# Who are the ten most important musicians or composers from any period or genre?



## SanAntone

Louis Armstrong
Igor Stravinsky
J.S. Bach
Hank Williams
Robert Johnson
Charlie Parker
Claude Debussy
Arnold Schönberg
Miles Davis
Bill Monroe


----------



## Bulldog

JS Bach
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Dimitri Shostakovich
Gustav Mahler
Rosalyn Tureck
Gustav Leonhardt
Glenn Gould
Philippe Herreweghe
Leonard Bernstein
Paul Simon


----------



## Haydn70

Palestrina
Monteverdi
J.S. Bach
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Wagner
Brahms
Debussy
Stravinsky


----------



## SanAntone

Bulldog said:


> JS Bach
> Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
> Dimitri Shostakovich
> Gustav Mahler
> Rosalyn Tureck
> Gustav Leonhardt
> Glenn Gould
> Philippe Herreweghe
> Leonard Bernstein
> Paul Simon


Nice to see Bernstein included.



Haydn70 said:


> Palestrina
> Monteverdi
> J.S. Bach
> Haydn
> Mozart
> Beethoven
> Wagner
> Brahms
> Debussy
> Stravinsky


Also nice to see Palestrina.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Important in terms of what?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Where's the "who cares" option?

All the lists so far are (as expected) unforgivably biased towards Western (esp. American) popular and art music.


----------



## Conrad2

How does one determine which composers are the "most important", and why is 10 the "magic number"?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

OK well anyway here's the list, definitive and ordered:

Myself
Beethoven
JS Bach
My friend Abigail
Harry Partch
John Coltrane
Keith Mansfield
Antonio Carlos Jobim
Muddy Waters
Whoever made this


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Conrad2 said:


> How does one determine which composers are the "most important", and why is 10 the "magic number"?


10 fingers and 10 toes. God knew life would be two easy if our default mode was binary.


----------



## fbjim

I have a tragic lack of jazz knowledge. 

J.S. Bach
Ludwig van Beethoven
Claude Debussy
Arnold Schoenberg
Jimmie Rodgers
James Brown
Brian Eno
Kraftwerk
John Cage
Eric B/Rakim


Big honorable 20th century mentions to Richard Rodgers/Lorenz Hart, Giorgio Moroder, Derrick May, Frankie Knuckles, Phil Spector, and the Beatles.

As far as what people listen to today goes, I think Eno/Brown/Kraftwerk loom large over virtually everything that isn't country.


----------



## Red Terror

Bach
Beethoven
Wagner
Mozart
Brahms
Stravinsky
Bartok
Schoenberg
Debussy
Webern


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> I have a tragic lack of jazz knowledge.
> 
> J.S. Bach
> Ludwig van Beethoven
> Claude Debussy
> Arnold Schoenberg
> Jimmie Rodgers
> James Brown
> Brian Eno
> Kraftwerk
> John Cage
> Eric B/Rakim
> 
> Big honorable 20th century mentions to Richard Rodgers/Lorenz Hart, Giorgio Moroder, Derrick May, Frankie Knuckles, Phil Spector, and the Beatles.
> 
> As far as what people listen to today goes, I think Eno/Brown/Kraftwerk loom large over virtually everything that isn't country.


:tiphat: Jimmie Rodgers, James Brown, Rakim :tiphat:


----------



## arpeggio

I can tell you that the best symphony for band by Hindemith is his _Symphony in Bb_. Of course that is the only symphony he composed for band.


----------



## fbjim

By the way I'm really, *really* pegging one of my main musical interests with the Derrick May, Giorgio Moroder and Frankie Knuckles shoutouts, lol

(if you listed the most influential *music* of the 20th century, this would have to be in the top ten)


----------



## Agamenon

In terms of influence, innovation and as reference.

1.Beethoven.
2.Bach.
3.Wagner.
4.Debussy.
5.Stravinsky.
6.Bod Dylan,
7.Muddy Waters.
8.The Beatles.
9.The Rolling Stones.
10. Chuck Berry.


----------



## SanAntone

Agamenon said:


> In terms of influence, innovation and as reference.
> 
> 1.Beethoven.
> 2.Bach.
> 3.Wagner.
> 4.Debussy.
> 5.Stravinsky.
> 6.Bod Dylan,
> 7.Muddy Waters.
> 8.The Beatles.
> 9.The Rolling Stones.
> 10. Chuck Berry.


I like your list. It goes from classical composers to rock and blues artists in the 20th century. I tend to agree with your progression. Not a jazz fan?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Beethoven
Rachmaninoff
Mendelssohn
Donizetti
Wagner
Handel
Johnny Winter
Michael Sweet (of Stryper)
Oz Fox (of Stryper)
Johnny Cash


----------



## Josquin13

I take "important" to mean seminal, that is, those "musicians & composers" who have been most necessary to the broader history of music. Which reduces my list to only composers, except for The Beatles, who were hugely influential.

Hildegard von Bingen
John Dunstable
Johannes Ockeghem
Josquin des Prez
Claudio Monteverdi
J.S. Bach
F.J.Haydn
Ludwig van Beethoven
Claude Debussy
The Beatles

Additional: Staying with the 20th century, which deserves a list of its own--another top 15:

Arvo Pärt
Eric Clapton (The Cream, Blind Faith...)
Jimi Hendrix
Dmitri Shostakovich
Serge Prokofiev
Simon and Garfunkel
Igor Stravinsky
Miles Davis
Darius Milhaud
John Tavener
Arnold Schoenberg
Maurice Ravel
Yes
Duke Ellington
Rogers and Hammerstein


----------



## Phil loves classical

Monteverdi
Bach, C. P.
Haydn, J.
Beethoven
Debussy
Stravinsky
Charlie Patton
Louis Armstrong
Duke Ellington
The Beatles


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> Monteverdi
> Bach, C. P.
> Haydn, J.
> Beethoven
> Debussy
> Stravinsky
> Charlie Patton
> Louis Armstrong
> Duke Ellington
> The Beatles


Good to see Charlie Patton, and Satchmo, and The Duke, I agree 100% that these musicians were incredibly important. Also, no quarrel with the Beatles and the other classical composers, with the exception of C.P. Bach (sic).

While I understand Monteverdi being an important innovator regarding opera and madrigals, your inclusion of C.P.(E.) Bach is somewhat surprising.

Care to offer an explanation?


