Talk:Expressionist music

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

Albright box
This seems to have nothing to do with musical expressionism: it relates to the visual arts. I can see the point (sort of) but anyone without an artistic or musical background/education will be confused. --Jubilee♫ clipman 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent point. However, even assuming this table should be deleted, should there not be a paragraph early on concerning the close relationship between expressionism in the visual arts, literature, and music? As it is, this relationship is only approached obliquely—and late on in the article—in respect to Schoenberg and Kandinsky, who were certainly not the only actors in this field, either in music or in painting.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


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

What about Bartok, Stravinsky?
I'm a bit hesitant to have "musical expressionism" boiled down to "It's what Schoenberg, Berg and Webern wrote at a certain time"... Bartok's "Bluebeard's castle" is mentioned in passing, but I'd say most of his music (especially his ballets) from that time falls into that category. Stravinsky examples from that time would be Sacre du printemps, Petrouchka, Histoire Du Soldat. Or do I mistake Expressionism for something else...? -- megA (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the Stravinsky examples you cite have anything at all to do with Expressionism. Stravinsky is generally regarded as belonging to the opposite camp of Objectivism, though it is true that this label fits him much better after 1920 than during his preceding, "Russian" period.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really hard to understand a subject like "Expressionist music", whose definition (at least according to the wikipedia article) is so different from the definition of "Expressionism" itself... "Its typical trait is to present the world in an utterly subjective perspective, radically distorting it for emotional effect, to evoke moods or ideas." (Expressionism article) Perhaps I'm misled because in Germany, The Miraculous Mandarin and Sacre Du Printemps are indeed often seen as "expressionistic" in its literal definition. Here's a short quote from the MM article: "Der wunderbare Mandarin gehört wie Strawinskis Sacre du printemps zum musikalischen Expressionismus", and you may compare the de:wikipedia article on Expressionist music: Expressionismus (Musik), (albeit unsourced) which lists the Vienna school as core group, but also adds Strawinsky, Bartok, Hindemith, Prokofiev, Krenek, Honegger as having at least for a certain time used this style. -- megA (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You will have noticed that I did not mention Bartók, whose ballets The Miraculous Mandarin and The Wooden Prince, and the opera Bluebeard's Castle fall clearly into the expressionist area. (His later compositions are perhaps another matter.) I am intrigued by the assertion that Le Sacre belongs in the same category as the Mandarin, since the scenario of Stravinsky's ballet is essentially ritualistic and impersonal (generally true of neo-primitivism), which is quite a different thing from the Mandarin's admittedly inhuman and dreamlike but nevertheless psychologically based story of personal struggle and will. Petrushka may come a little closer to the personal-nightmare character, depending on how we view the puppet's symbolism. L'Histoire du soldat, on the other hand, is nothing to do with personal nightmarish expression (compared, for example, to Erwartung), but rather is a morality play in a mode detached from any real affect (the Devil's triumphant exultation aside). If the present article (which I admit I have not reviewed lately) does not conform with the general article on Expressionism (especially on this question of the subjective and the subconsious) then a revision is clearly indicated. Ich werde auch Ihre Empfehlung nehmen, die unzitierter deutschen Wikipedia Artikel zu lesen. Es mag auch Berichtigung verlangen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Theodor Adorno, in his collection of essays on music, Night Music, includes some work by Krenek (Second Symphony), Igor Stravinsky (Japanese Songs), Paul Hindemith (The Young Maiden), as well as the late sonatas of Scriabin. More also needs to be said about Bela Bartok. Also what about Gustav Mahler? Isn't there a possible foreshadowing of expressionism in The Song of the Earth? I'm far from an expert, but perhaps this article places a little too much emphasis on Arnold Schoenberg and his pupils? Is musical expressionism defined, amongst other things, by dissonance, or by the use of the twelve-note technique? Rwood128 (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This article largely rests on Fanning's article in the New Grove. (In fact, it was at one point accused of copyvio for sticking too close to Fanning.) So far as Schoenberg's music is concerned, his expressionist period predates the devising of twelve-tone technique. Consequently, expressionism in his case may well be defined partly by dissonance, but it is also characterized by the absence of twelve-tone technique, which supplies the restraining control marking the onset of his neoclassicism (per Charles Rosen).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- I should have read the article more carefully! Rwood128 (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a bibliography. Hope that this, and the use of endnotes, is acceptable? Rwood128 (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't notice an added bibliography—only a new (and superfluous) section header, added above the one already in place. The endnotes (I presume you meant the citation endnotes you added) were in violation of WP:CITEVAR, and have been converted to match the established style of the article, which uses parenthetical referencing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being lazy/rushing -- most my previous editing has made use of Reflist. Apologies for putting you to this trouble. I must, however, admit that I find the use of endnotes neater, especially when there is a series of citations in a row. On an associated matter: Has anyone checked this article for for possible missing quotation marks? Rwood128 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

