufacturing enterprise – Pleyel (Bailey 2015). The organization acted as his agents and helped him in gathering mechanical royalties. However, his musical endeavor is classified by three different style periods, which are Russian period, neoclassical period and the serial period. In the Russian period, in most of his musical works are found to have an influence of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. In the orchestral works like “Symphony in E-flat major” in the year 1907, Scherzo fantastique in the year 1908, Feu d’artifice in the year 1908/09 and Faun and Shepherdess in the year 1907 bought the evidence of the aforementioned fact (Straus 2014). However, as argued by Richard Taruskin, the aforementioned works are reflective of the Stravinsky’s in-depth knowledge of music by Wagner, Debussy, Dvorak and Taneyev and more. However, in the neoclassical age, some of his remarkable works include Symphony of Psalms in the year 1930, Octet in the year 1923 and the Serenade in A in the year 1925. From the serial period, some of his chief reputed works include Cantata (1952) and Septet (1953) along with “Three Songs from Shakespeare” in the year 1953 (Carr 2014).
On the other hand, Arnold Schoenberg was a music theorist from Austria who is known from a very early period of his career due to simultaneously extending the Romantic styles of Wagner and Brahms, which has been traditionally opposed. Schoenberg’s name is mainly known for his accomplishments in developing the most influential and impressive version of dodecaphonic method of music composition (Begam 2016). Like Stravinsky, Schoenberg’s musical accomplishments can be classified into three periods as well, which are late Romanticism, Free atonality and Twelve-tone and tonal works. His chief works in the period of late Romanticism is found to have representations of the legacy of the German music. However, in the period of free atonality, his works show experiments in varied ways, which are found to have absence of traditional tonal centers. Some of his exclusive works of the particular era include “Das Buch der Hängenden Gärten, Op. 15” from the year 1908 to 1909, “Five Orchestral Pieces, Op. 16” of 1909 and “Pierrot Lunaire, Op. 21” of the year 1912 (Street 2015). Nevertheless, in the early 1920s, which is known as his third period of twelve-tone and tonal works, Schoenberg pursued for creating a new means of order that can make the musical structure of his simple and clear (Weber 2015). Consequently, Schoenberg designed twelve new pitches of octave, which can be regarded as equal and at the same time no single note is provided with an emphasis that is occupied in the classical harmony. Some of the masterpieces of the particular era include “Variations for Orchestra, Op. 31”, “Piano Pieces, Opp. 33a & b” and “Piano Concerto, Op. 42” of the year 1942 (Boretz and Cone 2015).
Some of the most significant compositional techniques as well as aesthetical tendencies of both of the twentieth century composers’ are found through the interpretation of differences and similarities pursued by Stravinsky between his and the music of Schoenberg. According to Festa (2015), instead of having well acquaintance with each other, Stravinsky and Schoenberg used to dislike each others’ musical endeavors. As per the interview conducted by the Barcelona newspaper in the year 1936, for Stravinsky, Schoenberg should be called a “musical chemist” than a musical artist. Such an opinion is indeed an evidence of the fact that there has been a strong dispute between the two. However, in this respect it should be also considered that Stravinsky has always acknowledged the works of Schoenberg research on musical aspects. However, the dispute between Schoenberg and Stravinsky is evidence by Stravinsky’s critical response towards Schoenberg’s the twelve tone method. More precisely, Stravinsky criticized that Schoenberg’s twelve tone method is similar with Alois Haba’s several experiments with the quarter-tones (St George 2015).
Besides, as per Stravinsky, the twelve-tone method is only possible scientifically and creation of a distinct art is not possible through the particular method. As argued by Bauer (2016), Stravinsky even once asked about whether Schoenberg had thought about inappropriate application of the twelve-tone method or not. On the opposite side, Schoenberg claimed that Stravinsky’s work cannot soothe the minds of a cancer patient while he believed that his own music is more like an aspect that is along with the line that search for bringing cure to cancer (Just 2015). It is indicative of the fact that Schoenberg was not at all fine with the opinions brought against his musical creation and therefore pen down against his opinion, which had been discovered after his death among several unpublished papers. Most significantly, according to Schoenberg, Stravinsky specifically utilized the old music in order to contradict the idealism of Schoenberg (Frymoyer 2017). The fundamental idealism of Schoenberg asserted that it had been old fashioned way to regard a particular work of art as potential for an individual period, beyond the present. It is astonishing to denote in this respect that Schoenberg’s opinion against Stravinsky is somehow indicative of the fact that Schoenberg was envious towards Stravinsky’s success as the music of Stravinsky won more accomplishments and public acclaim than Schoenberg (Straus 2016).
