# Composers with the greatest impact.



## Steber (Jul 11, 2014)

I would like to know the forum's opinions on which composers have had the greatest impact on musical history. My own view is the following.
Beethoven, whose mastery of form and creative vision are unsurpassed.
Mozart, whose elegance and perfection of phrase are so beautiful.
Bach, whose harmonic and contrapuntal excellence is beyond dispute.
I realise that some may feel that this is something of an immature concept to consider, so I am inviting agreement and disagreement with this.
Thank you. Steber


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Taking "greatest impact" in one of many possible interpretations, i.e. influencing other composers, there is Robert Fuchs. The list of his students is jaw-dropping: it includes Enescu, Mahler, Wolf, Sibelius, von Zemlinsky, Korngold, Schmidt, and Schreker.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2014)

I would like to know how you correlate "creative vision" and "elegance" and "contrapuntal excellence" with "impact on musical history."


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: All you are doing is describing some characteristics of some great composers' music.

Music evolves.

I play Copland's Appalachian Spring or Prokofiev's Third Piano Concerto. I hear no influence of Bach, Beethoven or Mozart.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Beethoven had a great impact because he introduced a new level of expressivity that music really hadn't had before.

Monteverdi might qualify because he bridged the Renaissance and Baroque in a way that was highly influential.

Wagner stretched tonality to the breaking point -- but he wasn't the only one.

?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

_at the age of 44, Chausson was out for a bicycle ride outside his property in Limay when he lost control of the bike on a downhill slope and crashed into a brick will. He died instantly._

We have a winner.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Chuck Berry, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin. Classical composers don't even come close to the cultural impact of pop artists.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

starthrower said:


> Chuck Berry, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin. Classical composers don't even come close to the cultural impact of pop artists.


We're talking about the impact on the history of music though, not "cultural impact".


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

GGluek said:


> Beethoven had a great impact because he introduced a new level of expressivity that music really hadn't had before.


Hold up just a second! Expressivity in music? This a ludicrous notion.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Hey, this is poll material!


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Unfortunately our poll Master is banned for the time being...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Stavrogin said:


> We're talking about the impact on the history of music though, not "cultural impact".


And what does that mean? "History of music" is a pretty vague notion.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

starthrower said:


> And what does that mean? "History of music" is a pretty vague notion.


Is it?
Surely less than "history of culture"...


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

The history of (western) music is the story of how we got from Gregorian Chant to the Beatle's White Album.
Apologies to fans of Roman Music and post-peak popular music 

I would say it's a much less wooly concept than Cultural Impacts.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Stavrogin said:


> Is it?
> Surely less than "history of culture"...


I didn't say anything about history of culture.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

From my own perspective, Charles Ives had more of an impact on music than anyone else I can think of.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

starthrower said:


> I didn't say anything about history of culture.


You said "cultural impact".
If such impact is as big as you (correctly) suggest, it is surely worth a line or two in the history of culture, I guess.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

MagneticGhost said:


> The history of (western) music is the story of how we got from Gregorian Chant to the Beatle's White Album.
> Apologies to fans of Roman Music and post-peak popular music
> 
> I would say it's a much less wooly concept than Cultural Impacts.


The cultural impacts of pop and rock are so overwhelming obvious and ubiquitous. There's nothing vague or wooly about it. But that's not the subject here, so I'll wait for comments from the musical historians on classical music.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

starthrower said:


> The cultural impacts of pop and rock are so overwhelming obvious and ubiquitous. There's nothing vague or wooly about it. But that's not the subject here, so I'll wait for comments from the musical historians on classical music.


You said that "history of music" is a pretty vague notion. I disagree.
However, maybe you meant that a composer's "impact on the history of music" can only vaguely be assessed, then it is a different concept, which I agree with.


----------



## Steber (Jul 11, 2014)

Thank you for your replies, hpowders. Could you tell me who are your favourite composers?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Stavrogin said:


> You said that "history of music" is a pretty vague notion. I disagree.
> However, maybe you meant that a composer's "impact on the history of music" can only vaguely be assessed, then it is a different concept, which I agree with.


Yes! And history is written from a point of view, or a certain narrative focus. And whose history are we referring to? Composers' impact on the public, orchestras, other composers, etc...


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Steber said:


> I would like to know the forum's opinions on *which composers have had the greatest impact on musical history. *My own view is the following.
> Beethoven, whose mastery of form and creative vision are unsurpassed.
> Mozart, whose elegance and perfection of phrase are so beautiful.
> Bach, whose harmonic and contrapuntal excellence is beyond dispute.
> ...





Art Rock said:


> Taking "greatest impact" in one of many possible interpretations, i.e. influencing other composers, there is Robert Fuchs. *The list of his students is jaw-dropping:* it includes Enescu, Mahler, Wolf, Sibelius, von Zemlinsky, Korngold, Schmidt, and Schreker.


It's insightful to note a composer/teacher as an impactful influence on "musical history". Such a one as Robert Fuchs, a lesser composer but a major teacher, shows us the value of teachers and their impact. I'm sure there are many many other such figures in music. One must assume the teachers of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven had a great impact on musical history.

