Richard Wagner: The Greatest Influence on Western Music?

[Haffner]

I wonder if Mahler was in one of his sardonic moods when he proclaimed:

"There was only Beethoven and Wagner [and] after them, nobody"


               --     Gustav Mahler

It seems kind of silly. What about Mahler himself (granted, he was probably humble). Verdi, Puccini, Rossini,Schumann,Grieg, Brahms,Mendellssohn,Berlioz, etc.etc. I'm pretty sure Schoenberg was into his revolutionary phase before Mahler's death...

[Haffner]

i think mahler was right.

Maybe, but let's include Mahler in his own list!

[anasazi]

It seems I read that Wagner was influential at the time he was alive at least.  But I would contend that it was Debussy whose influence we are feeling now.  And I am clearly not limiting that influence to classical music alone.  Jazz and various popular music also own Claude a lot of gratitude. Wagner seems now to have been kind of the summation of German romantic classical music, especially opera.  Debussy offered a new direction.

[longears]

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"). 

Sorry, D...on the face of it this was so absurd that I just had to investigate.  Not really a university study; rather a list by a librarian at Western Kentucky University (isn't that a normal school that's glorified itself by misapplication of the term "university?") purporting some quantifiable objective basis for his prejudices.  The linked site looks like fun, however!

[BachQ]

Sorry, D...on the face of it this was so absurd that I just had to investigate.  Not really a university study; rather a list by a librarian at Western Kentucky University (isn't that a normal school that's glorified itself by misapplication of the term "university?") purporting some quantifiable objective basis for his prejudices.  The linked site looks like fun, however!

Yeah, absurd and fun.  Again, the real value (if any) is in the observation of upstream and downstream influences for each specific composer, which I find very valuable.

No composer starts with a blank slate, thereby necessitating the reinvention of the wheel . . . . . . rather, each has been influenced positively or negatively by his/her predecessors.  And it deepens our appreciation and understanding of a composer's music to know these influences . . . . . . . although the subjective depth/degree of this influence cannot, of course, be quantified . . . . . .

[jochanaan]

I wonder if Mahler was in one of his sardonic moods when he proclaimed:

"There was only Beethoven and Wagner [and] after them, nobody"


               --     Gustav Mahler

"In the summer of 1896 Brahms and Mahler were out for a walk near Ischl.  They came to a bridge and stood silently gazing at the foaming mountain stream.  A moment before they had been heatedly debating the future of music, and Brahms had had hard things to say of the younger generation of musicians.  Now they stood fascinated by the sight of water breaking in foam time after time over the stones.  Mahler looked upstream and pointed to the endless procession of swirling eddies.  'Which is the last?' he asked with a smile." --from Gustav Mahler: Memories and Letters by Alma Mahler, tr. Basil Creighton

[max]

I wonder if Mahler was in one of his sardonic moods when he proclaimed:

"There was only Beethoven and Wagner [and] after them, nobody"


               --     Gustav Mahler

I was aware of this quote for a long time and sometimes I wondered what the implications were. Both Beethoven and Wagner are 'epic' as regards nature, philosophy, the existential and within the latter, myth, psychology and our most potent ideals. The most overt musical expressions of these qualities were made by them. I don't know how well Mahler would have understood Bruckner or Berlioz. Performances, upon which these kind of works depend more than most, seldom did justice to the intents of the composer. Performances now are more 'archaeological' and precise and therefore we can hear more and 'know' more if we repeat the experience often enough.

I think Mahler had this in common with Wagner that he was not interested in music for music's sake but wished to incorporate - like a philosopher or poet would - these 'value-added' aspects within their own geodesic, in this case not words but sounds.

For these composers, sound became extramural. Mahler, as quoted, consciously or not, included himself as the 3rd member in the triumvirate.

To these composers, it was not so much the singular aspect of music but the Vision Quest which counted as reiterated through music.

These composers, and a few which Mahler did not name, had more on their minds than writing music only. That talent would have been only the beginning! Mahler's 1st symphony is already a brilliant departure from any 'Categorical Imperative' of music.

[sonic1]

THis list is silly. No Frank Zappa. Bah!

[BachQ]

THis list is silly. No Frank Zappa. Bah!

Hey, Jared . . . . . . . Welcome to the new GMG board . . . . . .

[zamyrabyrd]

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.

Very interesting, JoshLilly and well said. I'll get into this thread when I have more time but just superficially, Salieri was Schubert's teacher during his adolescence and Beethoven's from 1800-1802. So teachers like Nadia Boulanger, not just composers, influence music history and development. Also Clementi pointed the way to the possibilities of writing for the piano in the Romantic era. His developments (though I find most of the music quite boring) are quite apparent in Beethoven's sonatas and piano concertos rather than coming from Mozart who was more of a culmination.

ZB

[BachQ]

Very interesting, JoshLilly and well said. I'll get into this thread when I have more time but just superficially, Salieri was Schubert's teacher during his adolescence and Beethoven's from 1800-1802. So teachers like Nadia Boulanger, not just composers, influence music history and development. Also Clementi pointed the way to the possibilities of writing for the piano in the Romantic era. His developments (though I find most of the music quite boring) are quite apparent in Beethoven's sonatas and piano concertos rather than coming from Mozart who was more of a culmination.