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> Good to see Charlie Patton, and Satchmo, and The Duke, I agree 100% that these musicians were incredibly important. Also, no quarrel with the Beatles and the other classical composers, with the exception of C.P. Bach (sic).
> 
> While I understand Monteverdi being an important innovator regarding opera and madrigals, your inclusion of C.P.(E.) Bach is somewhat surprising.
> 
> Care to offer an explanation?


I had both Bachs at one point, but then I remembered JS wasn't really that influential in his lifetime, so I dropped him to add one of those in the list. But CPE had a lot of influence on Haydn and Mozart.


----------



## Highwayman

Phil loves classical said:


> I had both Bachs at one point, but then I remembered JS wasn't really that influential in his lifetime, so I dropped him to add one of those in the list. But CPE had a lot of influence on Haydn and Mozart.


Wranitzky was an influential composer in his lifetime, we all know how it ends. I mean, being an influential composer through generations or even centuries is far more important than being influential for a limited amount of time, at least for me...


----------



## HenryPenfold

*Top 10 Composers* (in no particular Order, except #1)

1 *Beethoven*
2 Bruckner
3 Mahler
4 Sibelius
5 Messiaen
6 Varese
7 Britten
7 Scriabin
8 Vivaldi
9 Tchaikovsky
9 Debussy
10 Ravel

*Top 10 Musicians *(in no particular order)

1 Reginald Goodall
2 Holger Czukay
3 Jaco Pastorius
4 Bill Evans
4 Herbert von Karajan
5 Sergiu Celibidache
6 Ginger Baker
6 Leonard Bernstein
6. Don Van Vliet 
7 Jimi Hendrix
7 John Lydon
8 Ornette Coleman
8 Miles Davis
9 Freddie Mercury
9 Frank Sinatra
10 Frank Zappa
10 Tony Williams


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

1. Mozart
2. Bach
3. Schubert
4. Zappa
5. Sor
6. Randy Rhoads
7. Vernon Reid
8. Albeniz
9. Schnittke
10. Tom Waits
11. Nigel Tufnel


----------



## Phil loves classical

Highwayman said:


> Wranitzky was an influential composer in his lifetime, we all know how it ends. I mean, being an influential composer through generations or even centuries is far more important than being influential for a limited amount of time, at least for me...


Agree, but I'm wondering how influential JS Bach actually was or is. When Mendelssohn revived interest in Bach, people don't go out to write fugues, nor incorporated baroque style music. He is respected and loved like Mozart, but their influence is not nearly as wide as Beethoven's.


----------



## SanAntone

HenryPenfold said:


> *Top 10 Composers* (in no particular Order, except #1)
> 
> 1 *Beethoven*
> 2 Bruckner
> 3 Mahler
> 4 Sibelius
> 5 Messiaen
> 6 Varese
> 7 Britten
> 7 Scriabin
> 8 Vivaldi
> 9 Tchaikovsky
> 9 Debussy
> 10 Ravel
> 
> *Top 10 Musicians *(in no particular order)
> 
> 1 Reginald Goodall
> 2 Holger Czukay
> 3 Jaco Pastorius
> 4 Bill Evans
> 4 Herbert von Karajan
> 5 Sergiu Celibidache
> 6 Ginger Baker
> 6 Leonard Bernstein
> 6. Don Van Vliet
> 7 Jimi Hendrix
> 7 John Lydon
> 8 Ornette Coleman
> 8 Miles Davis
> 9 Freddie Mercury
> 9 Frank Sinatra
> 10 Frank Zappa
> 10 Tony Williams


Don't agree with some of your choices, but these are interesting lists.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree, but I'm wondering how influential JS Bach actually was or is. When Mendelssohn revived interest in Bach, people don't go out to write fugues, nor incorporated baroque style music. He is respected and loved like Mozart, but their influence is not nearly as wide as Beethoven's.


You seem to be equating importance with influential. I've never thought of it like that. For me, impact or force is what comes to mind when I think of who's important, and Bach is still a force to be reckoned with nearly 270 years after he died.


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree, but I'm wondering how influential JS Bach actually was or is. When Mendelssohn revived interest in Bach, people don't go out to write fugues, nor incorporated baroque style music. He is respected and loved like Mozart, but their influence is not nearly as wide as Beethoven's.


A weird comment considering both Mozart and Beethoven were familiar with Bach and influenced by him, as was Chopin, who arguably started Romanticism and was not particularly fond of Beethoven. Beethoven was highly influenced by Mozart and modelled many of his works off of him. Chopin and Tchaikovsky considered Mozart the greatest composer as did Brahms and I believe Wagner. Being influenced by someone does not necessarily mean one composes exactly the same style of music as they do. After Beethoven people didn't go out and compose classical symphonies. Liszt composed a piece after Bach, Mendelssohn was influenced by Bach, Brahms was influenced by Bach, Ravel and Debussy both revered Bach and Mozart and studied their music. Stravinsky's Dumbarton Oaks was influenced by Bach's Brandenburg concertos, Villa Lobos Bachianas Brasilieras were heavily influenced by Bach. One of the most recognized pieces of classical music in all of the 20th century is the adagio from Rodrigo's concerto Aranjuez, the melody in that work is almost exactly the same as the melody from the adagio from Bach's BwV 564. Bartok claimed his goal was to create a synthesis of music between Bach, Beethoven and Debussy, Bartok composed fugues, and his music is highly contrapuntal. Schoenberg was influenced by Bach and Mozart, Webern was heavily influenced by Bach.

Claiming Bach did not have much influence in music is one of the most ridiculous claims I've come across on this forum. I've only seen this position taken by you and PetrB, and neither of you enjoy Bach's music. There is nothing wrong with not enjoying his music, but trying to re-write music history based on your tastes is what it seems like you are doing.


----------



## tdc

Oh yes I almost forgot about Shosty's preludes and fugues, which I suspect were modelled on Bach's WTC.

Speaking of that, Charles Rosen argues in his book _The Classical Style_, that Bach had more impact on the origins of Romanticism than Beethoven, one example he cites are the arpeggio figurations in the first prelude of the WTC. The reason for this is that although Beethoven was revered he had taken classicism as far as it could go, so composers needed to look elsewhere for musical direction.

A similar thing happened with Bach and baroque music, there was really no place left to go within that aesthetic after Bach. When a style is essentially mastered then one must look elsewhere for new ideas. But to suggest that because of this Bach (or Beethoven) did not have much influence on music is erroneous.


----------



## Parley

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree, but I'm wondering how influential JS Bach actually was or is. When Mendelssohn revived interest in Bach, people don't go out to write fugues, nor incorporated baroque style music. He is respected and loved like Mozart, but their influence is not nearly as wide as Beethoven's.