It should be therefore admitted that Stravinsky and Schoenberg both have negatively criticized each other works. It has been identified that in the last years of the considered two personalities, instead of living in a same place – Los Angeles, they made sure to ignore each other (Kandinsky et al. 2015). It is astonishing to denote that, Stravinsky maintained the hatred even after Schoenberg’s death by not acknowledging his use of Schoenberg’s experimentation with the twelve ton rows. Nevertheless, regarding musical aesthetics, Schoenberg used to consider his compositions, which are created by the twelve-tone as the continuation as well as representation of the aesthetic aspects of the 19th century (Cross 2015). It is a worth admitting fact as per the reason that Stravinsky’s composition of “only at the piano” has no individual music for the solo piano, whereas the composition of “never at the piano” there are several remarkable pieces of solo piano (Festa 2015). It is therefore indicative of the fact that, in terms of musical aesthetics, Schoenberg and Stravinsky possessed different perceptions.
Here, it is keep in mind that Stravinsky’s musical notes have been different and unlike the compositions of his contemporary time, whereas Schoenberg has a more modern approach towards his contemporary music compositions. It is a worth admitting fact that there has been strong dispute between Schoenberg and Stravinsky as their approach towards the Chinese philosophers. Schoenberg’s approach shows his interest in concerns as well as the contents of music, whereas Stravinsky’s concern with only to search for the definition of music (Boretz and Cone 2015). Thus, understandably, there had been varied differences and opinions regarding musical composition and musical aesthetics between the two individuals. Regarding the fundamental concept of music, there is found to be dispute and different view among Schoenberg and Stravinsky. As per Schoenberg, music has a very expressive quality, whereas Stravinsky’s point of view says music has the power to only express its own self (Kandinsky et al. 2015). It can be therefore contemplate that Schoenberg used to hold a wider perspective regarding music and its aesthetic components, while Stravinsky is understandably preferred to narrow down the grandeur of the fundamental concept of music.
As argued by Boretz and Cone (2015), Schoenberg never supported the idea that music can only express its own self as Schoenberg’s belief asserts that music has the capability to transcend everything. Thus, it is a hint of the fact that two of the considered individuals did not possessed same views regarding the fundamental concept of music and the musical aspects regarding aesthetics. Nevertheless, Weber (2015) says that no potential kind of dispute was possible between Stravinsky and Schoenberg as both of them Western musical tradition. On the other hand, Schoenberg used to believe that his compositions, ideas for atonal music and principles regarding twelve-tone technique are evolutionary as well as new inventions in the history of music. Stravinsky completely disregarded the aforementioned fact and further his opposing ideas are indicative of the fact that in order to bring revolution, it is essential to derive musical ideas from the past or fundamental tradition (Street 2015). Henceforth, fewer varieties are found in his creation and also according to varied scholars, Stravinsky has not been an inventor like Schoenberg as he is more of an imitator.
Here, it is essential to mention that the neoclassicism approach of Stravinsky had the purpose to revive the musical aspects of earlier era, while understandably; Schoenberg’s progressive approach is about making continuous development of music of the chromaticism of late nineteenth century (Zangwill 2014). More significantly, while the Neoclassical music has been simple as well as static and evolved around the classical ideals of proportion as well as balance, progressive music has been developmental, emotionally expressive and relatively complex. It means the approach of Schoenberg had been towards romanticism, which neoclassical Stravinsky highly disregarded (St George 2015). Thus, it can be anticipated that Schoenberg’s and Stravinsky’s individual perception regarding music could not possibly celebrate each other and there should have been potential dispute between them. Moreover, the aforementioned individual approaches are also indicative of the fact that each of them did not have a positive approach regarding others work and opinions regarding musical aesthetics.