The composer Haydn, of course, springs to mind here. Not only were his students many and important, his own innovations in orchestration, form, and style led to much that we recognize today as "classical music".

Too, I would venture that a fellow such as Antoine-Joseph "Adolphe" Sax, inventor of the saxophone and a couple other instruments, must be considered as a great influence on musical history. Where would Coltrane be without Sax?

Theobald Böhm the flute maker falls into this category, too.

But the OP cites "composers". I suspect there are composers who worked to develop instruments and improvement to instruments, which led to great impact on music history.

But composers can do a lot. Those who have stretched form (Monteverdi, Haydn, Beethoven, Wagner), who have expanded tonality (Bach, Debussy, Schoenberg), who have added to orchestration "color" and technique (Berlioz, Ravel, Xenakis) ... add to the legacy and remain impactful on music history.

Of course, one of the most impactful aspects of a composer is his or her influence upon others. Which composers have most inspired others to take on the musical art? I've heard many times that a musician or composer took to the art after hearing a symphony by Beethoven or Brahms, or an opera by Verdi or Wagner, or a piano piece by Chopin or Liszt ....

Who is "the greatest" in this regard? I suspect the OP has already posited the three greatest in his original post. Bach proved not only a monumental musician and composer, he was a teacher whose several sons led major musical lives and became teachers and influences themselves. Beethoven pushed so many boundaries (in musical form, orchestration, and with development of instruments and their possibilities -- doing things like adding piccolo and contra-bassoon to the symphony) and has probably influenced so many musicians to take up their art by way of hearing his music in one form or another, that it would be impossible to even suggest a number. And Mozart? The name itself has become synonymous with all that is great about music; the man's impact is beyond question.

In any case, I find this query a rather difficult if not wholly impossible one to answer in any definitive manner, so I'll simply leave things to others here, and return to listening to Tchaikowsky (who was the composer who incited my own interest in classical music).


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

hpowders said:


> From my own perspective, Charles Ives had more of an impact on music than anyone else I can think of.


Except I sort of thought that all the original things that Ives did first were actually "rediscovered" first by others while the originals sat for 35 years in a drawer in Ives' study -- making him prescient, but non-influential.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

GGluek said:


> Except I sort of thought that all the original things that Ives did first were actually "rediscovered" first by others while the originals sat for 35 years in a drawer in Ives' study -- making him prescient, but non-influential.


Actually, I don't think there is good evidence he did anything first. His supposedly innovative scores were revised to look more daring than they originally were.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Beethoven and Wagner. 

Beethoven was the first Romantic artist in music - individualistic, idealistic, innovative, prone to expressive extremes - who simultaneously took classical form to unimaginable levels of imagination and complexity, becoming thus a hero to both the radical (Wagner) and conservative (Brahms) musical factions in the 19th century. Wagner greatly expanded harmony, orchestration, and form, exploiting that enlarged musical vocabulary in pursuit of an unprecedented intensity and specificity of expression, altering traditional ideas of musical theater, impressing deeply practitioners of all the arts, and forcing composers to rethink what they were doing and either embrace or oppose his influence.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GioCar said:


> Unfortunately our poll Master is banned for the time being...


Some of us think of it that, finally, Fortune has _smiled _upon TC.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The answer to the question in the OP is: Whichever of the famous old dead guys could have made this when they finally fell to earth from "the great height"...








Well, it is clearly time for some benevolent TC moderator(s) to cull all the 'most influential composer threads and meld them all in to one!

I Second that motion!

Hear, hear!!

Shall we put it to the vote, then, ladies, gentlemen, and tenors?

Yea!


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Well, it is clearly time for some benevolent TC moderator(s) to cull all the 'most influential composer threads and meld them all in to one!
> 
> I Second that motion!
> 
> ...


Ok, but when we tally up the votes, who will we have to say, "_I'm quite certain of the results. Pure and simple._"? 
Someone needs to step up to the plate and fill our favorite pollster's shoes.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven and Wagner.
> 
> Beethoven was the first Romantic artist in music...










-------_zOMG!_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Ok, but when we tally up the votes, who will we have to say, "_I'm quite certain of the results. Pure and simple._"?
> Someone needs to step up to the plate and fill our favorite pollster's shoes.


They should be concrete overshoes... which would make our favorite pollster at least as famous as Jimmy Hoffa.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)




----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

PetrB said:


> View attachment 53499
> 
> -------_zOMG!_


Well, it might be news to _somebody_ out there. :tiphat:

(Actually, I'm just honing my Music App pedagogy).


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

aleazk said:


>


I agree, Schoenberg is a great choice.



PetrB said:


> They should be concrete overshoes... which would make our favorite pollster at least as famous as Jimmy Hoffa.


A decent pollster should know to make all the answers anonymous! Sorry for complaining about something so trivial, but it's one of my pet peeves.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

trazom said:


> I agree, Schoenberg is a great choice.


:lol: So sly .........


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

aleazk said:


>


Definitely in the short list of most impactful composers! What an awesome picture of him, by the way.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Well, it might be news to _somebody_ out there. :tiphat:
> 
> (Actually, I'm just honing my Music App pedagogy).


Re-writing music history, one era and composer at a time....


