Talk:Anton Webern

Richard Taruskin

I have removed some material regarding musicologist Richard Taruskin's assessment of Webern's possible Nazi sympathies on the grounds that this material is blatantly and crudely POV. It's perfectly fine for the article to quote opinions contrary to those of Taruskin, but they must absolutely be attributed to specific persons WITHIN the body of the article itself (rather than merely in footnote citation), otherwise the article is effectively taking the position that these contrary opinions are true and that the foottnote citations prove it. The article has no purview with which to take this position. It can say, "Taruskin writes this, but X, to the contrary, writes that." It cannot (reasonably) say, "Taruskin mistakenly, due to his deep prejudices, writes this, but the contrary is so (see citation of X)". I don't claim to have fully fixed the problem just yet: the section in question still needs more work, but at least it's not quite as outrageously POV now as when I first encountered it. TheScotch (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's parse this:

I wrote:

Musicologist Richard Taruskin describes Webern accurately if vaguely as a pan-German nationalist but then goes much further in claiming specifically that Webern joyfully welcomed the Nazis with the 1938 Anschluss, at best extrapolating from the account of his cited source Krasner and at worst exaggerating or distorting it, as well as describing it sardonically as "heart-breaking".

You removed "accurately if vaguely." Why? Webern is accurately described by Taruskin as a pan-German nationalist. However, this is a vague claim; therefore, he goes further, specifying that Webern joyfully welcomed the Nazis. So, Taruskin "accurately if vaguely" describes Webern as a pan-German nationalist. The claim is vague precisely because it is not tantamount to claiming that Webern is a Nazi, but Taruskin's implication is nonetheless clear. So I don't see why you would remove "accurately if vaguely."

Taruskin's claim that Webern "joyfully welcomed the Nazis" does at best extrapolate from Krasner's account, and it does at worst exaggerate or distort it, because Krasner himself does not make this claim. To wit, Taruskin writes: "Webern welcomed the Nazis to Vienna with joy. (A heartbreaking interview with the violinist Louis Krasner in a recent issue of Fanfare magazine tells the whole story.)" There is simply no evidence for this claim in the Krasner interview. This entire section of the Webern Wikipedia artlce is about trying to approach the story by using a multitude of contradictory sources and commentators, whereas Taruskin claims that one source tells the whole story, when, in fact, if I remember correctly, Krasner specifically purports not to tell the "whole story" and is ambivalent, acknowledging his limited knowledge. I understand that this becomes a point-of-view issue precisely because the article should show, rather than tell, how Taruskin's second-hand account compares and contrasts with the Krasner interview. Of course, the article already does this just before the Taruskin paragraph. You removed "it does at worst exaggerate or distort it." So be it. This is splitting hairs. "Extrapolate" is perhaps too charitable here. Krasner simply does not say that Webern "joyfully welcomed the Nazis" in this interview.

Now, Taruskin's tone may not be readily apparent as sardonic. You removed "sardonically." I think the removal decontextualizes Taruskin's description for the unfamiliar reader, but I understand. I doubt we will find a commentator who specifically addresses Taruskin's tone in this specific instance. I would suggest that this is an unnecessary detail.

Next, I wrote:

Taruskin's authority on this delicate issue must be credited, if at all, then only with the significant limitations that he has been polemical in general and hostile in particular to the Second Viennese School, of whom Webern is often considered the most extreme and difficult (i.e., the least accessible).

You removed this wholesale instead of applying the remedy you suggest ("[i]t can say, 'Taruskin writes this, but X, to the contrary, writes that'"), which I will apply in revision:

Taruskin has been described polemical in general and hostile in particular to the Second Viennese School, of whom Webern is often considered the most extreme and difficult (i.e., the least accessible).

