On 6 Feb 2005 at 0:16, Owain Sutton wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > On 5 Feb 2005 at 15:06, Ken Moore wrote: > >>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>owainsutton.co.uk writes: > >> > >>>And Schoenberg *didn't* transform the Wagnerian influence out of > >>>recognition? > >> > >>If you follow his development you can see the transformation. If > >>you start with a serial work, it is easy to miss the connection. . . > > > > For me, the immediate predecessor always seemed to me to be to > > *Brahms*, not Wagner. Verkl�rte Nacht seems to me to follow straight > > on from late Brahms, and Schoenberg's extensions to tonality then > > follow from that point, into 12-tone tonality. > > A very interesting point. One that I'm going to do a bit of thinking > (and listening!) about....
I believe that this was the way Schoenberg himself saw it. It was, in fact, the way S's last amenuensis, Richard Hoffman, saw it (he was a professor at Oberlin while I was still a student, and two of my best friends studied with him, which basically meant studying Richard Hoffman). -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
