# The influence of Johann Sebastian Bach



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

How did this composer influence the music that was written by others? I'm particularly interested in examples before Mendelssohn.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2014)

The most obvious candidates are J S Bach's own children who were successful as composers: 

•	W F Bach (1710-1784) 
•	C P E Bach (1714 -1788)
•	J C Bach (1735-1782)

They all received some training from their father. J S Bach died in 1750 so J C Bach was only about 15 at the time. After the death of his father he continued to be taught by C P E Bach who was already a highly regarded composer.

There is little doubt that the greatest of these offspring was C P E Bach. None of them was a "baroque composer". They each formed part of the emerging "galante" style or "early classical" style. 

C P E Bach was a major influence on Joseph Haydn, and LvB also had a very high regard for C P E.

For further information their stories are set out in Wikipedia articles.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I would certainly like to have some concrete examples of CPEB's influence on Haydn. None are ever forthcoming. I didn't know that Beethoven knew about him - are there any examples there? 

As far as JSB is concerned, we still have drawn a blank outside his own family, or so it seems.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I would certainly like to have some concrete examples of CPEB's influence on Haydn. None are ever forthcoming. I didn't know that Beethoven knew about him - are there any examples there? 

As far as JSB is concerned, we still have drawn a blank outside his own family, or so it seems. 

Mozart transcribed some Bach fugues, but I have no idea if the influence is more important. And what about Beethoven? I know Beethoven studied Bach, but how and where can we see a real influence, if at all? Maybe Beethoven just used Bach to refine some technical compositional skills, counterpoint and that sort of thing.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beethoven knew CPE Bach's keyboard music well and studied from it. "Of Emanuel Bach's clavier works I have only a few, yet they must be not only a real delight to every true artist, but also serve him for study purposes; and it is for me a great pleasure to play works that I have never seen, or seldom see, for real art lovers." (July 26, 1809, to Gottfried Hartel, of Leipzig in ordering all the scores of Haydn, Mozart and the two Bachs.)

Also Beethoven knew JS Bach's keyboard music well and toured playing the WTC before he was ten years old. After he arrived in Vienna in 1795, he was in demand as a Bach pianist and compained of being forced to play Bach fugues "until my fingers bled." That was at Baron van Swieten's place, of course.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I just want to add the third "Not Very Much At All" except for the influence on his sons, who clearly went their own way musically.

Curious that when I spotted this thread, that is the consensus so far... usually there are wildly exaggerated, and insupportable, opinions that Bach hugely influenced later composers.

_Not _

Did counterpoint, both modal and tonal, continue to be used by this composer and that? Sure.

ADD; Beethoven's required Bach in piano lessons was a _piainist's_ finger and thought exercise. Later, as a composer, Beethoven was primarily a harmonist who once in a blue moon ventured into polyphony. When composing the Missa Solemnis, he wrote his publisher requesting an older work he wanted as reference: it was Palestrina, not Bach, that he referred to when composing that work.

Van Swieten introduced Mozart to the WTC, J.S. Bach, and we get the adagio and fugue 'ala Bach' but other than that, the "influence" of J.S. Bach on Mozart is negligible, Mozart both before and after instead banking on his contrapuntal skills so thoroughly learned in his early teens in Rome.

Post Mendelssohn's revival of Bach, there is very little to show from all of literature in the way of major influence by J.S. Bach. So often, the general common guy's opinion is that Bach's influence was _direct and tremendous_, lol. I think that must be some myth, the origin of which I cannot imagine.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

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


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Are the Diabelli Variations influenced by the Goldberg Variations? 

Someone once said to me that the opening movement of the Pathétique sonata is influenced by the sinfonia in the C minor keyboard partita, but I haven't explored this claim yet.

And then there's the Chopin preludes, which I've heard were influenced in some way by Bach, though how important the influence is is a mystery to me.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I just want to add the third "Not Very Much At All" except for the influence on his sons, who clearly went their own way musically.
> 
> Curious that when I spotted this thread, that is the consensus so far... usually there are wildly exaggerated, and insupportable, opinions that Bach hugely influenced later composers.
> 
> ...


Well, one thing is certain most of the major composers from Mozart forward played Bach, and most of them revered if not respected him. So clearly influence was there to some extent, perhaps the main reason that it is not as apparent in their actual compositional style is because firstly - the gap of time between Mendelssohn's resurrection of him and secondly because I don't think any other composer can do the things he did at that level, so why would anyone bother trying to be a second-rate Bach?

But obviously his influence is still strong in more modern times or we wouldn't have things like Gubaidulina's _Offertorium_, or Stravinsky's _Dumbarton Oaks_.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Are the Diabelli Variations influenced by the Goldberg Variations?


I would say, definitely. The two works are directly compared in Diabelli's announcement of publication, and the influence of the Goldbergs on the Diabellis, especially in the latter part of the work, is quite apparent to my ears. Also, see the comments of both Tovey and Von Bulow on Variation 31 in the Wiki entry on the Diabellis.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

_Richannes Wrahms sits patiently in his desk waiting for Dr. Mahlerian's rhapsody on the subject as the polite little thoughtful kid he was will be_


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

tdc said:


> Well, one thing is certain most of the major composers from Mozart forward played Bach, and most of them revered if not respected him. So clearly influence was there to some extent, perhaps the main reason that it is not as apparent in their actual compositional style is because firstly - the gap of time between Mendelssohn's resurrection of him and secondly *because I don't think any other composer can do the things he did at that level, so why would anyone bother trying to be a second-rate Bach?
> *
> But obviously his influence is still strong in more modern times or we wouldn't have things like Gubaidulina's _Offertorium_, or Stravinsky's _Dumbarton Oaks_.


What "things" are you thinking of?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

PetrB said:


> . . . So often, the general common guy's opinion is that Bach's influence was _direct and tremendous_, lol. I think that must be some myth, the origin of which I cannot imagine.


If this is true it is probably assumed based on Bach's stature alone. However, I've not really heard these rumors of Bach's influence, not that I get out much. I had thought scratching the surface would reveal he was more than a little retro even in his own time, and scarcely influential at all unless you count obvious homages by the likes of Busoni and Stravinsky. I always thought of Bach as the last and greatest practitioner of a dying art form, never to be seen again.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> What "things" are you thinking of?


The exacting nature of his counterpoint mostly. There is a certain mathematical inevitability to the sound of his compositions, its in ways less abstract than other styles, not a lot to 'hide behind'.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> Well, one thing is certain most of the major composers from Mozart forward played Bach, and most of them revered if not respected him. So clearly influence was there to some extent, perhaps the main reason that it is not as apparent in their actual compositional style is because firstly - the gap of time between Mendelssohn's resurrection of him and secondly because I don't think any other composer can do the things he did at that level, so why would anyone bother trying to be a second-rate Bach?
> 
> But obviously his influence is still strong in more modern times or we wouldn't have things like Gubaidulina's _Offertorium_, or Stravinsky's _Dumbarton Oaks_.


Bach was never without musicians who knew of and admired the work... even during the 'obscurity' period after his death. That is not in question, his works generally known and respected within the circles of the 'cognoscenti.' Yet we have Mozart, seemingly unaware of Bach's work until introduced to it by Baron von Swieten. That phenomenon I think worth thinking about in the light of an era "pre music history," the birth of music history creating a respect or 'reverence' for the past unprecedented until "music history" became part of a collective consciousness.