So, I would suggest that the passage in question read:

Musicologist Richard Taruskin describes Webern accurately if vaguely as a pan-German nationalist before specifically claiming that Webern joyfully welcomed the Nazis with the 1938 Anschluss, referring to the aforementioned interview of Krasner. However, Krasner told Fanfare Magazine that Webern "packed [him] off quickly" as soon he turned on the radio and heard the news break. Krasner explained: "I'm sure it was for my safety. But perhaps it was also to avoid the embarrassment which my presence would have caused had his family arrived, or friends celebrating the Nazi entry into Austria." Taruskin's authority on this matter is not without controversy: he has been described as polemical in general and hostile in particular to the Second Viennese School, of whom Webern is often considered the most extreme and difficult (i.e., the least accessible). New Complexity composer and performer Franklin Cox not only faults Taruskin as an inaccurate and unreliable historian but also critiques Taruskin as an "ideologist of tonal restoration" (musicologist Martin Kaltenecker similarly refers to the "Restoration of the 1980s," but he also describes a paradigm shift from structure to perception). Taruskin's "reactionary historicist" project, Cox argues, stands in opposition to that of the Second Viennese School, viz. the "progressivist historicist" emancipation of the dissonance. Taruskin himself admits to having acquired a "dubious reputation" on the Second Viennese School and notes that he has been described in his work on Webern as "coming, like Shakespeare's Marc Anthony, 'to bury Webern, not to praise him'".

I agree that this is not perfect, but it would be better than simply removing the material wholesale. I revisited the Krasner interview. It is no longer available on the Arnold Schoenberg Center's web site. It is available for purchase in the Fanfare Archives (https://fanfarearchive.com/articles/atop/11_2/1124160.aa_Some_Memories_Anton_Webern.html).

The cited passage from this interview reads, in greater context:

The Stockholm concert took place on April 20, 1938, about five weeks after the Anschluss. I want to skip back in time now to the months just preceding the Anschluss, which were troubled, turbulent times in Vienna. A desperate political struggle was going on between the Austrian Nazi party and Schuschnigg's government, with the latter losing ground gradually but inevitably. Every day, it seemed, there was another big demonstration—thousands and thousands of people against Schuschnigg and pro-Nazi. On one occasion, I walked into such a mob. I was unafraid going in, but when I saw how violent they were becoming, I got frightened and backed off very quickly. If they had recognized me as a Jew, the crowd would have torn me to pieces right there. There were no policemen around, nothing to restrain them—and these were the thugs of the city.

One memory from those times, in particular, haunts me—I mention it here in hopes that some historian will take it up and explore it further—and that is the puzzling case of Cardinal Innitzer. Austria, you see, was devoutly Catholic, and the Schuschnigg government also ardently religious in its manifestations. Cardinal Innitzer was the spiritual head who towered above everyone in Austria in power and political influence. The government looked to him for support, but apparently received little encouragement. The newspapers speculated about this daily. Finally, it was announced that the Cardinal had been called to Rome for consultation. Everyone on the pro-government side was reassured, feeling that now the Catholic Austrian government would be saved. The Cardinal's return to Vienna, however, brought only shock and disappointment. The hoped-for statement of support for the legal government was not forthcoming. I've never known quite what to make of that. Were certain members of the Catholic hierarchy, including possibly even the Pope himself, pro-Nazi? Or just naive? Or did they feel that Germany was now too powerful to brook opposition and that lives would be saved by acquiescence?

My last in-person contacts with Webern date from that period. After our collaboration in London, our friendship continued. I often visited him when I was in Vienna. In fact, I was out at his apartment in Mòdling at the time of the German invasion on March 12, 1938. We were talking about the Schocnberg violin concerto that afternoon. The piece had not yet been premiered, but I had a copy, and I played it for him. He was delighted. Wc came to a little place in 3/8 time, and he said, “Play it again. You know, that's like a Schubert waltz.“ He said that! About a difficult piece like the Schoenberg concerto!

We were talking, getting along fine, when suddenly, clutching my arm, he asked, “What time is it?“ I looked: just 4 o'clock. He rushed to the radio and opened it. Then we heard the voice of Schuschnigg saying, “German troops have just crossed the Austrian frontier, and I have told the Austrian soldiers to withdraw in order to avoid brother fighting brother. “

Webern caught hold of me, and exclaimed, “Krasner, here's your coat—run—go home!“ He opened the window and looked out. Nazi flags were already flying, and a crowd of people was celebrating and shouting. “Go quickly!“ Webern said. “Down two streets in the back—find a taxi!“ On the way, I passed small groups of young people, and after I'd gone by, they began to yell after me in a threatening way. They recognized me as a Jew. Of course, I didn't turn around. Finally, two blocks later, I found a taxi and jumped in. “High time that you get into a cab!“ said the driver, and he took me back to Vienna. It's a long cab ride.

