I'm going to choose to table this discussion until at least 200 years have passed after the death of the last Beatle.
Who was most impactful to music? Bach, Beethoven, or Beatles?
Of these three, who would you say had the greatest impact on music? Bach, Beethoven, or Beatles? Part of the reason why I ask, I've never heard a single album of the Beatles and some can argue they were more impactful/influential to the course of music than the greatest classical composers. Similarly, some might argue the greatest composers were at their prime, just as important to music as the Beatles if not more. Perhaps none of these are the right answer and some rap artist or someone I've never heard of is the most impactful?
61 - 80 of 117 Posts
I don't hugely disagree with this; I think we only differ on the matter of degree, not kind. I've sampled a lot of early 60s music myself (not as systematically as you did, it seems) and I agree that The Beatles were definitely a big step up from other pop music of that time. Yet the music they were making wasn't fundamentally different from the music of that era, it was just of a much higher quality, in large part due to what you said about them being musical omnivores. However, that's very different from the kind seismic innovations, inventions, and revolutions they started from about the time of Rubber Soul onward.The "early" songs and albums of The Beatles were themselves "huge leap forward".
A few years ago I cued up some very lengthy playlists of music from 1960, then 1961, then 1962, '63, and '64. For context. For comparison to The Beatles. I culled from the weekly Top 20, the year-end Top 100, and the same with top albums.
The vast majority of singles and albums paled in comparison to those albums released by the Beatles. Even when The Beatles recorded covers, they were usually a step up from the originals. Most of their originals were top notch, and even their "filler" tracks were excellent when compared with the music being released by their contemporaries. Most of those "weaker" Beatles tracks are only "weak in comparison to the other songs of The Beatles.
Had The Beatles stopped at Help! I think they still probably would've been remembered as one of the best bands of the era, but not definitely better than The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, etc., and I can imagine in that alternate world where Bob Dylan is deemed an even bigger cultural figure than he is now; but those late Beatles albums opened up entirely new vistas for future bands to explore that likely wouldn't have happened without them. The early Beatles are a superb amalgamation of contemporary and recently-past musical genres/styles; late Beatles is thoroughly original, innovative, revolutionary stuff that we're still feeling the impact from.
I don't think making a style one's own necessitates being the inventor of that style. TS Eliot famously said in Tradition and the Individual Talent that (paraphrased) art is really just the fusion of past styles, and artists are like alchemists combining different pre-existing ingredients to make something new. Most of the progress we see in art doesn't come from the raw invention of something that's never been done before (not saying that never happens, but it's much rarer than people think), but from pushing what's already been done farther, or combining what's been done in unique ways that sounds original even when its constituent parts are familiar.One thing I wonder about all our talk of "a composer's style"; what elements were really "his own"? (ie. No one else before/during his time had them). For example, in what way, to what extent does this cantata from 1786 have the characteristics (the "heroic" bent)?
So I think it's asking the wrong question to assess how much of what Beethoven did had never been done before; the more relevant point is that whatever he did he did it well enough that most all future composers for at least the next century was indelibly influenced by it in one way or another.
this is what I was going to say. When I took music theory at school we used the Bach Corals as our book of musical examples. So even in this day and age, I was taught voice leading by J.S. Bach's example.It was Bach who laid down the rules as such about how western music works. He didn't plan it that way, didn't issue an edict that this is how it's gonna be, but his style and methods were so influential that had he not lived, western music would be likely not what we know today. His work became the textbook for generations: harmony, voice leading, counterpoint, form...and most important of all was The Well-Tempered Clavichord which demonstrated quite definitively that with the proper tuning composers could write in every key without fear of godawful sounds. I may not be the biggest fan of his music, but I cannot deny his seminal importance. Now if you want to talk about who was the most important for the dispersement of music that's easy: Thomas Edison.
More like because Bach is famous, or those institutions want to educate people of the value of his music. Many 18th century composers studied Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum, not Bach's chorales (either because they didn't feel the need to or they had no access to the works). In addition to the Zelenka fugue I posted earlier, listen to Fux's Kaiserrequiem. It's hard to believe he couldn't churn out similar kapellmeister works. And I believe the theory of "chordal thinking" originated with Rameau's treatises.this is what I was going to say. When I took music theory at school we used the Bach Corals as our book of musical examples. So even in this day and age, I was taught voice leading by J.S. Bach's example.
