Richard Wagner: The Greatest Influence on Western Music?

[jochanaan]

...3. Debussy, Claude  874. (++)
4. Stravinsky, Igor  858. (++)
...
8. Schoenberg, Arnold  567. (+++)

I would have to question that.  In terms of actual music composed, Arnold Schoenberg is more influential than Debussy or Stravinsky.  And this is not a slam at Claude or Igor, whose music I dearly love; merely a recognition that the methods Schoenberg developed have had a deeper influence than the styles of Stravinsky or Debussy.

[JoshLilly]

The fact that only composers that are famous today are included on this list makes me very, very dubious of how much work went into this. I find that very unlikely. Beethoven would certainly have listed Méhul or Cherubini has having more influence on him, probably to a degree that modern people would find surprising. Indirectly, through the more famous Beethoven, Méhul's influence on orchestral music has been tremendous. Beethoven turned a slightly German slant onto the French sound. Is that really his influence? I can't really argue one way or another, just pointing out something people often overlook.

In addition, how many pupils did people like Zelter or Salieri have? Isn't that influence, as well? What would Mendelssohn have been like with no Zelter? I guess my point is, this does not appear to be as straightforward to me as maybe this suveyer takes it. Then again, maybe it is. I'm no musical professional of any kind.

PS: Mozart is my favourite composer, ever. But I don't think he revolutionised anything, with the possible exception of the piano concerto. He wrote my favourite operas, symphonies, what have you, but they all sound (to me) just like "better" versions of what everyone else was doing. The same symphony, but with a tune I like a bit more. The same development, but with musical tricks I like a bit more. But he really doesn't sound revolutionary to me at all. Certainly, I'd pick some of his contemporaries as changing or pushing more than he did. But is this the measure of "Influence"?  I don't know.

[Sergeant Rock]

I simply cannot comprehend the relative positioning of Stravinski over Mozart!....Wagner over Bach! Blasphemy!

I just noticed this- Debussy over Mozart! Slander! Slander!

I think you're mistaking influence to mean greatness: i.e., Debussy is a greater composer than Mozart. That's not how I read it. Think about it: how many great composers after Bach sounded like Bach? How many wrote scores of cantatas and choral preludes. Think of Mozart: what great Romantic and Modern composers continued to write symphonies that sounded like Mozart? Stravinsky's influence, though, is readily apparent in many composers that came after him. And Wagner...well. most of modern music is indebted to him in one way or another (sometimes it's a negative influence - as in the case of Debussy - but influence nonetheless). I think, too, that composers like Mozart and Bach, who were the end, or nearly the end of an era, had less influence than composers who began an era; and the one man who meets that in spades is Wagner.

Anyway, your composers aren't very far down the line of influence. They're all in the top 5.

Sarge

[BachQ]

I would have to question that.  In terms of actual music composed, Arnold Schoenberg is more influential than Debussy or Stravinsky.  And this is not a slam at Claude or Igor, whose music I dearly love; merely a recognition that the methods Schoenberg developed have had a deeper influence than the styles of Stravinsky or Debussy.

Well, according to the data, Debussy influenced a ton of composers:

Debussy Has Influenced:  Alain; -Albéniz; Barber; Bartók; Bax; Beach; Berg; BLOCH; Boulanger; +Boulez; Carpenter; Casella; Castelnuovo-Tedesco; -Chausson; Copland; +Crumb; Dallapiccola; Delius; Dukas; Dutilleux; Enescu; Falla; GRIFFES; Hindemith; Honegger; Ibert; Ireland; Jolivet; Karg-Elert; KODÁLY; Koechlin; Kokkonen; +Kolb; +Ligeti; -Loeffler; Lutoslawski; Malipiero; Martin; MARTINU; Mascagni; Messiaen; Milhaud; Mompou; Novák; Orff; Pierné; [W Pijper]; Pizzetti; Poulenc; Prokofiev; -Puccini; Ravel; Reger; Respighi; Rodrigo; +Rorem; ROUSSEL; Ruggles; Satie; Schreker; Scriabin; Stravinsky; Szymanowski; +TAKEMITSU; Turina; Varèse; Villa-Lobos; 'New Age' music

Schoenberg not quite as robust, but staggering nonetheless:

Schoenberg Has Influenced:  BABBITT; Bartók; BERG; Bliss; Blitzstein; Boulez; Britten; Cage; Carter; Casella; Copland; Dallapiccola; Davies; GERHARD; Ginastera; HÁBA; Harrison; Henze; Honegger; -Janácek; Kagel; Karg-Elert; [L Kirchner]; KRENEK; Martin; Nono; Pärt; Penderecki; Piston; Powell; Ravel; Riegger; Rochberg; Scelsi; Schuller; Sessions; [N SKALKOTTAS]; Stravinsky; Takemitsu; Varèse; WEBERN; Weill; [E Wellesz]; Wuorinen; -Zemlinsky

[jochanaan]

Interesting, Dm!  But I think we also need to consider depth of influence.  It may be argued that Babbitt's and Boulez' music would not exist at all in its present form if Schoenberg had not written as he had; I cannot think that Debussy had such deep influence on anyone except possibly Ravel (who has named Chabrier and Chausson as influences as deep or deeper than Debussy).