----------



## poptart (Jul 15, 2013)

Debussy
Debussy
Debussy
Debussy
Debussy


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

The musicians of the Java Exhibit at the 1889 Exposition Universelle (composer/s unknown)

Though really I have no way of answering this quiestion. But with a gun to my head and obliged to say something it would probably be Guillaume de Machaut


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

GioCar said:


> Unfortunately our poll Master is banned for the time being...


off topic:What happened?

On topic: Hard to pin down on one person but it is likely Claude Igor von Schönhoven.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Re-writing music history, one era and composer at a time....


Don't worry. I'm plotting to infiltrate the academy and bring it down from within. :devil:


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven was the first Romantic artist in music -* individualistic, idealistic, innovative, prone to expressive extremes - who simultaneously took classical form to unimaginable levels of imagination and complexity, becoming thus a hero to both the radical (Wagner) and conservative (Brahms) musical factions in the 19th century.*


Well said, Woodduck and absolutely, Beethoven was one of the first Romantic artists in music, I know PetrB took issue with you calling him THE first, but let's get to the heart of the issue, he was among the first, *but* it's everything you wrote after that (which I put in bold) which is key.

The issue, and the semantics of the issue, are somewhat tricky. Beethoven certainly was a full-fledged Romantic, not in the "musical sense", but in the "artistic sense". Just read E.T.A. Hoffman's assessment of Beethoven. Charles Rosen, rightly backs up what you wrote, "_[Beethoven], who simultaneously took classical form to unimaginable levels of imagination and complexity_". Rosen asserts that Beethoven, musically, wasn't a Romantic (in the strict musical sense), but he took the classical idiom to its absolute limit. Beethoven's "bringing in" the Romantic era of music doesn't hinge on whether he was a musical romantic or not.

Rosen says this about musical influence (or impact, if you will), "_the most important form of influence is that which provokes the most original and most personal work._" Beethoven was a hero to not only the Romantic radical, Wagner and the Romantic "conservative", Brahms, but also to Schumann, Berlioz, Schubert (and an vast amount of others who worshiped Beethoven), all three of huge importance with regards to musical romanticism. A select few can deny it all they want, I'll sit happily by my computer reading the writings of the most important Romantic (music) composers who saw Beethoven as their catalyst, both musically and expressively.

It's two-fold, on one hand, Beethoven was an Artistic Romantic and on the other hand, he stretched the Classical language to its limits. It's for these reasons that Beethoven is largely attributed with bringing in the Romantic era, more so than a Weber or Schubert, as _immense_ as their contributions were.

Best regards,

[PS. I'm not making any claims to a single most impactful composer, the OP is "Composer*S* with the greatest impact". Beethoven certainly is one of them]


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Dmitri Shostakovich and Carl Nielsen for their abilities to create a sense of overwhelming mood of angst and urgency--at least on more than a few occasions--in their symphonic and string quartet works.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

The word greatest is pretty relative, but for me:

*Myaskovsky:* As the "Musical Conscience of Moscow", he taught at the Moscow Conservatory of Music from 1921 through 1948, where every significant potential musicians were under his guidance. He was also a critic and contributed articles and reviews to magazines during the 1910s. He was a man of the world and very well read.

*Tchaikovsky:* As a composer, teacher, and ex-teacher (as well as a critic), he changed the course of Russian music in ways not anticipated by his colleagues (and distractors).

*Wagner:* A revolutionary and provocateur. Need I say more?

*Beethoven:* The source of the pivotal shift from Classical to Romantic.

*Glazunov:* as a composer, he was fairly influential. But as a teacher and later Director at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, he shielded the institution from the turbulent period from the unrests of 1905-1906 through WWI, and through the Revolution and Civil War of 1917, 1918-1920. The 1920s were arguably more fatal than the Revolution, claiming millions of lives due to ill-conceived five-year plan. He also protected students (esp. Jewish students) from the officials and from serving the First World War by arranging them to play instruments so they could serve on military bands rather than on the fronts.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy, Wagner, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Bartok, Webern... quite an endless list.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Some of the greatest compositions in musical history after Beethoven were influenced by him:
Schubert's Ninth Symphony, Brahms First Symphony, Ives Concord Piano Sonata; even a nice contemporary symphony by the Finn, Pohjola, his first, quotes Beethoven.

So one can't escape the major impact Beethoven had on succeeding composers.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Don't worry. I'm plotting to infiltrate the academy and bring it down from within. :devil:


Unless you plan on getting in via the back door by taking a post sweeping up or some such, I think they still require several higher level academic music degrees in hand before they would take you seriously.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Morimur said:


> Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy, Wagner, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Bartok, Webern... quite an endless list.


of course, nothing at all happened in the seven hundred years or so in the developments of classical music prior J.S. Bach. Just everyone knows that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Unless you plan on getting in via the back door by taking a post sweeping up or some such, I think they still require several higher level academic music degrees in hand before they would take you seriously.


Sweeping up? I like it. Not being taken seriously is the key to successful subversion. It'll be easy for me; I get lots of practice here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Well said, Woodduck and absolutely, Beethoven was one of the first Romantic artists in music, I know PetrB took issue with you calling him THE first, but let's get to the heart of the issue, he was among the first, *but* it's everything you wrote after that (which I put in bold) which is key.


