Richard Wagner: The Greatest Influence on Western Music?

[BachQ]

Like Charles Murray, in "Human Accomplishment", listing the greatest composers in order on a scale of 1-100 (1. Beethoven 2. Mozart 3. Wagner can't remember the rest). It was just dumb.

We're talking "influence", not "greatness" . . . . . .


(there's a difference)

[BachQ]

pffffffffff!
How come there is no ... Handel  ....

Handel is actually no. 27  (this list cuts off at 25 -- arbitrary on my part)

[karlhenning]

We're talking "influence", not "greatness" . . . . . .

(there's a difference)

Very true, mon vieux.

The whole influence question is a large discussion, as earlier posts have opened up.

[BachQ]

Wagner above Bach?! Seriously?

On the old board, the scope and extent of Wagner's influence surfaced regularly . . . . . and it was almost assumed that he had everyone else beat . . . . .

And when I argued that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. composed in virtually every genre (while Wagner limited himself to opera) and that their influence was correspondingly greater, Wagnerites would counter that Wagner's influence was "so pervasive that it transcended genres" . . . . . .

Well, prove it.  I'm still waiting . . . . . .

[BachQ]

It's not a foolish or futile exercise, unless one wants to arrive at an end result with mathematical exactitude.

The real value of this "study" is not the actually ranking (which, as Gurn points out, is not achievable), but rather on the detail underlying the ranking; specifically, the upstream and downstream influences . . . . . . .

I've often wondered, for example, who was influenced by Ravel?  Well, this website provides a starting point.

[BachQ]

To some extent, you can indeed measure--or at least note--influence, based on the writings and recorded conversations of composers and of course similarities in their work and the adoption by a bunch of composers of a new style or genre opened up by another. Studying all that would probably be a very illuminating musico-historical exercise.

That's exactly correct.  For example, Bruckner readily and repeated admitted that he idolized Wagner, and that Wagner was his most powerful, passionate influence . . . . . . .

Thus, determining influence is often not a matter of conjecture, but rather a matter of factual investigation . . . . . .

[BachQ]

This thread is starting to remind me of the page that was ripped out of the textbook in "Dead Poets Society".

Thank you for bumping this thread.

Much appreciated.

[Danny]

On the old board, the scope and extent of Wagner's influence surfaced regularly . . . . . and it was almost assumed that he had everyone else beat . . . . .

And when I argued that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. composed in virtually every genre (while Wagner limited himself to opera) and that their influence was correspondingly greater, Wagnerites would counter that Wagner's influence was "so pervasive that it transcended genres" . . . . . .

Well, prove it.  I'm still waiting . . . . . .

Well, he did inspire Bruckner.........................  

[BachQ]

I wonder if 'influence' included where certain composers disliked another's works so intently that they worked away from the detested style...Debussy and Wagner are one such where the younger composer reviled the composition of the older and attempted to produce work that was different as against 'the school of'.

Mike

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

[JoshLilly]

Wagner wrote at least 3 piano sonatas. He also finished one symphony (there are two versions, as he revised it later in life), and two movements of a 2nd. I really, really love both of these. I think he would have been a magnificent symphonist. His 2nd Piano Sonata is just awesome.

[BachQ]

Well, he did inspire Bruckner.........................  

LOL 

VERY TRUE!

[knight66]

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

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 wish I could recall the piece I sang in, it was based on words by Ossian, a story there as there was no such person. James Mac Pherson basically invented him and pretended to have discovered these texts by an ancient Celtic bard....the writings had quite an influence in 19th Cent Europe, but evidently did not sufficiently impress themselves on me that I recall the name of the work.

He has a couple of symphonies and they are worth a spin.

Mike

[BachQ]

I simply cannot comprehend the relative positioning of Stravinski over Mozart!

Stravinsky's influence was indeed potent and pervasive:

Stravinsky has influenced:  [G ANTHEIL]; Barber; -Bartók; Berio; Berkeley; Bernstein; [H Birtwistle]; Bliss; Blitzstein; Boulez; Britten; Carter; Casella; Chávez; Copland; Creston; Diamond; Dutilleux; [W Egk]; -Falla; Fine; [W Fortner]; Foss; Françaix; Ginastera; KA Hartmann; Henze; Hindemith; Holmboe; -Holst; Husa; Ibert; -Ireland; [L Kirchner]; KRAFT; Krenek; Lambert; Ligeti; Lutoslawski; Malipiero; MARTINU; McPhee; Menotti; Messiaen; Nancarrow; ORFF; Petrassi; Piston; POULENC; Powell; Prokofiev; -Puccini; -Ravel; Reich; Rochberg; Rodrigo; -Roussel; Schuller; Sessions; Shchedrin; Shostakovich; [N Skalkottas]; Szymanowski; Tavener; Thomson; Tippett; Varèse; Villa-Lobos; Walton; Weill; Wuorinen; [BA Zimmermann]

Mozart has influenced :Argento; Beethoven; +Bellini; +++Berkeley; ++Bizet; Boieldieu; ++Brahms; ++Bruckner; ++Busoni; Carulli; Cherubini; +Chopin; -Cimarosa; -Clementi; +++Corigliano; -Dittersdorf; ++Dvorák; -J Haydn; +++Henze; HUMMEL; ++Leoncavallo; ++Mascagni; Mayr; +Mendelssohn; +Meyerbeer; +Nicolai; ++Nielsen; ++Offenbach; +++Poulenc; ++Puccini; ++Ravel; ++Reger; Reicha; ++Rimsky-Korsakov; ROSSINI; ++Saint-Saëns; ++Schoenberg; +Schubert; Sor; SPOHR; Spontini; ++R Strauss; ++Stravinsky; ++TCHAIKOVSKY; -Viotti; +Wagner; Weber; +++Weill; ++Wolf-Ferrari; [+++BA Zimmermann]



(again, this listing is just a starting point . . . . . not the Holy Grail  )

[Lady Chatterley]

Well, he did inspire Bruckner......................... 

