Richard Wagner: The Greatest Influence on Western Music?

[Don]

Gentlemen!....please....I love both Liszt and Wagner. I wouldn't want to be without the sublime music of either composer.  Why choose when you can have both?  ...nothing wrong with being greedy here is there?

  marvin

Being greedy is one of my strongest characteristics, so you'll get no argument from my end.

We have some folks on this board who get a kick out of dumping on one or more famous composers.  That's a shame.

[PSmith08]

Who is?

Gentlemen!....please....I love both Liszt and Wagner. I wouldn't want to be without the sublime music of either composer.  Why choose when you can have both?  ...nothing wrong with being greedy here is there?

  marvin

[karlhenning]

Marvin doesn't appear to suggest universal sublimity in either case, Patrick.

[Josquin des Prez]

Who is?

Bach, for starters.

MozartMobster

Not that i care too much, but all my past identities on this forum are listed under my avatar.

And I really like the moments of great beauty and passion in Liszt's piano works

Where? I've been delving very heavily into his music as of late, i'm even going through Alan Walker's three volume biography in order to get a better understanding of the man, but my opinion of his works is not chancing for the better. In fact, he is at his best precisely when he's not trying to stir any emotion or passion (I.E., first half of the Dante sonata, all the development sections in the b minor sonata and so forth). There's gleams of brilliance scattered here and there, particularly in his late works, but that's about it. There's nothing in his music even remotely resembling genius.

It is very amusing that among the various composers of the "music of the future", Berlioz being the most original, Liszt the most radical, Bruckner the most spiritual, and Mahler (if you will) the most intellectual, the mantle of true inspiration had to lay on the shoulders of Wagner, the ogre. Be that as it may, one shouldn't judge art based on the individual.

[PSmith08]

Marvin doesn't appear to suggest universal sublimity in either case, Patrick.

Without some preposition functioning as a partitive, who can tell?

[DavidRoss]

Without some preposition functioning as a partitive, who can tell?

Damn near everyone.

[PSmith08]

Damn near everyone.

Eh. Fair enough.

[lukeottevanger]

By the way, regarding the thread topic, I suspect that if one were inclined a fine case could be made for Liszt's influence surpassing little Dickie's.

I've been delving very heavily into [liszt's] music as of late, i'm even going through Alan Walker's three volume biography in order to get a better understanding of the man, but my opinion of his works is not chancing for the better. In fact, he is at his best precisely when he's not trying to stir any emotion or passion (I.E., first half of the Dante sonata, all the development sections in the b minor sonata and so forth). There's gleams of brilliance scattered here and there, particularly in his late works, but that's about it. There's nothing in his music even remotely resembling genius.

It is very amusing that among the various composers of the "music of the future", Berlioz being the most original, Liszt the most radical, Bruckner the most spiritual, and Mahler (if you will) the most intellectual, the mantle of true inspiration had to lay on the shoulders of Wagner, the ogre. Be that as it may, one shouldn't judge art based on the individual.

I know I've already quoted this on this thread, but no one seemed to notice at the time  Here's what Bartok had to say on this subject. And, with respect, he knew what he was talking about more than any of us  :

For the future development of music Liszt's oeuvre seems to me of far greater importance than that of Strauss or even Wagner.

As has been [sort of] pointed out on this thread before, the Wagner influence is huge, unrivalled in its way, but is also limited to a particular time (mostly the half century or so after his death) and to particular genres (some opera, some symphonic music, some film music). The influence of someone like Liszt - and this seems to me to be Bartok's point - whilst not as glaring, is more pervasive and long-lasting, because his 'discoveries' (the power and poetry of virtuosity and of the virtuoso himself....) are even more universal than Wagner's musical innovations. Which is why we still see important composers, including avant garde modernists, for whom Liszt is still a relevant figure with whom to have a discourse - composer-pianists from Finnissy to Stevenson, for instance.

And whilst I'm here, I pointed out earlier in this thread that one can be a post-Wagnerian opera composer and not be influenced by Wagner, and I described how Janacek was such a figure. Janacek was pretty neutral on Wagner, had very little to say about him either positive or negative - in short, though some can't accept that this could possibly be true of any major post-Wagnerian opera composer, Wagner was neither angel nor devil to him, just pretty irrelevant, certainly more so than e.g. the maligned Puccini! I mention this only because I've seen Janacek's name brought into the list of 'opera composers influenced by Wagner' in recent pages, and wanted to put it into some sort of perspective.