Can the same be said of Wagner and film? In the other thread you seemed to suggest otherwise.So I think it's asking the wrong question to assess how much of what Beethoven did had never been done before; the more relevant point is that whatever he did he did it well enough that most all future composers for at least the next century was indelibly influenced by it in one way or another.
Every man or woman in charge of the music of moving picture theater is, consciously or unconsciously, a disciple or follower of Richard Wagner – Stephen Bush, film critic, 1911
I think the only thing I "suggested otherwise" about in the other thread was that Wagner influenced ALL film music. He certainly influenced a huge chunk of it; but film music covers over a century of films from hundreds of countries and pretty much every genre and musical tradition under the sun, some of which don't even have anything to do with Western music at all. I mean, that quote you provided was from 1911! Maybe at that point all film music stemmed from Wagner, but that's hardly the case now.Can the same be said of Wagner and film? In the other thread you seemed to suggest otherwise.
Every man or woman in charge of the music of moving picture theater is, consciously or unconsciously, a disciple or follower of Richard Wagner – Stephen Bush, film critic, 1911
Of course, it’s Bach, without question. I’m not sure why you’ve never listened to a single Beatles album, but Paul McCartney is a brilliant songwriter, certainly melodically and in structure, even if you find his lyrics silly. I recommend that sometime you give a listen to 2 Beatles albums: Rubber Soul and Revolver. If you listen to no others, you should give those 2 a listen. I’ve had more than a few Classical fans tell me that the song, “Eleanor Rigby”, was when they took the Beatles seriously. Yes, Paul wrote that one.Of these three, who would you say had the greatest impact on music? Bach, Beethoven, or Beatles? Part of the reason why I ask, I've never heard a single album of the Beatles and some can argue they were more impactful/influential to the course of music than the greatest classical composers. Similarly, some might argue the greatest composers were at their prime, just as important to music as the Beatles if not more. Perhaps none of these are the right answer and some rap artist or someone I've never heard of is the most impactful?
of course chordal theory started with Rameau. His treatise came out the same year Bach publish the WTCMore like because Bach is famous, or those institutions want to educate people of the value of his music. Many 18th century composers studied Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum, not Bach's chorales (either because they didn't feel the need to or they had no access to the works). In addition to the Zelenka fugue I posted earlier, listen to Fux's Kaiserrequiem. It's hard to believe he couldn't churn out similar kapellmeister works. And I believe the theory of "chordal thinking" originated with Rameau's treatises.
But Bach is famous, so what? that is why he is influential. I studied the Gradus, too, but not until I passed sophomore theory, which used the Bach Corals.
My point is that they didn't have me learn voice leading from transcribing "I Wanna Hold your Hand"
nor did they shove Beethoven down my throat. ...That didn't happen until I took Shenkerian Analysis
so I have my opinion based on how I was taught, and my opinion is remarkably similar to what mbhaub said, which is why I quoted him
Beethoven. He personally radically changed musical style into what we still have today, both technically and sonority-wise. Between Buxtehude and Bach there was no such radical change. Bach no more "wrote the rules" than Mozart did. HOWEVER, perhaps the MOST radical change was by Monteverdi and the early opera composers. It was a gigantic. earthquake if a change. If you are gonna consider the Beatles, why not Elvis. Not clear.
He was very influential, certainly, but A) he was a total dead end, and B) he wasn't in the class of Bach or Beethoven.I thought we all knew it was Wagner.
He was very influential, certainly, but A) he was a total dead end, and B) he wasn't in the class of Bach or Beethoven.
oh boy, are you going to get it....but I do have to admire your courage 🙂
I thought we all knew it was Wagner.
Whereas you do.Clearly Tchaikovsky lacked an ability to recognize obvious musical genius. He had similar trouble recognizing Brahms' genius.
Well he has no one who followed him. Debussy kept seeing "Klingsor" arising from the page and in horror, he went about as far in an alternate direction as he could. Schoenberg thought it was about time to deep-six tonality. That does show some something, but it is not exactly influential in the ordinary sense. As for loving Wagner enough to equate him with Bach, well, that is nothing but taste, to put it tactfully.oh boy, are you going to get it....but I do have to admire your courage 🙂
I'm glad you have the cognition to recognize this.Whereas you do.