Thank you, DiesIraeXIV, for your kind words, but of course my critics are right as usual. I have no excuse for forgetting the precedent set by that proto-Romantic prodigy Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher, born an ominous thirteen minutes before Beethoven (who was to be little Ignaz's closest and, we think, only friend and companion), and already by the age of seven the composer of a rescue opera entitled _Down in the Dumps with Flora and Stan_, a _Backyard__ Symphony_ (which he called "more an attempt at imitating bird noises than at expressing any feelings about anything, since music expresses nothing"), and a three-hour production for vocal nonet, enhanced tessitural choir, orchestra with Mahlerian wind doubling, and deaf back-seat conductor, entitled "Ode to You, Phoria."

It was presumably a great loss to music when Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher died of suspicious causes at the age of eight (his last words were said to be "Beethoven...aurgh!"). None of his innovative scores were ever published, and all are now lost; one rumor had it that the leading music houses were paid not to publish them, and it was whispered that Lippenschmacher may have entrusted his scores to Beethoven for safekeeping shortly before his death. When in later years Beethoven was asked what might have happened to his childhood buddy, he pretended not to hear the question.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Steber said:


> I would like to know the forum's opinions on which composers have had the greatest impact on musical history. My own view is the following.
> *Beethoven*, whose mastery of form and creative vision are unsurpassed.
> *Mozart*, whose elegance and perfection of phrase are so beautiful.
> *Bach*, whose harmonic and contrapuntal excellence is beyond dispute.
> ...


There you have it, answering your own q. Now get started on your book.:lol:


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2014)

PetrB said:


> of course, nothing at all happened in the seven hundred years or so in the developments of classical music prior J.S. Bach. Just everyone knows that.
> View attachment 53540


"..." and "endless" - I do not think they mean what PetrB thinks they mean.


----------



## asiago12 (May 2, 2019)

There is music before Monteverdi and music after Monteverdi..


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Probably Beethoven. Even great pop/rock masterpieces mainly credit his contribution to the impact he placed on rhythm and development (not to be confused with dynamics, which is a lesser point.) If musicians want to credit harmony and melody instead, it's going to be a lot harder to find one composer to thank. More to the point, Beethoven was the first inventor of what some would call 'complete music,' achieving excellence for the first time in all facets. This was probably not due to the fact that he _emphasized_ rhythm and development, but rather because he was so musically above his league and ahead of his time--a euphonious Isaac Newton so to speak, that prompted the music we have now. Additionally, harmony was an easier feat for composers to master than rhythm and development, despite being an equal and non-gimmicky way to elevate music. Oftentimes the common classical listener has much less sense of rhythm and development than the equally involved musician, I believe mainly because harmony is a simpler facet for people to focus on, so although there will be other great answers to this question here, they may be biased in favor of simpler musical techniques than what Beethoven has brought to the forefront of our music culture.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Ethereality said:


> Probably Beethoven. Even great pop/rock masterpieces mainly credit his contribution to the impact he placed on rhythm and development (not to be confused with dynamics, which is a lesser point.) If musicians want to credit harmony and melody instead, it's going to be a lot harder to find one composer to thank. More to the point, Beethoven was the first inventor of what some would call 'complete music,' achieving excellence for the first time in all facets. This was probably not due to the fact that he _emphasized_ rhythm and development, but rather because he was so musically above his league and ahead of his time--a euphonious Isaac Newton so to speak, that prompted the music we have now. Additionally, harmony was an easier feat for composers to master than rhythm and development, despite being an equal and non-gimmicky way to elevate music. Oftentimes the common classical listener has much less sense of rhythm and development than the equally involved musician, I believe mainly because harmony is a simpler facet for people to focus on, so although there will be other great answers to this question here, they may be biased in favor of simpler musical techniques than what Beethoven has brought to the forefront of our music culture.


Pop/rock masterpieces credit Beethoven? What does that mean? Do you mean pop/rock _artists _mainly credit Beethoven? Can you name one?

What pop/rock masterpieces are in sonata form? What rhythms are they using that can be traced to Beethoven?

Most of your post just sounds made up. If harmony is a simpler facet to focus on then why (in another thread) did you not recognize Bach's exceptional use of harmony?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Your point is moot. You would have to ask pop/rock musicians to credit Perotin (to even know who that is) for granting them the great influence of harmonic variation. Trend doesn't work that way. You would then have to ask Beethoven to credit Perotin for his success. One's lack of knowledge of the patterns and developments Beethoven bore, inspiring so many of the different layers within Romantic and Pop music, and to this day, has no bearing on its influence within popular music. A common comparison between popular rock masterpieces and Beethoven, would be with a lot of his symphonies. Symphony 3 and 5 are structurally similar to a number of not just Romantic hits throughout the 19th century, but _Rock music_, in overall rhythm, counter-meter, development, dynamic pulse, and variation. The resemblance for over 150 years difference, is uncanny.

