Wozzeck

Charles Ivan Punchatz on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Downloads

Nope.

If you're referring to the original poster, then oops. Just assume instances of 'dude' and 'he' apply to the 'original poster' or something.

Yeah, the OP.

heh heh.

EDIT: Cite me saying this, word for word in this thread.

OK.

Many of his lines are 12-tone, but Berg makes subtle adjustments to eliminate the row... often sidesteps the 12-tone line with some repeated note, so trying to approach Berg from a 12-tone analytical approach often becomes much more frustrating.

You were the one that started talking about 12-tone anything when really it has nothing to do with the way Wozzeck was written.

You were the one that started talking about 12-tone anything when really it has nothing to do with the way Wozzeck was written.

Okay. The poster asked about analyzing/understanding the work via 12-tone analysis. There are plenty of 12-tone lines of what we would probably consider 'melodic' material, so not to completely invalidate the poster's request, I briefly discussed 12-tone analysis and how it would frustrate the analysis. It would be better to look at other things like the motivic material and how the music germinates from the smaller ideas, or as Charlie suggested, look at the structure of the opera as a whole and identify its different parts.

As in, I never said, nor implied, nor hinted, nor otherwise suggested that one SHOULD use 12-tone analysis to understand Wozzeck, even though one COULD, in theory, use some of that technique to understand some of the melodic material... a very small part of the larger whole of the work. I stand by that.

Both you and Charlie are splitting hairs here, in my opinion. The effort you and he have put into 'calling me out' in this thread is just astounding. Further still, the last two pages of this 'argument' demonstrates a complete failure on both of your parts to comprehend plain, simple English. You're both revealing your language deficiencies so clearly here...

Okay. The poster asked about analyzing/understanding the work via 12-tone analysis. There are plenty of 12-tone lines of what we would probably consider 'melodic' material, so not to completely invalidate the poster's request, I briefly discussed 12-tone analysis and how it would frustrate the analysis.

The poster asked if it would be appropriate, the appropriate answer would have been "no". You could have talked about set theory as a tool to understand the work, but you instead mentioned "12 tone" four times. You also said:

Many of his lines are 12-tone, but Berg makes subtle adjustments to eliminate the row...

But there is no row. You can analyze it via set theory and discuss the sets, however, you can't analyze it as using any rows. Even if there is a set with all 12 pitches, its not the same thing as a tone row because it's application is different.

As in, I never said, nor implied, nor hinted, nor otherwise suggested that one SHOULD use 12-tone analysis to understand Wozzeck, even though one COULD, in theory, use some of that technique to understand some of the melodic material...

Again, set theory, yes, 12-tone analysis, no. You can't use 12-tone theory to analyze a piece that isn't 12-tone!

Further still, the last two pages of this 'argument' demonstrates a complete failure on both of your parts to comprehend plain, simple English. You're both revealing your language deficiencies so clearly here...

My apologies, but I don't quite comprehend your insult... could you perhaps explain it to me? Mah English ain't 2 good.

Get your egos in check, everyone. This is teetering to a flamewar, and y'all have PMs for your personal squabbles.

The only reason why I haven't closed this thread yet is because I'm learning. (AA, I too though Wozzeck was 12-tone. 'Parrently was wrong. That's what I get for learning 90% of my knowledge in survey courses, stuff tends to get grouped artificially. Oh wait. Am I thinking of Lulu?)

As to 12-tone analysis of non 12-tone works:

I'm sure you could analyze it that way. Not knowing the music well, can't say it'd be of any use...

Ferk: I know Wozzeck isn't "12-tone". I never said otherwise. The argument is really just these two insisting I did.

The attempt at "calling me out" is entirely transparent. I'd close the thread if it were up to me. This is going nowhere.

As to 12-tone analysis of non 12-tone works:

I'm sure you could analyze it that way. Not knowing the music well' date=' can't say it'd be of any use...[/quote']

My thoughts exactly.

As to 12-tone analysis of non 12-tone works:

I'm sure you could analyze it that way. Not knowing the music well, can't say it'd be of any use...

You CAN, like you can analyze how a car is built by pretending it's a horse and all that implies. If it wasn't composed with that system, analyzing it with that system is pointless since you have to start making up what the rows "could be" and even then you'll have to ignore how utterly wrong it ends up being.

In the end you'd be just claiming to analyze it as a 12 tone piece but what you're actually doing is making scraggy up as you go along.

Ferk: I know Wozzeck isn't "12-tone". I never said otherwise. The argument is really just these two insisting I did.

