# Between Beethoven & 20c



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*What do you consider to be the most historically significant composition between the death of Beethoven and the start of the Twentieth Century?*

This was a topic of discusssion between me and my (knowledgeable, musically astute, classically-trained, etc. etc.) wife not long ago. We came to different conclusions. 
I think this seems like a worthy topic for post #400.

The easy semantical parse to this would be to say "what do you _mean_ by "historically significant?" I don't want to go there... please apply your own judgement to the phrase. [And] hopefully, at least for a while... 
you talk- I'll listen. Thanks... CTP


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2008)

Too late, Chi, you've already gone there by starting this thread.

But I have another question, also difficult to answer, and then one after that that's perhaps unanswerable. We'll see, I guess.

1) Do you have any idea how many pieces were written between Beethoven's death and the beginning of the twentieth century?

2) What will you know once everyone has interpreted "historically significant" in their own way and then offered up an answer? (Hmmm. Come to think of it, this may actually turn out to be easy to answer. I've come up with one or two myself already as I've been typing. )


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

He wants us to name some Wagner opera.


----------



## BuddhaBandit (Dec 31, 2007)

Come on guys... two posts and no answers? Although I do find Opus's comment rather funny...

So here's my vote:

*Anton Bruckner's Fifth Symphony*

Why? Well...

1. The sheer 65-minute length of it- I've heard the act of listening to it referred to as "a pilgrimage". I think that's an accurate description.

2. The pathos- not a Tchaikovsky "Pathétique"-type pathos, but a more genuine, almost academic pathos. Much more subtle than most of the standard romantic repertoire.

3. The frequent atonal passages. While the piece is firmly tonal, Bruckner often drifts into dreamy, impressionistic phrases.

I find it hard to listen to Mahler, Schoenberg, and Bartòk without being reminded of Bruckner's symphonies, especially the glorious Fifth. So, no, my vote does not go to _Gotterdammerung_ or even _Prelude à l'après midi d'un faune_; I'm squarely in Bruckner's camp here.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

BuddhaBandit said:


> Come on guys... two posts and no answers? Although I do find Opus's comment rather funny...
> 
> So here's my vote:
> 
> *Anton Bruckner's Fifth Symphony*


and this is somehow "historically important"? What about his 3rd symphony, his 8th, or 9th? They must be equally if not more "historically important" right?



BuddhaBandit said:


> 1. The sheer 65-minute length of it- I've heard the act of listening to it referred to as "a pilgrimage". I think that's an accurate description.


1. "a pilgrimage" is not an accurate description, because a symphony can never be "described" by a single acting of anything. Your friend has mislead you into thinking that this symphony is somehow related to Faith. Just because some people call it by the title "church of faith"(which really makes no sense anyway, since Bruckner never include explicit religious materials in his symphonies).



BuddhaBandit said:


> 2. The pathos- not a Tchaikovsky "Pathétique"-type pathos, but a more genuine, almost academic pathos. Much more subtle than most of the standard romantic repertoire.


There is only one kind of Pathos, the kind that has something to do with emotion. Surely, one gets all sort of emotions from listening to Bruckner 5th, but i am not sure "pathos" is the right word to use. As for "academic pathos" i have no clue what that is, and don't know why you are making all this up.



BuddhaBandit said:


> 3. The frequent atonal passages. While the piece is firmly tonal, Bruckner often drifts into dreamy, impressionistic phrases.


frequent? where? I have in my possession a full orchestral score of Bruckner's 5th symphony published by Musikwissenschftlicher Verlag der Int.Bruckner-Gesellschaft Wien. Would you show me where those "atonal" passages are? Provide me with the bar numbers please. If not, at least give me descriptions of where these supposedly "atonal" passages occurred.



BuddhaBandit said:


> I find it hard to listen to Mahler, Schoenberg, and Bartòk without being reminded of Bruckner's symphonies, especially the glorious Fifth. So, no, my vote does not go to _Gotterdammerung_ or even _Prelude à l'après midi d'un faune_; I'm squarely in Bruckner's camp here.


Really? Well, on the contrary, I never think of those composers. I dunno, maybe there isn't that strong of connection between them? People tend to connect Mahler to Bruckner, because Mahler supposedly admired the man greatly (as a teacher btw, not a composer). The truth is that Mahler really didn't absorb that much Bruckner in his music.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Let's see... three responses, one answer, and two more questions.


some guy said:


> 1) Do you have any idea how many pieces were written between Beethoven's death and the beginning of the twentieth century?


No. I am, however, taking the "leap-of-faith" that the vast majority of non-repertory works in that time span are non-repertory for valid reasons.


some guy said:


> 2) What will you know once everyone has interpreted "historically significant" in their own way and then offered up an answer? (Hmmm. Come to think of it, this may actually turn out to be easy to answer. I've come up with one or two myself already as I've been typing. )


If respondents provide the reasoning for their conclusions, I will know more than I did before...

@ *BuddhaBandit*: Thank you for addressing the question. 
@ *Gustav* (suppressing desire to quote the "John McEnroe Stockholm Open 'sound-bite'") : I know you're pretty good with the wrecking ball- would you care to take a turn at the erector crane?


----------



## BuddhaBandit (Dec 31, 2007)

@ Gustav: 1. A metaphorical pilgrimage (the Bunyan of music, if you will); 2. Pathos, like anything else, can have different "shades"; 3. The wispy string sections in the second movement, and the short woodwind solos. Each section lasts no longer than 8-12 bars, but they're darn effective; 4. I answered the question, gave my reasons, and thus, après Malle, "Au revoir, les enfants".