I'm also not sure why you bring up Bach, as if he contributed something so fundamental to common music that others hadn't already. His extensive harmonic and melodic creativity being unnecessary for most music isn't as much of an argument as it is the _ease_ it is for many composers to discover, _on instruments,_ ways of composing these harmonies. If anyone was really overly-intrigued by creating even more complex harmonic developments (which some composers are nowadays) then it would be an important contribution to music. But (at least as far was what Bach brought that earlier composers hadn't already provided us as a building block), it is not.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Ethereality said:


> Your point is moot. You would have to ask pop/rock musicians to credit Perotin (to even know who that is) for granting them the great influence of harmonic variation. Trend doesn't work that way. You would then have to ask Beethoven to credit Perotin for his success. One's lack of knowledge of the patterns and developments Beethoven bore, inspiring so many of the different layers within Romantic and Pop music, and to this day, has no bearing on its influence within popular music. A common comparison between popular rock masterpieces and Beethoven, would be with a lot of his symphonies. Symphony 3 and 5 are structurally similar to a number of not just Romantic hits throughout the 19th century, but _Rock music_, in overall rhythm, counter-meter, development, dynamic pulse, and variation.
> 
> I'm also not sure why you bring up Bach, as if he contributed something so fundamental to common music that others hadn't already. His extensive harmonic and melodic creativity being unnecessary for most music isn't as much of an argument as the _ease_ it is for many composers to create these harmonies on their own. If anyone was really overly-intrigued by creating wild harmonies (which some composers are nowadays) then it would be an important contribution to music. But (at least as far was what Bach brought that earlier composers hadn't already provided us as a building block), it is not.


Sorry your argument is unspecific and nonsensical. Beethoven, like Bach, had a lot of influence on the following generations of classical composers. His biggest influence was on the Romantic era, much of Modernism is a reaction against the perceived excesses of Beethoven and Romanticism in general.

If you look at the structures of the most popular music and rock tunes they actually most often feature more steady rhythms typical of Bach's music, not the rhythmic approach typical of Beethoven (Beethoven's music I would argue is more closely related to Prog) and also feature shorter song structures also more closely related to Bach and Modernism.

Rock started off as a hybrid of country and blues, I don't see much connection to Beethoven there. There is perhaps a loose connection between rock and Beethoven's use of loudness (dynamics) for expressivity, but you already previously acknowledged this of less importance, and I just can't see that being a development that wouldn't have occurred anyway eventually with or without Beethoven. One could also argue Haydn already planted the seed for the dynamics for expressivity feature in his Surprise Symphony.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Most music tends toward steady rhythm, even Beethoven's, so I don't see your point of _how_ this is related to Bach. While I think the picture of Beethoven as a major contributor has been painted perfectly clear, especially when comparing Bach and Beethoven's steady pieces to popular music nowadays, it's crystal clear which composer is more similar in rhythm, pulse, dynamics and development. Your understanding of composition is being put into major question here. And then to amplify this comparison, put superficial similarity aside and see where more of the inventions are coming from.

While a lot of Progressive Rock couldn't be possible without these complete perspective-shift influences of Beethoven, the same also goes for all the smaller variations of progression in Pop music from the Romantic, Jazz, and Contemporary eras. Beethoven's dynamic pulse and bigger developments have only somewhat to do with the rhythm he brought and emphasized in his music. These cannot be confused with the overbearing developments of the Romantic period.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Ethereality said:


> Most music tends toward steady rhythm, even Beethoven's, so I don't see your point of _how_ this is related to Bach. While I think the picture of Beethoven as a major contributor has been painted perfectly clear, especially when comparing Bach and Beethoven's steady pieces to popular music nowadays, it's crystal clear which composer is more similar in rhythm, pulse, dynamics and development. Your understanding of composition is being put into major question here. And then to amplify this comparison, put superficial similarity aside and see where more of the inventions are coming from.
> 
> While a lot of Progressive Rock couldn't be possible without these complete perspective-shift influences of Beethoven, the same also goes for its prior evolutions of the Pop music from the Romantic, Contemporary and Jazz eras. Rhythm has only somewhat to do with the dynamic pulse and bigger developments Beethoven brought and emphasized in his music. These cannot be confused with the overbearing developments of the Romantic period.


To be clear I'm not saying Bach invented steady rhythm, nor did Beethoven invent the way rhythm was approached by the classicists. Yes much of Beethoven's rhythm is steady but it often features major contrasts of mood within one given piece, this is a typical feature of prog, but not of most pop/rock.

The rest of your comments are very vague. Can you provide an example of one piece of pop/rock music that is clearly influenced by Beethoven in terms of 'development'?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

It's not about matching a rock/pop piece with 200 year old compositions, it's about matching the patterns of how music evolved _with_ each composer's contributions/inventions, and deciding from there who was the most influential. Which I could do and make a big analysis on the intricate counter-meters of pop music in melody and rhythm VS Beethoven, or his dynamic and rhythmic similarity to one-hit wonders and various genres. You said _a steady rhythm_ is the most important. Okay--name the composer who influenced that into the music world for later generations of Bach and popular music, and then make an argument. That's all I'm asking you to do is make a reasonable case for the most influential individual in music.

This isn't about which composer is better, in fact it's not even about which composer sounds the most like pop music, because that has no bearing on what they brought to the music world themselves. This is about the question, which one influenced the music world the most?

