g

l

Hmm, that resolution is not how I know this passage. But maybe it appears like that somewhere in the opera too. Anyways, I agree that the chords by themselves sound "jazzy". But in contrast to jazz the notes are treated as individual leading tones of individual voices, whereas in jazz the chords are more "blocks" that don't necessarily require the resolution of leading tones (in this respect, you might say jazz was born in 1862, the year Debussy was born :P). But you're right of course that the sounds by themselves are quite similar.

l

beethoven, 2nd movment of his Opus 111. There is a section in 12/32 whose rhythmn presages the Charleston by oh, 100 years. There was a reason why Chuck Berry titled on of his hits "Roll Over Beethoven", it was more than a jibe at Ludwig it may have been a bit of homage too.

Oh, and if you want to hear the seeds of Wagner (and a little Schoenberg), listen to some of late Beethoven. Using the Op 111, 2 movement. There is a section bout msr 85 - 87 where he has a c-g tremelos with dominant 7 chords which resolve after a few tries but either on weak beats or inversion and only 2 to 3 times. Otherwise it just drifts --- quite beautifully until you get another gorgeous sonority in the higher tessitura. I would love to play that piece perfectly!

l

What you're talking about, Fredrik, is the Tristan Chord; often analyzed as an augmented sixth. Of course it was extremely innovative when Wagner wrote it, but it isn't reminiscent of jazz (at least to me)... so to say that Wagner went so far as to set the harmonic pallet for future jazz musicians is (at least in my eyes) a serious over-statement. I agree that he aided in pushing harmonic treatment in a new direction, but Wagner's music is still inherently romantic. If any direct relation should be made between the tristan chord and the advancement of western tonality, I would say that it's chromatic qualities lend itself to be more a pioneer of atonality than Jazz...

Anyway, I agree with you on everything else - this is truly a beautiful work, and a definitely a landmark masterpiece! :)

l

Freddie,

You don't make any sense. Perhaps indirectly influential, but hardly jazz. Apples and oranges.

l

quote:

Jazz music can also be very romantic and contain the kind of harmonic treatment like in Wagner's Tristan.

Jazz is a term that comprises many different styles and moods! Romantic mood is one of them.

So, Jazz, not being romantic is a big understatement!

You're not interpreting my words (or maybe even reading them) correctly, so allow me to correct you: I used the word Romantic to indicate a period (one of the major periods in the history of western music) in which a certain style (or styles) of music was written. Not all compositions falling into the Romantic Period have a romantic mood; there is no requirement for a piece to have a romantic mood to be labeled as a Romantic work. Hell, if you use the word romantic in a descriptive sense rather than as the categorization of the music, any genre of music can be romantic. Bach Preludes, Mozart Adagios, Scriabin etudes, Hindemith sonatas... pop-boy-band love ballades *shivers in disgust* - you get the point.

So, please, if you're going to use my own words as ammunition against myself, please use them correctly. Wagner's music is inherently romantic. Not necessarily (but of course, sometimes) in mood, but most always in cultural influence and compositional technique.

In response to your examples: it is (however impossible as it may sound to you) probable that these composers just so happened to use a similar progression...

Not to downplay Wagner's importance or influence, but it just seems to me like you're going a bit overboard with this; linking Wagner's chord to the development of all these other composer's works, and (subsequently) all works thereafter.

And next time you try to make a point, please proof-read it and make sure it is coherent to others...

quote: Robbie! You can enjoy your apples and oranges...lol!

