Talk:Arnold Schoenberg/Archive 2

Warsaw Ghetto Photo
Yes, Schoenberg was Jewish; yes, he fled he Nazi's; yes, he did write an opus recognizing the ghetto. But should the Warsaw Ghetto picture be in his bio? Mwinog2777 (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to fit well with the section that discusses A Survivor from Warsaw. What is your reasoning for moving it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an encylopedic bio of Schoenberg; this is not a discussion of the Warsaw Ghetto.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And this is a reason for moving it, as you did, to the section of this article captioned "Third Reich and move to America"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If it dosn't belong in the article at all, moving it is the same as rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.Mwinog2777 (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the picture works nicely there. Maybe we could clarify the connection to the 1947 composition with an addition to the caption? "In 1947 Schoenberg commemorated this event with his composition Survivor from Warsaw" (or something similar) Antandrus (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. then lets have pictures of Vienna during the war, one of UCLA, and New Zealand would be a good ideas; I could go on. Why the Warsaw Getto?  Why the Nazi caption?  Once again, this is an encyclopedic discussion of Schoenberg.  The Warsaw picture detracts from the bio.  The bio describes why he wrote the piece; nothing more is needed.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Because as an intersection of 1) history, 2) his biography, as a Jewish refugee from the Nazis, and 3) his compositional career, 4) his stance as a moralist, concerned about atrocities, and world peace — there is no more perfect illustration. Did he compose music about UCLA? Were there thousands of people killed there? Did he write an oratorio about atrocities in New Zealand, perhaps an undiscovered piece? Pictures in an article help focus it. This is an excellent example of how to use a photograph. Antandrus (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It makes perfect sense to include the photo, and most appropriately in the section that mentions A Survivor from Warsaw, rather than at its new location.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I moved the picture farther down the section, and added a new caption. I hope this meets approval.  Thanx  Mwinog2777 (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, much better. There was a typo in the caption, which I have taken the liberty of bringing closer to Antandrus's suggestion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. Antandrus (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arnold Schoenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707115926/http://www.schoenberg.at/4_exhibits/asc/gott_2002/asc_gott_e.htm to http://www.schoenberg.at/4_exhibits/asc/gott_2002/asc_gott_e.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126084644/http://www.usc.edu/schools/music/about/halls/index.html to http://www.usc.edu/schools/music/about/halls/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127163347/http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/schoenberg/as_disco/shoaf.htm to http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/schoenberg/as_disco/shoaf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

reception and legacy
I don't suppose we could also have, in the interests of neutrality, a section of what his admirers see in him? Double sharp (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes, good idea! --Deskford (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I notice very little (in fact, nothing at all, either here or in the article on the opera itself) is said about the success Moses und Aron has been receiving with audiences at the Metropolitan opera since they first staged it in 1999. Or is this just an unsubstantiated rumour? Nothing, too, is mentioned about the remarks by Hilary Hahn on the relative appeal and interpretive difficulty of the violin concertos by Schoenberg and Sibelius. This is beginning to look like a conspiracy.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Faustus
Jerome Kohl re your recent revert, perhaps mention of Thomas Mann's novel can be included under "Relationship with the general public"? Rwood128 (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding some reliable sources (the formatting can be easily fixed). It still seems an odd place to put this. Even if Thomas Mann was a member of the "general public", we are talking about the relationship of two artists in different fields. I'm not sure there is a better place as this article stands, but I shall have to think about it. When I said there was a broader aspect to the matter, I did have in mind the subsequent hostility that developed, but even more the fact that Mann and Schoenberg were near neighbours for a time, so that Mann would have had some first-hand knowledge of Schoenberg's compositional ideas. He certainly made a dazzling display of arcane musical knowledge elsewhere in Doktor Faustus, sufficient to defeat both of the translators who have published English versions of the novel so far. My point is that Mann's comprehension was not as superficial as might be supposed, and Schoenberg's ire was not at being misrepresented, but at not being acknowledged as the source of Leverkühn's (admittedly vaguely described) technique.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jerome Kohl for these comments. I realised that more needs to be said but only had time for this brief entry. Rwood128 (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It was a significant lacuna, and it is good that you have made a start at addressing the omission. Other hands may now fill out the picture.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2018 (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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.243.181 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Degenerate music
Wasn't Schoenberg's music labeled degenerate because it was minimalist modernism, not because he was Jewish?Royalcourtier (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't really any "minimalist" music at that time (it came in late 1960s basically). Schoenberg's music was labeled degenerate primarily because of its modernist avant-garde style, but him being Jewish couldn't have helped.Dolemites (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Pianist? Violinist? Organist?
I just noticed that the article is placed in the categories Category:20th-century American pianists and Category:20th-century classical violinists and Category:20th-century organists, among many others. I'm not really happy to see Schoenberg categorified this way, and I have never seen a source that would call Schoenberg a pianist. Of course, he played the piano, and double bass (especially during his time as musical director of the Überbrettl, I think). However, did he ever publicly perform on the piano outside of his work at the cabaret other than to fill in for others? Calling Schoenberg a pianist irks me as wrong, especially since his pieces for solo piano and the piano concerto are quite often criticized as "unpianistic". To quote :
 * Mitsuko Uchida, describing the work as very difficult for the pianist, points out that Schoenberg did not play the piano very well and that he "had no intention of writing effectively, or comfortably" for the instrument.