I've always wondered about this incident. How did Webern know that 4 o'clock was the hour when the Nazis would cross the frontier and Schuschnigg would capitulate? Who knows what kind of people might have come to the Webern home after I left? He packed me off quickly. I'm sure it was for my safety. But perhaps it was also to avoid the embarrassment which my presence would have caused had his family arrived, or friends celebrating the Nazi entry into Austria.

After the taxi dropped me off where I was staying, you would think I'd have stayed indoors where it was most secure. But, being young, adventurous and curious, I went out again to see what was happening. Afterward, it was said that along the entire route of the Nazi motor transports, the commercial service stations had been stocked with a fully supply of gasoline so that the Nazi columns could refuel and proceed toward Vienna at full speed. And they were not long in coining. I was in front of the Imperial Hotel on the Ringstrasse as the first Nazi vehicles arrived. And soon there appeared, standing in an open car with his outstretched arm in motionless salute, Adolf Hitler himself. This happened within two or three hours after I had heard the Schuschnigg announcement on Webern's radio. There were very few people on the street at the time, and little in the way of cheering or other welcoming sound.

All that evening, I roamed the streets and saw the motorized forces parked along the outer Vienna “Cartel. “ And there was deathly silence everywhere.

The following morning, the papers brought joyous announcements of Hitler's impending arrival. Whereupon, there was a new entrance, this time well prepared with hundreds of thousands of cheering supporters. I've never seen it mentioned anywhere that there were actually two Hitler entries into Vienna. The first was so precipitous that it found the city in shock and with empty streets; the second was typically orchestrated by the propaganda machine. Immediately afterward, the tyranny began. MONTENSEM (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

In fact, the sentence, "Taruskin's authority on this matter is not without controversy: he has been described as polemical in general and hostile in particular to the Second Viennese School, of whom Webern is often considered the most extreme and difficult (i.e., the least accessible)," with all its citations, is rather central here, and should be restored. There are those, maybe Ian Pace, Franklin Cox, or Larson Powell, who have gone so far as to say that Taruskin's History should be called just that, and not styled as an encyclopedic reference in the manner of its "Oxford History," precisely in light of these kinds of discrepancies and biases (although, to be sure, this discrepancy between Taruskin and his cited source is from another of Taruskin's works). Recently Pace has written in remembrance, "I came to realise that Taruskin was not however someone with whose work I would associate a balanced examination of evidence and a measured conclusion. The very possibility of moderate conclusions also appeared to elude him. Both of these things are very significant flaws in a scholar, I believe, but also characteristic of a polarised scholarly world. Taruskin was highly critical of others for drawing wide conclusions from fragmentary information, but was far from averse from doing the same himself to ram home points." Certainly, contemporary and recent US scholars in particular are or have been polarized in their writings on Schoenberg, Webern, and the Second Viennese School more generally. MONTENSEM (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

(Indeed, as David Gutman reviewed it in The Independent: "Richard Taruskin, the most authoritative controversialist in modern musicology, has written an Oxford History of Western Music to rival Gibbon's Decline and Fall in ambition, literary distinction and sheer bulk." This is not exactly full-throated praise: "authoritative controversialist"; the comparison to Gibbons, as widely criticized as consulted; "ambition ... and sheer bulk.") MONTENSEM (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Webern's sociocultural milieu

There was a long footnote I'd added as follows, partly to facilitate additions and revisions to the article, and partly because almost all of these figures could be worked in variously in important and relevant (if not always well known) ways, if not always within this main article, then in articles on specific Webern works; though Aza24 "promise[s] this note is not needed," I would like to see it restored for those reasons. Certainly it could be better organized other than alphabetically. It might also be worked into the article on the Second Viennese School.

