Chapter XXXII

.

Schindler.—Life of Beethoven.

Other lives of Beethoven, especially that in Grove’s Dictionary.

For musical illustrations, consult the works of Beethoven, especially the Pianoforte sonatas, published complete in all the cheap editions.

QUESTIONS.

Contrast Bach and Beethoven.

Characterize Beethoven’s three periods.

What was the greatest means of expression in Beethoven?

What was the value of his work for the piano in relation to the orchestra?

What was the effect of the improvements in the piano of Beethoven’s time over that of Mozart?

Give a statement of the Sonata as constructed by Beethoven.

What changes did he introduce: Key relationship? Number of movements?

What qualities are found in his first movement form?

How does he secure great unity and continuity of idea?

How does he secure dramatic expression?

Where does he introduce bold modulations? With what effect?

What use did Beethoven make of the program idea?

Tell about his Concertos. His Variations.

LESSON XXXIV.

THE VIOLIN AND ITS MAKERS.

=Change from the Viol to the Violin=.—The reader who has studied the principles of construction and playing of the old string instruments, as explained in Lesson XV, or examined them in museums, will not have failed to note that they were complicated and limited in technic. The members of this family were large and cumbersome, troublesome to handle and not particularly graceful or pleasing to the eye; the position in which the player was forced to hold them was difficult to maintain and not conducive to a rapid, facile technic. Now, the direction of a perfected art is always toward simplicity; the various members of the viol family were to yield place to a new instrument, a modification of the original type, and one that possessed some striking and valuable advantages over the viol. Another element that aided in the change from the viol was the efforts of composers to produce a distinctive instrumental music, a style which demanded an instrument with a higher range than the viols, corresponding to the highest female voice. Still another element to be considered was the stir in intellectual, social, political and commercial life which was evident everywhere, the product of the Renaissance. Music was influenced by this spirit; composers were seeking new forms in which to express their thoughts and were calling for new and better media for presenting them to others. As composers gained in breadth and power of conception, instruments were improved even beyond their demands; the increase in resources stimulated, in turn, the composers. At this period music was on the threshold of a splendid activity in instrumental lines, the reign of the old choral music and the contrapuntal composer was being challenged, and the way prepared for Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.

=Beginning of the Violin=.—With regard to the violin, as in other beginnings, there is disagreement; the strongest claims are set forth for France and Italy, with German historians by no means lax in attributing the first instruments to one of their own countrymen. We give the following facts which seem to divide the honors: In the scores of Italian works of the 16th century, a part may be found for what is called the _piccolo violino alla francese_ (little French viol), a fact which would argue that an instrument of this kind, perhaps most commonly used in France, had been known for some time. The oldest known instrument of the violin type is one which bears the date 1449, and is signed Jean Kerlin, a Breton luthier (lute maker, a term applied also to violin makers), whose name is also given as Kerlino, living in Brescia, Italy, in the middle of the 15th century. About the same time there lived in Bologna, Padua and Venice, members of a celebrated lute-making family, named Duiffoprugcar, Italian equivalent for the German name, Tieffenbrucker, for the family came from the Italian Tyrol. The most celebrated member of this family was Gasparo Duiffoprugcar (Casper Tieffenbrucker), who was born about 1469, lived in Bologna until 1515, when he went to Paris. Later he removed to Lyons, where he spent the rest of his life. Six instruments having violin characteristics (high, not sloping shoulders, deeper curves in the waist and better-defined _f_ holes) are attributed to him, bearing dates of 1510, 1511, 1515 and 1517.

=Early Italian Makers=.—The next name is that of Gasparo di Salo, founder of the Brescian school of violin-making, who was born at a little village called Salo, on Lake Garda; hence his name. His model varied, sometimes it was high, at other times flat; as his instruments produced a full, sonorous tone, the model was revived in later years by Joseph Guarnerius. His tenors and double-basses are considered his finest work, his violins being a trifle small. The favorite double bass of Dragonetti, the famous contrabassist, was by di Salo; Ole Bull frequently played on a di Salo violin in his concerts. The greatest successor of di Salo was his pupil, =Giovanni Paolo Maggini= (1590-1640), whose violins are highly prized. They are characterized by a brown varnish and a double purfling.