Bach? Well he has influenced every major composer after him from Mozart to Duke Ellington. Even Paul McCartney says that he is influenced by his music


----------



## Phil loves classical

Parley said:


> Bach? Well he has influenced every major composer after him from Mozart to Duke Ellington. Even Paul McCartney says that he is influenced by his music


That's the story people like to say. But the influence of Bach on McCartney is nominal at best. And there are those who influenced JS Bach as well. I have much respect for JS as a composer, and think he achieves something special in his music. So I guess that is enough to say he is important, but on historical influence, which I think San Antone was right to point out on what I was after, I think not so much. The fugue was fully developed (or close to it) by the time he came onto the scene, and while he was easily the greatest master at it, fugues became much more rare after him. That's why I pick CPE Bach as having a greater influence, as Mozart more clearly acknowledged. He was one of the fathers of the Classical Period. Baroque and fugues existed before JS Bach. He may have had a hand in developing other forms, but so did many before and after him. I acknowledge he was one of the greatest geniuses in music, the greatest maybe, but his influence *on other composers* in my perspective is limited and dogmatic. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but with hard evidence.

Bach's influence on rock musicians that use his name as a banner is especially limited way I see it.

https://www.inlander.com/spokane/rock-and-bach/Content?oid=2699574


----------



## Parley

Phil loves classical said:


> *That's the story people like to say.* But the influence of Bach on McCartney is nominal at best. And there are those who influenced JS Bach as well. I have much respect for JS as a composer, and think he achieves something special in his music. So I guess that is enough to say he is important, but on historical influence, which I think San Antone was right to point out on what I was after, I think not so much. The fugue was fully developed (or close to it) by the time he came onto the scene, and while he was easily the greatest master at it, fugues became much more rare after him. That's why I pick CPE Bach as having a greater influence, as Mozart more clearly acknowledged. He was one of the fathers of the Classical Period. Baroque and fugues existed before JS Bach. I acknowledge he was one of the greatest geniuses in music, the greatest maybe, but his influence in my perspective is limited and dogmatic. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but with hard evidence.


"Bach was always one of our favourite composers," Paul McCartney once said in an interview in 1993.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Parley said:


> "Bach was always one of our favourite composers," Paul McCartney once said in an interview in 1993.


So they were Bach fans. But they were also Elvis, Chuck Berry, Stockhausen fans. The latter 3 have more direct impact on their music. The piccolo trumpet part that Paul heard was only for an instrumental solo, and really little to do with Bach, but more the baroque style, which he was exposed to through Bach. If there was a Beatle more directly influenced by Bach or just Classical in general, it was George Martin.


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> That's the story people like to say. But the influence of Bach on McCartney is nominal at best. And there are those who influenced JS Bach as well. I have much respect for JS as a composer, and think he achieves something special in his music. So I guess that is enough to say he is important, but on historical influence, which I think San Antone was right to point out on what I was after, I think not so much. The fugue was fully developed (or close to it) by the time he came onto the scene, and while he was easily the greatest master at it, fugues became much more rare after him. That's why I pick CPE Bach as having a greater influence, as Mozart more clearly acknowledged. He was one of the fathers of the Classical Period. Baroque and fugues existed before JS Bach. He may have had a hand in developing other forms, but so did many before and after him. I acknowledge he was one of the greatest geniuses in music, the greatest maybe, but his influence *on other composers* in my perspective is limited and dogmatic. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but with hard evidence.
> 
> Bach's influence on rock musicians that use his name as a banner is especially limited way I see it.
> 
> https://www.inlander.com/spokane/rock-and-bach/Content?oid=2699574


I already gave you hard evidence. You've ignored most of my main points. You ignored Rosen's thoughts. Bach redefined fugue and counterpoint, he became the benchmark. He made the keyboard concerto a viable genre. Early basic examples of sonata form can be found in the WTC.

If you are certain that CPE influenced music more can you list some modern works that are inspired or modelled after works by CPE the way I just demonstrated a bunch of modern composers works were directly influenced by Bach? What big names of the modern or even the romantic era name CPE as an influence?


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> but his influence *on other composers* in my perspective is limited and dogmatic. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but with hard evidence.


But you are the one not giving any hard evidence. Just an abstract claim that CPE somehow altered the trajectory of music more, even though he was not the only one at the time experimenting with the new sonata forms. Your entire argument is based on vague claims of influence mixed with speculation.


----------



## SanAntone

tdc said:


> I already gave you hard evidence. You've ignored most of my main points. You ignored Rosen's thoughts. Bach redefined fugue and counterpoint, he became the benchmark. He made the keyboard concerto a viable genre. Early basic examples of sonata form can be found in the WTC.
> 
> If you are certain that CPE influenced music more can you list some modern works that are inspired or modelled after works by CPE the way I just demonstrated a bunch of modern composers works were directly influenced by Bach? What big names of the modern or even the romantic era name CPE as an influence?


What has not been said is that many C20/21 composers have written contrapuntally, in fact, in the 20th century counterpoint made a resurgence because of the transition from tonal harmonic/homophonic writing to the more linear, post-tonal style. Also, suite forms have been used more often in the 20th century rather than sonata forms. This makes sense since the sonata form was defined by harmonic progression, whereas dance suites are not linked to harmonic movement so much as tempo and meter which can just as easily be achieved with non-tonal music.

It would seem that there is a strong argument that although Bach's style was eclipsed during the age of the sonata, it made a strong return post 19th century. Not only have composers paid homage to Bach with WTC-style keyboard works (Reger, Shostakovich, Hindemith) but there have also been several solo cello suites (Britten, Bloch, Reger).

Of course Bach was not the only Baroque composer to write suites or counterpoint - but he is arguably at the apogee of the Baroque style. Therefore when composers write using attirbutes of the Baroque style, they cannot help but be influenced by Bach.


----------



## fbjim

I'm always somewhat skeptical of artists interview statements on their own influences- this kind of comes from the more cynical days of the indie press stuff where it seems that literally everyone was listing "Spiderland" by Slint, or Big Star as major influences. Which is to say that I'd like to hear that kind of stuff in their music, and not from a statement which might just be them dropping names.


also I'd like to get a "most influential works" list going, just because I think that makes for more fun than entire oeuvres of work. That, and it'd be fun to have the Eroica on the same list as "I Feel Love" or James Brown's "Cold Sweat" or something.


