Are there particular genres certain composers should have just avoided?

[Brian]

Is there the mirror opposite of this thread?

Genres composers should have written in?

I have more ideas there

Agreed, this is too negative.

[BasilValentine]

Shostakovich listed Schoenberg among his favorite composers in the early 1930s, and you can certainly hear this in the works from around that time.  The most obviously influenced piece, of course, is the Five Fragments for Orchestra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQIPGefNMvY, and the Fourth Symphony, the third movement of which begins with the motif of the so-called "Viennese trichord," but I can hear the influence of Schoenberg's melodic style on even the "populist" works of the later 30s and 40s.

Naturally, these influences were filtered through Hindemith and Stravinsky and others as well.

The Five Fragments perhaps — one obscure work and not a very good one. His principle influences in his early style include Rimsky-Korsakoff, Mussorgsky, Stravinsky, Miaskovsky, Prokofiev, Mahler and even Rachmaninoff. There is virtually no appreciable Schoenberg influence in any of his fifteen quartets, or in the mature symphonies, concertos or sonatas. His modal melodic language and the harmonic language in all of his mature music shows the direct lineage of his Russian influences. Contrary to your claim, that if we "removed [Schoenberg] from history, we'd lose ... Shostakovich's best works," we would in fact lose virtually nothing. You've given no credible support for you claim.         

Similarly, Prokofiev was reacting to the milieu of The Rite of Spring (orchestrated after Stravinsky's encounter with Pierrot lunaire) and the machine works of Varese when he wrote his percussive sonatas and the Second Symphony.  Even if the influence was not direct, and in Prokofiev's case I agree it most likely was not, to suggest that he was ignoring the musical world around him would seem to have a higher burden of proof than otherwise.

The support for your claim that without Schoenberg we would not have the most fascinating parts of Prokofiev is non-existent. His percussive piano style was in place in works he wrote as a teen, well before The Rite or Varese. His first couple of piano concertos predate these as well, as do his first three sonatas.

[Mahlerian]

The Five Fragments perhaps — one obscure work and not a very good one. His principle influences in his early style include Rimsky-Korsakoff, Mussorgsky, Stravinsky, Miaskovsky, Prokofiev, Mahler and even Rachmaninoff. There is virtually no appreciable Schoenberg influence in any of his fifteen quartets, or in the mature symphonies, concertos or sonatas. His modal melodic language and the harmonic language in all of his mature music shows the direct lineage of his Russian influences. Contrary to your claim, that if we "removed [Schoenberg] from history, we'd lose ... Shostakovich's best works," we would in fact lose virtually nothing. You've given no credible support for you claim.

Add to the Five Fragments (which is a far better work than, say, the Leningrad) the Aphorisms for piano, the early operas, the Symphonies both before and after #5 (and isn't #4 a more truly mature work than the several that followed it?).  I would say the quartets as well; although Shostakovich's language is simpler than Schoenberg's, especially in terms of harmony, he did at times draw from Schoenberg's lyricism and humanity.  At any rate, you skipped over the main evidence, which was Shostakovich's own words.

The support for your claim that without Schoenberg we would not have the most fascinating parts of Prokofiev is non-existent. His percussive piano style was in place in works he wrote as a teen, well before The Rite or Varese. His first couple of piano concertos predate these as well, as do his first three sonatas.

Okay, granted on that count.  I will say that without the existence of Schoenberg's music, every composer working in the tradition would not have had his music to respond to.  Given that everyone was listening to it, everyone was taking up a position for or against it, even the arch-conservatism of the Soviet Union's leaders would have to be counted as a fear of the unknown opened up by Schoenberg's work.  To suggest that one would be able to remove it from music history and retain the personalities of the musical world shows a very shallow understanding of how influence works and how artistic traditions develop and feed into each other.

One could say that we could remove Beethoven from the 19th century and all kinds of personalities would be left unaffected, but even someone like Chopin who kept aloof from Beethoven was aware of and responded to the challenges posed by his music.

[Wanderer]

From what I've heard via listening to them, Medtner should not have composed three piano concerti

Then you hardly listened. He should have composed many more.

[Jo498]

As indeed is Sibelius's - BUT it is clearly unfair (of me) to cite Weber for having written three great operas and not much else of note, since it would clearly be impossible only to write three masterpieces and nothing else

I think we also tend to treat some music a little unfairly because we lost some of the historical context and see only the towering masterpieces, some of which were not really typical within that context. E.g. Beethoven's piano concerti with their serious and "symphonic" character are actually outliers. If one listens to a bunch of the concerti from the first half of the 19th century in a series like hyperion's most of them are focussed on virtuose piano writing and seem rather shallow. Compared to Moscheles' Hummel's or Weber's concerti stick out as pretty good. Similarly with piano sonatas and still, Weber's were probably more popular throughout the 19th century than any of Schubert's (they were virtually forgotten until the 1920s and very infrequently played until the 1950s/60s).