=The Cremona School=.—With the public the name Cremona is indissolubly connected with violin-making. In the 16th century this city was a famous art centre, rivaling Bologna in music and painting. The first great maker and founder of the Cremona school was Andrea (Andrew) Amati, born about 1520 and died 1577 or 1580.[11] He used mostly a small pattern, top and back high, the varnish amber in color. A number of his instruments furnished for the Chapel Royal of Charles IX were known to have been in Versailles prior to the French Revolution. The Amati style was continued by Andrea’s two sons, Antonio (Anthony) and Hieronymus (Geronimo or Jerome) Amati. The former is said to have lived 1550-1638, the latter 1551-1635. They worked conjointly, although the latter made some experiments with a larger model than the usual Amati.

=Nicolo Amati=.—The greatest of the Amati family and the one whose instruments are still highly prized was =Nicolo (Nicolaus) Amati= (1596-1684), the son of Geronimo. He forms one of the great triumvirate of violin-making, Amati, Guarnerius and Stradivarius. At first he followed the small form adopted by his father and his uncle, although he improved on the workmanship. But about 1625, no doubt as the result of an experiment, he began to use a slightly larger pattern which is known to connoisseurs as the “Grand Amati.” These instruments represent his best work and command a high price. The Amati tone is sweet, mellow yet somewhat delicate, although remarkable in purity; the instruments are unsuited to orchestral work, although admirable in chamber music,

## particularly of the old style. The varnish is yellowish or amber

colored.

=Joseph Guarnerius=.—In our study of the piano we noted how the small, weak tone of the clavichord and harpsichord gave way before the fuller toned, sonorous pianoforte, which, with its greater possibilities, came into use at a time when composers were seeking for means to give increased breadth and power to the reproduction of their music. It would have been unfortunate for instrumental music if the small though sweet tone of the Amati violin had been accepted as the ideal. We could not have had the surging tumult of Beethoven’s “Eroica” symphony, the great dramatic pictures of Wagner with the Amati to lay on the colors. More tone, more sonorousness, more virile singing was needed. One of the men to place in the hands of executants the instrument to work out the conceptions of the great composers was =Giuseppe Guarneri= or, as he is generally called, Joseph Guarnerius del Gesu. He was born at Cremona, 1683, and belonged to a family of lute and violin makers. He has been credited with having been a pupil of Stradivari, yet his instruments show no trace of that maker’s influence. He seems to have been impressed with the tone-producing qualities of the di Salo violins, for his best instruments have something of their bold, vigorous style. He was an experimenter, ever seeking, it would seem, for the means of producing big, sonorous tone, and changed his model frequently, for which reason his instruments vary much in value. His work was not so highly favored by connoisseurs until Paganini showed the value of a Guarnerius from the standpoint of tone. His best instruments are now greatly admired and, because so few in good condition are known, command a high price. The date of Guarnerius’ death is not known. Others of the Guarnerius family who lived and worked at Cremona were Andreas Guarnerius, uncle to Giuseppe, his son also called Joseph and known as “_filius Andreæ_” (Son of Andreas) to distinguish him from his cousin, Joseph del Gesu, another son Peter, “of Cremona,” and a son of Joseph _filius Andreæ_, known as Peter of Venice.

=Antonius Stradivarius=.—The greatest of violin-makers who united in his instruments the brilliant and powerful tone of di Salo and the Brescian school and the purity and finish of the Amati was =Antonius Stradivarius= (Antonio Stradivari is the Italian form), born in 1644, one year after the death of Monteverde, and died in 1737, five years after the birth of Haydn, a period of nearly a century in which a most significant development took place in music. He was apprenticed to Nicolo Amati, and the instruments of his early years are faithful copies of that master’s work; but as he grew in years and experience he improved on the Amati model, every change tending to produce a more powerful and resonant tone. The differences that strike the eye most strongly are the larger proportions, the flatter arch of the top, and the shape of the sound holes. In his earlier instruments he used a yellowish varnish; after 1684, one of a reddish tint. Stradivarius also fixed the form and adjustment of the bridge. He left two sons, Francesco and Omoboni, who finished some of their father’s instruments after his death. They both died five or six years later. Pupils of Stradivarius who made excellent instruments were =Carlo Bergonzi= (1712-1750), =Lorenzo Guadagnini= (1695-1740) and his son =Johannes Baptista Guadagnini= (1750-1785) and =Alessandro Gagliano=.