And Dvorak,Max Bruch,Janacek,Richard Strauss,etc etc.

[Steve]

While most persons here seem to reject the thought of giving any kind of validity to this survey, the basic question of influence truly is an incredibly tricky one. Unlike artistic greatness, influence would seem to lend itself to this sort of objective analysis. After further study, it becomes apparent how difficult creating a framework for the concept of influence can be. Is one simply to look at the number of composers/works that embrace the stylings of a particular artist? In that case, as it has been suggested elsewhere on this thread, Mozart, for example, found himself at the end of an era, and those that came after him belonged to an entirely new tradition, and so his influence could not be as significant 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. That certainly is the understanding of "influence" which motivate this study. Consider Mozart, for a moment. Even into the High Classical Period, the symphony was still thought of a secondary piece used to properly frame some more significant vocal work. He helped to establish the symphony firmly in concert repotoire, where it has remained since. Look at the incredible compositions for the horns and violin. Mozart simply help develop and establish many different genres of music more firmly in the eyes of the music-going public. While we cannot often point to slews of composers who arrived on the scene after the death of Mozart who embrace his stylings wholehartedly, it would be hard to imagine the state of Western Music, without the contributions of Mozart. That is another idea of influence. One could have a lengthy debate of how to construct the appropriate framework for understanding a composer's influence, but this is at best, only one of them.

[Lady Chatterley]

While most persons here seem to reject the thought of giving any kind of validity to this survey, the basic question of influence truly is an incredibly tricky one. Unlike artistic greatness, influence would seem to lend itself to this sort of objective analysis. After further study, it becomes apparent how difficult creating a framework for the concept of influence can be. Is one simply to look at the number of composers/works that embrace the stylings of a particular artist? In that case, as it has been suggested elsewhere on this thread, Mozart, for example, found himself at the end of an era, and those that came after him belonged to an entirely new tradition, and so his influence could not be as significant 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. That certainly is the understanding of "influence" which motivate this study. Consider Mozart, for a moment. Even into the High Classical Period, the symphony was still thought of a secondary piece used to properly frame some more significant vocal work. He helped to establish the symphony firmly in concert repotoire, where it has remained since. Look at the incredible compositions for the horns and violin. Mozart simply help develop and establish many different genres of music more firmly in the eyes of the music-going public. While we cannot often point to slews of composers who arrived on the scene after the death of Mozart who embrace his stylings wholehartedly, it would be hard to imagine the state of Western Music, without the contributions of Mozart. That is another idea of influence. One could have a lengthy debate of how to construct the appropriate framework for understanding a composer's influence, but this is at best, only one of them.

Yes,absolutely right.

[BachQ]

The thing about statistical analysis is that it is so easy to manipulate the results by adding or discarding criteria which is why the whole exercise is meaningless. 

That's true.

If, for example, JBuck (from the old board) had controlled the results, you can bet that Bach would rank above Wagner . . . . . .  

[BachQ]

Although Bach may not have changed the course of Western music the way Beethoven did, his influence is so deep and pervasive that it's silly to say that he has had less influence or less important influence on other composers.  Also, we have to consider that Bach's influence was more deeply felt by those who came after him than his contemporaries who probably regarded his music as "old fashioned."

No argument from me.   

[BachQ]

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.

Mozart's "revolution" was less obvious and more subtle: he showed the world (and subsequent composers) that it's possible to compose towering, perfect music that withstands the scrutiny of sophisticated musicians while simultaneously appealing to the intellect and emotion of everyday listeners.

One doesn't have to invent new genres to be considered revolutionary or influential . . . . . ..

[lukeottevanger]

And...Janacek....

You think? He was pretty irrelevant to Janacek, in fact. The writings of Janacek hardly mention his name, certainly there's nothing to suggest any strong connection. One of the hardest things for some Wagner-lovers to realise is that to many composers, Wagner is not this giant looming shadow/influence, in either a positive or a negative sense (I don't think they mind which, as long as everyone else is in some sense subservient to him! ). For many composers, Wagner is simply is another fellow-musician working in a different sphere. Though both Janacek and Wagner were opera composers above all, they couldn't have been futher apart in their aims, aesthetics and concerns.

But then Janacek is a peculiar case, less influenced by others than almost any other composer I can think of (obviously elements of Smetana and Dvorak, for different reasons; later he was particularly interested in Debussy, Berg, Hindemith, Puccini, and there are elements of all these traceable in places...) and directly influencing almost no one except Pavel Haas, perhaps Gideon Klein, maybe others of that lost generation. Oh, and Stephen Dodgson, apparently! And yet, despite this, he is still a major figure, of great stature. On his own he illustrates quite how little link there is between influence and importance. Which is one good reason for me not to find this thread peculiar.

The other reason, quite simply, is that 'influence' is the subtlest of things and completely impossible to quantify, if only, and without taking it any further, because we can never know all that goes on in a composer's mind. I couldn't list you all the composers that have influenced me as a composer - it's an impossible, shifting picture (today it is Satie, FWIW ) - so I sure as hell wouldn't hazard a guess beyond the most patently obvious about who exactly has influenced everyone else, and to precisely what degree.