1. Don't be a smartass, Robin is one of the most knowledgeable people on this forum, especially when it comes to Jazz.

l

Let me first say that I think it's great Wagner has put such a spell on you and has gone as far as to influence your work (or not?) in another genre. But your argument is a bit of a sprawling fantasy epic. Just about everyone knows Wagner turned the musical world upside down, but to pin down nearly every half-diminished chord or unresolved cadence as his direct or even indirect influence is a stretch. If someone were really to point to Wagner as the instigator for jazz, you'd have to point to so many others. You'd have to attribute Faure's pioneering use of major 7 chords to the invention of jazz, and that anybody that uses the chord is giving him the nod. Even if, in terms of harmony, everything in jazz had been done before, credit doesn't go to the wig wearing guys for the inspiration behind the creation of jazz as a new medium. When someone goes to write, not every time will they let a familiar ear guide them through the brain's "life catalogue of listened-to sonorities" for a result. There's a degree of experimentation or delving into the personally unfamiliar, despite whether your discovery has been done before or not. For example, but at the same time adressing your jazz/Wagner philsophy: It's more likely some blues guitarist landed on a sharp-5 by mistake and liked the way it sounded, and then made a hit out of it, turning other blues guitarists onto the chord.

l

Frederik,

Allow me to begin my post with positive criticism, and end it with the negative criticism... Whether or not you'll take either positively is another matter in and of itself.

First, the positive(s). It's great that you like Wagner... he's considered a great composer, extremely influential from his day to the present, and did revolutionize the way that tonality can be stretched and changed... even made ambiguous.

Now the negative... First, do not for one second say that he did this all out of the blue. He could never have created his harmonic style had (goes back hundreds of years in music) Archangelo Corelli never helped to pioneer the major/minor tonality, had Vivaldi not pioneered the use of the Tonic/Dominant/Subdominant/etc. relationships in a chord progression and through a whole movement, had the Rococco/Galant composers began to use dissonant chords without preparing them, and had not Beethoven greatly expanded the harmonic vocabulary. Sure, he still used the tonic, but his late works could get kinda "out there," harmonically-speaking... if I have to mention the Grosse Fugue as being the thread that lies between Late Beethoven's concept of tonality and Wagner's abandonment of tonality altogether, then this is going to be a much longer argument.

I'd also like to point out that I highly doubt that just because it looks to you like Wagner was the first one in history to use a specific chord, that must obviously mean that he was the one that invented it/inspired someone else to use it. I garauntee you that Gesualdo used chords of that nature (and a little bit more "out there") hundreds of years before Wagner did. I will also garauntee you that it's extremely possible to invent something at the same time as someone else, without being influenced by them... dare I go into the realm of math and mention Liebniz and Newton both inventing calculus on their own.

Jazz music can also be very romantic and contain the kind of harmonic treatment like in Wagner's Tristan.

So, Jazz, not being romantic is a big understatement! Listen to Django, the main theme in *Nuages* is almost emotionally and theoretically identical with the beginning of Tristan.

My final comment is also a quote from the same individual:

By the way, please proofread your post also. The use of lowercase "romantic" implies the general descriptive meaning of romantic moods. If you want to refer to a particular period in music history, it should be written in uppercase, "Romantic."

Since grammatical errors are also so frowned upon on this site, I might like to remind you that "Tristan & Isolde" is also much less preferable in formal writing than "Tristan and Isolde."

Neat story Fredrik, I understand your enthusiasm now. Just remember that no single belongs to anyone. I recommended you some classical composers/works with jazz similarities, check your private messages. By the way, Inner Mounting Flame is a favorite of mine, Cobham is a monster!

l

You're so cool, Fredrik.

The only problem with assigning to Wagner the "origin" of jazz, is that that effectively elliminates the other obvious (and clearly documented) sources of inspiration and evolution of jazz: negro spirituals, african music, ragtime, and the popular music of the time.

I would dare say that jazz had its beginnings with people who would not have known Wagner and Tristan from last tuesday's rump roast. To assign so great an importance to a single chord is, well, simplistic and misguided.

To assign so great an importance to a single chord is, well, simplistic and misguided.

And Schoenberg's fault. :/

l

this is getting ridiculous.

Wagner doesn't represent anything regarding jazz.

He has nothing what so ever to do with the genesis of jazz.

And Jimi Hendrix likewise had nothing to do with the genesis of jazz, American or otherwise.

I guess you are free to believe whatever you want, Fred. However, this thread is getting a bit silly.

l

It's great that you like Wagner so much but saying Wagner invented Jazz with the Tristan chord is like saying Debussy invented metal with all those parallel fifths.

l

Fredrik,

You do realize you're making an donkey of yourself, right?