=Other Makers=.—Germany’s contribution to violin-making dates from =Jakob Stainer=, of Absam in Tyrol (1621-1683). Tradition has it that he learned his art at Cremona; if so, his work shows no influence of the Amati; his model is different, somewhat broader and shorter, the arch of the belly is greater, and the sound holes are set differently; the varnish varies from a brown to an amber color; the tone is sweet and quick to respond, but lacks intensity. A follower of Stainer was =Ægidius Klotz= (1653-1743), many of whose instruments were sold as of Stainer’s make. France contributed no makers of great renown. The names of importance are =Nicholas Lupot= (1758-1824), a follower of Stradivarius, and =J. B. Vuillaume= (1799-1875). In England the most distinguished names are =Richard Duke= and =Benjamin Banks= (1727-1795).

=The Violin Bow=.—A few words must be said in regard to the bow, the means for producing tone from the violin strings. In its earliest form it was simply a bow with a stretched string. Hair came into use, to replace the string, about the 13th century, and the bow lost its original shape, becoming straight for nearly its entire length, curving downward at the point. Corelli used a bow of this shape. Tartini’s bow had the same shape, but was made longer. At the end of the 18th century, =François Tourte= (1747-1835), a Paris bow-maker, lengthened the bow still more, and bent it slightly inward, giving it the form familiar to us today. Viotti was the first great player to use this style of bow, and is credited with a share in perfecting it. It is no exaggeration to say that upon Tourte’s improvements to the bow rests the whole fabric of modern violin-playing, with its wonderful variety of execution and consequent nuances in expression.

=The Viola and the Violoncello=.—Two other instruments of the violin type are in use, the Viola, the _tenor_ violin, and the Violoncello, the _bass_ violin; both these instruments shared in the development of the violin, and were made by the great makers, Amati, Guarnerius and Stradivarius. The Contra-bass, the bass-viol, as it is often called, while it is used to furnish the bass to the string orchestra, is a member of the viol family, having the special characteristics, sloping shoulders and flat back. Instruments were made on the violin pattern, but given up as less satisfactory than the viol type.

The impetus given to instrumental composition by the perfecting of the instruments of the string group stimulated makers to work for improvement in those belonging to the family of wind instruments, flutes, oboes, clarinets, horns, harps, etc., thus offering the means to reproduce for hearers the great conceptions of the tone-masters.

REFERENCES.

Grove.—Dictionary of Music and Musicians, article on the violin.

Stoeving.—Story of the Violin.

Hart.—The Violin. Its Famous Makers and their Imitators.

Heron-Allen. Violin-Making as it Was and Is.

Haweis.—Old Violins.

QUESTIONS.

Why did the Viol type yield to the Violin?

Who is credited with being the originator of the Violin type?

Give the names of the early Italian makers.

What noted family of violin makers started the fame of Cremona?

What was the model used by the Amati family?

What improvements did Joseph Guarnerius make?

What was Stradivarius’ contribution?

Who was the greatest German maker? Name French and English makers.

Compare the great makers of violins and their work.

The author suggests that a violin, viola, ’cello and double bass and the respective bows be exhibited to the class and examined, the descriptions as given in the reference works to be compared with the instruments. The catalogue of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, contains some fine illustrations for the use of students, as well as descriptions. A copy of this should be in every teacher’s library. It can be secured for a small amount by addressing the Museum as above.

LESSON XXXV.

VIOLIN PLAYING AND VIOLIN MUSIC.

=Reciprocal Influences of Instruments and Composition=.—The development of the violin, of violin playing and violin music, in a certain sense shows reciprocal influences, and went hand in hand. This was the more certain because the composers who wrote for the instrument were also players, in almost every instance the virtuosi of their times. During the polyphonic period, composers were singers or organists; during the period when the violin dominated instrumental composition, composers in that form were usually violinists. In the next period, when the pianoforte was coming to the front, the representative composers were clavier composers. And since then with but few exceptions the great composers have also been pianists.

=Earliest Violin Compositions=.—In the music of the viol period no demands were made upon the instrumental player except that he should double the voice part, which was simple, viewed from the standpoint of modern violin playing. Even later when music was written for quartets of viols the parts were vocal in character and did not exceed voices in range. The earliest known solo composition was published in 1620, by Marini. It demands but little from the executant. The next work of importance was in 1627, when Carlo Farina, an Italian living at Dresden, published a collection of pieces which show quite an advance technically, including variety of bowing, double stopping and chords. The names applied to violin compositions were: _Sonate_, _Canzone_ and _Sinfonia_, the principle of the first named being an alternation of slow and quick movements. About 1650 the term Sonata comes into general use, and a further distinction is made between _Sonata da Chiesa_ (church sonata) and _Sonata da Camera_ (chamber sonata), the former consisting of three or four movements varying in tempo, the latter being really a suite of dances, with slow and quick movements in alternation. The Church, always ready to make use of the fine arts, soon discovered the capabilities of the violin and its music, and adopted it as one of its musical forces, not merely for assisting in accompaniments but for independent performances. As a result of this patronage, the violin sonata, the only form of serious composition for the instrument, took on the severer character of the church sonata, giving an impulse toward the establishment of sonata form.