A) False.He was very influential, certainly, but A) he was a total dead end, and B) he wasn't in the class of Bach or Beethoven.
B) He was.
"Wagner's later musical style introduced new ideas in harmony, melodic process (leitmotif) and operatic structure. Notably from Tristan und Isolde onwards, he explored the limits of the traditional tonal system, which gave keys and chords their identity, pointing the way to atonality in the 20th century. Some music historians date the beginning of modern classical music to the first notes of Tristan, which include the so-called Tristan chord.Well he has no one who followed him. Debussy kept seeing "Klingsor" arising from the page and in horror, he went about as far in an alternate direction as he could. Schoenberg thought it was about time to deep-six tonality. That does show some something, but it is not exactly influential in the ordinary sense.
Wagner inspired great devotion. For a long period, many composers were inclined to align themselves with or against Wagner's music. Anton Bruckner and Hugo Wolf were greatly indebted to him, as were César Franck, Henri Duparc, Ernest Chausson, Jules Massenet, Richard Strauss, Alexander von Zemlinsky, Hans Pfitzner and many others. Gustav Mahler was devoted to Wagner and his music; aged 15, he sought him out on his 1875 visit to Vienna, became a renowned Wagner conductor, and his compositions were seen by Richard Taruskin as extending Wagner's 'maximalization' of 'the temporal and the sonorous' in music to the world of the symphony. The harmonic revolutions of Claude Debussy and Arnold Schoenberg (both of whose oeuvres contain examples of tonal and atonal modernism) have often been traced back to Tristan and Parsifal. The Italian form of operatic realism known as verismo owed much to the Wagnerian concept of musical form.
Wagner made a major contribution to the principles and practice of conducting. His essay 'About Conducting' (1869) advanced Hector Berlioz's technique of conducting and claimed that conducting was a means by which a musical work could be re-interpreted, rather than simply a mechanism for achieving orchestral unison. He exemplified this approach in his own conducting, which was significantly more flexible than the disciplined approach of Felix Mendelssohn; in his view this also justified practices that would today be frowned upon, such as the rewriting of scores. Wilhelm Furtwängler felt that Wagner and Bülow, through their interpretative approach, inspired a whole new generation of conductors (including Furtwängler himself).
Among those claiming inspiration from Wagner's music are the German band Rammstein, Jim Steinman, who wrote songs for Meat Loaf, Bonnie Tyler, Air Supply, Celine Dion and others, and the electronic composer Klaus Schulze, whose 1975 album Timewind consists of two 30-minute tracks, Bayreuth Return and Wahnfried 1883. Joey DeMaio of the band Manowar has described Wagner as 'The father of heavy metal'. The Slovenian group Laibach created the 2009 suite VolksWagner, using material from Wagner's operas. Phil Spector's Wall of Sound recording technique was, it has been claimed, heavily influenced by Wagner.
Wagner's concept of the use of leitmotifs and the integrated musical expression which they can enable has influenced many 20th and 21st century film scores. The critic Theodor Adorno has noted that the Wagnerian leitmotif 'leads directly to cinema music where the sole function of the leitmotif is to announce heroes or situations so as to allow the audience to orient itself more easily'. Film scores citing Wagnerian themes include Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now, which features a version of the Ride of the Valkyries, Trevor Jones's soundtrack to John Boorman's film Excalibur, and the 2011 films A Dangerous Method (dir. David Cronenberg) and Melancholia (dir. Lars von Trier). Hans-Jürgen Syberberg's 1977 film Hitler: A Film from Germany's visual style and set design are strongly inspired by Der Ring des Nibelungen, musical excerpts from which are frequently used in the film's soundtrack." - source here.
It's obvious that Richard Wagner belongs yes to this discussion and that he was massively impactful in music. The paragraphs above cite only his influence in it, but he was also very influential in literature, philosophy and the visual arts. He was no dead end.
