QcCowboy

OK, then to clear up a misunderstanding: it largely depends on your definition of "influenced".

Debussy was influenced by Wagner. How so? Debussy despised, loathed, hated, reserved-a-special-place-in-hell, for all things Wagnerian. This "avoidance" ends up being an influence on the music of Debussy.

Besides which, any composer aware of those who came before him is "influenced" simply by having come in contact with those predecessors.

I don't believe that the music of Schostakowitch is in direct line harmonically from the music of Mahler.

In that sense, for example, the music of Richard Strauss is "influenced" by that of Wagner and Mahler. It actually has a direct harmonic link to their creative output.

So I guess my reaction to being told that Schostakowitch was "influenced by Mahler" comes from my refusing to see a non-existant harmonic link between the two.

The further statement that "schostakowitch sounded best when he was mahlerian" excarbated the issue further. I think that that is a petty and inaccurate statement. As was remarked by another: Schostakowitch sounded best when he sounded like himself.

Any composer who wrote symphonies after the time Mahler had lived, was in some sense influenced by Mahler. Mahler pushed the symphonic form to an extreme. Whether one admires or loathes what he did, one cannot help but be fascinated by his approach to the form.

In my opinion, this is the limit of Mahler's influence on the music of Schostkowitch. And just to be quite clear, a composer's own words are sometimes a window into his perception of his own creative force, but not necessarily a reflection of the truth of that perception. I have read some truly strange remarks made by great composers, regarding their artistic output. How they perceive their art, and its influence, and its antecedants. They are often quite far off the mark, being more preoccupied with downplaying their own unique contribution, and laying the credit at the foot of some previous composer they admired.

And in my opinion, if you limit yourself to thinking that Schosta sounded best when he was "mahlerian", then you are missing out on some of the most fantastic music of the 20th century. Those truly brilliant moments where Schosta was no one but himself. Unique. Inimitable. A great musical mind that is no mere reflection of someone else, but a truly unique and individual voice.