=Composers of the 17th Century=.—Among those who prepared the way for the great ones to follow was =Giovanni Battista Vitali= (1644-1692), who shows in his chamber sonatas the tendency to adopt the form of the church sonata. His name is best known in violin literature by a Chaconne with variations, which makes no inconsiderable demands on the technic of a player, and must have marked him out as a conspicuous player in his own time. This is a worthy forerunner of Bach’s great work in a similar form. In Germany the significant name is =Heinrich Biber= (1644-1704), who had a highly developed technic for that period, for his works carry the player up to the sixth position and introduce difficult double stopping and arpeggios. The next name to be noticed is =Giuseppe Torelli= (1660-1708), who lived many years in Bologna as leader of a church orchestra. He is credited with having been the first to apply the principles of construction as shown in the church sonata to concerted music, which later developed into the Concerto.

[Illustration: ARCANGELO CORELLI.]

=Corelli=.—In any great movement one man seems to sum up the best of the work of his predecessors. The name associated with putting violin music and playing on a firm foundation is that of =Arcangelo Corelli= (1653-1713), eminent both as composer and player. He was a contemporary of Guarnerius and Stradivarius, who brought the instrument to perfection. Of Corelli’s early life little is known. He traveled in France and was also in Munich for some years. In 1681 he returned to Italy, making his home at Rome. As a teacher, he acquired great fame and pupils came to him from all parts of Europe. The most eminent violinists who were under his instruction were Geminiani, Locatelli, Somis, Baptiste, and Castrucci. Corelli did not invent new forms of composition or of technic—in the latter respect he did not equal certain of his contemporaries—he was a reformer rather than an innovator. He had, however, a keen sense for effects that were specially suited to the instrument, and his conservatism put the art of playing the violin on a solid basis upon which others were able to add newer and more difficult technic. His works included forty-eight three-part sonatas for various combinations, twelve two-part sonatas for violin and cembalo, nine for two violins and cembalo, and six concertos for two violins and ’cello with a quartet accompaniment. The violin being so preëminently a singing, a melody instrument, it is singular that Corelli and his contemporaries did not grasp the principle of using clearly defined melodic themes. This fact shows that the influence of the church sonata and its rejection of a formal tune as unsuited to serious art was still strong. Therefore, while Corelli’s works do not show themes such as are characteristic of the next period of the sonata, his construction is logical and his handling of his form-material is concise and clear. The student of Form in music will find the germs of sonata-form in Corelli’s works.

=Corelli’s Pupils=.—Among Corelli’s pupils must be mentioned =Francesco Geminiani= (1680-1762), who spent part of his life in England. He published the first work of a pedagogic character, a “Method for Violin Playing,” in London, in 1740. He also recommended holding the violin on the left side instead of on the right, as was customary in his time. =Pietro Locatelli= (1693-1764) greatly influenced the development of violin technic. =Giovanni Battista Somis= (1676-1763) lived at Turin, was the teacher of Pugnani, the instructor of Viotti. =Antonio Vivaldi= (1675-1743) devoted himself to virtuosity and influenced the Concerto from this point. He was fertile and ingenious in making new combinations and devising new effects. J. S. Bach arranged his works, sixteen for the clavier, four for the organ, and one as a concerto for four claviers and a quartet of stringed instruments. Still another name is to be mentioned, that of =Francesco Maria Veracini= (1685-1750), who greatly influenced Tartini by his playing. He was a player full of temperament, which made his playing powerfully expressive. His sonatas are bold in harmonic and melodic treatment, and well constructed. Their technical difficulty is considerable. (His lifetime coincides with Bach.)

[Illustration: GIUSEPPE TARTINI.]