ZB

Yes, you are quite correct, ZB.  Gurn and Jo discuss this a few pages back, where it is noted, e.g., that Salieri and Reicha were powerfully influential as teachers:

Antonio Salieri taught Beethoven, Schubert, Liszt, Czerny, Hummel, Moscheles, Franz Xavier Mozart, Süssmayr, Meyerbeer and others.



Anton Reicha taught Hector Berlioz, Franz Liszt, Charles Gounod, George Onslow, Ceasr Franck, . . . . .  (Reicha, in turn, studied under Michael Haydn).  Reicha also wrote a treatise Traité de haute composition musicale which was influential as well.

[Steve]

Interesting post, D minor 

[Ten thumbs]

Gounod might not have been a composer at all but for Fanny Hensel. Who knows?

[jochanaan]

...I don't know how well Mahler would have understood Bruckner or Berlioz...

I can't say about the Mahler-Berlioz connection--it seems obvious from the way they both orchestrated--but Mahler idolized Bruckner.  (He was at one time a student of Bruckner's, and that may well be a factor.)  Unfortunately this idolatry didn't stop him from touching up Bruckner's music whenever he performed it--but that was normal at the time.

[quintett op.57]

Fux was one of the most influential musicians ever

Maybe the most influential regarding counterpoint: Haydn taught himself counterpoint by reading his treatise Gradus ad Parnassum and then advised it to Mozart and Beethoven.

He was himself very influenced by Diruta (author of the treatise Il Transilvano) Palestrina and Corelli.
(Corelli being influential in different way : we consider his concerti grossi as the origin of symphony)

Really, instead of giving us an answer, this topic only showed us how ignorant we are and will remain.

[DavidW]

I wanted to add my two bits--

Schoenberg's adherence to classical forms even in some of his revolutionary works like his string quartet #2 puts him much closer to Brahms than Wagner.  If the people who posted who said that Schoenberg was influenced by Wagner (which I was convinced by earlier), I have to ask in what way?  If you mean in terms of chromaticism, then I would reply that was a trend of continuous change in harmonic structure seen across the 19th century and found it's zenith with Strauss and Schoenberg.  That is you can't put it on the shoulders of any one composer.  If you say with the sharp polyphonic textures in orchestral music, then I would say that was actually Mahler's innovation.  What is Wagner's influence on Schoenberg?  It seems to me that Brahms and Mahler played a stronger role on Schoenberg then Wagner.  Can someone tell me why that's not true?

Now Debussy-- the Impressionism movement was a neat break away from Germanic Romanticism, but it's not as dramatically different as people make it out to be.  It's still Romanticism, it's just a little more subtle.  Alot of change accompanied Debussy from composers acting in revulsion to Impressionism.  It was a nice start but not as revolutionary as people claim.

I read in a book by Copland, his idea of who the revolutionary was in the 19th century-- Mussorgvsky, his music stood apart from Germanic Romanticism in many ways.  Harmonically, melodically, rhythmically walked in a different world and inspired future generations of Russian composers.  What do y'all think of that?  You think there's truth to that or do you think that Copland is misguided?

[quintett op.57]

there are many ways that this can be looked at and approached....id say the big 3, Bach - Mozart & Beethoven have probably have had the largest influence and impact on western music overall. Followed by Wagner....Brahms was influencial but still harkened back to the big 3 (as most composers did!).....Debussy

they are at least 5 actually, don't forget Haydn and Handel because they're less popular nowadays.
And this is only the german part of the thing, the italian one being probably as important, or more.

And it's not because they are popular that they're more influential.

[quintett op.57]

Haydn & Handel are big ones too, can't disagree. Though, Id put the big 3 slightly ahead in terms of overall musical influence...

How do you know?
Handel's influence on Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven is huge.
Haydn's influence on Mozart, Beethoven and any composer of symphonies or quartets is huge as well

The influence of Handel's concerto grosso on the future (for him) symphony is huge.
The influence of Handel on any oratorio composer is huge.

I could tell more, but I think it's enough to consider that you have to be completely omniscient to say wether Haydn & Handel are more or less influential than any other very influential composer.

In fact, nobody knows anything. Unlike "who's the best" threads, this thread ask an objective question, but the person who has enough knowledge to answer does not exist.
Parts of the necessary knowledge have definitely disappeared.

[quintett op.57]

You're subjective.

Could you define what you call depth?
You're a Bach fan. So you can see Bach everywhere.

Can you just talk about what he invented that you can find in any composer after him?
And then compare with his contemporaries and predecessors?

You don't know enough, like everyone of us.
You have just a vague impression because you like it.

[quintett op.57]

depth as in musical content, not form....and it has nothing to do with whether i like Bach or not, what i have been saying is just common sense and widely known & universally recognized, its not some subjective conjecture im making up as a fan boy....ask any serious composer today (for starts), and research many of the greats of the past, its simply impossible to overlook the work of JSB.

and the works of many others