As a good point (maybe even intentional) the article is contradictory itself, using sentences like "This" "analogy, while tempting, fails to take into account"

As a good point (maybe even intentional) the article is contradictory itself, using sentences like "This" "analogy, while tempting, fails to take into account" ... and then continuing with other shallow explanations. And all this leads to the coda: "In examining Vienna’s cultural legacy, and especially its zenith during the fin-de-siècle period, my intention is not to debunk or demythologise. Vienna’s mythos is part of its beauty. What is necessary, though, is to understand the complexity of this legacy, and that there is no satisfactory single answer to the question of the cultural vibrancy of Vienna 1900." And like when one composes a piece of music and even when one plans to break some expectation and one has to still remain consistent to itself, the text remains true to its style of writing about the "failures" of other presentations while just repeating them. Seeing that the author both writes music and is a music critic, but that he also avoided to concentrate too much directly on Schoenberg, I can still say I've (by induction) learned something new: it motivated me to read a bit more about "Pierrot lunaire": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierrot_lunaire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierrot_lunaire to discover that it got a new interpretation relatively recently: "In March 2011, Bruce LaBruce directed a performance at the Hebbel am Ufer Theatre in Berlin. This interpretation of the work included gender diversity, castration scenes and dildos, as well as a female to male transgender Pierrot. LaBruce subsequently filmed this adaptation as the 2014 theatrical film Pierrot lunaire."