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> *Baroque and fugues existed before JS Bach. He may have had a hand in developing other forms, but so did many before and after him.* I acknowledge he was one of the greatest geniuses in music, the greatest maybe, but his influence *on other composers* in my perspective is limited and dogmatic. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but with hard evidence.


Ok, but classical music, symphonies, string quartets and concertos all existed before Beethoven, and earlier you cited him as one of the most influential composers. You seem to hold Bach to different standards than Beethoven when you think of 'influence'.


----------



## Phil loves classical

tdc said:


> I already gave you hard evidence. You've ignored most of my main points. You ignored Rosen's thoughts. Bach redefined fugue and counterpoint, he became the benchmark. He made the keyboard concerto a viable genre. Early basic examples of sonata form can be found in the WTC.
> 
> If you are certain that CPE influenced music more can you list some modern works that are inspired or modelled after works by CPE the way I just demonstrated a bunch of modern composers works were directly influenced by Bach? What big names of the modern or even the romantic era name CPE as an influence?


Rosen's thought that Bach had more impact on the Romantic Era more than Beethoven? Yes, I'll ignore that. I'd rather hear fro the horse's mouth of Mozart on CPE Bach, who also influenced Beethoven more than CPE's dad did. How did Bach redefine counterpoint from Fux?



SanAntone said:


> What has not been said is that many C20/21 composers have written contrapuntally, in fact, in the 20th century counterpoint made a resurgence because of the transition from tonal harmonic/homophonic writing to the more linear, post-tonal style. Also, suite forms have been used more often in the 20th century rather than sonata forms. This makes sense since the sonata form was defined by harmonic progression, whereas dance suites are not linked to harmonic movement so much as tempo and meter which can just as easily be achieved with non-tonal music.
> 
> It would seem that there is a strong argument that although Bach's style was eclipsed during the age of the sonata, it made a strong return post 19th century. Not only have composers paid homage to Bach with WTC-style keyboard works (Reger, Shostakovich, Hindemith) but there have also been several solo cello suites (Britten, Bloch, Reger).
> 
> Of course Bach was not the only Baroque composer to write suites or counterpoint - but he is arguably at the apogee of the Baroque style. Therefore when composers write using attirbutes of the Baroque style, they cannot help but be influenced by Bach.


Agree with you and tdc there. Schoenberg also mentioned him. By that time, JS Bach may have become the embodiment of counterpoint or Baroque style. But I still think the general public are overstating Bach's contribution. He may be the culmination of counterpoint, but I don't see him as adding that much too what was there before. Just as Mozart may be the culmination of the Classical style while he didn't really reshape what was there already before.


----------



## Red Terror

Desprez
Monteverdi
Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Brahms
Wagner
Debussy
Schoenberg
Stravinsky
Bartok
Ligeti
Stockhausen


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> Rosen's thought that Bach had more impact on the Romantic Era more than Beethoven? Yes, I'll ignore that. I'd rather hear fro the horse's mouth of Mozart on CPE Bach, who also influenced Beethoven more than CPE's dad did. How did Bach redefine counterpoint from Fux?


But we also have evidence from the horses mouth that Mozart learned from J.S. Bach, we know that Beethoven played through both books of the WTC many times in his youth. Again you seem to be citing evidence that agrees with your view, and ignoring evidence that doesn't. Bach did not write a manual on counterpoint as Fux did, but he spoke through his music. Composers learn not solely through manuals but through analyzing scores. Bach did break some rules, and his style of counterpoint sounds different than anyone else's before him, and his style of counterpoint became influential.



Phil loves classical said:


> Agree with you and tdc there. Schoenberg also mentioned him. By that time, JS Bach may have become the embodiment of counterpoint or Baroque style. But I still think the general public are overstating Bach's contribution. He may be the culmination of counterpoint, but I don't see him as adding that much too what was there before. Just as Mozart may be the culmination of the Classical style while he didn't really reshape what was there already before.


When a new style of music emerges there will be a period where composers will work within that style until the ideas have been more or less exhausted. We will then see a time when composers are experimenting more and searching for new directions. This latter process is one in which many different things will be tried by many different composers until a new aesthetic starts to emerge. Many of these new things will be expansions of ideas of previous composers (like J.S. Bach and Mozart). Therefore the earlier composers are also contributing heavily to this evolution. According to your logic the only composers who were influential are the ones that happened to be living at a time when music was transitioning from one style to another, as though these transitional composers existed in a vacuum and were completely starting from scratch. That view is demonstrably false, and I have provided you with a lot of evidence to back up my claim. You have failed to provide much evidence for your ideas and are only accepting facts that align with your hypothesis.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ The question in my mind is how much influence that can specifically be attributed to JS Bach, not the embodiment of those that came before him or his contemporaries. I don't pretend to have a confident answer, as in one of my earlier posts. In the case of Mozart and Haydn it's pretty clear (to me at least) that it was JC and CPE that had much more direct influence. I have strong doubts JS had even as much influence as Handel on the Classical Era. But who cares? I'll assume JS had more. It's still a wild stretch to me that JS had more than CPE on Mozart's and Beethoven's style.

Here this part of influence is not specifically attributed to one composer "Progressively, and in large part at the hands of Mozart himself, the contrapuntal complexities of the late baroque emerged once more, moderated and disciplined by new forms, and adapted to a new aesthetic and social milieu."

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/musicappreciation_with_theory/chapter/w-a-mozart-his-works/

How much influence did JS Bach have on Stravinsky or Schoenberg? It's even more further removed than JS Bach on Mozart. How much influence specifically Bach's is on even this hommage piece by Bartok? I remember when I posted this on another thread one member (the only one who commented) couldn't hear any influence or similarity. It's just very general. Bach became an icon for all things Baroque or contrapuntal. It could easily have been an hommage to the less famous Rameau











https://en.chateauversailles-specta...ameau-geniuses-of-the-baroque-orchestra_e2336

Like I said I have huge respect for Bach having studied his keyboard music (whether or not I listen to him or like him as much as others doesn't change that). I haven't listed any of my favourite composers in this top 10 list and was ready to list JS in it, but others edged him out. It's not exact science anyway, so I really don't care if others have him in the top 10 or not.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I also think that Bach and later Palestrina became "icons" or "codes" to a considerable extent. They stood for what was perceived as THE learned high baroque or late renaissance style, respectively. It was hardly ever concrete pieces (like Beethoven's 5th on all the dramatic cyclic symphonies with triumphant turning point) or devices (or if so, only because Bach did mirror fugue or whatever particularly well). Because the influence is very rarely demonstrated on the level of detail we have for e.g. Mozart on Beethoven, Beethoven on Brahms etc. 

