Richard Wagner: The Greatest Influence on Western Music?

[BachQ]

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?   

Awesome post, Gurn!  

[BachQ]

So, Wagner received the spirit of Méhul from the hands of Berlioz, eh, Mike? 

Very interesting!  I confess I know nothing, or at least next-to-nothing, of Méhul's music; I think I may have to rectify that omission ASAP!  Any recommendations?

I feel EXACTLY the same way . . . . . . . must correct that error and oversight . . . . . . 

[BachQ]

[Wagner's] 2nd Piano Sonata is just awesome.

Really?  What recording?

[JoshLilly]

I had the CD, and lost it somehow, and would kill a puppy to get another copy. In fact, seeking this very CD is what brought me to this board in the first place, it was my only goal from posting here. It's this:
http://tinyurl.com/2j4gw3
I can't find it anywhere, it's #1 on my very small "must have" CDs list. If you listen to the samples, the A Major one is the 2nd that I was talking about.  Also, the 2nd movement from the A-Flat Major is awesome, so much impact in a movement that lasts, if I remember correctly, something like less than 2 minutes.

The biggest shock I think I ever got out of someone, was playing his Piano Sonata #1 (B-Flat Major), and having them guess who wrote it. The answer tended to knock people's socks off. 

[jochanaan]

...as perhaps, a Debussy, whose critical developments to the piano repotoire could be heard elshwere, typically manifesting themselves in the composisions of Romantic French compositions...

Say what?  I thought Debussy came after the Romantics...

[BachQ]

Mozart simply help develop and establish many different genres of music more firmly in the eyes of the music-going public.  

And that says a great deal.  Mozart elevated the concerto genre (particularly the piano concerto, but also clarinet, horn, etc.) to new heights.  Indeed, most of Mozart's mature concerti not only remain in the standard repertoire, but they represent the pinnacle of the genre.  His Jupiter symphony is so imposing that its shadow can be perceived even today.  Not to mention his chamber music, operas, sonatas, etc . . . . . .  

[BachQ]

I had the CD, and lost it somehow, and would kill a puppy to get another copy. In fact, seeking this very CD is what brought me to this board in the first place, it was my only goal from posting here. It's this:
http://tinyurl.com/2j4gw3
I can't find it anywhere, it's #1 on my very small "must have" CDs list. If you listen to the samples, the A Major one is the 2nd that I was talking about.  Also, the 2nd movement from the A-Flat Major is awesome, so much impact in a movement that lasts, if I remember correctly, something like less than 2 minutes.

The biggest shock I think I ever got out of someone, was playing his Piano Sonata #1 (B-Flat Major), and having them guess who wrote it. The answer tended to knock people's socks off. 

Cool!

[karlhenning]

Once again you ask an insightful question, sir Knight.  I wonder how many modern composers reacted against the conservative style of Brahms, for example.

Au contraire, mon vieux: Schoenberg himself beat the drum for Brahms the Progressive 

[BachQ]

Au contraire, mon vieux: Schoenberg himself beat the drum for Brahms the Progressive 

Karl, if you would be so kind as to explain how Brahms influenced Schoenberg, I'd be much obliged!  If you could identify a particular Schoenberg work (other than his orchestration of Brahms op. 25  ) that bears Brahms' stamp, I'd be interested.   


Thanks,


D Minor

[uffeviking]

I had the CD, and lost it somehow, and would kill a puppy to get another copy. In fact, seeking this very CD is what brought me to this board in the first place, it was my only goal from posting here. It's this:
http://tinyurl.com/2j4gw3
I can't find it anywhere, it's #1 on my very small "must have" CDs list. If you listen to the samples, the A Major one is the 2nd that I was talking about.  Also, the 2nd movement from the A-Flat Major is awesome, so much impact in a movement that lasts, if I remember correctly, something like less than 2 minutes.

A bit OT: I have the Newport Classic of Thomas Lorango playing the Grosse Sonata in A major, plus Eine Sonata für das Album von Frau M.W. and Albumblatt für Frau Betty Schott.