=Giuseppe Tartini= (1692-1770) is one of the commanding figures of musical history. He was intended for the profession of law by his parents but, fortunately for music, did not fall in with the plan. A hasty marriage with the niece of an archbishop brought him into trouble, and he fled to a monastery, where he spent two years, devoting the greater part of his time to musical studies. At the end of this time he was allowed to rejoin his wife, and went to Venice, where he learned to know Veracini, with whom he studied to correct the faults he had acquired through pursuing his studies undirected. Again he went into retirement and gave himself up to the study of violin technic. Among other things he made some improvements in the bow, increasing the range of effects. His contemporaries ascribe to him “a fine tone, unlimited command of fingerboard and bow, perfect intonation in double stops, a most brilliant trill and double trill as well, which he could execute equally well with all fingers.” His celebrated composition “_Il Trillo del Diavolo_” (“The Devil’s Trill”) shows his skill in embellishments. A technical work “_Arte dell’ Arco_” (“The Art of Bowing”) gives a clear idea of his method in that branch of the violinist’s art. In his compositions he shows advance on Corelli and Vivaldi, for his melody is broader, his phrases more developed and clearer, his harmonies richer and better contrasted, with many passages of a strongly emotional character. He wrote a great number of pieces, sonatas and concertos. In addition to his work as player and composer, Tartini devoted himself to teaching. His school at Padua was the Mecca of violinists from all Europe. In those days there were no instruction books; Tartini’s pupils looked to him for everything, and his character as a teacher can be learned in a letter addressed by him to a pupil.[12] Tartini’s contribution to music also includes work of a theoretical character. He discovered the so-called combinational sound, by which is meant the sounding of a third sound when two tones are sounded together.[13] He published a treatise on the subject. Two pupils of Tartini’s who deserve mention are =Pietro Nardini= (1722-1793) and =Gaetano Pugnani= (1726-1803), who was also a pupil of Somis, thus uniting in himself the teachings of the two great masters, Tartini and Corelli, which he transmitted to later generations through his great pupil, Viotti.

With Tartini the violin sonata of the old type lost its place, being succeeded by the sonata for the piano which was being developed by composers, giving rise to a form that was later to be the basis of a new sonata for violin and piano in which each instrument filled an equal place. In the earlier days the tone of the clavichord and harpsichord, weak and thin, was not suited save for accompanying the full-toned brilliantly effective violin; but after Tartini’s time the instrument gained in power and sonorousness and formed a worthy helpmeet for the violin.

[Illustration: GIOVANNI BATTISTA VIOTTI.]

=Violin playing in France= was largely influenced by Italian players. Lully, the opera composer, was a violinist, but the Italian school had not developed when, as a lad, he left his native country. The Corelli principles were carried to France by =Leclair= (1687-1764), who received his training from Somis, a pupil of Corelli. His treatment of the bow showed the lightness and agility that later became distinctive of the French school. =Pierre Gaviniés= (1726-1800) lent strength to the establishment of an independent French school of playing. He is best known today by a set of difficult studies. =Giovanni Battista Viotti= (1753-1824), an Italian by birth, greatly influenced violin playing in his day. As a lad of seventeen he traveled through Europe with Pugnani, his teacher, winning great success. Later he located in Paris, teaching and composing, giving regularly private performances at which he brought out his concertos. His themes have a marked singing character, and all his writing is eminently suited to the instrument. In his concertos he used the elaborated sonata-form as developed by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, and in his accompaniments draws fully on the resources of the orchestra. His works include a fine set of duets for two violins. His most eminent pupils were =Pierre Rode= (1774-1830) and =Pierre Marie François de Sales Baillot= (1771-1842) who with =Rodolphe Kreutzer= (1766-1831) were teachers in the Paris Conservatoire, for which they prepared the famous “Méthode de Violin.” Rode and Kreutzer are famous in violin literature for their studies for advanced players. Beethoven dedicated his great sonata for piano and violin, Op. 47, to Kreutzer, for which reason it is known by the latter’s name. In connection with the educational writers just mentioned, =Federigo Fiorillo=, born 1753, in Germany, of Italian parents, is to be noted. His thirty-six etudes or caprices rank with the works of Rode and Kreutzer. =Antonio Lolli= (1730-1802) was a virtuoso and nothing else. His execution was marvelous, and he was, in many respects, a forerunner of Paganini.