>> The broader circle of the Second Viennese School included, among others, Oskar Adler, Theodor W. Adorno, Hans Erich Apostel, Robert Gerhard, Norbert von Hannenheim, Heinrich Jalowetz, Hanns Jelinek, Sándor Jemnitz, Otto Jokl, Rudolf Kolisch of the Kolisch Quartet, Ernst Krenek, Rita Kurzmann-Leuchter, Erwin Leuchter, Olga Novakovic, Paul Pisk, Rudolf Ploderer, Josef Polnauer, Willi Reich, Josef Rufer, Peter Schacht, Julius Schloss, Nikos Skalkottas, Erwin Stein, Eduard Steuermann, Viktor Ullmann, Rudolf Weirich, Adolph Weiss, Egon Wellesz, Alexander Zemlinsky, and Winfried Zillig. Contemporaneous performers, friends, admirers, and supporters of the circle at various times included figures as diverse as Guido Adler, David Josef Bach, Ernst Bachrich, Imre [Emerich] Balabán and Béla Bartók of the New Hungarian Music Society, Julius Bittner, Artur Bodanzky, Richard Buhlig, Edward Clark, Henry Cowell, Herbert Eimert, Gottfried Feist, Marya Freund, Felix Galimir of the Galimir Quartet, George Gershwin, Richard Gerstl, Walter Gropius, Marie Gutheil-Schoder, Alois Hába, Emil Hertzka, Jascha Horenstein, Felicie Hüni-Mihacsek, Erich Itor Kahn, Wassily Kandinsky, Hans Keller, Erich Kleiber, Gustav Klimt, Wilhelm Klitsch, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Louis Krasner, Józef Koffler, Oskar Kokoschka, René Leibowitz, Erich Leinsdorf, Adolf Loos, Darius Milhaud and Francis Poulenc of Les Six, Elisabeth Lutyens, Gustav and Alma Mahler, Frank Martin, Dimitri Mitropoulos, Soma Morgenstern, Johanna Müller-Hermann, Dika Newlin, Will Ogdon, Max Oppenheimer, Otakar Ostrčil, Maurice Ravel, Rudolph Reti, Arnold Rosé et al. of the Rosé Quartet, Hans Rosbaud, Nikolai Roslavets et al. of the Association for Contemporary Music, Hermann Scherchen, Egon Schiele, Alfredo Sangiorgi, Alfred Schlee, Franz Schreker, Erwin Schulhoff, Rudolf Serkin, Roger Sessions, Peter Stadlen, Erika Stiedry-Wagner, Igor Stravinsky, Georg Trakl, Edgard Varèse et al. of the International Composers Guild, Imre Waldbauer et al. of the Waldbauer-Kerpely Quartet, Franz Werfel, Arnold Zweig, and Jung-Wien writers Peter Altenberg, Hermann Bahr, Karl Kraus, and Arthur Schnitzler. MONTENSEM (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I want to point out the level of detail in Fine and Mellow, which this footnote would facilitate here and in other Webern articles (and which a narrow view of the SVS as isolated or detached from this milieu would not). MONTENSEM (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

MONTENSEM, I believe you are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of the lead. A lead is chiefly a means of summarizing the article's content, it is not a place for introducing new content, which is what this note would be doing. This is a biographical article about Webern, not the SVS, and a listing of ~100 members of a composition school is highly off-topic in a tertiary overview article about a single member.

The lead in general, needs to adjust more to WP:Summary style; the current mentions of ~20+ composers who were influenced is hugely Undue especially when they fail to appear in the actual article text (where they should be in the first place). I highly recommend looking at the leads for Featured composer articles such as Debussy, Josquin and Mahler. You'll see they are considerably more concise, occasionally mentioning only a few figures who were influenced, even if they allude to a lot more.

If I sound harsh or accusatory, it is not intentional. I simply do not know how else to explain this without being direct. There are similar issue with the vast about of Notes in the article. I attempted to bring this up on your talk page a while back but did not receive a response. Aza24 (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead is somewhat ambitious here, as I alluded to at the outset, and may be pared down with more work on the article itself (and others like it), as I have been carrying out. This is a process: "perfection is not required." You suggest the solution yourself: "especially when they fail to appear in the actual article text (where they should be in the first place)." Rather than come knocking at my door vaguely to make suggestions as to what I might do to improve it further at your behest as though I owe you a prompt response and then removing material (footnoted—temporarily but better than not at all—to establish the sociocultural milieu of the SVS almost as a heuristic for work on them generally and Webern in particular), you should carry out what you well know and what I already know should be done (in time I may do the same). I have tried to limit myself to focusing on this article in part hoping that others would help build on it and even relocate, disperse, and weave in material rather than simply to delete it, which is absurd and woeful. I do not always have time to dig into this, much less on command or to order; I have worked on it over years, and the time has helped, in part because scholarship takes time to catch up to more contemporary perspectives.

"Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't. [...] Instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution, consider: [...] *Merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article [...] Otherwise, if you think the content could provide the seed of a new sub-article, or if you are just unsure about removing it from the English Wikipedia entirely, consider copying the information to the article's talk page for further discussion. If you think the content might find a better home elsewhere, consider moving the content to a talk page of any article you think might be more relevant, so that editors there can decide how it might be properly included in our encyclopedia."

Moreover, it is not "20+" but 20, and Webern is perhaps somewhat unique canonically in that his reputation rests so heavily on his vast posthumous influence rather than on repertoire as such. One could easily knock that down by half by summarizing the (mostly) postwar Europeans as "Darmstadt," except that it wouldn't work accurately and functions almost epithetically, or by footnoting them. They may all be worked into the article; many of them are. Otherwise, I don't think that the length of the lede is much more than than of Debussy's.

I may try more this year; this is a hobby and an interest. It is easier when there's insightful help, not formalistic undoing. MONTENSEM (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

In fact, part of what makes Webern so difficult to work on is that although his work was prewar, its reception and reputation was so recent that the maturity of the scholarship has lagged and in the US has especially been subject to ideological currents. MONTENSEM (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Much of the best, most reliable scholarship, especially on the mostly postwar Europeans, is not available in English or is only nascently so in dissertations. MONTENSEM (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I find your effort in this article quite admirable. I am more than happy to try and adjust things myself, but as a matter of courtesy I wanted to approach you first, since you are the author of so much of it. I can certainly understand the trouble of having to write about and find sources on relatively recent composers, having written Ned Rorem's article myself.

I largely align with your philosophy of moving content rather than deleting, but at the same time there must be a balance of conciseness and informativeness in an encyclopedic article such as this. Aza24 (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The footnote is a sufficient balance IMO. MONTENSEM (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

At least, unless someone wants to use it to work to revise the article on the SVS. Part of the problem with these composers is that they were so intricately connected. MONTENSEM (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

In general, this is heuristic, framework-like information. It can be dispersed, it can enrich; it can act as a framework and as a heuristic for future direction of material. Deleting it is a mistake. The balance, if you find that it must be struck, should be achieved by dispersal of that material, not deletion. MONTENSEM (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Or more provisionally, simply by relocating it to the SVS article with some work. Actual dispersal would take tons of time and effort. MONTENSEM (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Likewise, the Wozzeck footnote could be relocated to the Wozzeck article and summarized here. In time I will get to these things. I would love for someone else to do them rather than simply to erase them. MONTENSEM (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I can only do so many things at once on this article. I am loathe to take on its satellites, as it were, although I realize that that is where the footnotes are headed. Berg especially needs work. Right now my current preoccupation is reworking the deleted material on the Symphony in the section on performance style. I believed I've assembled enough sources and embedded them to be able to begin to do the prior material better justice with significant revisions, just as I expanded and reworked much of the article in response to the criticism about the material on Taruskin amid his death. There are publications with expert opinion for reference on approaches to the Symphony almost as the Piano Variations have been taken on by N Cook and others, except that the Symphony is a much more useful example precisely because of the genre. MONTENSEM (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Montensem, it is terribly hard to follow you when you're writing so many responses. I'm not really sure what we're talking about at this point. Aza24 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The footnoted material should be relocated to the SVS article rather than being deleted. MONTENSEM (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I've just now done so, although I should note that many of the names remain uncited. Aza24 (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I may approach it in time and hope that others work on it. I have done some of what you'd probably like. I will be busy for some time to come. We will see what I get done. It is easier to work when valuable material doesn't just disappear. MONTENSEM (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Text boxes

The long Krasner text box strikes me as UNDUE and possibly a copyright violation. It's interesting, but the substance should be adequately paraphrased or summarized in the article text. Also the box with the letter to Berg about his mother does not give the date, so it is impossible to tell whether that refers to everything he ever wrote afterward or just what he wrote for a brief period between her death and the time of the letter. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: Webern's music, Johnson makes a case (drawing on the Moldenhauers and others) for something of both. Ideally two quotes might better convey this and be located in the first section of the biography, but I'm not sure how to do that or if that would be the best thing to do.

