OMS Side-By-Side Analysis

Schoenberg: Piano Piece Op 11 #2 [Sch]

Brahms: Intermezzo Op 117 #1 [Brah]

Isaac Malitz [ imalitz@omsmodel.com ]

11/19/2005

A. Introduction

I have chosen these two works for analysis side-by-side because I think the similarities and contrasts make for a better analysis of each.

Ways in which these works are similar: They are piano works of similar scale; they strike me primarily as works for small audience or solitary pianist; they were written within 20 years in the same culture; they have similar (fairly conventional) structures; both pieces are fine works by top composers.

I play both pieces; and I enjoy both of them - in different ways.

B. Summary observations

Most of what I have to offer is already expressed in the attached chart. But the following are a few summary observations.

[1] It appears that what is most important in characterizing these works are the 3's (i.e. the most outstanding kinds of stimulation), not the 2's 1's or blanks. I.e. even though [Brah] does not provide powerful political stimulation (see page 3 of the chart), this does not significantly diminish the work.

[2] I would summarize [Brah] by saying that it provides high stimulation in a wide variety of ways (a lot of 3's). Brahms accomplishes this in a work that is short and which presents itself as rather "modest" (the opposite of grand or bombastic). This results in both charm and a wonderfully deep sense of satisfaction that is long-lasting.

How does [Brah] accomplish so much in such a "modest" work? Part of the answer is that while the outer sections are in fact quite modest and charming, the middle section (Eb Minor) is different: In that section (which I personally imagine to depict a child's sleep state and a mother's anxiety) Brahms stimulates many reactions re time, time-scales, drama, linguistics, narrative, mu-motion, vagueness, tonal difficulties, and more. If you like, [Brah] is a lullaby with plenty of troubles in the middle. (The poem which accompanies [Brah] evokes a troubled lullaby.)

[3] I am left in awe at Brahm's compositional skill: The amount the he accomplishes in the brief Eb minor section; his skill in framing that section between the two Eb major sections; the total effect.

[4] I would summarize [Sch] by saying that for the most part, it is not a highly stimulating work! This view is probably counter to what Schoenberg himself intended - there is historical suggestion that he intended the work to be "highly expressive". But, by the standard of OMS, the stimulation is deficient (compare to [Brah]).

I would further characterize [Sch] as somewhat in the nature of a piece of "conceptual art" or a "concept piece". The stimulation is less about sound and more about stimulation of intellectual faculties (creativity, imagination, adventure, group experience, political, beauty, sublime, …).

Whether the work is "pretty" is not crucial. (A curious fact: Busoni created a "concert version" of the work in which he fleshed out some of the sonic content without seriously distorting the fundamental composition. And Busoni's version does have quite a fine concert sound - one might even say that Busoni's version has a beautiful sound). My comments would hold as well for Busoni's concert version of the work.

Notwithstanding what I have just asserted about [Sch], I also acknowledge that [Sch] may possibly be more "expressive" than can be conveyed thru an OMS analysis. This factor may reflect part of my interest in [Sch]: There may be some important positive quality in [Sch] that eludes my attempts to describe.

It does not seem to me that Schoenberg has the sheer compositional skill of Brahms (see my comment [3] above).