=Violin playing in Germany= had its source and inspiration in the concert tours made in that country by the great Italian virtuosi, a number of whom lived for periods of some length at the courts of Berlin, Dresden, Mannheim and other capitals, where they trained pupils for the various ducal orchestras. The orchestra at Mannheim was the most famous for its work and sent out a number of fine players and musicians. Space does not permit the mention of these men. The first great name in the violin world of Germany is =Ludwig Spohr= (1784-1859), who was also one of the great composers of his time, his

## activity leading him into the domain of the oratorio and opera as well

as orchestra and instrumental music. (His principal teacher was =Franz Eck= (1774-1804), who belonged to the Mannheim school.) Later he had opportunity to hear Rode, by whose playing he was much impressed. He spent some years in concertizing, and in 1822 located at Cassel as the director of the orchestra there. Here he taught many noted pupils, the best known being Ferdinand David. While Spohr was a great player and a great teacher, he influenced modern violin playing more by his compositions. Some of his concertos still figure in the violinist’s repertoire and his duos and concertantes for two violins and for violin and viola are unsurpassed by any compositions in that style. In 1831, he published his “Violin School,” which was a standard work for many years. The direct successor of Spohr was =Ferdinand David= (1810-1873), a great player and a great teacher who was associated with Mendelssohn in the founding of the famous Leipzig Conservatorium. From this institution David’s pupils went over all Europe into positions of responsibility and reputation. His greatest pupil was =August Wilhelmj= (b. 1845). After David’s death supremacy in the field of violin playing gradually fell away from Leipzig and centred in Berlin around Joseph Joachim, the Nestor of the present-day[14] violin world.

[Illustration: LUDWIG SPOHR.]

=The Vienna School=.—The southern Germans had certain characteristics wherein they differed from their northern kin; they were in closer touch with Italy and were also influenced by their Hungarian neighbors. In Beethoven’s time considerable attention was given by Viennese violinists to chamber-music. Four names are prominent: =Karl Dittersdorf= (1739-1799), =Anton Wranitzky= (1756-1808), =Joseph Mayseder= (1789-1863) and =Joseph Bœhm= (1795-1876), the latter being the teacher of a number of famous violinists, =Hellmesberger=, =Dont=, =Remenyi=, =Ernst= and =Joseph Joachim= (b. 1831), the latter, representing the solid, classical style of his teacher, joined to a mastery of the technic of his instrument that enabled him to win and maintain the highest rank as virtuoso, quartet player and composer for his instrument. Up to the time of his death, August 15, 1907, he was director of the Royal High School of Music in Berlin. He was the teacher of hundreds of players, including many celebrated artists of the present day.

[Illustration: JOSEPH JOACHIM.]

[Illustration: NICOLO PAGANINI.]

=Paganini=.—The most unique, most startling figure in music belongs to the violin, a law unto himself in his playing, one for whom the violin seemed to have been perfected long years before by Guarnerius and Stradivarius and one who seemed to have been made for the violin, the hero of fictions innumerable, to whom was attributed in his day all manner of occult power. This mysterious king of the violin was =Nicolo Paganini=, born in Genoa, February 18, 1782, died May 27, 1840. Never strong in body, in his early youth he gave himself up to dissipation to such an extent that he undermined his constitution, and passed through the world as a spectre rather than as a man. Paganini was self-developed, he belonged to no school and he founded none, yet so great was his command of the technic of the violin and the bow, that no other player so profoundly influenced contemporaries and successors on the matter of virtuosity. He taught but one pupil, =Camille Sivori= (1815-1894). Paganini greatly influenced the younger French violinists of his day, among whom may be mentioned =Alard= and =Dancla=. After these men come =Charles de Bériot= (1802-1870), who represents the Belgian School, his pupil =Henri Vieuxtemps= (1820-1881) and third generation in the line of pupilage, =Eugen Ysaye= (b. 1858). Others who belong to the Belgian School are =Massart= (teacher of =Wieniawski=, =Kreisler= and others), =Léonard= (teacher of =César Thomson=, =Marsick=, =Musin=, =Marteau=, etc.). At the present time the centre of interest in the violin world has shifted to Prague, where =Ottokar Ševčík= has sent out young violinists of the Slav race who display the most astonishing technical mastery.

REFERENCES.

Grove.—Dictionary of Music and Musicians, articles on Violin Playing, Sonata, Concerto, and players mentioned in this lesson.

Stoeving.—Story of the Violin.

Ehrlich.—Celebrated Violinists.

Hart.—The Violin and its Music.

QUESTIONS.

What was the form of early violin music?

What difference was there in sonatas?

What were Corelli’s contributions to music?

What were Tartini’s contributions to music?

Trace the connection between the French and Italian schools.

Trace the connection between the German and the Italian schools.

Trace the connection between the Vienna and the Italian schools.

What composers contributed most largely to the educational side of violin music?

Prepare a short sketch of Paganini.

LESSON XXXVI.

THE ORCHESTRA AND ABSOLUTE MUSIC.