"Essay-like"?
In March 2011, a banner was placed at the head of this article, claiming "This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style". Perhaps it has changed significantly in the meantime, although even the version current at the time this tag was put in place does not appear to me to resemble this characterization even remotely. Particularly in light of the fact that it was shortly afterward accused of a cut-and-paste copyvio from Fanning's article in the New Grove, this tagging takes on the appearance of a malicious act. Unless someone can point to something justifying this claim, I propose removing this banner.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you delete both banners -- though some citations are still needed. Rwood128 (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable source
Thanks for the clarification. As you have a solid background in music, unlike me, I trust your judgement, and will therefore look for a better source. Certainly, having seen Lulu I believe it to be a good candidate, despite the date.

On other matters: I'm not really clear why a citation is needed for the final sentence of the article? This just seems to summarizes what has gone before -- is the problem the use of the word "significant"? Does the sentence just need modifying, without any citation? Then with regard to the reference to the Pappenheim cousins, in relation to Erwartung, shouldn't this simply be deleted, because it is not seriously relevant to the article? Rwood128 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am myself in the process of collecting together some more reliable sources with particular reference to Berg. It will be interesting to see what you come up with, as well. As for the last sentence, beyond mere summary it contains a substantial amount of synthesis, which amounts to original research. However obvious it may seem to you and to me, such synthesis still requires a source.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A most interesting addition to the discussion of Lulu. It looks like McPherson may have used the Encyclopaedia Britannica online as her source. I have replaced the original quotation re Lulu with one from Britannica, and deleted all references to McPherson. Rwood128 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. One of the lingering weaknesses of this article is too-heavy a reliance on pointing to examples, rather than developing a clear idea of the underlying concept of what exactly expressionism in music is. The case of Berg's Lulu is representative of this problem: "Wozzeck is an expressionist opera, therefore Berg is an expressionist composer; Lulu was also composed by Berg, therefore Lulu is an expressionist opera". The multiple flaws in this chain of reasoning should be obvious. Once we bring in the critical big guns, the notion that this opera is much in the same line as Wozzeck collapses. It is better to cite Encyclopedia Brittanica than an undergraduate paper or journalist's blog that relies heavily upon it, but it is well to remember that such non-specialized sources in their turn may represent a very shallow view.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all you say, including the limits to a source like the Britannica. I will see if I can find any stronger argument to support the claim that Lulu is an expressionist opera. I have, however, found that playwright Frank Wedekind tends to be much more associated with the development of expressionism than the quotation used indicates, and therefore the discussion needs to be qualified. Rwood128 (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Given that the Britannica article proves to have been written by Willi Reich, a search of his many published writings on the Second Viennese School will probably turn up a more extended discussion of expressionism as well as of Lulu.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Berg, Schoenberg, Webern

 * I took a closer look at David Fanning's Grove online article and note that he doesn't really see Berg as an expressionist.


 * I was in fact looking for a source for the discussion of Schoenberg's Second String Quartet. What this article has is close to what Fanning says, but not exactly. Should the discussion, perhaps, be made more general, removing some of the detailed comment, especially on movements -- and cite Fanning?