I think maybe you should stick to one point at a time. Do you think that Bach, even though never having invented steady rhythm, is responsible for the major influence of this in music? Because to me, that is just a characteristic of the majority of Western music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Ethereality said:


> It's not about matching a rock/pop piece with 200 year old compositions, it's about matching the patterns of how music developed, with each composer's contributions/inventions. Which I could do and make a big analysis on the intricate counter-meters of pop music in melody and rhythm VS Beethoven. You said _a steady rhythm_ is the most important. Okay--name the composer who influenced that into the music world for later generations of Bach and popular music, and then make an argument. That's all I'm asking you to do is make a reasonable case for the most influential individual in music. You seem to want to turn to Bach, but this isn't about which composer is better, in fact it's not even about which composer sounds the most like pop music, because that has no bearing on what they _brought_ to the music world themselves. This is about the question, which one was really the most influential to the music world.
> 
> I think you need to stick to one point at a time. Do you think that Bach, even though never having invented steady rhythm, is responsible for the major influence of this in music?


You're suggesting I'm making arguments I'm not making. I'm merely asking you to clarify your argument and provide even one example of one piece of pop/rock music that owes a debt to Beethoven, and how. I see you are unable to do this. I only mentioned Bach since you seem dismissive of his impact, so I was pointing out that there are perhaps more similarities to his approach in pop/rock than you might think. I never stated he was the one single individual who had the most impact on pop/rock. I do believe Bach's approach to harmony did have an impact on jazz, which is a form of blues therefore a part of the development of rock music (jazz also relates to country which is a melting pot of different styles).


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

norman bates said:


> _at the age of 44, Chausson was out for a bicycle ride outside his property in Limay when he lost control of the bike on a downhill slope and crashed into a brick will. He died instantly._
> 
> We have a winner.


Not so fast. Charles-Valentin Alkan passed out in his home and pulled a heavy coat / umbrella rack down on top of himself. Stephen Albert, a student of Milhaud, Stockhausen and Rochberg, was killed in a car accident. The movie score composer James Horner was killed in a plane crash. It's far from clear that Chausson is the winner. Let's not post silly things that only bring the level of the discussion down!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Talk about impact! Johannes Brahms died in a botched bungee jump.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Talk about impact! Johannes Brahms died in a botched bungee jump.


I'm sorry, Ken, but that's a stretch.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

fluteman said:


> I'm sorry, Ken, but that's a stretch.



Yeah, Brahms thought it was too much of a stretch. And he was right.

The shock wave was felt in Linz.​


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Monteverdi - People seem to forget/overlook how important he was both in his popularization of opera (which affected CM centuries after) and in transitioning music between the Renaissance and Baroque eras. 

Haydn - Crucial in establishing the sonata form and several genres as the dominant musical forces that would persist throughout the Classical and Romantic eras (and still today to some extent). 

Beethoven - The pivotal figure between the Classical and Romantic eras, so much so that most of the Romantic composers based their (opposing!) compositional philosophies on different aspects of Beethoven's work; the conservatives looking at his formal mastery, the radicals looking at his formal innovations. 

Wagner - What Beethoven was for Romanticism I'd say Wagner was for Modernism. His harmonic innovations seem to point directly towards the emerging trends for the next 50+ years. 

Schoenberg - Like him or not, it's difficult to deny the impact atonality and the 12-tone system has had on music for the past century. 

For those saying Mozart and Bach, I'd disagree with both (and I'm one of the biggest Mozart fans on the planet). They both had impact, absolutely, but less than the above. Beyond his operas, Mozart was mostly perfecting the forms and genres that Haydn had innovated. Bach may have mastered counterpoint, but he was out of fashion in his own time, and while many future composers studied him his style of counterpoint never really came back in style to the extent that he used it. Later composers mostly used it sparingly as a spice to their compositions.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Monteverdi - People seem to forget/overlook how important he was both in his popularization of opera (which affected CM centuries after) and in transitioning music between the Renaissance and Baroque eras.
> 
> Haydn - Crucial in establishing the sonata form and several genres as the dominant musical forces that would persist throughout the Classical and Romantic eras (and still today to some extent).
> 
> ...


Not bad, but I'd have to add Debussy and Stravinsky, each of whom has had as great an impact on 20th and 21st century music as Schoenberg, and probably greater. This was not lost on Schoenberg himself, who became quite bitter and angry about it in his old age. And I would certainly add Mozart, who contributed so significantly to the increasingly sophisticated and elaborate use of harmony that was the most important trend in western music until the early 20th century.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Actually, I don't think there is good evidence he did anything first. His supposedly innovative scores were revised to look more daring than they originally were.


Yes, but this isn't to say that they weren't innovative before. There is only so much you can do to "revise" a piece.

Regardless, there is no dispute that Ives was a very influential insurance salesman


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Monteverdi - People seem to forget/overlook how important he was both in his popularization of opera (which affected CM centuries after) and in transitioning music between the Renaissance and Baroque eras.
> 
> Haydn - Crucial in establishing the sonata form and several genres as the dominant musical forces that would persist throughout the Classical and Romantic eras (and still today to some extent).
> 
> ...