Later works such as the Diabelli variations, or all you mentioned, show clear awareness of Bach. Chopin used Bach extensively, for his own workouts as well as assigning Bach to his students. His counterpoint is brilliant, used very differently than 18th century style. The preludes may have no further connection than being 24 pieces in all the keys, Bach's WTC the clear precedent.

By the late 1800's counterpoint -- at least 18th century counterpoint -- was so out of fashion that in some conservatories it was not taught at all, i.e. considered unnecessary. (There are nearly always exceptions, Max Reger often reveling in 18th century contrapuntal procedures.) Now, every music student is required at least a cursory course in both modal and tonal counterpoint. "The big resurrection" of counterpoint in general came along with serial music, with its fundamental premise of a row and the retrograde, inversion and retrograde inversion being part of the row matrix... lending itself to and immediately triggering thoughts of 'counterpoint.' Neoclassical music, too, in going back to the baroque, was much inclined to again use counterpoint and contrapuntal practices, the necessity and choice of smaller ensembles also lending itself more readily to contrapuntal music vs. the late romantic era's primary concern with harmony and massed sound (Brahms and Mahler being huge exceptions in carrying on with use of counterpoint.)


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> _Richannes Wrahms sits patiently in his desk waiting for Dr. Mahlerian's rhapsody on the subject as the polite little thoughtful kid he was will be_


_Ahem..._listen up class.

In religious music, the Baroque style still held sway to some extent in the late 18th century (even Palestrina was never completely forgotten), so one can hear the influence of, at the very least, Handel and the other composers that influenced Bach's style. Bach himself was known well by connoisseurs, but not the general public, as his music was primarily aimed neither at the new style of concert that showcased concertos and symphonies nor amateur piano players at home like Haydn's earlier sonatas. Mozart, it is known, knew some of Bach's works from a certain point in his life, and some have traced an interest in Bachian counterpoint to this influence, though it is debated elsewhere, and Beethoven knew and admired Bach and Handel.

Of Mendelssohn's generation, Schumann and Chopin were acquainted with Bach's works. The former made "arrangements" of the solo string works, adding piano to bring them into line with current fashion, and the latter was, like Beethoven, familiar with Bach from an early age.

After the early Romantics, Wagner claimed influence, and Liszt wrote a number of Bach paraphrases as well as a piece on the name B-A-C-H. I find the passacaglia of Brahms's Fourth has a Bach-like tinge to it, despite the Romantic trappings, and Bruckner's music is filled with the fugues and chorales of the church music he grew up with and around. The first movement of Mahler's Symphony No. 8 is said to be influenced by Bach's famous motet "Singt dem Herrn eine neues Lied", and Mahler arranged some movements from Bach's Orchestral Suites for concert performance (with himself playing pseudo-harpsichord continuo at a piano with paper over the strings!). Reger made pretty much anything he wrote into a fugue, and also wrote a piece on B-A-C-H for organ.

Of the early moderns, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Hindemith, Webern, and Shostakovich all paid homage to Bach at one point or another, either by writing pieces in a Bach-influenced style (Dumbarton Oaks Concerto, Ludus Tonalis, Shostakovich's Preludes and Fugues, Schoenberg Suite Op. 25) or by inserting his name (Schoenberg Variations Op. 31, Webern String Quartet). Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Webern were also some of the many composers and conductors who made full orchestral arrangements of some of Bach's organ works.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Weston said:


> If this is true it is probably assumed based on Bach's stature alone. However, I've not really heard these rumors of Bach's influence, not that I get out much. I had thought scratching the surface would reveal he was more than a little retro even in his own time, and scarcely influential at all unless you count obvious homages by the likes of Busoni and Stravinsky. I always thought of Bach as the last and greatest practitioner of a dying art form, never to be seen again.


Other than the last and greatest practitioner bit, I think you are quite correct... making the answer to the question, 'how influential on later composers was J.S. Bach," accurately, "Negligible," and, "If any, not much at all."


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Stravinsky's violin concerto is modeled after Bach. If someone already mentioned it, fine, I'm too inebriated to look back.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Bach was never without musicians who knew of and admired the work... even during the 'obscurity' period after his death. That is not in question, his works generally known and respected within the circles of the 'cognoscenti.' Yet we have Mozart, seemingly unaware of Bach's work until introduced to it by Baron von Swieten. That phenomenon I think worth thinking about in the light of an era "pre music history," the birth of music history creating a respect or 'reverence' for the past unprecedented until "music history" became part of a collective consciousness.
> 
> Later works such as the Diabelli variations, or all you mentioned, show clear awareness of Bach. Chopin used Bach extensively, for his own workouts as well as assigning Bach to his students. His counterpoint is brilliant, used very differently than 18th century style. The preludes may have no further connection than being 24 pieces in all the keys, Bach's WTC the clear precedent.
> 
> By the late 1800's counterpoint -- at least 18th century counterpoint -- was so out of fashion that in some conservatories it was not taught at all, i.e. considered unnecessary. (There are nearly always exceptions, Max Reger often reveling in 18th century contrapuntal procedures.) Now, every music student is required at least a cursory course in both modal and tonal counterpoint. "The big resurrection" of counterpoint in general came along with serial music, with its fundamental premise of a row and the retrograde, inversion and retrograde inversion being part of the row matrix... lending itself to and immediately triggering thoughts of 'counterpoint.' Neoclassical music, too, in going back to the baroque, was much inclined to again use counterpoint and contrapuntal practices, the necessity and choice of smaller ensembles also lending itself more readily to contrapuntal music vs. the late romantic era's primary concern with harmony and massed sound (Brahms and Mahler being huge exceptions in carrying on with use of counterpoint.)


One thing that still confuses me is you seem to have the logic that because the musical forms were different (ie - not using 18th century counterpoint) there isn't any (or very little) influence. I think "influence" can show itself in different ways, a composer does not have to compose in the same way Bach did to be influenced by him. The influence could take shape in other ways - the harmonies used, or the basic approach such as the 24 preludes you mentioned or the works I have mentioned. Wagner claims to have been influenced by Bach - that is influence, and because we have this direct influence on the music of other major and influential composers, it makes logical sense to me that Bach's music was therefore very influential. If a composer is inspired to achieve something because of the music of Bach - that is influence - even if the end product is very different.

The Romantics were generally very influenced by Beethoven, that doesn't mean they stuck to the same Classical forms. Music evolves. As I stated before after Bach I think there is only so much one can do within 18th century counterpoint, it would take a genius as great or greater to make anything really inspirational using those methods, just as very few composers are trying to compose Piano Sonatas the way Beethoven did today.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

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


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Van Swieten introduced Mozart to the WTC, J.S. Bach, and we get the adagio and fugue 'ala Bach' but other than that, the "influence" of J.S. Bach on Mozart is negligible, Mozart both before and after instead banking on his contrapuntal skills so thoroughly learned in his early teens in Rome.


To the OP: one way to quickly canvass opinions about Bach's influence on Mozart would be to scan the indexes of Mozartian books for the name Gottfried van Swieten.