Another point for the "icon" character seems that Mozart and Beethoven frequently write "Bach and Handel" without distinction. Now it is obvious that Handel is in no way as thorough and sophisticated in counterpoint (or anywhere else) as Bach is but for Mozart or Beethoven this did not seem to matter much (and in both they apparently found something interesting beyond Fuxian counterpoint exercises). 
Of course, Handel's choral works were better known (Mozart arranged 4 of them but hardly knew any choral Bach, I think we only have that anecdote of the motet in Leipzig) and I don't think there is doubt that they were far more influential on the choral music of the classics (the Introitus of the Mozart Requiem is modelled at least as much on "The ways of Zion do mourn" as on the Requiem by M.Haydn and for several choruses in the c minor mass there are also specific paradigms by Handel Mozart worked with, this is documented by research and also easy to hear, "The people shall hear" is one example) but Beethoven probably knew at least parts of the b minor mass and the passions and when Mozart is writing about playing "nothing but Bach and Handel" at Van Swieten's he is very probably referring only to keyboard music.

This changed around the time of Schumann when Bach clearly became the general model for polyphony, Handel only for a certain kind of monumental choral work. Of course, there are still a lot of romantic composers (like Berlioz or most Italians and Russians) not much interested in either.
Counterpoint etc. is overall a far too general technique to credit later appareances mostly to specific Bachian influence.


----------



## tdc

Rick Beato's thoughts on the topic:

"His influence on all successive composers is unparalleled, and remains so to this day."
(at 1:03 of video)


----------



## SanAntone

Considering that every pianist studies the Well-Tempered Clavier, and every cellist studies the cello suites, as is the case for violinists with the sonatas and partitas ... Then there's the choral works: the B Minor Mass, St. Matthew Passion, the cantatas which are standard repertory, as are the Brandenburg Concerti ... The organ works are required repertory for any serious organist.

This all adds up to a composer whose importance, impact, and influence is inestimable.


----------



## Phil loves classical

tdc said:


> Rick Beato's thoughts on the topic:
> 
> "His influence on all successive composers is unparalleled, and remains so to this day."
> (at 1:03 of video)


Bach is a great composer, and an important one. But why this:

"His limitless musical explorations expressed the order of the physical and biological universe in exquisite mathematical precision and detail."

That's the sort of stuff creating the Bach myth. Babbitt wrote with much greater mathematical precision, and that quote applies to him way more than to Bach. It doesn't mean anything.

He had a great ear. The math works itself out with all great composers, as much as anyone wants to derive from the music. Just for fun:

Is Bach 
A) a mystic, 
B) a mathematician, 
C) a great musician
D) all of the above

As much as I want to pick D. I believe it's really just C.


----------



## Roger Knox

Palestrina
Monteverdi
J.S. Bach
Beethoven
Verdi
Wagner
Brahms
Debussy
Paul McCartney
Joni Mitchell


----------



## Kreisler jr

SanAntone said:


> Considering that every pianist studies the Well-Tempered Clavier, and every cellist studies the cello suites, as is the case for violinists with the sonatas and partitas ... Then there's the choral works: the B Minor Mass, St. Matthew Passion, the cantatas which are standard repertory, as are the Brandenburg Concerti ... The organ works are required repertory for any serious organist.


With such an argument *Czerny* is far more influential than given credit for because he is also extremely important for pianists...
And every pianist and violinist also studies pieces by Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, every singer does Schubert etc. this would not obviously give Bach a clear edge.

As far as professional public performances go, Bach was not even close to top until the second half of the 20th century and I actually doubt that even today his music is performed as often or more frequently than e.g. Beethoven, Mozart, Verdi, Brahms, Schubert and a few others. Bach thrives on records which is understandable (and shared by quite a few others) but the lack of opera and limited compatibility of Baroque with the typical symphony concert actually gives his music a disadvantages in a major section of 20th-2st century public performances.

I thought with "influence" people usually mean more or less direct influence on other _composers_. This is obviously often hard to measure. The direct influence of Bach was rather small because although the "Bach was forgotten" is an exaggerated legend, he was not a strong direct influence on many composers in the 2nd half of the 18th century (I'd go as far that even Joh. Chr. Bach's style was too remote from his father's to speak of influence; and I'd tend to phil's position that Joh. Chr. was a stronger influence on Mozart than Joh. Seb.) And with Beethoven and the 19th century his influence is often comparably subtle and indirect, compared to e.g. Beethoven, Wagner or Stravinsky where one can often point to many pieces directly and transparently indebted to models set by them. As there is no clear measure, it is difficult to compare a broad, long, slow and small influence to a more localized more direct influence.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree, but I'm wondering how influential JS Bach actually was or is. When Mendelssohn revived interest in Bach, people don't go out to write fugues, nor incorporated baroque style music. He is respected and loved like Mozart, but their influence is not nearly as wide as Beethoven's.










In terms of chromatic part-writing and tone rows, Bach and Mozart were more influential than Beethoven; Hans Keller wrote about the subject.
Beethoven's influence on the multitudes of Italian opera composers Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti, is also very limited. Verdi famously trashed his vocal writing.


----------



## tdc

Kreisler jr said:


> With such an argument *Czerny* is far more influential than given credit for because he is also extremely important for pianists...


Except Bach's pieces are also widely used as models for composition, (including by CPE Bach). Czerny's are not.



Kreisler jr said:


> his influence is often comparably subtle and indirect, compared to e.g. Beethoven, Wagner or Stravinsky where one can often point to many pieces directly and transparently indebted to models set by them.


Actually such pieces influenced by Bach are ubiquitous, I've mentioned a bunch of them in this thread already. Pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away. I just thought of another one, Berio - Sequenza VII.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> but Beethoven probably knew at least parts of the b minor mass and the passions and when Mozart is writing about playing "nothing but Bach and Handel" at Van Swieten's he is very probably referring only to keyboard music.


The Bach Motet that Inspired Mozart
https://thelistenersclub.com/2017/11/13/the-bach-motet-that-inspired-mozart/

and I wrote in another thread:

My impression is that Bach was one of the first baroque composers to benefit from early music revival that started taking place in the late 18th century. I think Mendelssohn's contribution to the revival is somewhat exaggerated. All he did was introducing Bach's passion to the wider public, but then nobody (aside from the connoisseurs) wanted to hear baroque music up until that time. Even if Mendelssohn didn't 'do it', I think other people would have 'done it' sooner or later.
"The Passion was performed under the Cantor of St. Thomas until about 1800. Specifically, in 1780, the Cantor, Doles, had three of Bach's Passions performed, assumed to include the St. John and St. Matthew, and "possibly the St. Luke"."

