Schoenberg Vs Satie

703 Words3 Pages

A revolutionary composer could be understood as someone who breaks a status quo and sets a framework for others to follow. Between Schoenberg and Satie, Satie was more revolutionary in term of purposes of music, musical expression, and the role of the composer. Alex Ross quoted, “Satie was, in a manner of speaking, starting European musical history all over again” (The Rest is Noise, p. 49). Schoenberg was considered a revolutionary composer due to his invention of a musical method, the twelve-tone technique, that escapes the traditional structure. However, it did not seem as revolutionary as it appeared to be, because the only difference between the twelve-tone method and the old traditional one is the notes arrangement; in other words, Schoenberg built his technique basing on the traditional, instead of breaking it. In addition, Schoenberg was aware that Josef Mathias Hauer, a Viennese theorist and composer, was working on evolving a very similar method. “If I were to escape the danger of being his imitator, … I had to unveil my secret,” Schoenberg provided (Symkins, p. 13). Satie, on the hand may be simultaneously viewed as original and radical. …show more content…

Many composers welcomed attention, spotlight, and scandals as a path to success. They wanted a large audience. Schoenberg was exposed to scandals and more spotlight because of his music. In Satie’s case, it was the opposite. He wanted his music to fade into the background. Outraging people with Parade was not his intention. People were not supposed to be attach to his music. His attitude toward his music was playful. “One cannot divorce his music from his personality and his philosophy” (Trinkley, p. 21). Satie was one of kind. His music seemed to be lighter than popular modernist compositions. It might be delight but it was also astonishing. Satie could be view as the opposite of