— Tea2min (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The information (derived from a source described as "Helm") that Schoenberg's mother was a piano teacher is directly contradicted at the opening of Hans Keller's BBC Radio 3 "Portrait of Schoenberg" broadcast in 1967 and just now available on You Tube by Schoenberg's widow, herself, interviewed shortly before she died.Delahays (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Re Moses und Aron
note: the first completed opera written completely? using the 12-tone method was Ernst Krenek's Karl V (1933, premiered 1938). ELSchissel (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Linking a review
A new book on Schoenberg, by Harvey Sachs, was published this month. I added the book to "Further reading" and then, after the name of the book, I linked a review from The New York Times to it, with the words "review by composer John Adams." User:CurryTime7-24 removed the link to the review on the grounds that it was "unnecessary." I put it back, writing "Review is by a prominent composer and may be of interest to some." User:CurryTime7-24 again removed it, writing "Review isn't relevant here because this article is about Schoenberg, not Sachs' book on Schoenberg." I will not get into an editing war, so I will not put the review back again unless User:CurryTime7-24 or other editors concedes that it is reasonable to do so. I say "reasonable" because, even if another editor disagrees with me as to whether to include the review, I believe that Wikipedia editors should respect one another's contributions if they find them reasonable. Now I will list reasons why mine is reasonable.

1. Some will benefit if the review is there, while none will suffer a detriment. If a paragraph were unnecessary, then it should be removed, but my edit added only five words -- "review by composer John Adams" -- which could be reduced to one: "review." Therefore, readers' time will not be wasted.

2. Nothing in Wikipedia is "necessary." If we omitted Schoenberg's birth and death dates, anyone could easily find them by googling. The standard should not be whether linking to the book review is necessary, but whether it is justifiable or helpful.

3. The review, like most book reviews, devotes more time to the subject of the book, namely Schoenberg, than to evaluating the book. Therefore, it is relevant.

4. Even the portion of the review that evaluates the book is relevant. If a Wikipedia article has a bibliography, that is because of the assumption that readers will be interested in books on the subject. If readers are interested in a book on the subject, then they likely will also be interested in a review of the book to help them determine whether to read or consult the book.

5. As noted above, this is not just any review, but is one by a prominent composer, so it is quite likely to interest classical music aficianados. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute the possible merit of the review, although I haven't read it. But if what you say is true, it would be put to better use by being listed as an entry of its own under "Further reading" or, if it can provide useful material for this article, "Cited sources". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I added it to "Further reading." Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)