As one might expect, there is little agreement among the experts about the extent of Mozart's interest in Bach's style of composition. Some think he had an earth-shattering "eureka" moment at Van Swieten's library, while others seem to think he always saw Bachian fugues as old-fashioned and only composed them himself to please backward sensibilities at court--such as his wife!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Beethoven's required Bach in piano lessons was a _piainist's_ finger and thought exercise. Later, as a composer, Beethoven was primarily a harmonist who once in a blue moon ventured into polyphony. When composing the Missa Solemnis, he wrote his publisher requesting an older work he wanted as reference: it was Palestrina, not Bach, that he referred to when composing that work.


Two comments: First, Beethoven famously referred to Bach in terms of a harmonist. "That you are going to publish Sebastian Bach's works is something which does good to my heart, which beats in love of the great and lofty art of this ancestral father of harmony; I want to see them soon." (1801)

Second: Beethoven referred to Palestrina when writing the Missa, true, but that hardly means he ignored Bach, or others. I don't suspect anybody would say that the Credo's closing fugue on "et vitam venturi" was based on Palestrina's example!


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I guess Shostakovich's 24 preludes and fugues for piano are influenced by Bach's WTC.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

shangoyal said:


> I guess Shostakovich's 24 preludes and fugues for piano are influenced by Bach's WTC.


The direct model, plain and clear.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

The nine numbered Bachianas Brasileras by Villa Lobos contain various fugues, arias, toccatas and dances.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

senza sordino said:


> The nine numbered Bachianas Brasileras by Villa Lobos contain various fugues, arias, toccatas and dances.


Uh, yeah, _*Bachianas Brasileiras*_ 1930 - 1935, are a bit more of the bulk of neoclassical styled music, the initiating marker which is usually Stravinsky's Pulcinella, 1920.

The 20th century has a number of Bach-modeled or tribute works, which I think is a matter far away from the question in the OP re Bach as immediate influence, but those 20th century hommages have given us some very nice music, to name but two, Stravinsky's _Von Himmel Hoch Variations_, and Charles Koechlins grand-scale _Offrande musicale sur le nom de BACH_


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Sometimes if you greatly admire someone from the past you don't want to copy them, in fact to do that might even be thought folly if they were so good at what they did. Better to find your own direction. Maybe sometimes you can find a quote of some music or something that might imitate a style slightly in a particular piece, but I'm not sure what the point is in blowing something like that up to great signficance. If something lasts in the very long term it's surely not based on influence (which is fashion) but simply on whether the classical audience in general still listens to it or not.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> ...after Bach I think there is only so much one can do within 18th century counterpoint, it would take a genius as great or greater to make anything really inspirational using those methods, just as very few composers are trying to compose Piano Sonatas the way Beethoven did today.


I think you have a glamor glaze on music history, at least a bit. When Bach died, _people were not much interested in contrapuntal music in general,_ his sons and others going very much in a different direction. Bach, and his works, were essentially forgotten. No one then was thinking about 'their place in music history' as far as harmonic developments, either 

Bach, with his predecessor Monteverdi, his peer Rameau, and his near peer Vivaldi, did 'cement' the tonality we now call 'common practice tonality,' but the man was not working alone, in a vacuum!

Bach writes a set of pieces in 24 keys as a demo of the new temperament -- I believe the idea was not his, but a request for it was the idea of someone else... even if the idea had been his, I cannot imagine another picking up the same idea and writing 24 pieces in 24 keys to demonstrate the new temperament. That idea in itself, then, less influential than one might think. Sure, 32 variations ala the Brandenburgs has become a respected format, and the format has influence, while Bach's content and way of going about it seem to have had little direct influence at all.

So the sons and others go on their merry way, Mozart learns counterpoint ala Fux, et alia, and seventy years later Mendelssohn revives Bach to the general public. At the height of the German hegamony of printed music, general influence throughout Europe and Great Britain, and somewhere thereabouts the German invention of 'classical music history,' Wagner pays hommage to Bach with a little lip service. How charming, and to be taken with about as many grains of salt as the genius composer Beethoven, clearly not a genius in other areas, saying Bach was the father of harmony. Ja Ja Ja... give us all a contextual break, fellas.

_Meanwhile in France_, one might want to look into the still important text of Monsieur Jean-Philippe Rameau, and his very important _Traité de l'harmonie réduite à ses principes naturels_, to see just how much real influence this particular composer had on later generations of musicians.

I don't deny some influence to Bach, but in general, there is some near-mythic business that he was hugely influential, about as proportionate to his being over-revered, and I find both exaggerated extremes of attention not only skewed but a bit silly -- not any worse than the over-reverence and near worship of Beethoven and Mozart, but similar, and similarly silly.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I would certainly like to have some concrete examples of CPEB's influence on Haydn. None are ever forthcoming. I didn't know that Beethoven knew about him - are there any examples there?
> 
> As far as JSB is concerned, we still have drawn a blank outside his own family, or so it seems.
> 
> Mozart transcribed some Bach fugues, but I have no idea if the influence is more important. And what about Beethoven? I know Beethoven studied Bach, but how and where can we see a real influence, if at all? Maybe Beethoven just used Bach to refine some technical compositional skills, counterpoint and that sort of thing.


Quote from the Encylopedia Britannica:

"_The influence of C.P.E. Bach's Essay on Keyboard Instruments was unsurpassed for two generations. Haydn called it "the school of schools." Mozart said, "He is the father, we are the children." Beethoven, when teaching the young Karl Czerny, wrote, "be sure of procuring Emanuel Bach's treatise." It is, indeed, one of the essential sourcebooks for understanding the style and interpretation of 18th-century music. It is comprehensive on thorough bass, on ornaments and fingering, and is an authentic guide to many other refinements of 18th-century performance."_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Partita said:


> Quote from the Encylopedia Britannica:
> 
> "_The influence of C.P.E. Bach's Essay on Keyboard Instruments was unsurpassed for two generations. Haydn called it "the school of schools." Mozart said, "He is the father, we are the children." Beethoven, when teaching the young Karl Czerny, wrote, "be sure of procuring Emanuel Bach's treatise." It is, indeed, one of the essential sourcebooks for understanding the style and interpretation of 18th-century music. It is comprehensive on thorough bass, on ornaments and fingering, and is an authentic guide to many other refinements of 18th-century performance."_


... The keyboard treatise, and a little matter of those other symphonic works of which he was a key generator transiting from the Mannheim school to early classicism, with his near pro-generative empfindsamer Stil which certainly influenced many _et voilà!_, there is the Bach who had the greatest and most direct influence on following generations of musicians, both classical and trailing into the romantic.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2014)

PetrB said:


> ... The keyboard treatise, and a little matter of those other symphonic works of which he was a key generator transiting from the Mannheim school to early classicism, with his near pro-generative empfindsamer Stil which certainly influenced many _et voilà!_, there is the Bach who had the greatest and most direct influence on following generations of musicians, both classical and trailing into the romantic.


Indeed, CPEB was, I gather, very highly regarded in his day and beyond, not just because of his Treatise but by virtue of a great deal of good quality music. It spanned keyboard, chamber, concerto, "symphony", and some sacred music. I put "symphony" in quotes because these are early forms of the symphony, quite short in comparison with the frills later applied by Haydn et al.

CPEB happens to be one of my favourite composers. His music forms an excellent bridge between the late baroque style perfected by his father into the more clearly classical world of Haydn, Mozart and others.

His name doesn't seem to come up all that often on this Board. I think I am going to have a CPEB day today, especially since it is 300th birthday coming up on 8 March.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Other than the last and greatest practitioner bit, I think you are quite correct... making the answer to the question, 'how influential on later composers was J.S. Bach," accurately, "Negligible," and, "If any, not much at all."