And I suppose this sort of perspective is what is sometimes lacking in discussions like this, which tend to swing quickly to all-or-nothing extremes. I'm certainly not anti-Wagner, and of course I believe he's one of the most influential of composers, but I also recognise that there are 'other ways' - important, powerful expressive ways with as much potency as Wagner's way (it's Wagner's peculiar 'drug-like' potency which makes some 'Wagnerians' so ardent, but in fact other composers can write equally potent, 'drug-like' music by wholly different means, a fact often forgotten). These ways are sometimes ignored, but Wagner's shade hardly falls over them, and with respect them he is often not particularly relevant.

[quintett op.57]

Where? I've been delving very heavily into his music as of late, i'm even going through Alan Walker's three volume biography in order to get a better understanding of the man, but my opinion of his works is not chancing for the better. In fact, he is at his best precisely when he's not trying to stir any emotion or passion (I.E., first half of the Dante sonata, all the development sections in the b minor sonata and so forth). There's gleams of brilliance scattered here and there, particularly in his late works, but that's about it. There's nothing in his music even remotely resembling genius.

Sorry you've not found.
What about his orchestral output?
The pleasure I get out of Liszt's music is a proof of his genius.
I love his developments, transitions, harmonies and orchestration. They're awesome.
I know it can be tiring for you to read me repeating it, but you're making a confusion between your taste and the objective quality of the music.

[M forever]

There's gleams of brilliance scattered here and there, particularly in his late works, but that's about it. There's nothing in his music even remotely resembling genius.

How do you know what true genius is?

[quintett op.57]

personnally I know one thing :
When a composer is capable of providing as much pleasure as Liszt to me (and others), he's a genius. A normal person can't do this.

[M forever]

I know it can be tiring for you to read me repeating it, but you're making a confusion between your taste and the objective quality of the music.

When a composer is capable of providing as much pleasure as Liszt to me (and others), he's a genius. A normal person can't do this.

[DavidRoss]

Potentially wicked, but perhaps he's fully aware that he's using (and defining) "genius" subjectively.

[M forever]

Maybe. Or maybe not. But then he can't tell other people *they* are "confusing" subjective taste and objective quality. I know a lot of people do that and they recognize that other people are subjective but when it comes to themselves, they somehow think that their taste coincicdes with whatever "objective" criteria there may be for "quality".

[DavidRoss]

Not that i care too much, but all my past identities on this forum are listed under my avatar.

Thanks, that's helpful.

[DavidRoss]

Maybe. Or maybe not. But then he can't tell other people *they* are "confusing" subjective taste and objective quality. I know a lot of people do that and they recognize that other people are subjective but when it comes to themselves, they somehow think that their taste coincicdes with whatever "objective" criteria there may be for "quality".

Sure he can.  He just told us that his definition of "genius," at least in this context, is highly subjective.  He doesn't seem to be confusing that with some  universally acknowledged objective standard...at least, not by my reading, which grants him the benefit of the doubt and sees the latter statement as more than a little tongue-in-cheek.  I could be wrong, of course.   

[jochanaan]

Sorry you've not found.
What about his orchestral output?
The pleasure I get out of Liszt's music is a proof of his genius.
I love his developments, transitions, harmonies and orchestration. They're awesome.
I know it can be tiring for you to read me repeating it, but you're making a confusion between your taste and the objective quality of the music.

Much as Liszt would probably appreciate your hero worship (he might have appreciated it more if you had the profile of a Vanessa Mae ), I have to agree with the others that you're making the same mistake you accuse Josquin of making.  Simply because you get pleasure out of it is no measure of Liszt's genius.  A lot of people get pleasure out of the likes of Hank Williams, Jr.

[karlhenning]

Much as Liszt would probably appreciate your hero worship (he might have appreciated it more if you had the profile of a Vanessa Mae ), I have to agree with the others that you're making the same mistake you accuse Josquin of making.  Simply because you get pleasure out of it is no measure of Liszt's genius.  A lot of people get pleasure out of the likes of Hank Williams, Jr.

Hank just wants to say, "Shucks!"

[karlhenning]

How do you know what true genius is?

Excellent point. Josquin tends to build ziggurats on self-referential points, and simple questions like this indicate the shakiness of J's foundation.

[Operahaven]

And I really like those moments of great beauty and passion in Wagner's music dramas--they're like island jewels in the sea of sentimental claptrap that otherwise surrounds those lovely moments.

David,

With all due respect you have it reversed.

There are moments of  dross  here and there but there are hours and hours of astonishingly beautiful melodic, harmonic, rhythmic and coloristic inventions in those music dramas.