Richard Wagner: The Greatest Influence on Western Music?

[(poco) Sforzando]

I forgot to include, in my own rundown,

he was the first dramatist to darken the auditorium, which of course affected not only opera but all theatre.

And some would say it was a dark day when he did that!!!

[Haffner]

And some would say it was a dark day when he did that!!!

Aye.

[BachQ]

he was the first dramatist to darken the auditorium, which of course affected not only opera but all theatre.

We've always suspected that Wagner had a dark side .........

[PSmith08]

Of course!

Maybe 10):

10) Wagner is the first composer whom seems to really have had a deep understanding of what would later be called "archetypes". The symbols he used in his poems, coupled with the intense themes throughout his work, can (with some willfull immersion on the listener's part) provoke some truly resounding emotions and thoughts within the listener/watcher. Nietzsche only proved how massively moved he was by the works of Wagner by crying so much about him in his works (think Shakespeare's "the lady doth protest too much"). Jung mentioned him several times in his own works, and countless philosophers,psychologists, and psychiatrists since.

Although overall it's a bit (in my opinion) strange that Israel banned his works for so long, it may prove how moving (on an extremely deep psychical level) his works truly are.

I would be inclined to agree with this, though Mozart and Da Ponte knew well how to hit archetypal chords, as long as you make it clear that you're referring to 'modern' artists. The reason why Der Ring des Nibelungen turned out to be Wagner's most powerful dramatic statement is because Wagner - in Wotan - managed to create a character that can stand with the protagonists of the ancient Greek tragedians. Indeed, Wagner created something more than he intended - the nominal hero of Der Ring is Siegfried, whose death makes it possible for the corrupted world to be redeemed - when he created as pathetic and powerful a character as Wotan. When Wotan says, in Walküre (Act 2, Sc. 2), "Zum Ekel find' ich ewig nur mich in allem, was ich erwirke! Das andre, das ich ersehne, das andre erseh' ich nie: denn selbst muss der Freie sich schaffen: Knechte erknet' ich mir nur!" he becomes a tragic character in a classic sense. Indeed, to paraphrase Mann, his tragedy reminds me of the Greek tragedians of the best period. That is only strengthened with the drama of Act 3 of Walküre; by the end of Siegfried, Wotan has lost all and become the pinnacle of classical tragic heroes. Those classical figures were, in their own way, archetypal and resonated deeply with the Greeks. Wagner creates an analogue with Wotan, and it is essential to recognize that Wagner's drama in Der Ring is so powerful because he tapped into the vein of that classical drama. Other composers, like Mozart, managed to strike toward it, but Wagner entered the vein fully and mined its gold to the fullest extent.

[Haffner]

I would be inclined to agree with this, though Mozart and Da Ponte knew well how to hit archetypal chords, as long as you make it clear that you're referring to 'modern' artists.

You said it. I also see other greats like Mahler, Shostakovich, Schoenberg, J. Haydn, Berlioz, Bach(s), etc. as having the capability. But Wagner seemed to be able to exploit their effectiveness most fully due to his apparently deep understanding (on rational and emotional levels) of how they work inside others. I wonder if Wagner's being able to utilize them with such effect on his listeners was the part of him that turned away from his own egomanical tendencies. It's like he inwardly wanted to connect with listeners, though in reality he never could on a social level. Socially it was Wagner, Wagner, Wagner. Musically it's all about the "other"...as long as one is willing to give up the preconceptions before listening.
Or perhaps he was writing for that "other" within.

The reason why Der Ring des Nibelungen turned out to be Wagner's most powerful dramatic statement is because Wagner - in Wotan - managed to create a character that can stand with the protagonists of the ancient Greek tragedians. Indeed, Wagner created something more than he intended - the nominal hero of Der Ring is Siegfried, whose death makes it possible for the corrupted world to be redeemed - when he created as pathetic and powerful a character as Wotan. When Wotan says, in Walküre (Act 2, Sc. 2), "Zum Ekel find' ich ewig nur mich in allem, was ich erwirke! Das andre, das ich ersehne, das andre erseh' ich nie: denn selbst muss der Freie sich schaffen: Knechte erknet' ich mir nur!" he becomes a tragic character in a classic sense. Indeed, to paraphrase Mann, his tragedy reminds me of the Greek tragedians of the best period. That is only strengthened with the drama of Act 3 of Walküre; by the end of Siegfried, Wotan has lost all and become the pinnacle of classical tragic heroes. Those classical figures were, in their own way, archetypal and resonated deeply with the Greeks. Wagner creates an analogue with Wotan, and it is essential to recognize that Wagner's drama in Der Ring is so powerful because he tapped into the vein of that classical drama. Other composers, like Mozart, managed to strike toward it, but Wagner entered the vein fully and mined its gold to the fullest extent.

Again, you said it. And well!

[jochanaan]

Far be it from me to dispute Wagner's importance as described above. But I think we need to remember that he didn't spring fully formed from the mythical Wotan's forehead.