=The Orchestra as a Means of Expression=.—The most perfect means for expression in music is presented by the orchestra, which, in its complete form as shown today, is the result of a long development in many directions. To give us this magnificent mass-instrument required a sifting of the various instruments and the choice of those that offered the best possibilities, a perfecting of these instruments, a shaping of systems of playing them, of technic that should draw out all possible effects, and an understanding, on the part of composers, of the nature and demands of absolute music and how best to shape their conceptions in accordance with these demands. The orchestra and its music, therefore, represents the extreme height of man’s work in music, for even when choral forces are joined to the orchestra, the instrumental idea dominates, as, for example, in the Ninth Symphony of Beethoven, in which the chorus is simply a _vocal band_ added to the other groups. The orchestra is a great means for musical expression because it offers to the composer the maximum of resources. In modern days, when the esthetic principle of Unity in Variety receives the most elastic interpretation due to the demand for the greatest possible contrasts in tone-color, power and in nuances, all, however, intended to exhibit and illumine the themes invented by the composer in their various transformations, in these days the orchestra is truly the most complete art-means known.

=Groups in the Orchestra=.—The orchestra is composed of groups of instruments allied by similarity of construction. The usual classification is into three main groups, =strings=, (bowed instruments), =wind= and =percussion= instruments. In the former are included the violins, viola, violoncello and double or contra-bass; =wind= instruments subordinate into =wood wind= and =brass=, the former include instruments of the flute, oboe, bassoon and clarinet families, the latter horns, trumpets, trombones, tuba or other bass instruments; the =percussion= includes kettle drums, other drums, triangles, cymbals, etc.; the =harp=, while a stringed instrument, is not included in that class. These instruments offer a great variety of effects, singly and in many possible combinations, in the peculiar effects possible by variety in playing, which in bowed instruments is considerable, and particularly by contrast with each other. While the orchestra today is in a highly developed condition, composers are seeking to extend the limits of their art by the use of more elaborate and subtle forms; so that we cannot in any wise predict the course and limits of absolute music with the almost unlimited resources at its disposal in the modern orchestra.

=Purpose in Combination=.—When we consider the orchestra as a combination of instruments we must bear in mind that this combination is the result of a definite purpose to produce music independent of restrictions such as were shown to have existed in the days of the domination of the Church. The composers of the early polyphonic period and up to the 17th century bent their efforts to the composition of choral music which was sung for many years without instrumental support. When later the organ, and still later, viols and other instruments were drafted into the service of church music, the accompaniments were not independent of the voice, but merely doubled the various parts. Composers thought in _terms of voices_ and their limitations, _not in_ the greater range and endurance of _instruments_. Then, too, the instruments were crude and their tone lacked distinctiveness as well as the comparative sweetness and purity of the vocal music of that day. Combinations of instruments existed in the Middle Ages, but not according to a system, and were due to the executants who assembled them rather than to the demand for them in the works of composers. It was in the attempts at light dramatic music that preceded the establishment of the opera that instruments were grouped together, showing a great weakness, from our point of view, in stringed instruments played with the bow, and a corresponding preponderance of brass.

=Influence of the Opera=.—The first composers of opera and oratorio gave instrumental support to the singers, although it was very meager. Yet the opera gave the help of that great principle of invention, necessity, and composers began to experiment with various combinations of instruments to secure a more adequate accompaniment for the voice as well as to heighten the effects demanded by the drama. =Monteverde=, an independent thinker and innovator, marked out lines in which efforts should be made by successors. He studied the _characteristic effects of_ the various _groups_ and made use of them as he felt them. His orchestra for “Orfeo” (1608) was made up of two harpsichords, ten tenor viols, two bass viols, two “little French violins,” one double harp, two organs of wood, one regal, two viole de gamba, two large guitars, two cornets, two trombones, three trumpets with mutes, one octave flute, one clarion. The most significant item is found in the “little French violins,” which presages the appearance of the instrument which was, a century later, to be recognized as the backbone of the orchestra. Among the distinctive instrumental effects which Monteverde introduced was the =tremolo= for bowed string instruments as well as the =pizzicato=. In looking over the instruments of Monteverde’s orchestra we will note but _one_ wood wind, the flute. This shows that composers, doubtless through the military use of brass and drums, had accepted the latter as means for special effects. Instruments of the _wood wind_ type were still too _crude_ to be admitted. =Alessandro Scarlatti=, who did so much for the opera from the side of form and content, also contributed to the development of orchestral music. He evidently perceived the importance of having a nucleus around which to build his harmonies, a group of instruments which should furnish a firm support and which could blend the various tone qualities. With the intuition of genius he selected the =string tone= for this purpose, and in this he was greatly aided by the fact that the Amati family, and their successors, Guarnerius and Stradivarius, had already perfected the violin, although the great players were yet to come. Scarlatti wrote in four parts for the string instruments, the treble part to the first violin, the alto to the second, the tenor part to the viola, which previously had often played in unison with the double bass, while the bass part was taken by ’cellos and basses. He also added =oboes= and =bassoons= to the strings and brass. Lully in France used an orchestra similar to that adopted by Scarlatti. The =kettle-drums= now come into use. The works of Corelli and his violinist successors, which showed the possibility of writing for strings, undoubtedly influenced orchestral writing.