[BasilValentine]

Add to the Five Fragments (which is a far better work than, say, the Leningrad) the Aphorisms for piano, the early operas, the Symphonies both before and after #5 (and isn't #4 a more truly mature work than the several that followed it?).  I would say the quartets as well; although Shostakovich's language is simpler than Schoenberg's, especially in terms of harmony, he did at times draw from Schoenberg's lyricism and humanity.  At any rate, you skipped over the main evidence, which was Shostakovich's own words.

Shostakovich liking Schoenberg's music is not evidence of influence. It is a reason to look for evidence. Or in your case, apparently, a reason to imagine it or make it up.

The symphonies after 4? Not 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, or 13, etc. I have no idea what it would mean to say 4 is "more truly mature" than say, 6 or 8 or 10 — that it sounds more like Schoenberg — to you? I know all of the quartets and have no idea what you are talking about. You'll need to be more specific.

Draws from Schoenberg's lyricism and humanity??? Because he knew no other human composers? Because there are no other lyrical composers?

Okay, granted on that count.  I will say that without the existence of Schoenberg's music, every composer working in the tradition would not have had his music to respond to.  Given that everyone was listening to it, everyone was taking up a position for or against it, even the arch-conservatism of the Soviet Union's leaders would have to be counted as a fear of the unknown opened up by Schoenberg's work.  To suggest that one would be able to remove it from music history and retain the personalities of the musical world shows a very shallow understanding of how influence works and how artistic traditions develop and feed into each other.

No one suggested this. It is a straw man you invented. You claimed that the best work of Shostakovich and Prokofiev would not have existed without Schoenberg. Extraordinary claims require — well, some evidence anyway! More than naming a couple of obscure works and vaguely naming whole genres at least.

One could say that we could remove Beethoven from the 19th century and all kinds of personalities would be left unaffected, but even someone like Chopin who kept aloof from Beethoven was aware of and responded to the challenges posed by his music.

Chopin's piano sonatas, especially 2, show Beethoven's influence pretty clearly I think.

[Florestan]

I think we also tend to treat some music a little unfairly because we lost some of the historical context and see only the towering masterpieces, some of which were not really typical within that context. E.g. Beethoven's piano concerti with their serious and "symphonic" character are actually outliers. If one listens to a bunch of the concerti from the first half of the 19th century in a series like hyperion's most of them are focussed on virtuose piano writing and seem rather shallow. Compared to Moscheles' Hummel's or Weber's concerti stick out as pretty good. Similarly with piano sonatas and still, Weber's were probably more popular throughout the 19th century than any of Schubert's (they were virtually forgotten until the 1920s and very infrequently played until the 1950s/60s).

If you can read French I recommend you this article, published in January 1867 in Revue des Deux Mondes. It is very illuminating about how Weber and his work were viewed back then. The most interesting part is where the author wax poetic about... Aufforderung zum Tanz.

http://rddm.revuedesdeuxmondes.fr/archive/article.php?code=64586

[Mahlerian]

Shostakovich liking Schoenberg's music is not evidence of influence. It is a reason to look for evidence. Or in your case, apparently, a reason to imagine it or make it up.

The symphonies after 4? Not 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, or 13, etc. I have no idea what it would mean to say 4 is "more truly mature" than say, 6 or 8 or 10 — that it sounds more like Schoenberg — to you? I know all of the quartets and have no idea what you are talking about. You'll need to be more specific.

Draws from Schoenberg's lyricism and humanity??? Because he knew no other human composers? Because there are no other lyrical composers?

Going back to the original source in Laurel Fay's biography:

"In his high-profile role as model young Soviet composer during the year leading up to the condemnation of Lady Macbeth, Shostakovich had been candid about the influence the music of such contemporary composers as Berg, Schoenberg, Krenek, Hindemith, and especially Stravinsky had exerted on his development, especially in the three years after completing Conservatory."

So I was wrong about the precise context and wording, but in a way that actually supports my point.

4 is a more mature work than the symphonies that followed it (and Shostakovich himself said this) because it presents a greater variety of content and of expression, and because instead of the constant repetition of 5, 7, or 10, its music is constantly developing.

At any rate, this is not a matter of me making things up, but me hearing things that you don't.  Your lack of good faith in this conversation is irritating.

No one suggested this. It is a straw man you invented. You claimed that the best work of Shostakovich and Prokofiev would not have existed without Schoenberg. Extraordinary claims require — well, some evidence anyway! More than naming a couple of obscure works and vaguely naming whole genres at least.

Actually, the original discussion was about removing composers from music history entirely, presumably for the good of music overall.  No need to jump into hostility.

What I meant was not that they would not have written any great works without Schoenberg, but that the specific great works they did write could only have existed in a world that had Schoenberg in it.

Chopin's piano sonatas, especially 2, show Beethoven's influence pretty clearly I think.

And Chopin was markedly ambivalent about Beethoven's music, just as Shostakovich and Prokofiev were about Schoenberg's.

[jochanaan]

...To be plain, I don't get the value of the question, or at least if there is a point of discussion there, it is to me lost in the particular wording.

Points well taken.  If we wished to be more precise, perhaps we could word the question: Are there certain composers who, having written things in a particular genre, should not inflict them on the public?