@ Chi: A very pithy response


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> *What do you consider to be the most historically significant composition between the death of Beethoven and the start of the Twentieth Century?*


I would have thought Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique would get a look in....Considering how advanced it was for the time it was written....


----------



## Gustel (Apr 14, 2008)

BuddhaBandit said:


> @ Gustav: 1. A metaphorical pilgrimage (the Bunyan of music, if you will);


Okay



BuddhaBandit said:


> 2. Pathos, like anything else, can have different "shades";


then "Shades" should be the better word, it's much less confusing.



BuddhaBandit said:


> 3. The wispy string sections in the second movement, and the short woodwind solos. Each section lasts no longer than 8-12 bars, but they're darn effective;


Yeah, i think you are mistaking things, getting things all mixed up. Since, "Atonal" is this BIG word meaning that a piece should have a tonal focus a "key", so if you are jut talking about passages, the word "dissonant" should be more appropriete.


----------



## Gustel (Apr 14, 2008)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> @ *Gustav* (suppressing desire to quote the "John McEnroe Stockholm Open 'sound-bite'") : I know you're pretty good with the wrecking ball- would you care to take a turn at the erector crane?


I do not do the "wrecking ball", I merely discuss, asking questions, and generally being interested in how people arrive at their responses.

As for the main question, well I might have to go with Wagner. Piece? Tristan und Isolde probably, just the opening is enough for me to persuade anyone that it is the most historically important piece! Why? Because he began to stretch tonality, doing new things, crazy, unconventional things, and why is that good? Because, Mahler, Bruckner, Walter, Wolf, etc.... they all love Wagner for his innovativeness. Needless to say, music drama (opera) changed for ever, and to a larger extend music (the expanding of the orchestra). Without Wagner you will never get Mahler's symphonies, Bruckner's late symphonies, and Strauss. So, This is what i consider as the most historically significant composition.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

Wagner and Debussy are the only two that really can be considered. That said, I don't personally like Debussy.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

I see that “Gustav” has undergone an overnight change to “Gustel”. 

"Gustel"s answer - Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde - is the obvious one. Wagner was among the most influential of composers and the Tristan "chord" is what really got things moving in a new direction, despite one or two previous attempts by Liszt. 

The thing is that, in my experience, Wagner is an acquired taste, and many of the (I presume predominantly young) members of this Board may not have progressed that far on their musical journey. I know that I was never keen on Wagner for many years. Eventually, however, the penny dropped and now I appreciate his music a great deal more, although I'm certainly not a Wagnerite by any stretch of the imagination. I still find a lot of his work too tedious and repetitive to listen through completely, although there are many individual sections which are sublime, and a match for anything produced by the best of the rest. Let's hope we can keep other aspects of Wagner's claim to fame out of any further discussion.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Yagan Kiely said:


> Wagner and Debussy are the only two that really can be considered. That said, I don't personally like Debussy.


That's a really perceptive distinction, YK. One can acknowledge a composer's influence, even if said influence doesn't resonate with you on an aesthetic level.

That being said... which Wagner _werk_ would you cite... and (more interestingly to me)- which pre-20th century Debussy piece would you cite?


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2008)

You all do know, do you not, that the "Tristan Chord" so-called was lifted by Wagner straight from Berlioz' Romeo and Juliet symphony, which Wagner admired no end. (But once he'd stolen from it, being Wagner, after all, he would downplay Berlioz and Berlioz' influence on him.)

As for Wagner and Debussy being the only two that can be considered, well, obviously (I would think it obvious) one would have _had_ to have considered everyone else in order to narrow things down to those two, eh?


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

some guy said:


> You all do know, do you not, that the "Tristan Chord" so-called was lifted by Wagner straight from Berlioz' Romeo and Juliet symphony, which Wagner admired no end. (But once he'd stolen from it, being Wagner, after all, he would downplay Berlioz and Berlioz' influence on him.)


Possibly he did. No-one suggests that Wagner invented dissonance. There are dissonant chords in Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann. Liszt, and I daresay Berlioz too. In the case of the "Tristan chord" it's where Wagner placed it i.e. at the very beginning of the work, not part way through it, like the predecessors. Moreover, the work never really resolves into a stable key. The ensuing tonal instability was novel and that's why it's generally held to be of major significance in the evolution of music, i.e. elevating dissonance as a central pillar of composition and paving the way for a completely new musical architecture of atonality under Shoenberg years later. I'm not saying anything novel here. It's basic stuff that any music student will know inside out.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2008)

Artemis said:


> Possibly he did.


There's no "possibly" about it.



Artemis said:


> No-one suggests that Wagner invented dissonance.


Nor was I suggesting that anyone had. Just pointing out a wee bit fact that's perhaps not basic stuff that any music student knows inside out. I certainly would not dispute the significance of how Wagner _used_ that chord.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

some guy said:


> Just pointing out a wee bit fact that's perhaps not basic stuff that any music student knows inside out. I certainly would not dispute the significance of how Wagner _used_ that chord.


Fine. May I just add that I'm just playing along with the drift of this thread, trying to support a former colleague (now sadly no longer here, and who I will miss) who made a perfectly sensible and respectable argument for Wagner's Tristan und Isolde. In my experience, this is normally the single work which attracts most support among people who speculate on these matters. I should say as well that, apart from Tristan's novel tonal structure, it is a very fine work in its own work, perhaps Wagner's best single music drama. Moreover, Wagner's orchestration ability is second to none. Many later composers were deeply admiring of Wagner's music for all manner of musical reasons, and they wrote about in their own memoirs. That's why Tristan is a likely contender for top spot. Again, there's nothing new here. It's completely old hat, which I must have seen arise in discussion on at least on a dozen previous Music Boards.


----------