Re: Krasner, he is fairly central (especially here) to the question of why Webern lived the 1930s onward as he did. Most biographies and even surveys subsequent this interview draw on it for the biographical and cultural details. I pared it down extensively for now. It's probably one of the most concise statements on this topic. I'm not so sure there's a good way to paraphrase or summarize it or that it would be appropriate to do so. MONTENSEM (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

(I didn't mention it, but I did edit per your comment about the letter to Berg, too.) MONTENSEM (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: Krasner text box, replaced with more concise, direct, and hopefully sufficiently old (1943) material (probably one of the first US journal articles on Webern) ref also in the Moldenhauers MONTENSEM (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"Standard repertoire"

@MONTENSEM, do you have a source for this assertion: "...his complete works as well as establish them in the standard repertoire". I don't see the words "standard repertoire" anywhere in the body.

This feels like quite a bit of a stretch. Both Webern's place in music history and influence on composers is certainly secure, but is he really performed that much? I mostly see him ignored by ensembles and performers today. Obviously my observations are not evidence, but we will need a scholar to make the declaration of "standard repertoire", which I don't currently see. Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, off the cuff, I feel you. It's difficult to put a point on it. Maybe give me some time. The assertion could be sourced as-is. Of course, then there are others against it, which tend to be more tendentious in making overly fine distinctions imho or frankly dated precisely by their noting of conductors/performers programming then new Webern, now old, well recorded, and performed in the US less frequently but in Europe often enough (see https://bachtrack.com/composer/webern). I think this could be finessed with better phrasing, qualification (e.g., "the expanded repertoire," "the repertoire of 20th c music"), or by keeping the phrasing but adding a footnote with some emphasis on "established" and maybe some fleshing out of the performance side of Webern's reception, which I've been meaning to get to after chipping away at ce/revisions. Some eg Ian Pace have speculated that Webern's place is not as secure as, say, Schoenberg's (I would argue Berg's), and I think I approached this but was even more cautious at one point in some prior formulation. But I thought that didn't quite get it right in light of the profusion of performances in the latter half of the 20th c, including even festivals in Webern's name, and I think you have to call a spade a spade and say that his works have been "established" in the repertoire by performers/conductors even if the perception remains that they aren't popular with audiences. Certainly Opp. 1, 6, 10, and 21, are performed regularly enough. A large part of it is simply that Webern didn't write for orchestra that often, but the "standard repertoire" isn't limited to orchestras, and certainly he is regularly programmed. Some eg Taruskin distinguish between a "canon" and a "standard repertoire," but I personally think this is more Taruskin than fact (a repertoire means performances, regardless of the ensemble) and maybe Americanized to boot (eg the preponderance of European relative to US performances at Schoenberg150.at). MONTENSEM (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Applied a possible solution, lmk thoughts MONTENSEM (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think your change is an improvement, but perhaps still not ideal. I'd agree with Pace re Schoenberg, and agree with you re Berg, but perhaps this distinction isn't so pertinent for Webern's lead. Maybe something along the lines of "establish them as respected and sophisticated works" would be a safer bet, or perhaps "solidify his canonic status in 20th-century classical musical" which seems to balance influence and performance better? I think one of the current issues remains that the text is linking his "complete works" to repertoire, where the reality is its just a handful (as you've mentioned). So either its toned down, or shifted to not emphasize the performance reception (which is perhaps not necessary since mentioning the recordings earlier already touches that) – Aza24 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think your change with "not widely embraced" works. Although it rather made me chuckle :) Aza24 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