Given that most everyone for the last century (at least) has learned the fundamentals of tonal music by studying and attempting to emulate Bach's voice-leading, dissonance treatment, and counterpoint, and that many major composers over the last two centuries have thoroughly digested his WTC, some until their fingers bled, it is sheer hubris for anyone to think they can gauge the depth and breadth of his influence. It is likely so deep and pervasive as to be beyond measuring, but because the influence is so close to the elemental or molecular level for many composers, it is not always going to be apparent in the macro features of their works.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Beethoven seems to have been more influential. Several modern composers I'm familiar with have seen to incorporate "tributes" in their music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Given that most everyone for the last century (at least) has learned the fundamentals of tonal music by studying and attempting to emulate Bach's voice-leading, dissonance treatment, and counterpoint, and that many major composers over the last two centuries have thoroughly digested his WTC, some until their fingers bled, it is sheer hubris for anyone to think they can gauge the depth and breadth of his influence. It is likely so deep and pervasive as to be beyond measuring, but because the influence is so close to the elemental or molecular level for many composers, it is not always going to be apparent in the macro features of their works.


If you will. Fact is many did without him completely for about one hundred years and did not 'learn the old music first' in conservatories. That did come to the fore in the very late 1800's and more so in the twentieth. I would think the 20th century barely counts as having any one composer from before so "predominating" influence.

Piano students are confronted with Bach, Bartok, Schumann, and 20th century music, as I was at age six, from the get go. Emphasis on Bach as to emphasis is so usually over-emphasis, as to 'stature and influence,' while guessing his influence is a wild-card game to be sure -- but perhaps the actual fact his "impact" directly after his death and for some length of time after that -- was less than negligible needs a little coming to the fore to balance out whatever "measure of influence" is taken.

P.s. I would want real proof that, "many major composers over the last two centuries have thoroughly digested his WTC, _some until their fingers bled,_..." LOL.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

To answer the OP question: Enormous! Or bigger than that. Without JSB there would be no "Western" music as we know it today.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

It might help to try and identify what Bach's style was.

One thing which seems very distinctive is the way he transcended national styles - you know, in one piece, one cantata movement, you can have French Style music and Italian Style music and even an old German chorale melody in the mix. Does anyone else do this after him, influenced by him? F Couperin's Apothéoses seem different, but maybe not. 

Another thing is the way he uses music music to express ideas, theological ideas. I would say thay the chorale preludes are a sort of exegesis on church hymns. That art seems to have been lost after.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

That's really speculation, and he's often seen as the culmination of the Northern baroque anyway. So without his own forbears there may have been no JS Bach (as we know him at least).

edit: reply to Serge


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

One thing to keep in mind in this thread is that "influence" can mean different things to different people, and more broadly different things in different times. The word can conjure up anything from a direct quotation, the approximation of a style, or even something more complex and negative. The "influence" of the WTC on both Chopin's Preludes and Shosty's Preludes and Fugues is apparent--but obviously the character of that influence is totally different in each case.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'd be more interested in hearing about the influence of Bach's music on listeners. For me, his music has enhanced my feelings of spirituality. To be honest, I think my level of spirituality would be close to zero without Bach.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Beethoven seems to have been more influential. Several modern composers I'm familiar with have seen to incorporate "tributes" in their music.


I'm sure there are modern works that show influence of Beethoven, but we've already listed multiple modern works in this thread that show influence of Bach - works by Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Gubaidulina and Villa-Lobos have already been listed. I know that Webern and Schoenberg greatly admired Bach and arranged some of his pieces, Bartok has also arranged Bach, Berg quotes Bach in his Violin Concerto. The adagio from Rodrigo's Concierto Aranjuez is heavily influenced by the adagio in Bach's BWV 564.

Can you list some similar examples for Beethoven?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

tdc said:


> I'm sure there are modern works that show influence of Beethoven, but we've already listed multiple modern works in this thread that show influence of Bach - works by Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Gubaidulina and Villa-Lobos have already been listed. I know that Webern and Schoenberg greatly admired Bach and arranged some of his pieces. Berg quotes Bach in his Violin Concerto.
> 
> Can you list some similar examples for Beethoven?


Ives Concord Piano Sonata is loaded with Beethoven Symphony #5 references.

Seppo Pohjola's First Symphony has a few direct quotes right out of Beethoven's symphonies.

Schubert in his 9th Symphony and Brahms in his First symphony both allude to the finale of Beethoven's 9th symphony.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Ives Concord Piano Sonata is loaded with Beethoven Symphony #5 references.
> 
> Seppo Pohjola's First Symphony has a few direct quotes right out of Beethoven's symphonies.
> 
> Schubert in his 9th Symphony and Brahms in his First symphony both allude to the finale of Beethoven's 9th symphony.


Well your quote was talking about 'modern' composers, so those were the examples I was sticking to. Your first two examples are good (though I'm not familiar with that second composer) but hardly prove your initial point suggesting Beethoven was more influential on modern composers.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

For contemporary influence, Schubert's song Auf dem Strom has a direct quote from the Funeral March movement of Beethoven's Eroica symphony.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> For contemporary influence, Schubert's song Auf dem Strom has a direct quote from the Funeral March movement of Beethoven's Eroica symphony.


Perhaps it is fair to say Beethoven's music had more immediate influence, while Bach was more influential on modern composers.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I just quoted 2 modern composers who Beethoven had a direct influence on. Who knows how many more there are/were?
Schnittke wrote a cadenza for the Beethoven Violin Concerto.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I just quoted 2 modern composers who Beethoven had a direct influence on. Who knows how many more there are/were?
> Schnittke wrote a cadenza for the Beethoven Violin Concerto.


You are right there are probably more, but you still haven't provided sufficient examples to back your initial claim that Beethoven was more influential on modern composers than Bach.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Nothing really to prove.
Beethoven's influence on western music is a given.
It's like a fact of life.
One doesn't argue the sky is not blue.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> You are right there are probably more, but you still haven't provided sufficient examples to back your initial claim that Beethoven was more influential on modern composers than Bach.


Every composer who thinks he can damn well write whatever he wants and people damn well better like it has been deeply influenced by Beethoven.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

starry said:


> That's really speculation, and he's often seen as the culmination of the Northern baroque anyway. So without his own forbears there may have been no JS Bach (as we know him at least).
> 
> edit: reply to Serge


Of course. What would our music sound like without JS Bach? pretty much what it sounds like now, except without that confounded Stravinsky violin concerto and a few Shostakovich preludes and fugues and some forgettable Villa Lobos pieces.

Now say to me what would have happened if Beethoven never existed and I would have predicted an absolute catastrophe in the development of western music. I shudder to think of it.
Beethoven was huge!!!

One thing's for sure without Beethoven, Bruckner surely would have been quite a different composer. Wasn't he the dude who kept trying to re-write Beethoven's 9th Symphony with those tremelos at the beginning of his symphonies?


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> I'd be more interested in hearing about the influence of Bach's music on listeners. For me, his music has enhanced my feelings of spirituality. To be honest, I think my level of spirituality would be close to zero without Bach.


Bach is not about "spirituality" but about music. Same goes for Bruckner. This comes from a fierce atheist. I guess they both fooled themselves, didn't they?