The Sibelius brass piece I mentioned is a good example.  As I said, I don't know if Sibelius just didn't write well for brass alone (unlikely, given the fine brass writing in his orchestral music, but possible), or if it was just an "off" time for him, but that piece should have never seen the light of day.  (And maybe Sibelius himself never intended that it should.)

[BasilValentine]

Going back to the original source in Laurel Fay's biography:

So I was wrong about the precise context and wording, but in a way that actually supports my point.

Not really. An influence on his development in his immediate post-student days does not equate to an influence on his music, which would need to be supported by musical evidence in any case. Stravinsky is the composer emphasized and Schoenberg is part of a pretty long list. You didn't just miss the context and precise wording, you said something completely different.

4 is a more mature work than the symphonies that followed it (and Shostakovich himself said this) because it presents a greater variety of content and of expression, and because instead of the constant repetition of 5, 7, or 10, its music is constantly developing.

I asked about 6, 8 and 10. All of these have a great variety of content and expression (not that I accept this criterion as a sure sign of aesthetic value.) The longest movements in these works have very little literal repetition. 

At any rate, this is not a matter of me making things up, but me hearing things that you don't.  Your lack of good faith in this conversation is irritating.

Actually, the original discussion was about removing composers from music history entirely, presumably for the good of music overall.  No need to jump into hostility.

My lack of faith might be a result of seeing that after refuting every point you made in your original post and several follow ups, you still repeat your far reaching conclusion (next quotation below) without having cited a bit of musical evidence or credible documentary evidence. What you interpret as hostility might better be described as exasperation.

What I meant was not that they would not have written any great works without Schoenberg, but that the specific great works they did write could only have existed in a world that had Schoenberg in it.

I know many of his best works in great detail and hear nothing of note that required the existence of Schoenberg. 

[Ken B]

Actually the premise of the original thread referred to was if you HAD TO eliminate a composer from history, not whom would you wish or want eliminated. Nothing about "for the good of music" at all.

[Mahlerian]

Actually the premise of the original thread referred to was if you HAD TO eliminate a composer from history, not whom would you wish or want eliminated. Nothing about "for the good of music" at all.

The choice is still made to remove a major composer like Schoenberg over a comparatively minor one like Dittersdorf, which indicates a preference, wouldn't you say?

My original point absolutely stands that Schoenberg's influence reached far beyond simply those who followed him directly.

[Mahlerian]

Not really. An influence on his development in his immediate post-student days does not equate to an influence on his music, which would need to be supported by musical evidence in any case. Stravinsky is the composer emphasized and Schoenberg is part of a pretty long list. You didn't just miss the context and precise wording, you said something completely different.

...Never mind.  You won't listen to any evidence I present, clearly, because you've made up your mind.

Simply because you personally can't hear any influence doesn't trump the perception of influence elsewhere, especially when it's been stated by the composer himself.

[San Antone]

...Never mind.  You won't listen to any evidence I present, clearly, because you've made up your mind.

Simply because you personally can't hear any influence doesn't trump the perception of influence elsewhere, especially when it's been stated by the composer himself.

I've been reading your exchange with BasilValentine about whether Schoenberg influenced Shostakovich or not.  I agree with you that Schoenberg was such a major voice in the 20th century, his influence albeit implicit in many major composers such as Shostakovich, ought to be undeniable by most informed observers of the 20th century musical scene.  There is no serious composer in the 20th century whose music was not affected because of Schoenberg.

The 20th century without Schoenberg's oeuvre and it would be hard to imagine what kind of music would have been written.  Probably no Serialism, and then no neo-Romanticism or Minimalism both responses to Serialism.  Even John Cage, who was a student and presumably influenced, for sure as a counter-example, but influenced nonetheless.

Which is why I consider Schoenberg the most important composer of the 20th century.

[Florestan]

There is no serious composer in the 20th century whose music was not affected because of Schoenberg.

Let´s take Rachmaninoff, Enescu and Ravel. Where is Schoenberg´s influence to be found in their music?

[Jo498]

I think it is fair to take the statement about composers not of the same generation as Schoenberg, but younger, so it would not apply to Ravel, Rachmaninoff, Enescu etc.

Why has this thread completely changed the topic? Moderators, please moderate, especially if there is already a thread for the Schoenberg's influence topic.

[Florestan]

Why has this thread completely changed the topic?

Because the High Priest of the Schoenbergian Church never misses an opportunity to preach the one true religion and to scold heretics and atheists. 

[ritter]

Let´s take ... Ravel. Where is Schoenberg´s influence to be found in [his] music?

Trois poèmes de Stéphane Mallarmé...just saying. 

[North Star]

Let´s take Rachmaninoff, Enescu and Ravel. Where is Schoenberg´s influence to be found in their music?

Well, if Stravinsky hadn't told Ravel about working on Trois poésies de la lyrique japonaise after having heard Pierrot lunaire, we wouldn't have Trois poèmes de Stéphane Mallarmé, all three works sharing the same scoring.

[North Star]

Trois poèmes de Stéphane Mallarmé...just saying. 

G'day, Rafael!
...I shouldn't have taken so much time to write the above