Back on to topic, almost: This is one of the most fascinating, informative and intelligent threads I have seen here in a long time. I read it, nod or shake my head, but can not participate because I am not at all familiar with those mostly 'ancient' composers, like the ones Gurn talks to in his dreams. Please keep it up!

Thank you, all!
Lis

[Gurn Blanston]

Back on to topic, almost: This is one of the most fascinating, informative and intelligent threads I have seen here in a long time. I read it, nod or shake my head, but can not participate because I am not at all familiar with those mostly 'ancient' composers, like the ones Gurn talks to in his dreams. Please keep it up!

Oh, I bet you're a lot more familiar with the music perhaps than the history, but the point is not so much to know the particulars about some obscure "ancient" as it is to recognize that no composer exists in a vacuum, and influence from ancient times carries a lot more weight than we mainly give it credit for. To continue the Wagner example, I will just say that if one indeed credits him with major influence on those who came after (I don't know that's true, but it isn't what I am here to discuss), then one must consider that he, himself, did not spring from nothing, but was also heavily influenced by what came before him. So where does one draw the dividing line? I urge people to take the "long view" and put things in context. It's amazing how such a simple change in viewing things will change your philosophy.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Karl, if you would be so kind as to explain how Brahms influenced Schoenberg, I'd be much obliged!  If you could identify a particular Schoenberg work (other than his orchestration of Brahms op. 25  ) that bears Brahms' stamp, I'd be interested.   

Well, speaking for myself, it's hard for me not to hear Brahms' influence in Schoenberg, at least in his earlier works.

Gurrelieder and Verklärte Nacht come foremost to mind.

Original though these works are Brahms is squarely the foundation from which Schoenberg takes flight.

Textures are thick, multi-layered, overarching, and steeped with fine details. And the more luminous and transparent the textures the better. All Brahms hallmarks.

Not that these works are second-rate Brahms knockoffs, mind you. Far from it. Brahms merely provides the basis while Schoenberg provides the innovation and inspiration.

[lukeottevanger]

Well, Schoenberg was very explicit about what he took from Brahms, to whom he acknowledged a huge debt, and above all it was the 'developing variation' principle which he discerned in his own awestruck analyses of pieces such as the Brahms C minor and A minor Quartets. What this means for Schoenberg is the concentration on cloely-integrated motivic writing, where every figure is linked to something heard previously and impacts on something to be heard later. It's above all a linear aspect to music, and in this respect it is as important or more important to the development of the 12 tone thingy than the more obvious and shopworn cliche about 'taking Wagner's chomaticism to its logical conclusion.' That latter is true - and we see it above all in the freely chromatic, expressionist works - but Schoenberg was fundamentally a linear, motive-minded classicist, always searching for ways to strengthen his music's internal cohesion, and for this he went to Brahms. The link between Brahms and the 12 tone idea is pretty plain to see, especially if one examines the musical specifics.

As for Schoenberg pieces which reflect this Brahmsian ethos - I wouldn't suggest Gurrelieder so much, but, just for starters:

Verklarte Nacht - Schoenberg specifically discussed the Brahms and Wagner influence on this piece, in fact - from Brahms the technique of "developing variation" and "imparity of measures"; from Wagner the "model and sequence" technique above a moving harmony, treatment of instruments and general sonority (note that this boils down to: Brahms for the small, detailed, motivic workings enlivening each point of the music; Wagner for the broader-brush effects - the difference between the two composers in a nutshell, and the reason I personally find Brahms so much more satisfying)

Quartet no 1
Chamber Symphony no 1 (an incredibly linear, contrapuntal work, with the strongest inner cohesion imaginable)
Quartet no 2 (because its motivic and contrapuntal writing is so strongly patterned)
The more formal early 12 tone pieces
Piano Concerto - down to its very soundworld

and so on and on. In fact, I don't think it would be a foolish proposition to suggest that Schoenberg owes more to Brahms than to anyone else.

[BachQ]

Well, speaking for myself, it's hard for me not to hear Brahms' influence in Schoenberg, at least in his earlier works.

Gurrelieder and Verklärte Nacht come foremost to mind.

