[log in to unmask] wrote:

>>...19th-century compositions since Tristan (1859)
>>that are as significant, well constructed and original as said same.
>
>Debussy Nocturnes & String Quartet
>Satie Three Gymnopedies
>Verdi Otello & Falstaff
>Puccini La Boheme
>Faure Requiem
>Elgar Enigma Variations
>Grieg Peer Gynt
>Mussorgsky Boris Godunov
>Mahler Symphonies 1 to 4 inclusive
>Richard Strauss Death and Transfiguration, Thus Spake Zarathustra,
>Till Eulenspiegel's Merry Pranks, Don Quixote, Don Juan, A Hero's Life...
>
>are worthy candidates for my personal list.  Are there any nitty
>gritty musical, acoustical, aesthetic, scientific, mathematical, chemical,
>biological, botanical, moral or ethical reasons to remove any of the above
>from the list (apart from being in excess of 10 in number)?

Well, the original stipulation that I was emulating was "AS significant,
well constructed and original." Of course this is all a matter of opinion,
but I would venture to say that few musicologists would claim there were 10
works AS significant as Tristan, or even 3 different composers who wrote
works as significant as Tristan before the 20th century.  I would guess
that many would say there were NO works as significant as Tristan before
Pierre Lunaire.

Now, this is not to say that other works couldn't even be more pleasurable,
and repeatedly so, than Tristan.  Some people put Wagner on the bottom of
their lists because they can't stand his style.  So what does "significant"
mean?

Well, dictionary.com refers to three aspects of "significance":

1. Having or expressing a meaning.
2. Having or expressing a covert meaning.
3. Having or likely to have a major effect.

Reviewing Geoffrey Gaskell's list, and that of Mike Leghorn, I
would eliminate several of their nominees based on the "as sigificant"
criterion-- considering all three aspects of the term.  The few that
approach Tristan in significance are the Mahler 1st, Satie's Gymnopedies,
and Debussey's Prelude to an Afternoon (or other Debussy work of your
choice).  Mussorgsky's Boris should be included for originality and Brahms'
Fourth for construction and original idea in its time of exploiting the
passacaglia.  Satie is strong on expressing a covert meaning, one in
opposition to the increasingly overbearing and complex grandiosity of the
German school.  Original and significant, yes.  But strong in construction?
No, the pieces are deliberately puerile.  In my opinion, this casts them
below Brahms' late piano music of similar duration.  Faure is stronger on
construction but weaker than Debussy and Satie in the originality and
significance components.

Berlioz and Puccini are problematic.  I wouldn't count the Trojans
because it was practically coincident with Tristan.  Berlioz really
deserves recognition for the Symphonie Fantastique at the beginning
of his career, not the latter opera, which fails in the 3rd aspect of
significance.  If one accepts La Boheme to be as significant as Tristan,
than one should include Carmen, but we should not equate popularity--an
incomplete measure of the 3rd aspect of significance--with overall
significance.

I cut my teeth on Brockway and Weinstock's "Men of Music" first learning
about CM as a kid.  I'm embarassed to read now their declaration in 1939
that Tchaikovsky was the greatest symphonist since Beethoven.  Mahler
wasn't even IN their book.  If Tchaikovsky is to be included for anything
other than ease of assimilation and source of unforgettable melody, I would
set it in some of his orchestral effects in terms of originality.  He was
arguably significant in Aspect #3 as a powerful influence on future Russian
composers.  But as significant as Wagner? Unlike Wagner, Tchaikovsky is
overt rather than covert, failing miserably in aspect #2.

Bruckner and Strauss are behind the 8-ball because they'd be nowhere
without Wagner.  Only Don Juan and Till have something as original to
offer, their youthful vigor--not equalled by Wagner's concept of Siegfried.
Bruckner offers original, cathedral-like construction and many essays on
Fate, but where is the broader scope that is found in Tristan? The full
range of what it means to be human? Wagner has more meaning(s) than
Bruckner, in terms of Aspect #1.

Now Verdi is way up there in the "being human" criterion.  I can't argue
against Otello, and if we accept Otello, La Boheme cannot be refused.
Falstaff suffers slightly in the melody department.  Grieg is very strong
in melody, but pales in comparison with Wagner in all three significance
aspects.  Furthermore, what did Grieg have to offer in construction? Grieg
should be the first to go from the list.

Dvorak (and poor Grieg) has something to offer stronger than what
Wagner can muster:  charm.  In Dvorak's case, I would place this in
the originality department.  Construction is fine too, though heavily
influenced by others.  The same goes for Saint-Saens.  But both lack,
compared to Wagner, in the "coversion" aspect of significance and the
"influence" aspect of "having a major effect." The shadow of Tristan
falls all the way to the present day.  Can the same be said of Dvorak
and Saint-Saens?

As for Elgar, what he lacks in the originality department with respect
to harmony and orchestration (strongly influenced by Wagner) he more than
makes up for in the Enigma Variations in terms of originality of concept.
1899 pushes the limit, but if we moved the limit out to say, 1909, a host
of truly "significant" works would have to be considered.

So, my bottom line indicates recognition should go to Debussy, Verdi,
Mahler, Puccini, Mussorgsky, Elgar and Strauss.  Seven, but not ten.

Jeff Dunn
[log in to unmask]