It depends on what one defines as 'impact'. Your list seems to favor innovators whose music led to specific and obvious stylistic changes/trends. But how does one measure the impact of Bach or Mozart who were more perfecters than innovators, yet were extensively studied by virtually all master composers who followed them? Perhaps it is not as easy to point to obvious stylistic trends they helped change, however music without their presence would no doubt be drastically altered. They redefined the forms they worked with and set new standards in music that in my view still haven't been surpassed. They are the benchmark.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

deleted post similar to below.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Before he composed the "48" the idea of equal temperament was unknown. Bach changed that and his works became the training ground for virtually everyone. He never considered these miniatures being recorded and played in concert as they are today but I'm sure he'd have joyfully approved.

He also invented the fugue, a device still commonly used in all forms of music.

The list of Mozart's "firsts" and innovations is long; one is the piano entering before the orchestra in a concerto another being first person to write a symphony where the winds enter before strings. A third would be the first to reintroduce all the major ideas in symphony and renew them in the finale.

Haydn fathered the symphony (perhaps with help from Bach's son) and string quartet.

Beethoven's "Eroica" exploded the idea of the symphony and made it into something never before seen, setting a pattern mimicked by scores of composers until Mahler's Symphony 3 became the longest in history.

Beethoven also introduced the idea of having a symphony-cantata in No. 9, mimicked by Mendelssohn, Mahler and others.

Liszt, the father of the tone or symphonic poem, turned sonata form around by making expositions and recaps into development sections. His formulae was the model for Bruckner's symphonies and his influence on Wagner, another revolutionary, was equally great.

Wagner's concept of music-scene-drama is the metaphor for today's blockbuster film such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which was of course patterned after Wagner's Ring.

Had there been no Second Viennese School we would be left to guess if atonal music would ever have entered the mainstream in the way it has in film music and elsewhere.

Considering what happened at the end of the 20th century in classical music one must throw a bone to Ravel's Bolero for being the Capt. Obvious of repetitive music years before it became de rigueur.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

deleted post entered in error.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Actually, I believe the idea of equal temperament predated Bach by a long time. In any event, he is most known for promoting well temperament, which is not the same thing. The fugue, again, was around long before Bach's time, with the first recognizable fugues appearing in the 16th century.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

--------------------------------------------------


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

larold said:


> Before he composed the "48" the idea of equal temperament was unknown. Bach changed that and his works became the training ground for virtually everyone. He never considered these miniatures being recorded and played in concert as they are today but I'm sure he'd have joyfully approved.
> 
> He also invented the fugue, a device still commonly used in all forms of music.
> 
> ...


Bolero is one of numerous 20th century pieces where rhythm (as in the relentless repetitive drum beat evocative of African drum music) plays a more central role than in earlier eras of western music. Significant and as classic an example as it is, Bolero came 15 years after The Rite of Spring, the first major western work that I know of to emphasize complex rhythms (Petrushka came first, but The Rite took this concept much further) . And there is no denying the African influence on that work as well. I mean, the story may have involved a supposed ancient pagan ritual from Russia, but what did Stravinsky or anyone else know about ancient pagan music?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fluteman said:


> Not bad, but I'd have to add Debussy and Stravinsky, each of whom has had as great an impact on 20th and 21st century music as Schoenberg, and probably greater. This was not lost on Schoenberg himself, who became quite bitter and angry about it in his old age. And I would certainly add Mozart, who contributed so significantly to the increasingly sophisticated and elaborate use of harmony that was the most important trend in western music until the early 20th century.


If I had expanded my list to 10 they probably would've been 6 and 7, respectively. As is, I'm not sure I can justify placing either of them over Schoenberg. I hear Debussy as another step towards Modernism, Stravinsky being the composer that finally and fully gets there; but Schoenberg invented a whole new way of composing. Listen to composers after them and I think you can hear traces of Debussy and Stravinsky, but it's difficult to hear any composers utilizing atonality without thinking of Schoenberg. It's a matter of degrees, really.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

tdc said:


> It depends on what one defines as 'impact'. Your list seems to favor innovators whose music led to specific and obvious stylistic changes/trends. But how does one measure the impact of Bach or Mozart who were more perfecters than innovators, yet were extensively studied by virtually all master composers who followed them? Perhaps it is not as easy to point to obvious stylistic trends they helped change, however music without their presence would no doubt be drastically altered. They redefined the forms they worked with and set new standards in music that in my view still haven't been surpassed. They are the benchmark.


You make many good points here, and the difficulty of measuring the impact of studying those who were "perfercters that were extensively studie" is what leads me to favor the "innovators whose music lead to specific and obvious... changes."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> Eva, do you read any of the things I write?


Honestly? Sometimes, yes, but I find you exhausting even when you do post enlightening stuff. This isn't a classroom and you aren't a teacher that's here to lecture everyone. You love to nitpick and frequently miss the proverbial forest for the trees, and your biases manifest in you cherry-picking examples that show a huge amount of confirmation/disconfirmation bias. Take this response of yours: do you think I'm unfamiliar with the innovations of CPE Bach? Of course not, but there's a reason Haydn is considered the father of the symphony and string quartet even though he wasn't solely responsible for innovating those genres. Likewise with Beethoven, you ignored what I said in favor of skewering a strawman; and from that I could very well ask if _you_ read what _I_ write. Likewise, I never said anything about Chopin's "innovative language;" that's you confusing me for someone else. That Wagner took stuff from Liszt and Merbeer is rather irrelevant to his impact; all composers are, in some respects, derivative of their influences. How, exactly, does that affect their impact?



hammeredklavier said:


> It's not about "being a fan". It's about making proper assessments from "objective facts".


