He wrote symphonies like the _Romeo and Juliet_ and the _Fantastique_ which had to be “explained from beginning to end.” Liszt invented the symphonic poem and composed pieces which are only to be listened to after one has read the poem or seen the picture which they describe. Richard Strauss rounded out the form and put the most elaborate naturalistic details into such works as _Don Quixote_ and _Till Eulenspiegel_. Understanding of this music and complete enjoyment of it rely in a large measure on the “explanation.” The _Symphonia Domestica_ and _Heldenleben_ are extreme examples of this sort of thing. What does Wagner’s whole system depend on but “explanation”? How does one know that a certain sequence of notes represents a sword? Because the composer tells us so. How does one discover that another sequence of notes represents Alberich’s curse? Through the same channel. Bernard Shaw says in _The Perfect Wagnerite_: “To be able to follow the music of _The Ring_, all that is necessary is to become familiar enough with the brief musical phrases out of which it is built to recognize them and attach a certain definite significance to them, exactly as any ordinary Englishman recognizes and attaches a definite significance to the opening bars of _God Save the Queen_.” Modern music is full of this sort of thing. It leans more and more heavily on titles, on mimed drama, on “explanation.” Think of almost all the music of Debussy, for example, _La Mer_, _l’Après-midi d’un Faune_, _Iberia_, nearly all the piano music; Rimsky-Korsakow’s _Scheherazade_, _Antar_, and _Sadko_ (the symphonic suite, not the opera); Vincent d’Indy’s _Istar_; Borodine’s _Thamar_; Dukas’s _l’Apprenti Sorcier_; Franck’s _Le Chasseur Maudit_ and _Les Eolides_; Saint-Saëns’s _Phaëton_, _La Jeunesse d’Hercule_, and _Le Rouet d’Omphale_; Busoni’s music for _Turandot_: the list is endless and it is futile to continue it.