I speculate that Beethoven's knowledge of Bach would not have been extremely limited:
Beethoven from his childhood acquainted himself thoroughly with the Well-tempered clavier, then possibly with the Musical offering, and the Art of the fugue, (through van Swieten, just as Mozart did), and then in his Vienna years, Mass in B minor, (which became accessible to connoisseurs in Vienna from 1800). The Goldberg variations were published during Bach's lifetime (1741), and Beethoven modeled his Diabelli on them.

Pg. 68: "....From this standpoint, let us take yet another look at one of the works which Mozart studied intensively, the six-part Ricercar from Bach's A Musical Offering. Focus on the end of the opening statement (measures 9-11 in Figure 5.4): As the second voice enters, the first voice continues with a sequence of ascending fourths...."
Pg. 69: "....The first movement opens with a simple ascending C minor arpeggio, played forte, followed by a contrasting piano sequence consisting of a descending fifth G-C (inversion of a fourth), and a descending diminished seventh A˛- B˝-the same interval which marks the opening motivic statement of Bach's A Musical Offering (Figure 5.6)..."
"....The first voice descends in half-steps: G-Fˇ-F˝-E˝-E˛-D-again an explicit reference to the descending line in the opening of Bach's A Musical Offering. And, as with Bach's work, it is introduced as a mezzosoprano voice...."
<W.A. Mozart's Fantasy in C minor, K. 475, And the Generalization of the Lydian Principle Through Motivic Thorough-Composition by John Sigerson>






"The hypothesis that Mozart learned (presumably in 1782) from his study of the Art of Fugue how to combine a fugue subject with its own inversion ignores the composer's earlier experimentation with rectus and inversus combinations in the revision of the K. 173 finale and in the K. 401 keyboard fugue; there is, moreover, no firm evidence linking Mozart to The Art of Fugue. The only item left on this list, the "full exploitation of contrapuntal devices" in K. 426, is the one aspect of this work that is so atypical - for Mozart, his contemporaries and most of his predecessors - as to suggest the influence of J. S. Bach and no one else."
<Engaging Bach: The Keyboard Legacy from Marpurg to Mendelssohn, By Matthew Dirst, Matthew Charles Dirst, Page 78>






https://books.google.ca/books?id=8JkyP5AHK5cC&pg=PA434
a letter from van Swieten to Beethoven, dating from 1794, when Beethoven 23 years old: 
_Monday, December 15, 
Herr Beethoven
If you are not hindered this coming Wednesday, I wish to see you at my home at 8:30 in the evening with your nightcap in your bag. Give me your immediate answer.
Swieten_
Exposure to bach and Handel's music seems to have been important to Beethoven just as it had been to Mozart. Ferdinand Ries later wrote, "Of all composers, Beethoven valued Mozart and Handel most highly, then J. S. Bach."


----------



## hammeredklavier

"In the second of his 1931 essays on 'National Music', *Schoenberg acknowledged Bach and Mozart as his principal teachers* and told his readers why." <PA124>
Schoenberg: *"My teachers were primarily Bach and Mozart*, and secondarily Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner." <PA173>






"Strict Serial Technique in Classical Music" by Hans Keller is an interesting read regarding this topic. ( It's only 9 pages. You can read it online for free if you register)

Here's an excerpt from the article:
"we note that K 428 in E♭ is another quartet of which the youthful Schoenberg had acquired an intimate, inside knowledge. The canonic opening of the first movement's development section (Ex. 3), which exposes the twelve notes within the narrowest space, is a mature example of strict serialism: an anti- (tri-) tonal row of three notes and its mirror forms (BS, I, R, RI) revolves both horizontally and vertically underneath the rotations of its own segmental subordinate row, which is a series in extremest miniature consisting of two notes at the interval of a minor second.








This is purest Schoenberg. In a forthcoming Mozart symposium, I am in fact trying to demonstrate that the passacaglia from the chamber-musical Pierrot lunaire is actually if unconsciously modelled on this development. At the same time, the latter's technique looks far into Schoenberg's own future, down to the (pan)tonal serial technique of the Ode to Napoleon. Beside unifying the anti-harmonic passage as such, that is to say, Mozart's strict serial method has to conduct it back into its wider, harmonic context, whence the series continue to rotate down to the perfect C minor cadence, every note of which remains serially determined."






"Schoenberg now proudly described himself as Mozart's pupil - and the final movement of the Suite, the 'Gigue', comes close to explicit homage to the G major Gigue, KV 574, in which Mozart at his most neo-Baroque and most harmonically chromatic seems almost to anticipate elements of Schoenberg's serial method." < Arnold Schoenberg, By Mark Berry, Page 135 >


----------



## hammeredklavier

By the same logic Joseph Haydn must be called the "Father of the symphony", the "Father of the string quartet", his contemporaries also deserve titles like them. ie. The Father of the piano quartet, clarinet quintet, string quintet, piano concerto, Classical German-text settings (of Catholic music), etc. Joseph Haydn just made his fame by writing more than 170 pieces in both areas. Prior to the last decade of the 18th century, he seems mostly struggling to catch up to his contemporaries.

Seriously, there are many people out there who actually think J. Haydn actually did "invent" those genres:







hammeredklavier said:


> the so-called "experts" and "scholars" have been doing all kinds of lectures and essays on this composer, calling him the FATHER, simply because he was the only one privileged to be continually promoted and revived and through history with the slogan "Haydn and Mozart".





hammeredklavier said:


> I'm a little skeptical about Joseph's alleged "superiority" in other areas such as symphonies as well. I sort of appreciate the slow movements of the 80th, and Op.76 No.6 (I find it interesting how it anticipates certain late-Beethovenian expressions), but there are just way too many that fail to make an impression.
> https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-9.html#post2090913
> https://www.talkclassical.com/65796-haydn-problem-quantity-favourite-5.html#post2089053
> For example, the slow movements of Op.20 (published in 1774); the style of dissonance feels "lukewarm", I don't hear much difference between those and 6 Quartets (1764) by Georg Christoph Wagenseil (1715~1777) in this regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1773, Salzburg)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Christian Bach is more idiomatically similar to Mozart because they were contemporaries for decades. Boccherini for example was a contemporary of Mozart who had nothing to do with Mozart (unlike the Salzburg master Luigi Gatti). We need to "distinguish these things."