And certainly Schoenberg has caused many, many more arguments on these forums than Debussy; that's influence of a sort.

But it's almost impossible to quantify such things.

[Steve]

I think you're mistaking influence to mean greatness

The two can be rather indistinguishable when we start trying to find objective standards to compare such subjective measures.

Have you considered that the influence of the Bachs, Haydn and Mozart has had nearly three centuries to grow, while that of Debussy and Stravinsky has had only one?  Given this, I'd say that the latter composers' achievements are at least as impressive as the former ones'.

A case could be made for Philip Glass being one of the most influential composers of the last half-century.

Of course, we must make sure our personal prejudices don't get in the way of our recognition of influence.

This really strikes at a fundemental problem with comapring the influence of contemporary composers and those from previous periods. If we look at Stravinsky and take his influence through this past half century to be indicative of future influence, I think we are making a findemental error. Mozart has influenced composers throughout the tradition since his passing. Perhaps Stravinsky will. But, perhaps his influence will wane. Thus we can only speak of his influence in terms of what has already transpired. Stravinsky influenced many composers of this period, while Mozart has influenced composers in nearly every era since his death. I also do not believe that the sheer number of composers who have aborbed the stylings of another, is the sole criteron to consider. Isn't it more important to consider the weight of lasting influence?

[quintett op.57]

I think, too, that composers like Mozart and Bach, who were the end, or nearly the end of an era, had less influence than composers who began an era

I agree with this
Instead of Bach, I would mention his predecessors.
I would We can argue that CPE Bach had more influence than most of the composers who are more famous. "He is the father, we are the children." said Mozart.
I'm enclined to think that the most influencial baroque composers where the italians, at the beginning of the era (guys like Palestrina), and at the end (Corelli or Vivaldi for example). They made the music evolve, definitely. But it's difficult to know if they were more influencial than Josquin Desprez and his contemporaries of the Renaissance.
How can we compare all this composers with Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner or Schönberg?
I have no idea

[karlhenning]

I wonder if 'influence' included where certain composers disliked another's works so intently that they worked away from the detested style...Debussy and Wagner are one such where the younger composer reviled the composition of the older and attempted to produce work that was different as against 'the school of'.

Mike

Yes, and to a wagnerite, [ doing something other than how Wagner did it ] maps onto "Wagner's influence" 

D Minor, mon vieux, that was naughty of you, re-titling the thread!

[Don]

I agree with this
Instead of Bach, I would mention his predecessors.
I would We can argue that CPE Bach had more influence than most of the composers who are more famous. "He is the father, we are the children." said Mozart.
I'm enclined to think that the most influencial baroque composers where the italians, at the beginning of the era (guys like Palestrina), and at the end (Corelli or Vivaldi for example). They made the music evolve, definitely. But it's difficult to know if they were more influencial than Josquin Desprez and his contemporaries of the Renaissance.
How can we compare all this composers with Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner or Schönberg?
I have no idea

Me neither, which is why I pay zero attention to the "influence" matter.

[karlhenning]

I simply cannot comprehend the relative positioning of Stravinski over Mozart! It is certinly possible to debate, to taste and preference, the greatness of Mozart, but slandering his name by presuming Igor Stravinski to have had more influence of the Western Tradition of Classical Music! Mozart transformed absolutely every musical formed he touched! He has maintained his influence on society for hundreds of years! Wagner over Bach! Blasphemy!

Almost seems as though you contest the "science" of the enterprise.

I'm all for it 

[karlhenning]

PS: Mozart is my favourite composer, ever. But I don't think he revolutionised anything, with the possible exception of the piano concerto.

Oh, but he and Haydn between the two of them revolutionized the symphony, indeed.  When they started out, instrumental music was a sidelight;  serious composers were held to 'show their stuff' in vocal forms, especially masses and motets

[quintett op.57]

Oh, but he and Haydn between the two of them revolutionized the symphony, indeed.  When they started out, instrumental music was a sidelight;  serious composers were held to 'show their stuff' in vocal forms, especially masses and motets

I think CPE Bach revolutionized the symphony more than they did.
Haydn's role is probably greater in chamber music : especially string quartet and piano trio.