 * There is a need for some discussion of Webern, but I haven't found anything much, other than Fanning's interesting comments. Another source, left out Webern, referring just to Schoenberg and Berg as expressionist composers, which may suggest controversy. Rwood128 (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Musicology, like politics, can make strange bedfellows. Personally, I find it much harder to accept Webern as an expressionist than I do Schoenberg and Berg (and certain works of Bartók, such as Bluebeard's Castle). Also, despite the cited source, to put Stravinsky in this context is patently ridiculous, since he is routinely cited as the arch-foe of expression in music ("Music is incapable, by its very nature, of expressing anything whatever," or words to that effect). It is also important to keep in mind that a composer mays create some works in an expressionist mould, and then abandon this manner, or even alternate pieces of this sort with others of quite another character (just as Schoenberg did not compose only twelve-tone works after 1921). Simply declaring that (for example) Webern was an expressionist composer does not make him so—a reasoned argument must be presented, and particular compositions have to be considered. Unfortunately, it is sometimes all too easy to find an "Idiot's Guide" sort of book that makes glib over-generalizations, meaningless classifications, or even patently untrue characterizations. That is what you get for allowing yourself to be guided by idiots.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest deleting Stravinsky, and looking for a good source(s) that examines the question of Webern and expressionism. Rwood128 (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as we are careful to explain why a name cited with a reliable source is being deleted, I agree that Stravinsky is a prime candidate for deletion. However, if another editor restores the reference (which is a formidable one), then we may need to find sources to refute the characterization, or else expand on why Adorno regards just this one piece by Stravinsky as falling into the expressionist camp. As for Webern, your suggested course of action is uncontroversial.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Expressionist music. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5kvWPcsSb?url=http%3A%2F%2Fencarta.msn.com to http://encarta.msn.com

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) 08:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Mapeh
The term expressionism "was probably first applied to music in 1918, especially to Schoenberg", because like the painter Wassily Kandinsky (1866–1944) he avoided "traditional forms of beauty" to convey powerful feelings in his music.[1] Theodor Adorno interprets the expressionist movement in music as seeking to "eliminate all of traditional music's conventional elements, everything formulaically rigid". This he sees as analogous "to the literary ideal of the 'scream' ". As well Adorno sees expressionist music as seeking "the truthfulness of subjective feeling without illusions, disguises or euphemisms". Adorno also describes it as concerned with the unconscious, and states that "the depiction of fear lies at the centre" of expressionist music, with dissonance predominating, so that the "harmonious, affirmative element of art is banished".[2] Expressionist music would "thus reject the depictive, sensual qualities that had come to be associated with impressionist music. It would endeavor instead to realize its own purely musical nature—in part by disregarding compositional conventions that placed 'outer' restrictions on the expression of 'inner' visions".[3]

Arnold Schoenberg, the key figure in the Expressionist movement. Expressionist music often features a high level of dissonance, extreme contrasts of dynamics, constant changing of textures, "distorted" melodies and harmonies, and angular melodies with wide leaps.[4]

Major figures Edit The three central figures of musical expressionism are Arnold Schoenberg (1874–1951) and his pupils, Anton Webern (1883–1945) and Alban Berg (1885–1935), the so-called Second Viennese School. Other composers that have been associated with expressionism are Ernst Krenek (1900–1991) (the Second Symphony, 1922), Paul Hindemith (1895–1963) (Die junge Magd, Op. 23b, 1922, setting six poems of Georg Trakl), Igor Stravinsky (1882–1971) (Three Japanese Lyrics, 1913), Alexander Scriabin (1872–1915) (late piano sonatas).[5] Another significant expressionist was Béla Bartók (1881–1945) in early works, written in the second decade of the 20th century, such as Bluebeard's Castle (1911),[6] The Wooden Prince (1917),[7] and The Miraculous Mandarin (1919).[8] American composers with a sympathetic "urge for such intensification of expression" who were active in the same period as Schoenberg's expressionist free atonal compositions (between 1908 and 1921) include Carl Ruggles, Dane Rudhyar, and, "to a certain extent", Charles Ives, whose song "Walt Whitman" is a particularly clear example.[9] Important precursors of expressionism are Richard Wagner (1813–1883), Gustav Mahler (1860–1911), and Richard Strauss (1864–1949).[10]Mitchell 2005, 334 Later composers, such as Peter Maxwell Davies (1934–2016), "have sometimes been seen as perpetuating the Expressionism of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern",[11] and Heinz Holliger's (b. 1939) most distinctive trait "is an intensely engaged evocation of ... the essentially lyric expressionism found in Schoenberg, Berg and, especially, Webern" 2001:4455:1F3:BA00:3D7F:FA56:9AD9:BD53 (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)