Bach or Beethoven re most influential

[Haffner]

Then like the majority of well-informed, discriminating music lovers, I will continue overrating them both.

Me too, happily!

[lukeottevanger]

What is the first civilization you learn about in grammar school?  American

Really??   I think you might want to rephrase that, in light of the fact that not everyone here was born in the same country you were!

[Haffner]

Really??   I think you might want to rephrase that, in light of the fact that not everyone here was born in the same country you were!

I guess I presumed that was obvious.

[lukeottevanger]

I guess I presumed that was obvious.

That my point, really!

[Haffner]

That my point, really!

Noted.

[Danny]

Classical composers like Haydn, Mozart & Beethoven were closer contemporaries so they had stronger influences on each other & the style that they were writing in during their era, they all learned greatly from J.S. Bach and were greatly inspired by him but things had moved on since JSB's time, they did not further develop the depth & real meat of Bach's writing (a contrapuntal age), nor were they entirely interested in doing so, things were so far removed by then and styles and goals (and aspirations) for writing music had completely changed as i mentioned a few posts back...they no doubt tried things influenced by him though, especially in their later works where they tried to come to terms with the great profundity, beauty and mysteries of Bach's writing, that led to their own (lesser) attempts particularly in fugal/contrapuntal....but J.S. Bach had simply fully exploited and used up all of those means anyway, and composers after him had to find a fresh (not new) approach...Bach's musical utterence exists on a level of of human-spiritual nobility that serenely floats above the transient & inconsistent attempts of even the very great composers who followed him ... and they knew it too ! We're talking about a level of harmonic insight & profundity which would render anything "wild" as a fairly tame experience thereafter ... Bach is pre Ego... pre Individual, and the characteristic interior intensity of his writing - the cogency - is achieved through not just his genius, but also his craft & his learning. His music is for the the Glory of God and is dedicated thus. Not for his glory... he would never allow himself the self-aggrandising indulgences of a Beethoven. Bach is incomparable and untouchable... the greatest solace, and the greatest joy. If anyone could convince me there is a divine hand in things ... he would do it.

"My natural way of writing is Bach-like."

~~Gustav Mahler

[JoshLilly]

It appears to me reading the last couple of pages on this thread, that people consistently associate fame with innovation and/or influence. That is, only famous composers are being named. My disbelief is immense, especially considering all the CDs of non-famous composers within arm's reach that seem to completely contradict these assumptions.

The list of most famous composers, and most influential, would have looked very, very different to, say, Beethoven than what is appearing here. Beethoven might have named no one, but if he did, I betcha if asked about orchestration, Méhul or Grétry would be higher on his list than W.A. Mozart or F.J. Haydn. J.L. Dussek's influence on piano music probably would have been given higher marks for "influence" during Beethoven's day than more famous composers, including Mozart or Haydn.

For that matter sticking with the Beethoven example, why doesn't anyone talk about Albrechtsberger's influence? If anything, it would be more than the influence of Haydn, who seemed to have done very little for/with Beethoven as a teacher.

[(poco) Sforzando]

It appears to me reading the last couple of pages on this thread, that people consistently associate fame with innovation and/or influence. That is, only famous composers are being named. My disbelief is immense, especially considering all the CDs of non-famous composers within arm's reach that seem to completely contradict these assumptions.

The list of most famous composers, and most influential, would have looked very, very different to, say, Beethoven than what is appearing here. Beethoven might have named no one, but if he did, I betcha if asked about orchestration, Méhul or Grétry would be higher on his list than W.A. Mozart or F.J. Haydn. J.L. Dussek's influence on piano music probably would have been given higher marks for "influence" during Beethoven's day than more famous composers, including Mozart or Haydn.

For that matter sticking with the Beethoven example, why doesn't anyone talk about Albrechtsberger's influence? If anything, it would be more than the influence of Haydn, who seemed to have done very little for/with Beethoven as a teacher.

We weren't talking about who influenced Beethoven, rather about Beethoven's own influence on composers that followed.

But let's stay with the influence (or lack of it) of Haydn on Beethoven for a moment, since Mr. Lilly is convinced that Johann George Albrechtsberger's influence on Beethoven was greater. It is true that Beethoven turned to Albrechtsberger for the study of harmony and counterpoint when he felt Haydn was not giving him sufficient attention as a student. And it's quite possible Beethoven would have felt he learned little from Haydn, who on his part was put off by Beethoven's gruff manner and even went so far as to advise Beethoven not to publish the C minor piano trio of Op. 1 ("because it is the best of the three," growled Ludwig).

Yet influence is a complicated thing, and not necessarily a matter of what a composer will voluntarily admit to. Brahms is the perfect example: when it was pointed out to him that his Eb minor scherzo, op. 4, was clearly modelled on Chopin's 2nd scherzo in Bb minor, Brahms denied knowing the piece. This is the corollary to his peeved admission that the big tune in the first symphony was just like the one from Beethoven's 9th. "Any fool can see that!" growled Johannes - i.e., "So what? It's not important!" But by Brahms's time it was already possible for composers to feel what WJ Bate has called "the burden of the past" and Harold Bloom "the anxiety of influence" - i.e., the sense that a composer can no longer compose freely, but always feels the tread of giants behind him. This sense of the burden of the past was enough for Brahms to delay his first symphony for nearly 20 years.