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

For certain segments of the twentieth century, Beethoven and Bach's influence were two sides of the same coin. The composers who were tired of the Beethovenian legacy were exactly the ones who latched onto Bach instead. The former's negative influence was a boost to the latter's positive one.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

I love both, Bach and Beethoven, but Bach was more restricted to a form at the time. And yet, he seemed to be able to make music out of the thin air. Beethoven, on the other hand, had to reinvent the form to suit himself.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Nothing really to prove.
> Beethoven's influence on western music is a given.
> It's like a fact of life.
> One doesn't argue the sky is not blue.


Nice red herring, but we weren't debating whether or not Beethoven was influential, (which we all know he was) we were talking about the level of influence both Bach and Beethoven had on modern composers. You said Beethoven had more influence based on all the modern composers you knew of that had put tributes to him in their music, and when I asked you to then list them, you couldn't come up with as many as we had already pointed out in this thread that Bach had.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

tdc said:


> Nice red herring, but we weren't debating whether or not Beethoven was influential, (which we all know he was) we were talking about the level of influence both Bach and Beethoven had on modern composers. You said Beethoven had more influence based on all the modern composers you knew of that had put tributes to him in their music, and when I asked you to then list them, you couldn't come up with as many as we had already pointed out in this thread that Bach had.


Look, where would Bruckner have been without Beethoven? He modeled his symphonies on Beethoven's 9th.
Just another huge example of the Master's shadow.

Also, play the "Hymn of Thanksgiving" movement from Beethoven's A minor quartet.
Then play the adagio from Mahler's Fourth.
Mahler's adagios were directly influenced by Beethoven's great slow movements.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Serge said:


> Bach is not about "spirituality" but about music. Same goes for Bruckner. This comes from a fierce atheist. I guess they both fooled themselves, didn't they?


Well, considering he worked in churches for nearly his whole life and wrote over 200 cantatas, I'm guessing a little spirituality might have sneaked in there some place. It must be an interesting experience to fiercely not believe something. I'll have to try that sometime. (By the way, when folks use the word "spirituality" the way Bulldog did, it does not necessarily imply belief in a deity.)


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Even Bach's secular pieces are infused with tributes to the holy spirit.
Play the Chaconne and the Fuga from Bach's second solo partita and third violin sonata respectively-both tributes to the glory of God.
Play any of the slow movements from the solo keyboard partitas. The only thing missing is the church setting.

To say Bach's music is not infused with spirituality is nonsense. Even his "secular" music is spiritual.

Bach was the most demonstrably religious composer who ever lived.


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford (Feb 8, 2014)

Well, you know, the fugue in Beethoven's Hammerklavier has a strong baroque quality, and once I heard that he was somewhat trying to convey the same feeling in his music as did J.S. Bach in his complicated works


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

Mozart probably would have revived J.S. Bach's work before Mendelssohn had he lived. He was studying Bach and I think he may have considered him to be one of the few composers that could really still teach him anything... although had he lived Beethoven and Cherubini would have provided some interesting fodder.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Pure speculation.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Well, considering he worked in churches for nearly his whole life and wrote over 200 cantatas, I'm guessing a little spirituality might have sneaked in there some place. It must be an interesting experience to fiercely not believe something. I'll have to try that sometime. (By the way, when folks use the word "spirituality" the way Bulldog did, it does not necessarily imply belief in a deity.)


Well spirituality which isn't linked to some sort of deity is a strange idea I think, I don't think Bulldog was just saying that it gives him a nice warm fuzzy feeling or makes the hairs on the back of his neck stand on end. Anyway he can speak for himself.

I think that Bach's instrumental music is full of religion, but you have to decode it. You have to see the intertextual references to the cantatas. And you have to know a bit about Luther to get it.

Let me give you an example. There's a prelude, Christ unser herr zum Jordan Kam, BWV 684, in CU 3. The music's about baptism. Most people play this music as river imagery, you can hear the gentle rippling of the river in the music. Very pretty. But if you read Luther's comments on baptism, you find there's nothing pretty, or indeed rivery, about what happened when Jesus met John. The river is the holy spirit. And what happened there was preparation for slaughter, sacrifice.

That's the way Bach's music is religious. Of course you can cut yourself off from it, play it as a nice melody over watery music. But in some sense, I don't think you'd being doing Bach's art justice.

I'll just mention that his ability to set theological ideas in music is something I find absolutely astonishing. Maybe political ideas too. I think it's one of Bach's core skills.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Well spirituality which isn't linked to some sort of deity is a strange idea I think, I don't think Bulldog was just saying that it gives him a nice warm fuzzy feeling or makes the hairs on the back of his neck stand on end. Anyway he can speak for himself.


I was using extreme understatement ironically to make a point.

I agree with everything you say except for the initial comment about spirituality. In the U.S. these days, the statement "I am spiritual but not religious" is a cliche which can mean belief in anything from a vague animism to witchcraft to sun worship, but it is often used because, statistically, it is alleged to get a generally positive response in online dating profiles. ;-) I have no idea what Bulldog might have meant by it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Well, considering he worked in churches for nearly his whole life and wrote over 200 cantatas, I'm guessing a little spirituality might have sneaked in there some place. It must be an interesting experience to fiercely not believe something. I'll have to try that sometime. (By the way, when folks use the word "spirituality" the way Bulldog did, it does not necessarily imply belief in a deity.)


Correct. My statements had nothing to do with religion.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2014)

I have seen many threads on several Boards over a number of years concerning the matter of the most "influential" composers. Unfortunately, I have never come across anything that I consider provides convincing evidence about any of the composers nominated for the highest positions. To me all the claims seem like mere assertion based on wishful thinking, flimsy anecdotal evidence, with large amounts of bias in favour of personal favourite composers. 

To be of any real use, an "input-output" model of some kind is needed in order to capture the essential linkages and to provide a framework for incorporating the relevant quantitative estimates. The only semi-serious attempt along these lines to quantify "influence" amongst the main composers that I have ever seen is described in one of the statistical annexes of "The Classical Music Navigator" website of the Western Kentucky University. Anyone interested can Google it, but quite frankly unless you are statistically minded I would not recommend that anyone might bother to look at it, as it is quite dense and not a good read. 

In essence, their procedure involves assigning scores for each the main composers based on how many other composers they influenced, the degree of influence exerted, the time gaps between cause and effect, and the current standing of the composers providing the influence and those influenced in terms of their broad appeal to modern audiences. Superficially, the approach looks quite interesting but the closer one delves the more it begins to look dubious. It is based on many quite arbitrary scorings for each component of the overall analysis. I have little faith in the exact order of the results, but for what they are worth the 10 most influential composers were found to be (top down): J S Bach, Debussy, Wagner, Stravinsky, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Chopin, Schumann, and Schoenberg. The list includes 111 composers altogether.

I am not exactly sure why Beethoven comes out in 6th place, which is further down than some might expect, since I can't be bothered to try to unravel all the scorings used in the analysis. My guess would be that, whilst Beethoven has been greatly revered for a very long time, many of the greatest later composers largely did their own thing in different ways. 