Original though these works are Brahms is squarely the foundation from which Schoenberg takes flight.

Textures are thick, multi-layered, overarching, and steeped with fine details. And the more luminous and transparent the textures the better. All Brahms hallmarks.

Not that these works are second-rate Brahms knockoffs, mind you. Far from it. Brahms merely provides the basis while Schoenberg provides the innovation and inspiration.

Thanks, Donwyn.  I do see Brahms' influence upon the Gurrelieder.

I intend to listen to more of early Schoenberg with an ear toward Brahms' influence . . . . . . . 

[BachQ]

Piano Concerto - down to its very soundworld

Well, I listened to this today, and, at best, I detected slight glimmers and penumbras of Brahmsian influences.  I'll need to relisten.

What is much more apparent, however, is how utterly innovative and groundbreaking Schoenberg was! 

[Ten thumbs]

The question of influence here addressed appears to be a very loose one. For one thing influences on Western music may well be extra-musical ones, e.g Shakespeare or Goethe should be in your lists somewhere. For another, it is unclear whether or not the measures of influence are weighted: some influences are strong, others marginal, some affected important composers, others minor ones.

[karlhenning]

"Brahmsian penumbras" . . . that's beautiful, mon vieux!

[lukeottevanger]

Well, I listened to this today, and, at best, I detected slight glimmers and penumbras of Brahmsian influences.  I'll need to relisten.

It's in the piano's textures and the rhythms that it's most apparent, I think - just listen to the very beginning. It reminds me of an analysis I once saw which 'deconstructed' a Schoenberg piano piece (op19/3) by changing one aspect at a time - pitch, rhythm etc- so as to determine where its true roots lay: when seen through a deliberately Brahmsian filter, changing some notes slightly to turn the music tonal but keeping rhythm, gesture, texture, dynamics etc identical, the piece still 'worked'; but when these aspects were changed the music began to fall apart. Part of what this showed, really, was that the pre-tonal roots of the Schoenberg piece were the same as those of a typical Brahms piece, which we knew anyway, but which was nicely demonstrated (this is to simply greatly what was an intricate, clever and revealing piece of analysis).

In a similar vein, on Schoenberg's Brahmsian keyboard style, Malcolm MacDonald (a great writer on both composers) on Schoenberg's epoch-making op 11 (he's made all the statutory comments about the Schoenberg's Brahms-Wagner sources earlier in his book!):

Through the keyboard layout and emotional content of op 11 we still discern the influence of late Brahms. The deep basses, massive chords, syncopations and cross-rhythms - these are all Brahmsian features, but employed within a totally-chromatc context their effect is quite different. It is a totally thematic context too, so that Brahms's usually detailed motivic working is extended by Schoenberg to virtualyy every figure.

[lukeottevanger]

Schoenberg's writings suggest that he was pretty intent to be seen to hitch himself to Brahms, in fact. He probably realised that the detailed technical influence of Brahms more than the more general Wagner influence was a particularly strong factor in binding him inextricably into the German tradition which was so central to him (it's in the context of his reverence for this tradition and his concern that it continue that his seemingly arrogant and unpleasant phrase about 'ensuring the supremacy of German music' needs to be understood, I think). 

The following - the introduction and conclusion of Schoenberg's essay Brahms the Progressive show precisely Schoenberg's conscious intent in this matter:

It is the purpose of this essay to prove that Brahms, the classicist, the academician, was a great innovator in the realm of musical language, that, in fact, he was a great progressive...His influence has already produced a further development of the musical language toward an unrestricted, though wellbalanced presentation of musical ideas.... an unrestricted musical language ... was inaugurated by Brahms the Progressive

[Ten thumbs]

It is interesting that Schoenberg acknowleges his debt to Brahms and, as has been described, it is evident in his music. Yet one can find another composer, whose music is full of the same elements and who has been referred to as 'the 20th century Brahms', who actually showed no interest in Brahms's music and professed his main influences to be Beethoven and D. Scarlatti. I am of course referring to Medtner.
I think Wagner's influence declined rapidly early in the 20th century as composers realised that big is not always beautiful.