Does this work by Christian sound like it has nothing to do with his father?





The "harmonists" of the late 18th century studied Bach. Michael Haydn studied Bach, Handel, Graun, Hasse from youth. I'll provide the sources later when I have access to my PC.


----------



## hammeredklavier

J.H. Knecht did a completion of the Art of the fugue, but it was lost.



hammeredklavier said:


> I. Allegretto - Andante pastorale - Allegretto - Villanella grazioso, un poco adagio : 00:00
> II. Tempo mederno (Allegretto) : 09:40
> III. Allegro molto : 12:44
> IV. Tempo mederno (Allegro molto) : 18:38
> V. L´inno con variazioni - Andantino -Coro : Allegro con brio - Andantino : 20:59
> 
> There's actually evidence Beethoven studied Knecht's work.
> "Vollständige Orgelschule (Leipzig, 1795-1798/1989) - Ludwig van Beethoven owned a copy of this work"
> 
> Knecht symphony: 0:57
> Beethoven Op.125/i: 3:27
> 
> Knecht symphony: 12:20
> Beethoven Op.67/iii: 22:00
> 
> also, notice the "continuity":
> 12:30 , 18:30 , 20:50
> and "recalling of themes" across movements in the Knecht symphony:
> 0:00 , 20:04 , 0:58 , 9:40


----------



## hammeredklavier

I don't know why we're having this discussion about Bach. Shouldn't we be asking; how many composers after J. Haydn admired/praised J. Haydn, for example?
What significant things in music J. Haydn did other than teaching and influencing Beethoven?
I rather think Beethoven is a vast improvement on J. Haydn. Basically if you have Beethoven, there's no need for J. Haydn. In terms of expressive dissonance, tbh J. Haydn isn't really remarkable, and this is probably why he was easily "surpassed" by Beethoven.
He probably does "cheeky surprises" better than Beethoven, I think that's the only good/unique thing about his style.



tdc said:


> But you are the one not giving any hard evidence. Just an abstract claim that CPE somehow altered the trajectory of music more, even though he was not the only one at the time experimenting with the new sonata forms. Your entire argument is based on vague claims of influence mixed with speculation.


I agree. F.X. Richter (1709~1789) was one of the pioneers of early Classicism well. But J. Haydn fans trashed the post-Baroque master how he couldn't write in a sonata-form (!), probably because for them, it's a sacrilege to question J. Haydn's status as the "Father".



ArtMusic said:


> I enjoyed both but I prefer Haydn's for his was full of invention within the Classical sonata idiom that speaks of elegance and imagination; real music.





hammeredklavier said:


> Richter's lifetime spans 80 years, covering a wide diversity of idiomatic styles and compositional skills. He was just as instrumental in the development of the symphony as J. Haydn.
> Kemptener Te Deum in D-major (1742):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (his te deum from 1781 sounds more "Classical")
> Sinfonia con Fuga in G minor (1760):


Btw, J. Haydn fans also trashed 6 Quartets (1764) by Georg Christoph Wagenseil (1715~1777)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Mozart is writing about playing "nothing but Bach and Handel" at Van Swieten's he is very probably referring only to keyboard music.


Are you saying the same about the other heavily vocal music-oriented composers?

"Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, ancient and modern." So music was the main object of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: *Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillip Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn.*"
http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf#page=4

"The rediscovery of the Eisenstadt score and exploration of its early history provide an entirely new basis for understanding the astonishing similarites between two of the most demanding mass compositions of the eighteenth century. A score of the B-minor Mass was not only available in Vienna at the time when Mozart started composing his Mass in C minor around 1782-3, but was also subject to diligent study there, apparently in the circle of Gottfried van Swieten, in which Mozart played a crucial role."
< Exploring Bach's B-minor Mass - Page 239 | Yo Tomita, ‎Robin A. Leaver, ‎Jan Smaczny · 2013 | P. 239 >


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> J.H. Knecht did a completion of the Art of the fugue, but it was lost.


"J.H. Knecht completed The Art of Fugue BWV 1080 (for organ, 1803), but this has been lost."
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lib/Knecht-Justin-Heinrich.htm
Knecht's influence on Beethoven in terms of "cyclic form" is FAR more significant than J. Haydn's (look at Post #55).



hammeredklavier said:


> Does this work by Christian sound like it has nothing to do with his father?


And doesn't this sound like a half-way between J.S. Bach and Mozart?







hammeredklavier said:


> "The "harmonists" of the late 18th century studied Bach. Michael Haydn studied Bach, Handel, Graun, Hasse from youth.


"Judging from a signed, dated autograph score that he copied in 1757 of Fux's Missa Canonica, Michael studied some of the Viennese composer's work during his formative years. The Biographische Skizze mentions that he also studied works of *Bach*, Handel, Graun and Hasse." 
<Michael Haydn and "The Haydn Tradition:" A Study of Attribution, Chronology, and Source Transmission | Dwight C. Blazin | P. 47>



Kreisler jr said:


> (I'd go as far that even Joh. Chr. Bach's style was too remote from his father's to speak of influence; and I'd tend to phil's position that Joh. Chr. was a stronger influence on Mozart than Joh. Seb.)


So in another thread, I discussed Classical period composers (senior to Mozart) who sounds far more like Mozart than J. Haydn does.*** But J. Haydn fans denigrated them by saying they're simply "old-fashioned" or "not distinctive".

I think the "J. Haydn cultist dogma" and all the associated "double standards" are doing damage to the other composers (their reputation).
Ex. One of the common arguments; "when J. Haydn writes liturgical music or counterpoint (ie. the late masses, oratorios), he's being distinctive and not old-fashioned, but when other composers do, they're being old-fashioned and not distinctive."

*** Although it's true Mozart does pay homage to J. Haydn in some areas, even if J. Haydn and his music never existed, I don't think it would have affected Mozart very much.

"Mozart wrote a new Quintet in E flat major (K614) in April 1791 (maybe for Tost too), and its resemblance to Haydn's op.64 no.6 in the same key is too close to be merely coincidental: this must surely be a heartfelt tribute to the Papa Haydn he feared he might never see again."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I'd rather hear fro the horse's mouth of Mozart on CPE Bach


btw, something you might be interested to look at:



hammeredklavier said:


> I actually think that C.P.E. Bach's "influence" as a composer on the later composers is rather overrated.
> Yes, there are anecdotes about Mozart calling him "the father", but all those quotes about how much Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven admired him as a composer should be taken with a bit of grain of salt, -because they didn't always admire him for his compositions, but also his keyboard-playing pedagogy.