You're absolutely right, my friend, you never said "Wozzeck is a 12-tone piece". However you did say:

Many of his lines are

12-tone

, but Berg makes subtle adjustments to

eliminate the row

... often sidesteps the

12-tone line

with some repeated note, so trying to approach Berg from a

12-tone analytical approach

often becomes much more frustrating. The Violin Concerto is particularly crazy-difficult to analyze in

12-tone rows

, but both the Concerto and Wozzeck have plenty of ideas that are pretty much simple structures that build into larger, more complex structures.

That sounds a whole heck of a lot like, "while difficult to find (because Berg made 'adjustments to eliminate the row'), the tone-rows are there, hidden under repetitions".

After saying that it is hard to find rows in Berg's music, you went on to discuss finding rows in the Violin Concerto and how they're difficult to find there as well. You never said "oh by the way, Wozzeck isn't 12-tone, so don't worry about what I just said". You just discussed Berg's serial music.

In fact, I'm not the only one who inferred that you were saying that one should be looking for rows in Wozzeck. The original poster, the person participating in the conversation who has no idea whether the piece is a dodecaphonic work or not, in her second post, is talking about looking for tone rows!

one is rhythmic motive , other is pitch motive and the pitch motive would be apply 12-tone serious skill.

So yes, I "called you out", because your miss information (or lack of clarification) has caused someone to think "hey, let me look for rows and analyze this as a 12-tone piece" when its not something that is applicable to this piece. And to cover that up, after saying that you know that Wozzeck is not a 12-tone work, you continue to maintain that one could analyze it that way.

I'm sorry that you got so offended about my correction of your error, but you misspoke, you made it seem as if Wozzeck is a 12-tone work, and I wanted to make sure that it was clear that it wasn't.

That sounds a whole heck of a lot like, "while difficult to find (because Berg made 'adjustments to eliminate the row'), the tone-rows are there, hidden under repetitions".

After saying that it is hard to find rows in Berg's music, you went on to discuss finding rows in the Violin Concerto and how they're difficult to find there as well. You never said "oh by the way, Wozzeck isn't 12-tone, so don't worry about what I just said". You just discussed Berg's serial music.

In fact, I'm not the only one who inferred that you were saying that one should be looking for rows in Wozzeck. The original poster, the person participating in the conversation who has no idea whether the piece is a dodecaphonic work or not, in her second post, is talking about looking for tone rows!

So yes, I "called you out", because your miss information (or lack of clarification) has caused someone to think "hey, let me look for rows and analyze this as a 12-tone piece" when its not something that is applicable to this piece. And to cover that up, after saying that you know that Wozzeck is not a 12-tone work, you continue to maintain that one could analyze it that way.

I'm sorry that you got so offended about my correction of your error, but you misspoke, you made it seem as if Wozzeck is a 12-tone work, and I wanted to make sure that it was clear that it wasn't.

Wozzeck isn't 12-tone, but it's not TONAL either, so analyzing it via traditional methods is pointless. I'm pretty sure Dark was posting for this very reason, and she [for you, Neal] may or may not know other methods besides 12-tone analysis. Now, even though I never directly said, "Wozzeck isn't 12-tone/Serial," I didn't encourage Dark or ANYONE to look for 12-tone Serialism in Wozzeck.

It doesn't get any clearer than that, and considering the knowledge-base of the poster, cramming my response full of terminology the poster may or may not know wouldn't really help the poster at this point.

In fact, I never, not even ONCE, said that Wozzeck was 12-tone OR Serialist. THERE IS NO ERROR TO CORRECT.

It's difficult enough trying to make musical sense of Wozzeck in its free-tone setting (some say "free-atonal," to each their own, but that's technically inaccurate), let alone agreeing on the perfect method for doing so. If I were to insist that you were wrong about this piece because you didn't clearly state, "It's a free-tone work, and your lack of clarification is damaging to others, you should not post if you don't know what you're talking about," you'd get miffed as well when people posted 'I LOL'd' and other garbage.

I responded to the opening post. From there, YOU took that out of context to make some kind of emphatic point in rebuttal, THEN insisted that your misguided interpretation WAS MY POSITION. For the record, just because you 'could' do something doesn't mean you should do it. It also doesn't preclude you from doing it, either. My personal opinion on the matter is that IF someone can find something useful from the 12-tone analytical method when studying Wozzeck, then far be it for you or me to say, "Don't use it."

FYI, as an exercise, we used the 12-tone approach to look at a passage of Wozzeck. It wasn't supposed to help us understand the whole opera, but it was an exercise in finding a row in a score, and it was challenging. That was the point. Then we found another row in another passage... turned out it was an inversion or retrograde (can't remember) of the other line. Sure, it was a free-tone setting of music, but damn if we didn't find a little gem of continuity between two passages. Heaven help us! It's NOT SERIAL!!! WHAT DO WE DO!???

.