His ideas about musical form were influenced by Beethoven (a garbled influence, it's true) and Liszt; in his orchestration he owes much to Berlioz (whose orchestras are as grandiose as Wagner's); Liszt preceded Wagner in experiments with near-atonality (or, in at least one case, actual "keylessness," plus an extraordinary anticipation of twelve-tone serialism in the Faust Symphony theme); and I suspect Wagner's theatrical "innovations" had previously occurred in other playwrights.

But where Wagner is unique is in pulling all these influences together to create musical dramas that, far from being a mere assemblage of set pieces, are such organically-grown arcs of sound and sense that no set of excerpts can do them justice.  This, to me, was Wagner's greatest innovation: the final freedom from the by-then-antiquated overture-recitative-aria-chorus structure.  Not even Verdi used quite so seamless a musical construction until Otello and Falstaff, composed after Wagner's death.

[Haffner]

But where Wagner is unique is in pulling all these influences together to create musical dramas that, far from being a mere assemblage of set pieces, are such organically-grown arcs of sound and sense that no set of excerpts can do them justice.  This, to me, was Wagner's greatest innovation: the final freedom from the by-then-antiquated overture-recitative-aria-chorus structure.  Not even Verdi used quite so seamless a musical construction until Otello and Falstaff, composed after Wagner's death.

Richard Strauss, Schoenberg, and Shostakovich seemed to have taken it even further. It's interesting to me also to consider Mahler's symphonies as being a bit like how we might imagine Wagner's post-Parsifal projected symphonies to have been, had he lived to write them.

[BachQ]

Andy,

I'm beginning my DELVE into Wagner ..........

You are right, this is spectacular music! 

[marvinbrown]

Andy,

I'm beginning my DELVE into Wagner ..........

You are right, this is spectacular music! 

It's about time Dm,  what took you so long??   

  marvin

[quintett op.57]

Far be it from me to dispute Wagner's importance as described above. But I think we need to remember that he didn't spring fully formed from the mythical Wotan's forehead.

His ideas about musical form were influenced by Beethoven (a garbled influence, it's true) and Liszt; in his orchestration he owes much to Berlioz (whose orchestras are as grandiose as Wagner's); Liszt preceded Wagner in experiments with near-atonality (or, in at least one case, actual "keylessness," plus an extraordinary anticipation of twelve-tone serialism in the Faust Symphony theme); and I suspect Wagner's theatrical "innovations" had previously occurred in other playwrights.

I second this post. I'm not an opera fan but regarding his orchestral output, which I appreciate greatly, he clearly uses a lot of innovations by Berlioz and Liszt.

Regarding the list, i don't I know who's the most influential, but there are many composers I'm surprised to find before Haydn!

[Josquin des Prez]

I third the post, BUT, there's no denying, in my view at least, that Wagner's genius soared higher then either Liszt or Berlioz, as did that of Brahms, the least innovative composer of the lot.

[PSmith08]

I second this post. I'm not an opera fan but regarding his orchestral output, which I appreciate greatly, he clearly uses a lot of innovations by Berlioz and Liszt.

Wagner's genius is at least partially synthetic, as has been noted here, which is to say that part of Wagner's genius lies in his (in my opinion) unparalleled ability to pull together various ideas in music, drama, and other arts and combine them in novel ways. I think, however, we run the risk of undervaluing or even devaluing Wagner's creative ambition when we point out that Liszt had the notion of keylessness and Berlioz had a massive orchestra. It's true: Liszt blazed a trail into atonality and Berlioz required a big band; the difference is, however, neither Liszt nor Berlioz went as far as Wagner. So, while Liszt and Berlioz (to take two examples of Wagner's many obvious and not-so-obvious influences) had the ideas, they didn't take them as far - to their fullest expression, even - as Wagner did. Indeed, of the influences on Wagner, I might say that only Beethoven had the same creative ambition that Wagner did.

[jochanaan]

...Indeed, of the influences on Wagner, I might say that only Beethoven had the same creative ambition that Wagner did.

A slight addendum: I would make a difference between creative ambition and creative achievement.  Berlioz and Liszt, as creators, were both hugely ambitious! But it's probably safe to say that Beethoven and Wagner had more "hits" and fewer "misses" than the other two.  At least, fewer "misses" that we know about. (However, if anyone doubts the ability of Berlioz to create huge musical structures, I suggest a listen to the Symphonie fantastique or the Requiem. )

[Saul]

Can we measure a composer's influence?  How can we assess the influences that one composer has (or has had) upon another?  Or is the exercise entirely subjective and beyond quantification and/or comparison?