C.P.E. Bach's Influence on Beethoven


----------



## Phil loves classical

I think I went too far down the influence vein in retrospect on JS. JS Bach achieved something special in his music, and it affects many listeners of all times. For that I think he is clearly a top 10 most important composer.

I might even add Michael Haydn in time. Haha. Not likely.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I might even add Michael Haydn in time. Haha. Not likely.


At least the authentic value of his work and his abilities haven't been "exaggerated" in any way.




All the lies and falsehoods in various sites to glorify "the clown" to the overblown proportions, on the other hand, always entertain me. Haha. Among his 104 symphonies (I can't even try to remember all of them), there could have been one nicknamed "the clown", an explicit homage to himself. Maybe? Haha.


----------



## Kreisler jr

tdc said:


> Except Bach's pieces are also widely used as models for composition, (including by CPE Bach). Czerny's are not.


Nobody claimed this. Please read the post I had been quoting that has explicitly mentioned Bach in pianist's education. 
Many other composer's pieces, e.g. Corelli, Vivaldi, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert.... were also widely used as models for compositions.
Bach was at the end of an era. None of his major genres except the keyboard concerto remained relevant after his death (neither could they be revived when Bach's music was revived in the early 19th century, the influence was mostly technical or indirect). Taking this into account, it is in fact surprising how influential he was nevertheless. But it is still a rather different kind of influence than e.g. Corelli (not to take a controversial figure like Wagner who made the artists even beyond music mad for half a century or more) whose music became the immediate model for hundreds of trio sonatas and concerti grossi. I am not saying that Corelli was overall more influential than Bach because Bach's influence is broader and longer, but unlike Bach he is a clear example for immediate strong influence. (And I still have not seen any good argument against the idea by Phil and myself that later on Bach was very often quoted as a general code for the baroque polyphony (just like Palestrina was for the older church style.)



> Actually such pieces influenced by Bach are ubiquitous, I've mentioned a bunch of them in this thread already. Pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away. I just thought of another one, Berio - Sequenza VII.


Nobody pretended that they don't exist. Of course they do. They exist for many other composers as well. Neoclassical composers of the 20th century (who provide many of your examples) referred back to all kinds of stuff (cf. Respighi, Ravel, Stravinsky...), this is one way Bach is not such a very special influence (he'd probably have been embarrassed to be quoted as influence on that Rodrigo...BTW I'll give you Gounod's "Ave Maria" as freebie).


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Nobody claimed this. Please read the post I had been quoting that has explicitly mentioned Bach in pianist's education.
> Many other composer's pieces, e.g. Corelli, Vivaldi, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert.... were also widely used as models for compositions.
> I am not saying that Corelli was overall more influential than Bach because Bach's influence is broader and longer, but unlike Bach he is a clear example for immediate strong influence. (And I still have not seen any good argument against the idea by Phil and myself that later on Bach was very often quoted as a general code for the baroque polyphony (just like Palestrina was for the older church style.)


I've already mentioned that Beethoven modeled his Diabelli variations on Bach's Goldberg variations (which were published during Bach's lifetime), and how Mozart was indebted to Bach (Art of the fugue, Musical offering, Mass in B minor).
In the 19th century Bach was the model for pianist composers Hummel, Kessler, Moscheles, Chopin, Liszt and their sets of 24 preludes/Etudes.
I rather think J. Haydn is a good example of a composer whose influence is so "vague" that it is "untraceable". Except Beethoven (who said he "learned nothing from Haydn"), Mendelssohn and Brahms (who pretty much seemed to pretend to like J. Haydn just cause 'Neoclassicism" was their "identities" and J. Haydn was the only late 18th century composer known at the time aside from Mozart), I can't think of any other major 19th century composer/musician who had a particularly positive view on his music or found his music particularly "inspirational" or "inspiring". What are the true, authentic successors to the "bassoon farts", "surprise symphonies", or to the typical, endlessly "pompous, happy" sound? Are we just giving J. Haydn credit whenever anyone created/s "general Classical sound", just cause J. Haydn is the most popular Classical period composer (aside from Mozart) today?

"Beethoven was influenced by both composers and certainly modelled ideas after Mozart, but was unable to ever sound much like Mozart in his harmonic language, chromaticism, use of dissonance, smoothness etc. (Or as some feel he _chose_ to sound different). So what we hear is the Haydn more than the Mozart. *In my view because Haydn's sound is easier to duplicate than Mozart.* Another example of this is Prokofiev's classical symphony that was highly influenced by Mozart but ends up sounding more like Haydn. 
Brahms statement that we hear 'true dissonance' in Bach and Mozart, not Beethoven, is further evidence this difference in chromaticism and harmonic language isn't just in my mind. I suspect the difference is related to Mozart and Bach's mastery of counterpoint." -Tdc {Thread <Haydn or Mozart's Symphonies>, Post #19}



Kreisler jr said:


> Bach was at the end of an era. None of his major genres except the keyboard concerto remained relevant after his death


How? What do you mean by "his major genres were not relevant"? Because he wrote liturgical music? The Classical period composer Georg Benda wrote Lutheran cantatas and was still admired by Mozart. As I said a Classical period composer can write a requiem in a completely Classical sense of drama and style of orchestration, with Classical dramatic structure, and be "relevant" to his own time, for example. Gluck derives heavily from the Baroque opera seria. Was he being "old-fashioned" and not "relevant"? Mozart's late works contain loads of counterpoint, but that still didn't make it "old-fashioned" or "irrelevant" in his time. Was K.551 "old-fashioned"? K.626 not "relevant"?. No one in the time of Baroque thought Baroque liturgical music was not relevant, no one in the time of Classicism thought Classical liturgical music was not relevant. They simply reflect the ideals of their own times. Stop projecting their achievements in the weird modern views, which are loaded with logical fallacies and contradictions. What really matters is whether or not music inspires.


----------



## SanAntone

If I could I'd lock this thread since it has become a slug fest over the specific importance of certain composers instead of the intended theme of personal top ten lists of important composers or musicians.


----------



## Art Rock

Well, I could lock it for you, or I could split off most of the posts into a separate thread titled "A slug fest over the specific importance of certain composers".


----------



## SanAntone

Please lock it. Thanks.


----------