Well, I wasn't going to mention this. But since you cite Wagner's extra-musical influence, it must be said that he was also extremely influential in the development of Nazism. See Pulizer-prize winner Peter Vierek"s classic book on the subject, "Meta-Politics: the root of the Nazi Mind." Yes, that is certainly a true influence. Sadly. We all know how hateful he was, but that is just part of the point.A) False.
B) He was.
[
It's obvious that Richard Wagner belongs yes to this discussion and that he was massively impactful in music. The paragraphs above cite only his influence in it, but he was also very influential in literature, philosophy and the visual arts. He was no dead end.
Thank you for your excellent and well-researched remarks. All of which were true. I still maintain, however, that although he was enormously influential in his time, and upon Richard Strauss, in terms of long-term influence, he does not come near Bach or Beethoven. Most of his emulators made no progress and the best composers after him (besides Strauss, and I thank you for that point) veered far from his style, often en revanche. As I said, that is a kind of influence, I suppose, but a negative one.
Wagner never killed anyone, and when he lived there was no Nazi party. Hitler wasn't even born when Wagner died in 1883. I don't think that it's fair to blame on him events that happened when he was dead.Well, I wasn't going to mention this. But since you cite Wagner's extra-musical influence, it must be said that he was also extremely influential in the development of Nazism. See Pulizer-prize winner Peter Vierek"s classic book on the subject, "Meta-Politics: the root of the Nazi Mind." Yes, that is certainly a true influence. Sadly. We all know how hateful he was, but that is just part of the point.
I think he does, particularly because many soundtracks still use techniques developed by him. For example, the soundtracks of the Star Wars series, the Lord of the Ring series, the Indiana Jones series, and the Avatar series (including the second movie) are all indebted to Wagner, particularly due to the use of leitmotifs. Also, his ideas about conducting are still important. I believe that few composers have had such a massive and enduring influence as Wagner had.Thank you for your excellent and well-researched remarks. All of which were true. I still maintain, however, that although he was enormously influential in his time, and upon Richard Strauss, in terms of long-term influence, he does not come near Bach or Beethoven. Most of his emulators made no progress and the best composers after him (besides Strauss, and I thank you for that point) veered far from his style, often en revanche. As I said, that is a kind of influence, I suppose, but a negative one.
It's important to note that "announcing heroes or situations" is NOT the most important function of the leitmotif in Wagner's mature work, despite the impression one may get on a cursory hearing. It can certainly become no more than that in the hands of lesser artists, and I'd be surprised and disappointed in Adorno if he doesn't go on to point this out.Wagner's concept of the use of leitmotifs and the integrated musical expression which they can enable has influenced many 20th and 21st century film scores. The critic Theodor Adorno has noted that the Wagnerian leitmotif 'leads directly to cinema music where the sole function of the leitmotif is to announce heroes or situations so as to allow the audience to orient itself more easily'.
Wagner didn't call his themes "Leitmotiven" at all and didn't like the term. He called then "Grundthema," themes that served as a "ground" or basis for musical and dramatic development. His most mature scores are woven almost entirely out of a set of interrelated motifs - interrelated musically and dramatically - which in their constant combination and transformation constitute both a complex and fluid musical texture and a pregnant narrative of dramatic meanings, parallel to the stage action and dialogue, that recalls and foreshadows significant events, casts them in fresh lights through the transmutation of their musical identities, and illuminates the internal psychology of the characters.
It was this "interior monologue" carried on by the orchestra, this continuous revelation of the unstated and unconscious, that excited, and influenced, novelists such as Woolf and Joyce as they shifted their focus away from the narrative of events and toward the "stream of consciousness" that traced the inner lives, the thoughts and feelings, of their characters.
Wagner is one of a small number of artists I sometimes call "before and after" guys. You could, if you wanted, separate the history of music by before they came around, and after, even if this is badly simplifying things.
(of course I'd include guys like Beethoven, Cage, and well- I suppose The Beatles as well)
(of course I'd include guys like Beethoven, Cage, and well- I suppose The Beatles as well)
61 - 80 of 117 Posts
Classical Music Forum
A forum community dedicated to classical music musicians and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about arrangements, collections, techniques, instruments, styles, reviews, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Seattleoperafan
471 Replies
Art Rock
452 Replies
PHOENIXFIRERAPTOR
428 Replies
Recommended Communities