I guess this forum should consider ourselves lucky that we have the master of assessing objective facts in our midst.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> If I had expanded my list to 10 they probably would've been 6 and 7, respectively. As is, I'm not sure I can justify placing either of them over Schoenberg. I hear Debussy as another step towards Modernism, Stravinsky being the composer that finally and fully gets there; but Schoenberg invented a whole new way of composing. Listen to composers after them and I think you can hear traces of Debussy and Stravinsky, but it's difficult to hear any composers utilizing atonality without thinking of Schoenberg. It's a matter of degrees, really.


Yes, Schoenberg had the profoundly important idea of using a system that did not rely on tonal hierarchies at all, but to compound the indignity of that system not becoming universally standard, even composers who have made use of atonal elements more often than not have done so in a way that has little or nothing to do with Schoenberg's system. Poor guy. Of course you're right that his innovation is profoundly significant. But Stravinsky's influence in lessening the central importance of harmony (to a large extent by increasing the importance of rhythm) after six uninterrupted centuries of its increasing importance for me is at least as important.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

larold said:


> Before he composed the "48" the idea of equal temperament was unknown. Bach changed that and his works became the training ground for virtually everyone. He never considered these miniatures being recorded and played in concert as they are today but I'm sure he'd have joyfully approved.
> 
> He also invented the fugue, a device still commonly used in all forms of music.
> 
> ...


YES! Someone who mentioned THE MASTER of the masters! No Liszt, no modern piano. That's an impact! Period.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Dimace said:


> YES! Someone who mentioned THE MASTER of the masters! No Liszt, no modern piano. That's an impact! Period.


I agree equal temperament was a crucial development in western music, but I'm afraid we can't credit Bach with it. Many musicologists think that the Well-tempered Clavier was written with a tuning system known as Werckmeister III in mind, one of the systems devised by Andreas Werckmeister, who was one generation prior to Bach. Equal temperament became more prevalent in the late 18th century, but did not become the universal standard until the mid-19th century. But even if Bach wrote for Werckmeister III tuning, your point still has validity, as Bach's music was of enough harmonic complexity to require more attention to the tuning system than merely using just temperament or some other ancient method.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fluteman said:


> Yes, Schoenberg had the profoundly important idea of using a system that did not rely on tonal hierarchies at all, but to compound the indignity of that system not becoming universally standard, even composers who have made use of atonal elements more often than not have done so in a way that has little or nothing to do with Schoenberg's system. Poor guy. Of course you're right that his innovation is profoundly significant. But Stravinsky's influence in lessening the central importance of harmony (to a large extent by increasing the importance of rhythm) after six uninterrupted centuries of its increasing importance for me is at least as important.


All good points. Really, I wouldn't argue too vociferously if someone switched Schoenberg for Stravinsky, only slightly more if they switched him for Debussy. Choosing between them is all about splitting hairs and picking poisons and other cliched metaphors.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> All good points. Really, I wouldn't argue too vociferously if someone switched Schoenberg for Stravinsky, only slightly more if they switched him for Debussy. Choosing between them is all about splitting hairs and picking poisons and other cliched metaphors.


Here's a tough riddle for you: Who had more influence on the music of Pierre Boulez -- Schoenberg or Stravinsky? Hmm. But I'm pretty confident of the answer if we ask which one had more influence on George Crumb: Debussy more than either of them.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Indeed a difficult question to answer, but to put it in perspective, we can start off with a retrospective _mathematical_ approach, taking the oldness of the composer in conjunction with their assessed quality to the whole of music. This gives us 3 composers linking a clear chain of influence in the musical timeline: Perotin, Josquin, and Bach, where music after Bach's era finally stopped improving by objective measures, while Perotin and Josquin helped the most in leading up to this measure of objectivity.

However by this logic, it appears to make more sense taking an unknown approach, since we don't have all the information. Click here for a glimpse of what I mean.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

fluteman said:


> Stravinsky's influence in lessening the central importance of harmony (to a large extent by increasing the importance of rhythm) after six uninterrupted centuries of its increasing importance for me is at least as important.


I'm not inclined to go against your assessment of the importance of Stravinsky (even in comparison with Schoenberg) but I wonder if it is true that Stravinsky replaced the central importance of harmony with rhythm. I hear harmony being taken very seriously in most of his mature music and I don't hear rhythm often playing that important a role.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

We often ask, 'who was the transitional figure between such period and such period?' I think we can phrase the question to the broad spectrum of music 'who was the biggest transitional figure in the history of music?' then we're left with only one answer that we know. *Pérotin*. We tend to overlook this answer for more tasteful choices, but nobody we know has been more impactful and influential to the diverse progress of music after them. As for the second-biggest known transitional figure, that is an interesting question, but the medieval period after Pérotin is an utter cosmos of congregated inspiration.


----------