[JoshLilly]

"When they started out, instrumental music was a sidelight"


Immersing myself almost daily in the music of this time period, I'm perplexed by this. I don't know any nicer way to say it than that I think this is not a true statement. If it were true, either of the Sammartini's (for example) would have starved to death. Though the younger brother (Giovanni) wrote 3 operas, that was not his forté. As for the older (Giuseppe), I don't know that he ever wrote a single piece which included human voice (though he may have).

If anyone "revolutionised" the symphony first, it was Giovanni Sammartini. He also wrote around 200 string trios; just an aside. He was a symphonic revolutionary who owed the roof over his head and the bread on his plate to instrumental music.

And, he is Example #1. I could go on to #2, #3, and probably #20. Without even delving into books; if I did that, I could probably extend this list quite a bit.

[quintett op.57]

If anyone "revolutionised" the symphony first, it was Giovanni Sammartini. He also wrote around 200 string trios; just an aside. He was a symphonic revolutionary who owed the roof over his head and the bread on his plate to instrumental music.

There's a lot to discuss here.
If you talk about Sammartini, you could also mention Corelli and Handel's concerti grossi.

funny, so many names come into this topic. There are probably guys we don't even know whose influence was great.

[karlhenning]

The musical importance of CPE Bach and Sammartini can certainly be well argued;  I am content to let the laurels rest on the brows of those whose music still commands an impressive swath of the current repertoire.

Neither of these objections materially refutes the general statement (think Monteverdi and JS Bach, for goodness's sake).  There was a time when all practically all composed music, was music for voice.  That did not change overnight.

CPE Bach served at the court of Frederick the Great, who did ask of him sacred choral music;  so, no, the exception of CPE Bach does not surprise me in the least.  For another exception, we can go back yet further, to Domenico Scarlatti.

But look specifically at Mozart's environment.  Haydn and CPE Bach both had been hired by aristocrats, and wrote according to their employers' tastes and requirements (which in Haydn's case did indeed include some operas and masses, of course).  The jobs which Mozart desired, for which he angled himself, which would have given him financial stability, and for which he was passed over for others, were a position at a Cathedral, and Kapellmeister at the Imperial Court.  In both these positions, choral music and/or opera held pride of musical place.

[JoshLilly]

I'm not entirely sure I follow. At the least, I don't think that this defends the position that when F.J. Haydn and W.A. Mozart (born over 20 years apart, no less) started to write music, non-vocal was a sideline. It just wasn't.

And again, you're looking mainly at composers famous today. That's not a total picture of the musical scene of the time. These two didn't come along into a world utterly dominated by vocal music. At the least, look at the Stamitzes, or in general, the whole "Mannheim School". That's just one more famous example. That was utterly dominated by instrumental, especially orchestral, music. The locale had a lot to do with it. In some places, they liked one thing; in other places, another.

When I look at the number of symphonies composed by people like Dittersdorf, I just can't go along with this position.

[rach]

I came across that website a while back.   To say Wagner has the greatest influence, I can not agree, maybe one of the greatest.  Wagner over JS Bach???

[oyasumi]

I like this JoshLilly and would like to subscribe to his newsletter.

[Gurn Blanston]

It seems paradoxical to me that a composer who worked near the linear end of the time scale of music could be more influential than one who worked near its beginning. The illogic of this POV boggles the mind.

Josh Lilly is far more correct to introduce names like Sammartini, and I would add Jomelli there too, and Johann Stamitz. And that's just for "Classical" music. Fux was one of the most influential musicians ever, and only people with a real interest in the early 18th century know much about him. I submit that the real "most influential" were names that most of are quite unfamiliar with. Or else we sell them short (like Salieri and Albrechtsberger, to name just two).

Another thing that occurs to me is that the "influence" of Beethoven is really the influence of Haydn, who was his major role model during his early years. When he got into the French School, as has been mentioned, you run square into Cherubini and Mèhul. So, whose influence is it then, Beethoven's or theirs? And Haydn himself stated that his major symphonic influence was J. Stamitz (although it was more likely Sammartini: Haydn was nationalistic, after all).

The premise of the survey is that there is an inherent linearity to music. But really, there isn't. A more apt metaphor would be something woven, with parts touching in places and then moving off. An example of this is Reicha. He and Beethoven grew up together and studied music in Bonn. They separated for several years, then Reicha came to Vienna, and he and Beethoven shared Albrechtsberger as a teacher. Then he went to France, and until his death in 1831 he was a teacher of, among others, Liszt. I think it can be said fairly that Liszt was in some small way influential on Wagner... or not.

And anyway, how much of Wagner's influence is really Weber, Mozart or Beethoven's? If one wouldn't be what one is without these influences, then what, quantifiably, is one's OWN influence?   

[jochanaan]

...Fux was one of the most influential musicians ever...

The Fux of Gradus ad Parnassum?  But is it his compositions that carried the influence, or the aforementioned counterpoint text?

Good points all, Gurn.