For example, Schubert greatly admired Beethoven and with few exceptions ventured off largely in a different direction. Schumann's style is not that close to Beethoven's. He was probably the most poetic of 19th Century composers and would have written what he did regardless of Beethoven's achievements. Chopin hardly followed the style of Beethoven. Mendelssohn was more of a reactionary and went even further back than Beethoven for some of his inspiration. Brahms was Beethoven's chief 19th C disciple, and here quite a bit of weight is rightly scored. Bruckner also revered Beethoven but Bruckner is further down the league table according to popular opinion, so that result becomes discounted to some extent. Mahler too would account for some of the weight in favour of Beethoven. 

Tchaikovsky, however, had little regard for Beethoven, but greatly admired Mozart instead. Wagner too was a great admirer of Beethoven but what he actually wrote was a completely new ball game, and he himself became a major influential composer. Dvorak was more in the tradition of Mozart and Schubert. Debussy and Ravel were not interested in Beethoven's style and went off in a different direction altogether. Once we get into the 20th Century, the link to Beethoven clearly broke down increasingly.

I stress that I am not trying to defend any of the rankings in the Kentucky list. I think they are all suspect because it is not a proper input-output framework, and in any event it is simply not possible to attach sufficiently reliable estimates for many of the relevant factors, as so much guesswork is involved.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Look, where would Bruckner have been without Beethoven? He modeled his symphonies on Beethoven's 9th.
> Just another huge example of the Master's shadow.
> 
> Also, play the "Hymn of Thanksgiving" movement from Beethoven's A minor quartet.
> ...


Yes, and neither one of those are modern composers. One could argue Mahler is 'modern' but he is quite close to Romanticism and a 'borderline' composer.

I think this thread has shown Bach was the more influential of the two on modern composers.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Partita said:


> Schumann's style is not that close to Beethoven's. He was probably the most poetic of 19th Century composers and would have written what he did regardless of Beethoven's achievements.


Notable exceptions include all of his cyclically unified symphonies and chamber works (Violin Sonata in A minor, especially). The Fourth Symphony, for example, cribs the transition to the finale directly from Beethoven's 5th.



Partita said:


> Chopin hardly followed the style of Beethoven.


His movements in sonata form, as in the 2nd and 3rd piano sonatas, are, to my knowledge, the first important examples of a major variant of the form that would be used by Eastern European and Russian composers through Shostakovich. It has its roots in some of Beethoven's, like the first movement of the Quartet Op. 95, in which the recapitulation of the principal theme is truncated to the disappearing point and dovetailed with the end of the development.



Partita said:


> Tchaikovsky, however, had little regard for Beethoven, but greatly admired Mozart instead.


Not quite. He described his relationship to these composers by comparing Beethoven to God the Father and Mozart to Jesus Christ. In fact, all his later symphonies and symphonic poems are deeply influenced by Beethoven. In a letter to Sergei Taneyev, he described the 4th as "an imitation of Beethoven's Fifth." (He gleaned his understanding of this work from the criticism of A.B. Marx). The Fifth quite clearly shows this same influence. His standard approach to sonata form Daniel Zhitomirsky described as "a periodic alternation of contrasting thematic sections. The first section, associated with the main theme is steadily enlivened in reiteration with the result that the very contrast of the two sections is consistently sharpened." This is the same variant described above, and it derives from exaggerating tendencies in some of Beethoven's most dramatic opening movements.



Partita said:


> Once we get into the 20th Century, the link to Beethoven clearly broke down increasingly.


Except in Russia, where Beethoven's Fifth and Ninth Symphonies were the models for the "heroic classicism" (Richard Taruskin's term) at the basis of the socialist-realist symphony. Numerous works of Miaskovsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, etc., show this influence.



Partita said:


> I stress that I am not trying to defend any of the rankings in the Kentucky list. I think they are all suspect because it is not a proper input-output framework, and in any event it is simply not possible to attach sufficiently reliable estimates for many of the relevant factors, as so much guesswork is involved.


Amen!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Bach was the most demonstrably religious composer who ever lived.


Bruckner and Messiaen may not have been as prolific, but they certainly were as open about their religion and its influence on their work as Bach, possibly more so in Messiaen's case.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> Notable exceptions include etc


Thanks for all of your comments.

I am not going to nit-pick over any of them, as it is not important to my essential point, which is that the only proper chance of getting a grip on the rankings of composers by "influence" is to adopt a more sophisticated approach than the kind of comments given in this thread. Most of them are assertions that are subject to refutation by others as to size of alleged effects.

I outlined one such approach by Kentucky University and the results it yielded but pointed out the precarious nature of those results, given the inherent difficulties in attaching reliable numbers to the key parameters. The particular result which I picked up on was Beethoven's position No 6. I chose Beethoven because this was the composer who became the focal point of discussion in this thread after it was alleged that he was more influential than J S Bach.

I do not quite know how the methodology by Kentucky produced this result because, as I said, I did not try to work my way through their detailed calculations. However, my conjectures were mainly based partly on the premise that Beethoven was seen as such a "High Priest" that some later composers may have viewed it as being both wrong and a waste of time trying to emulate him, thus imparting a possible stimulus to try something else instead. Allied to this was the emerging "romantic" school in which new genres were needed and being investigated. In addition, some composers later in the 19th C were not that enamoured of Beethoven anyway. As a result of these factors, it is possible that Beethoven's influence, whilst still high, may not be quite as great as some might believe.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

The thing that makes discussions like this so difficult, and the arguments that ensue so pointless, is that influence is something which is rarely possible to quantify or even to locate with any real accuracy. It's like Wittgenstein once pointed out: if we knew someone who ate bacon and potatoes every day, we would instantly recognize the irrationality of statements that attempted to determine what parts of him derived from the potatoes and what parts from the bacon. Yet we attempt to make these judgments all the time when it comes to artistic nourishment. At the end of the day, great creative artists have so thoroughly metabolized any influences there may have been into their living tissue that they become a part of their subconscious, not always easily perceivable in the organic tissue of their own work.


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Pure speculation.


I wouldn't say 'pure' speculation... he did arrange Bach's keyboard pieces for strings. Here is an edited account of Mozart's response on hearing a Bach motet performed in Leipzig:

"Hardly had the choir sang a few measures when Mozart sat up, startled; a few measures more and he called out "What is this?" And now his whole soul seemed to be in his ears. When the singing was finished he cried out full of joy "Now there is something one can learn from!" When told that the Thomas school preserved the complete collection of motets of Bach as a sort of sacred relic, Mozart said "That's the spirit! That's fine! let's see them!"

He already had the reputation, notating Allegri's Miserere, arranging Handel's Messiah. I don't think it wouldn't have happened until he was in his late years, but I think he would probably have drawn more attention to J.S. Bach.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> The thing that makes discussions like this so difficult, and the arguments that ensue so pointless, is that influence is something which is rarely possible to quantify or even to locate with any real accuracy.
> 
> ... great creative artists have so thoroughly metabolized any influences there may have been into their living tissue that they become a part of their subconscious, not always easily perceivable in the organic tissue of their own work.


Amen to _that,_ brother! Stravinsky made a remark on theory which mirrors your point above... that once learned, theory "sinks in" and becomes part of the intuitive process. Theory, after all is theoretical; the reason one looks to it is to learn _how other composers made music work,_ ergo, after its study, it is to be hoped one has digested ways of thought about music (working principles vs. rules or the more academic approach.) Ideally, that leaves the composer with a re-write of the cliche, i.e. _not_ "You learn the "rules" so you can later break them," but instead, "You learn working principles so you can make up your own to solve your own (self-invented) compositional puzzles."