There is too much Original Research going on here. Does the NPOV WEIGHT of sources frame this in terms of a canonical standard repertoire? Like much of this article, it feels like a tenuous collation select references to publish an essay in the style of a graduate term paper rather than an encylopedic summary of the central narratives of reliable sources. The process has been the reverse of what we try to do - survey the sources, write article text, summarize the most essential points in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern (the SVS) figure in maybe every basic survey of Western art music usually alongside Stravinsky and then Bartok and Debussy/Ravel. They are still the subject of many polemics, many of which involved questions about what repertoire initially and later canon should be (what the survey should cover), complicated partly by their own sense of history. Webern in particular can be difficult to write about because he has a fairly unique (and recently revised) reception history initially more in relation to mid-century composers. The relatively recent work of Johnson, Bailey Puffett, and Shreffler follow directly from the vast work and estate of the Moldenhauers being transferred to Sacher and made accessible in the 80s, as DH Miller has noted. The bulk of the article thus rests on these sources. MONTENSEM (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

That's an example of what I tried to identify as wp:OR extrapolation. Do musicians adhere to a canonical repertiore, or is it just an academic projection. There is no doubt that recordings and performances in post-WW2 bolstered public and musicians' awareness and interest, but the recent and current text misrepresent that and reply it, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you able to rephrase? If you would like to suggest an edit, please do. Conductors and performers played a role in Webern's reception, not just composers, and not just on recordings. MONTENSEM (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, please be specific about what exactly in my response constituted original research. MONTENSEM (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I am disputing that there is a canonical repertoire, or at least not one that extends past the topmost frequently performed works of, roughly 1700-1910. What musicians choose to perform is, ex post, what was performed. That changes day to day and "canon" is a different concept that would be misleading to many readers of this article. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Terms like "canonic repertoire" (less frequently) and "standard repertoire" (more frequently) are both used in literature like studies and surveys (not only historical or of performance styles, but also for practicing musicians), their senses sometimes explicitly distinguished or even merged. For example, the former term appears in The Cambridge History of Musical Performance several times, and the latter more so but often in more specified ways (as "standard repeating repertoire"). I think most readers are capable of engaging with these ideas. I was simply trying to be simple and concise while working toward including conductors, performers, and singers in the reception section as I looked ahead to making what is presently there more simple and concise. Do you have a better suggestion? MONTENSEM (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether this or that term is used in unspecified studies and surveys. This is the issue that I have raised several times on this page. Much of your interesting work on this page is what as Wikipedia editors we call Oringal Research. It is not our role to weave together plausible narratives that are generally consistent with a select variety of publications. You need to present Reliable Sources that have explicitly stated "Webern....Canon". You are working backward. You have formed a personal view, which - regardless of whether it's valid - is not found in the sources. Parts of it might plausibly be consistent with various sources, but what's needed is RS refernces that directly show that your text is the mainstream view of the matter. You appear to be working backward, from your personal synthesis to finding sources that appear to be consistent with your conclusions. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Initially in editing/revising this section I wanted to link "repertoire", so I went with standard repertoire. That was criticized, so I suggested "canonic", which I would've thought something of a commonplace, given the SVS's persistence in surveys, anthologies, records, and yes, even on programs. I suppose the matter is still controversial. I have asked for suggestions, because the real issue here is not about whose text this is (I am less committed to any one view than you seem to think) and is not merely about citing it, but rather the precise wording or characterization of a general, common idea on which we should have consensus. Rather than going back and forth over citing it, I propose "modernist" or "canonic modernist" instead of "though not widely embraced ... canonic", since you indicated you would exclude post-1910 modernism from the canon at large.

As to other concerns, I have asked you repeatedly to please be more specific. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Split "Reception" etc

Not sure if I'll get to carry this out (emphatically), but given Webern's historical stature and (contentious?) reception history, I propose to split the present article there (perhaps title the new article "Reception of Anton Webern's work")

Mostly to facilitate editing of the other parts of the main article, esp the music (just lost an edit re: the 1905 qt via doi:10.1017/S1478572215000043 d/t article length), which eventually could expand into separate articles as well (besides those at present) MONTENSEM (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad idea; there is precedent with Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music.

Two things, well the article is actually that long overall; its at 7,000 words, which is nicely below the recommended max of 10,000. That being said, the reception section itself is nearly 2500 words, which may seem like a lot when compared to other articles. For instance, the reception section I wrote for Josquin is 1147 words. So it seems a split is justifiable (and notability-wise, it is certainly is), but certainly not necessary.

In any case, I must applaud you for a very interesting and thorough treatment of the topic; nice to see so many contemporary figures threaded in seamlessly. Aza24 (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)