FWIW, a university study dating from 2000 purports to measure and compare the relative "influence(s)" of composers (the study can be found here -- scroll down to the heading "The 111 Most Influential Composers").  Acccording to the site: "decisions as to which composers and which of their works should be included were based on objective criteria, not subjective preferences." The top 25 composers, in order of influence, are:

1. Wagner, Richard  1016. (++)
2. Bach, Johann Sebastian  975.
3. Debussy, Claude  874. (++)
4. Stravinsky, Igor  858. (++)
5. Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus  822. (-)
6. Beethoven, Ludwig van  756. (-)
7. Liszt, Franz  640. (+)
8. Schoenberg, Arnold  567. (+++)
9. Chopin, Fryderyk  500. (+)
10. Schumann, Robert  481.
11. Brahms, Johannes  456. (-)
12. Mendelssohn, Felix  383.
13. Strauss, Richard  381.
14. Haydn, Franz Joseph  347. (-)
15. Rossini, Gioachino  333. (+)
16. Ravel, Maurice  327.
17. Palestrina, Giovanni Pierluigi da  314. (++++)
18. Berlioz, Hector  309. (+)
19. Corelli, Arcangelo  299. (+++)
20. Gluck, Christoph W. R. von  295. (+++)
21. Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Il'yich  271. (-)
22. Bartók, Béla  265.
23. Mahler, Gustav  261.
24. Monteverdi, Claudio  257. (++)
25. Webern, Anton  256. (++)

There's a separate entry for each composer which highlights the composers upstream and downstream influences.  For example, Beethoven has supposedly influenced:

Alkan; ++Bartók; Berlioz; Berwald; +Bizet; ++Bloch; +Boito; +Borodin; +BRAHMS; BRUCKNER; Carulli; Chopin; Czerny; ++Dukas; +Dvorák; Franck; Giuliani; ++Honegger; +Indy; +Ives; +++Kagel; Lalo; Liszt; ++Mahler; ++Medtner; Mendelssohn; Mendelssohn-Hensel; Nicolai; Paganini; +Paine; ++Reger; Reicha; ++Schoenberg; SCHUBERT; C Schumann; R Schumann; ++Shostakovich; ++Sibelius; Spohr; ++Stenhammar; ++Tippett; +++Tower; WAGNER; Weber; ++Webern

Hard to believe that Wagner is the most influencial composer in the world.
More then Bach Beethoven Mozart and Mendelssohn? Hard to believe this.

[PSmith08]

A slight addendum: I would make a difference between creative ambition and creative achievement.  Berlioz and Liszt, as creators, were both hugely ambitious! But it's probably safe to say that Beethoven and Wagner had more "hits" and fewer "misses" than the other two.  At least, fewer "misses" that we know about. (However, if anyone doubts the ability of Berlioz to create huge musical structures, I suggest a listen to the Symphonie fantastique or the Requiem. )

Perhaps, but I would come back and say that Wagner created a universe and destroyed it over the course of Der Ring des Nibelungen, which is still probably the most monumental regularly completely performed musical work yet created (I'll say that Stockhausen's Licht might be more monumental, but I don't think it has been completely performed yet and certainly not regularly.) Berlioz' Symphonie fantastique is, on a lot of levels, an ambitious project (I include, implicitly, the musical and thematic levels without a second thought); I do not see, however, it rivaling Der Ring for sheer scope. Speaking in a more abstract sense, I would hazard to say that Wagner's Ring - as a closed, coherent system with its own grammar and syntax (so to speak) - isn't really challenged by much. The technical innovations either conceived or assembled by Wagner in the Ring and (more obviously) in Tristan are astonishing both in their depth and in their quantity. As to Beethoven, I think the revolutionizing of several genres of music is enough to ensure his safety. I said all of that to say this: I'm going to stand by my initial claim. Others might have been very ambitious, but none on the thematic and syntactic level of Wagner.

Hard to believe that Wagner is the most [influential] composer in the world.
More then Bach[,] Beethoven[,] Mozart[,] and Mendelssohn? Hard to believe this.

Believe it. In addition to the tremendous influence he exerted on later composers, there are genres of music that wouldn't exist but for Wagner. The musical landscape of the modern age - for better or worse - would be totally different without Wagner. Look at it like this: Bruckner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, Arnold Schoenberg, and Hugo Wolf were all profoundly influenced by Wagner. Build "influence trees" with those composers at the top, and you'll begin to see how profound Wagner's impact was and is.

[Josquin des Prez]

(I'll say that Stockhausen's Licht might be more monumental, but I don't think it has been completely performed yet and certainly not regularly.)

Stockhausen was an empty charlatan. There can't possibly be anything monumental about his work.

[PSmith08]

Stockhausen was an empty charlatan. There can't possibly be anything monumental about his work.

Apparently, you've never seen a picture of Cardinal Mahony's Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. For, if you had, you would have come to the realization that monumentality in and of itself can be either good or bad. That is to say that there are great monuments and awful monuments.

But, without having a common frame of reference, the point may be lost.

[The new erato]

Hard to believe that Wagner is the most influencial composer in the world.
More then Bach Beethoven Mozart and Mendelssohn? Hard to believe this.

Since he only could have influenced composers from the last 150 years, and not all the great ones before that, I hardly think he could be, either.

[karlhenning]

But it's probably safe to say that Beethoven and Wagner had more "hits" and fewer "misses" than the other two.

Wagner, fewer "misses" than Berlioz?  Oh, I don't know, I don't know.

Perhaps, but I would come back and say that Wagner created a universe and destroyed it over the course of Der Ring des Nibelungen

And Potemkin created a village 

[karlhenning]

Stockhausen was an empty charlatan.

Well, thank God that Wagner was unfailingly lucid in all his pamphleteering!