According to Zangwill (2014), instead of having visible dispute between Schoenberg and Stravinsky, it should be admitted that both shared several common aspects. The aforementioned statement is true based on the fact that both Stravinsky and Schoenberg embraced the Apollonian objectivity, both rejected the “musical sauce” and most significantly, both drew their inspiration from the past. However, as argued by St George (2015), the post-war musical aesthetics of Stravinsky was entirely featured on the reference of the style in stark coupled with pared-down format, while Schoenberg’s was a “novel system of pitch organization” (Bailey 2015). Nevertheless, it is required to consider in this respect that aesthetic positions of Schoenberg as well as Stravinsky had been thoroughly modern. It is indicative of the fact that the dispute has been real though their aesthetic positions did not differ much. Nevertheless, it has been understood that Schoenberg has been a potential opponent of the brand of neoclassicism of Stravinsky. According to several critics, there has been a dispute and it had been more than a mere matter of style (Boretz and Cone 2015). Thus, it has been a moral issue and had been reflected through varied views of art and history. It should not be ignored that as per Schoenberg’s perspective, all Stravinsky has done is to recreate the older musical practices and never has thought about composing something new. Schoenberg’s chief philosophy that music is expressive and can transcend everything has been criticized by Stravinsky through his comment that music is powerless and it has no ability to communicate anything (Carr 2014). Thus, Stravinsky’s works unlike Schoenberg avoided any kind of emotional content as well as overt expression. Hence, it is proved that Stravinsky has been completely against the romantic approach of the progressive music of Schoenberg. Therefore, the alleged dispute between Schoenberg and Stravinsky cannot be ignored.
From the above discourse, it has been understood that instead of sharing some similar views regarding musical aesthetics and aspects, Stravinsky and Schoenberg did not possess an impressive perception towards each other’s work and musical composition. Schoenberg always believed that music has the power of expression while Stravinsky completely disregarded the fact by criticizing music to be powerless aspect for communication. Moreover, according to the above paper, both of them have criticized about other’s composition in media and in several unpublished documents. Hence, it should be contemplated here the dispute between the two personality was real.
References
Bailey, W.B., 2015. For the serious listeners who swear neither at nor by Schoenberg. The Journal of Musicology, 32(2), pp.279-322.
Bauer, K., 2016, September. Peter Uwe Hohendahl. The Fleeting Promise of Art: Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory Revisited. In Seminar: A Journal of Germanic Studies (Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 341-343). University of Toronto Press.
Begam, R., 2016. 7 Schoenberg, Modernism, and Degeneracy. Modernism and Opera, p.206.
Boretz, B. and Cone, E.T. eds., 2015. Perspectives on Schoenberg and Stravinsky. Princeton University Press.
Brandt, P.R., 2013. Stravinsky as Art and Entertainment: Performances of his music in the United States, 1910-1916.
Carr, M.A., 2014. After the Rite: Stravinsky’s Path to Neoclassicism (1914-1925). Oxford University Press.
Cross, J., 2015. Igor Stravinsky. Reaktion Books.
Festa, K., 2015. More than Meets the Ear: An Account of the Shared (Ac) counts of Cage and Stravinsky. TDR/The Drama Review, 59(2), pp.92-102.
Frymoyer, J., 2017. The Musical Topic in the Twentieth Century: A Case Study of Schoenberg’s Ironic Waltzes. Music Theory Spectrum, 39(1), pp.83-108.
Just, T., 2015. Borealis Festival, 11–15 March 2015. Tempo, 69(273), pp.38-40.
Kandinsky, W., Schoenberg, A. and Nelson, N., 2015. Synaesthesia, Harmony and Discord in the Work of.
St George, M., 2015. Music vs. Noise.
Straus, J.N., 2014. Harmony and Voice Leading in the Music of Stravinsky. Music Theory Spectrum, 36(1), pp.1-33.
Straus, J.N., 2016. Introduction to post-tonal theory. WW Norton & Company.
Street, A., 2015. New World, Old World: Schoenberg Now and Then. Music Analysis, 34(3), pp.364-409.
Weber, D., 2015. Internationalist against his time: divergent nationalist and internationalist themes in the music and reception of Frank Bridge, 1915-28. Musicology & Cultural Science, 11(1).
Zangwill, N., 2014. Re-Centring Musicology and the Philosophy of Music. Journal of Aesthetics and Phenomenology, 1(2), pp.231-240.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download