It runs quite parallel with "Influence," the work of others, like basic theory, 'metabolized,' becoming interior, intuitive, a reflex way of thinking rather than an operator's manual.

I could not agree more; in my composition lessons and talking with others who compose, 'theory' almost never comes directly into the actual process, the work of others rarely a direct model, but those too, "metabolized."


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Well spirituality which isn't linked to some sort of deity is a strange idea I think, I don't think Bulldog was just saying that it gives him a nice warm fuzzy feeling or makes the hairs on the back of his neck stand on end. Anyway he can speak for himself.
> 
> I think that Bach's instrumental music is full of religion, but you have to decode it. You have to see the intertextual references to the cantatas. And you have to know a bit about Luther to get it.
> 
> ...


The great thing about music is that there is no absolute interpretation, it doesn't need interpretation


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Minona said:


> I wouldn't say 'pure' speculation... he did arrange Bach's keyboard pieces for strings. Here is an edited account of Mozart's response on hearing a Bach motet performed in Leipzig:
> 
> "Hardly had the choir sang a few measures when Mozart sat up, startled; a few measures more and he called out "What is this?" And now his whole soul seemed to be in his ears. When the singing was finished he cried out full of joy "Now there is something one can learn from!" When told that the Thomas school preserved the complete collection of motets of Bach as a sort of sacred relic, Mozart said "That's the spirit! That's fine! let's see them!"
> 
> He already had the reputation, notating Allegri's Miserere, arranging Handel's Messiah. I don't think it wouldn't have happened until he was in his late years, but I think he would probably have drawn more attention to J.S. Bach.


Yes, but to assume Mozart would go "Bach crazy" if given more time is speculation.
The cruel facts are, he should have had more time and penicillin was discovered too late.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Minona said:


> I wouldn't say 'pure' speculation... he did arrange Bach's keyboard pieces for strings. Here is an edited account of Mozart's response on hearing a Bach motet performed in Leipzig:
> 
> "Hardly had the choir sang a few measures when Mozart sat up, startled; a few measures more and he called out "What is this?" And now his whole soul seemed to be in his ears. When the singing was finished he cried out full of joy "Now there is something one can learn from!" When told that the Thomas school preserved the complete collection of motets of Bach as a sort of sacred relic, Mozart said "That's the spirit! That's fine! let's see them!"
> 
> He already had the reputation, notating Allegri's Miserere, arranging Handel's Messiah. I don't think it wouldn't have happened until he was in his late years, but I think he would probably have drawn more attention to J.S. Bach.


Mozart, by the time he was exposed to Bach, was already one of the masters of both form and wild yet suave modulation -- music turning on a dime and at his service or whim, as it were. The history of his study of modal counterpoint and 'absorbing' the _Allegri Miserere_ and with that remarkable memory of his writing it down -- _in his very early teen years_ -- should clearly indicate to anyone just how quickly Mozart could understand and wholly assimilate a musical technique. I'm sure he as readily sussed out and assimilated 'what Bach did' in relative moments, and would have continued to be Mozart as we know him and as the works we have are.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2014)

The more I think about the problem of ascribing ranks to each of various main composers like Bach, Beethoven etc in respect of their "influence" on other composers the more intractable the problem becomes. In order to calculate these ranks the following steps are required, whether in practice or in principle:

(i)	For each of the influencing composers it would be necessary to work out their influence in percentage terms on an "average" work produced by each of many receiving composers, and to decide in each case what residual percentage is actually due to the latters' own personal inputs. 

(2)	In order to generate a single number, so that each influencing composer can be compared against the others, the weighted average amount of influence needs to be calculated. The weights for this presumably need to reflect the current popularity (greatness?) of each of the influence-receiving composers, since there is no point measuring influence on composers who are not considered to be of any importance to modern audiences.

The whole clearly thing becomes a virtual impossibility since step (1) cannot be done with any reliability at all, and step (2) raises contentious issues in its own right given the problems of measuring popularity less alone greatness.


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Mozart, ...the _Allegri Miserere_ and with that remarkable memory of his writing it down...


While we're on the subject... does anyone think that maybe it's not _quite_ the feat it's been made out to be?

I mean, I couldn't do it, but when they say Mozart heard it once or twice, the piece itself consists of four repeats of the identical material... does it not? If so, surely he effectively have heard it 8 times ...and it's not exactly Schoenberg.

Still amazing, just saying.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

It's plain to see that the Big 3 are in the same influence line, as each arrow signifies a PREDOMINANT influence.










In fact, the fact that you're able to trace JS Bach to Mozart from 3 predominant chains, strengthens the bonds between these composers greatly.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> How did this composer influence the music that was written by others? I'm particularly interested in examples before Mendelssohn.


So, Bach's music is not only important, but other music depends on it? I think we should look at each case separately.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Well spirituality which isn't linked to some sort of deity is a strange idea I think...


Buddhism has no deities...



> That's the way Bach's music is religious. Of course you can cut yourself off from it, play it as a nice melody over watery music. But in some sense, I don't think you'd being doing Bach's art justice.


The idea is to cut spirituality free of the dogma of religion. That way, the spiritual essence of music is accessible on its own terms, to whatever extent that is possible.



> I'll just mention that his ability to set theological ideas in music is something I find absolutely astonishing. Maybe political ideas too. I think it's one of Bach's core skills.


I've heard that even Gregorian chant follows certain guidelines about theological ideas; if it's about the Crucifixion, the line drops; if about the Resurrection, it rises.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> It's plain to see that the Big 3 are in the same influence line, as each arrow signifies a PREDOMINANT influence.
> In fact, the fact that you're able to trace JS Bach to Mozart from 3 predominant chains, strengthens the bonds between these composers greatly.


"it is interesting that, having influenced Haydn, Bach (C.P.E.) later allowed himself to be influenced by the younger composer, just as Haydn later influenced and was influenced by Mozart." https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carl-Philipp-Emanuel-Bach


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> How did this composer influence the music that was written by others? I'm particularly interested in examples before Mendelssohn.


Samuel Wesley (24 February 1766 - 11 October 1837)
Wesley seems to have become acquainted with the works of Johann Sebastian Bach sometime between 1796 and 1808. Prior to that, the German-born Charles Frederick Horn had been appointed in 1789 as musician to the royal household at Windsor. Their joint publication and popularisation of Bach's work have been described as an "English Bach awakening". No time was lost in converting others to the Bach cause; Wesley's principal converts were William Crotch and Charles Burney. In a series of letters to his friend, Benjamin Jacob, Wesley documented how he made Bach better appreciated.









Title page of first English edition of J.S. Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, published by Wesley and Horn in 1810


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Johann Friedrich Doles (23 April 1715 - 8 February 1797) was a German composer and pupil of Johann Sebastian Bach.
Doles was born in Steinbach-Hallenberg. He attended the University of Leipzig. He was Kantor at the Leipzig Thomasschule, conducting the Thomanerchor from 1756 to 1789

St Matthew Passion
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".