Beethoven felt less of this kind of burden (the idea of a fixed canon of musical masterpieces had only started to emerge; it was axiomatic up to about 1800 that composers were expected to produce new music continually and no one cared much about preserving or measuring one's self against the past), but Beethoven's denial of having learned from Haydn cannot be taken on its face value simply because Beethoven said so. The musical record is far more persuasive, and shows that Beethoven did indeed learn a great deal from studying Haydn. Certain works throughout his life - the piano sonata op. 10/2, especially its comic finale, the 8th symphony, the last string quartet - are permeated by Haydn's spirit through and through. The great climax of the first movement of the 2nd symphony is clearly modelled on a passage in the chorus ending part 1 of Haydn's Creation. And Donald Tovey pointed out convincingly that Beethoven's codas are modelled on Haydn's recapitulations.

I don't claim to know a note of Albrechtsberger's music, which includes seven concertos for Jew's harp. But I doubt it had as much impact on Beethoven's development as the music of Haydn.

[XYZBach]

There is a risk of anachronism here. Worth remembering I think Bach wasn't as famous in his own lifetime or after (when he was known as a keyboard player and teacher) as he is today. Consider the fate of the Brandenburg Concertos and the evidence we have that Bach spent a lot of time auditioning for work.

Whilst Haydn and Mozart were "Bach fans" they had to go to quite great lengths to find manuscripts, they weren't *that* familiar with most of his output and they were obviously experts with regard to the musical scene of their day (Mozart you may recall is on the record as saying he never got any credit for how hard he studied, such was his 'effortless genius' reputation, studying other composers was something he did a great deal of). Beethoven also spoke of Bach but you must remember this is trade talk amongst professionals, he said a lot of things about an awful lot of composers (I believe I'm correct in saying Beethoven late in life at least was most enamoured of Handel). Bach's modern day popular reputation begins with the Mendelssohn "rediscovery" of Bach when he became more famed by some margin than ever before. Bach, in a weird way, could be argued to be an artist of the 19th century for that reason, if you want to find what he influenced directly it might be better to look after 1829 than before. This is not to say he had no effect on music, but it will be I'd suggest in terms of the people he taught and the people they taught etc. and his contribution to the 'tapestry' of ideas and so on.

This is not really comparable with Beethoven's massive, almost overbearing, presence that so afflicted Brahms amongst others and which persists to this day really.

You don't of course have to be famous to be influential but in the days before recordings and cheap printing its obviously a precondition that people have to hear or see your music first.

[quintett op.57]

There is a risk of anachronism here. Worth remembering I think Bach wasn't as famous in his own lifetime or after (when he was known as a keyboard player and teacher) as he is today. Consider the fate of the Brandenburg Concertos and the evidence we have that Bach spent a lot of time auditioning for work.

Whilst Haydn and Mozart were "Bach fans" they had to go to quite great lengths to find manuscripts.

The cases of Haydn & Mozart are very different.

Regarding Haydn, I'm not sure he was influenced by Bach at all. He studied mainly Fux and was very influenced by Händel at the end of his carrier.
Carl Philip Emmanuel Bach was surely much more important for him than JS.

But mozart didn't need to search for Bach's music, it came to him thanks to van Swieten (together with Händel's).
The influence of Bach, especially in Mozart's latest works is enormous, maybe as important as Haydn's.

This is not really comparable with Beethoven's massive, almost overbearing, presence that so afflicted Brahms amongst others and which persists to this day really.

Bach's influence persists to this day as well.

[(poco) Sforzando]

There is a risk of anachronism here. Worth remembering I think Bach wasn't as famous in his own lifetime or after (when he was known as a keyboard player and teacher) as he is today. Consider the fate of the Brandenburg Concertos and the evidence we have that Bach spent a lot of time auditioning for work.

Whilst Haydn and Mozart were "Bach fans" they had to go to quite great lengths to find manuscripts, they weren't *that* familiar with most of his output and they were obviously experts with regard to the musical scene of their day (Mozart you may recall is on the record as saying he never got any credit for how hard he studied, such was his 'effortless genius' reputation, studying other composers was something he did a great deal of). Beethoven also spoke of Bach but you must remember this is trade talk amongst professionals, he said a lot of things about an awful lot of composers (I believe I'm correct in saying Beethoven late in life at least was most enamoured of Handel). Bach's modern day popular reputation begins with the Mendelssohn "rediscovery" of Bach when he became more famed by some margin than ever before. Bach, in a weird way, could be argued to be an artist of the 19th century for that reason, if you want to find what he influenced directly it might be better to look after 1829 than before. This is not to say he had no effect on music, but it will be I'd suggest in terms of the people he taught and the people they taught etc. and his contribution to the 'tapestry' of ideas and so on.

This is not really comparable with Beethoven's massive, almost overbearing, presence that so afflicted Brahms amongst others and which persists to this day really.

You don't of course have to be famous to be influential but in the days before recordings and cheap printing its obviously a precondition that people have to hear or see your music first.

Much of what you say is valid, but as a young keyboard student Beethoven grew up playing the Well-tempered Clavier as his primary source of musical material, and this would give him a well-rounded understanding of Bach's style. Much of Bach's church music was forgotten shortly after his death, that's true, but to say he was known "as a keyboard player and teacher" is to discount the fact that there were no strict lines between composer and performer as we would expect today. Some of Bach's keyboard music was expressly designed as educational, so the teacher and the composer were one.