[ Haydn's copy of the b-minor mass and mozart's mass in c minor: Viennese traditions of the b-minor mass ] : "From the early 1800s Bach's B-minor Mass was easily accessible to connoisseurs in Vienna. A copy of the Mass is listed in Johann Traeg's sales catalogue of 1804. The entry on page 58 of the "First" and, as it were, last "supplement to the catalogue of manuscript and printed music which are to be had at the purveyors of art and music Johann Traeg and Son in Vienna" reads: [No.] 151 Bach, J. S. Missa a 5 Voci 2 Viol. 2 Fl. 2 Ob. 3 Trombe Tymp A e B. In the same catalogue Bach's Magnificat, a "Missa a 4 Voci con Stromenti', the six parts of the Christmas Oratorio, six chorale cantatas (BWV 101, 125, 133, 94, 69a [?], 14), the cantata Phoebus and Pan (BWV 201) and an "Aria" for two choirs and instruments (probably the final chorus of the St Matthew Passion) were also listed. The scoring "a 5 Voci" obviously refers to the B-minor Mass, whereas the setting "a 4 Voci" cannot yet be securely identified. Around the same time, the B-minor Mass shows up as No. 193 in "J. Haydn's Verzeichniss musicalischer Werke theils eigner, theils fremder Comp[o]sition': Joh: Sebastian Bach. Missa. 5 Voci, erster und zweyter Theil in der Partitur. The whereabouts of either manuscript copy formerly remained unknown. Until recently, a manuscript score copied after 1800, which later was given or sold to the avid Bach collector Georg Poelchau and finally ended up in his collection in the Königliche Bibliothek in Berlin (now the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preubischer Kulturbesitz; shelfmark Mus. ms. Bach P 11-12), was regarded as the earliest evidence of the B-minor Mass in Vienna."


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> "it is interesting that, having influenced Haydn, Bach (C.P.E.) later allowed himself to be influenced by the younger composer, just as Haydn later influenced and was influenced by Mozart." https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carl-Philipp-Emanuel-Bach


Yes. Since JC Bach was a PREDOMINANT influence of Mozart and CPE was a predominant influence of Haydn and JC, that chart indisputably illustrates how uncanny Bach is as an influence on the Big 3. There could not be a bigger influence than JS Bach.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> Yes. Since JC Bach was a PREDOMINANT influence of Mozart and CPE was a predominant influence of Haydn and JC, that chart indisputably illustrates how uncanny Bach is as an influence on the Big 3. There could not be a bigger influence than JS Bach.


There's also a lot of Emanuel Bach - Mozart connections though. I'm not sure to what extent Mozart was actually influenced, but in certain works (like flute concerto in D minor Wq.22 and Mozart's own D minor K.466) I think they have certain similar aesthetical goals. Maybe because they were contemporaries having the same nationality? I think I mentioned some time ago I heard similar passages in a C minor concerto (I'm not sure which one) of Emanuel, and Mozart's K.414. Also similar styles of motivic working in the finales of Emanuel's concerto for harpsichord and fortepiano in E flat major Wq.47 and Mozart's dissonance quartet. Harnoncourt suggested that Mozart conceived his last three symphonies as a gigantic instrumental oratorio, after being inspired by a CPE Bach oratorio, which he had conducted earlier the same year he wrote the symphonies.





*[ Credo: 7:33 ]*





Mozart's "empfindsamer" fantasies:


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> Buddhism has no deities...


That depends on which variety of Buddhism you're talking about.


> The idea is to cut spirituality free of the dogma of religion. That way, the spiritual essence of music is accessible on its own terms, to whatever extent that is possible.


The idea of "spirit/spiritual" itself can be called "dogma", as can things like individual inherent rights and worth. "Dogma" in itself isn't a dirty word, and it's not necessarily in opposition to spirituality.

(edit) By the way I think Handel was far more influential than J. S. Bach was, maybe because Bach was actually tough to emulate. I think Handel was one of the most influential composers ever, along with Haydn and Beethoven. The Kyrie from Mozart's Requiem and the K. 394 fugue sound more like Handel than Bach to me.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Buddhism has no deities...
> 
> .


Avalokitesvara, Tara . . .

(This was for me a great disappointment with Buddhism, when I found that in practice it was imbued with hocus pocus as much as Judaism or Shamanism or Catholicism.)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> (edit) By the way I think Handel was far more influential than J. S. Bach was, maybe because Bach was actually tough to emulate. I think Handel was one of the most influential composers ever, along with Haydn and Beethoven. The Kyrie from Mozart's Requiem and the K. 394 fugue sound more like Handel than Bach to me.


"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. ...
... Even the progression of events in K. 426 has a kind of relentless logic to it, as if Mozart was going down an elaborate checklist (something akin to my Table 3.2) as he composed this fugue, with the intention of utilizing his subject in every conceivable combination with itself."
< Engaging Bach: The Keyboard Legacy from Marpurg to Mendelssohn, By Matthew Dirst, Matthew Charles Dirst, Page 78, 80 >


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> "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. ...
> ... Even the progression of events in K. 426 has a kind of relentless logic to it, as if Mozart was going down an elaborate checklist (something akin to my Table 3.2) as he composed this fugue, with the intention of utilizing his subject in every conceivable combination with itself."
> < Engaging Bach: The Keyboard Legacy from Marpurg to Mendelssohn, By Matthew Dirst, Matthew Charles Dirst, Page 78, 80


So? I still stand by my original statement.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)




----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Avalokitesvara, Tara . . .
> 
> (This was for me a great disappointment with Buddhism, when I found that in practice it was imbued with hocus pocus as much as Judaism or Shamanism or Catholicism.)


Comments like that are amusing. The metaphysical ideas/ideals we hold dear are likewise "hocus pocus". A world without "hocus pocus" would be the world of de Sade.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> I was using extreme understatement ironically to make a point.
> 
> I agree with everything you say except for the initial comment about spirituality. In the U.S. these days, the statement "I am spiritual but not religious" is a cliche which can mean belief in anything from a vague animism to witchcraft to sun worship, but it is often used because, statistically, it is alleged to get a generally positive response in online dating profiles. ;-) I have no idea what Bulldog might have meant by it.


In the same way, "I am religious" and "I am a Christian" can mean just about anything from a screaming Jehovah's Witness who hates jazz, to a Mormon who believes in outer space beings.

"I am an atheist" also has little meaning.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Avalokitesvara, Tara . . .
> 
> (This was for me a great disappointment with Buddhism, when I found that in practice it was imbued with hocus pocus as much as Judaism or Shamanism or Catholicism.)


The point is that Buddha was a mortal man, not a deity.

I was likewise disappointed in Nichiren Buddhism (chanting Nam-hyo-renge-kyo, like Tina Turner is into), which is absolutist in nature and disparages Zen and all other forms. It also has a political party in Japan.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> The metaphysical ideas/ideals we hold dear are likewise "hocus pocus".


I am sure you are mistaken



consuono said:


> A world without "hocus pocus" would be the world of de Sade.


In fact I've been reading some Sade this week, because I'm preparing for a course on modern French libertine literature.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I am sure you are mistaken


Really? Prove it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> In the same way, "I am religious" and "I am a Christian" can mean just about anything from a screaming Jehovah's Witness who hates jazz, to a Mormon who believes in outer space beings.
> 
> *"I am an atheist" also has little meaning.*


So little meaning that it all fits into one short sentence: I don't believe in a supreme being.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Can you list some similar examples for Beethoven?_

The beginnings of Bruckner symphonies Nos. 1-3, 5 and 7-9 all begin with a cadence similar to the one that begins Beethoven's "Choral" symphony.


----------