=Bach and Handel=.—We now come to the period of Bach and Handel, each distinct in methods, the latter the more immediately influential in the development of the orchestra, the former’s principles of writing in the =polyphonic style= not being taken up until after years by Wagner and more recently by the extreme modern composers with their free polyphony. In a Bach score each instrument had an independent part to sing, and was treated from a musical standpoint, whereas the tendency of other composers was to seek figures and passages which should be characteristic of the instrument, the standpoint of effect. This

## particularly applies to the wind instruments. =Handel’s= idea seemed

to be the building up of great =mass effects=, his style partook of the =harmonic= rather than the polyphonic. He used all the important instruments found in the modern orchestra except the _clarinet_, although the proportion of the wind instruments to the strings is greater, due to the relatively inferior power of these instruments in Handel’s time.

=Haydn and Mozart=.—From Handel we pass to the first of his three great successors, =Haydn=, who has been called the “father of the symphony,” who determined, in fact, the course of orchestral development. And we should not overlook the fact before-mentioned, namely, that the professional violinists, most of whom were also directors of orchestras in the pay of great princes, were testing the capacities and resources of the instruments used. In the period which Haydn represents, the _proportions of the instruments_ in the orchestra were definitely _fixed_ and the size of the string band became relatively greater, the _’cello_ coming in to greater prominence in its use as a _melody instrument_. Haydn’s last symphony, written in 1795, calls for two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, two kettle drums, and the usual string band. This was the combination which Haydn selected as the most useful and effective, as the result of his experience as a conductor for many years. It was to =Mozart= that the introduction of the =clarinet= into the orchestra is due, for Haydn did not employ this instrument in his earlier works. The clarinet began to take an effective form about the end of the 17th century, yet it was not until the 19th century that it received the improvements that now make it one of the most useful instruments in the orchestra, with a wonderfully facile technic and correct intonation. The greatest of these changes was the application, to the clarinet, of the system of keys and fingering invented by =Theobald Boehm= (1794-1881) for the flute. In addition to showing the value of the clarinet as an instrument, Mozart pointed the way to some uses of the =trombone=. His E-flat Symphony is scored for one flute, two clarinets, two bassoons, two horns, two trumpets, tympani and strings; in the score of the “Jupiter” symphony, the clarinet does not appear.

=Beethoven= established the orchestra as “the composer’s instrument.” He added but little to the instruments used but he took the resources established by his predecessors and demonstrated what could be done with them. Every group of instruments was used with more detail and to produce characteristic effects both separately and in combination. In his first and second symphonies he uses the same orchestra: two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, two horns, two trumpets, tympani and strings; in the “Eroica,” a third horn part is added; the fourth has the same orchestra as the first two, except that one flute is dropped; the fifth calls for piccolo, two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, contra-bassoon, two horns, two trumpets, three trombones, tympani and strings; in the sixth he uses the same orchestra as in the fifth, except that he drops the contra-bassoon and one trombone; in the seventh and eighth the orchestra is the same as in his first and second symphonies. In the ninth (Choral Symphony) he calls for a larger orchestra: piccolo, two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, contra-bassoon, four horns, two trumpets, three trombones, tympani, triangle, cymbals, bass drum and strings. It will be noted that Beethoven does _not use the harp_. It was not until 1820, seven years before Beethoven’s death, that Erard invented the double-action harp, an effective and a playable instrument.

=Berlioz, Wagner and Richard Strauss=.—The composer who first made an exhaustive study of orchestral instruments, their distinctive qualities, separately and in combinations, was =Berlioz=, who gave to the world his knowledge in his “Treatise on Instrumentation,” published in 1844. Berlioz gave to every one of his works a more or less distinctive quality by varying the composition of his orchestra instead of using the conventional combinations. He made frequent use of the harp, bass clarinet, English horn, bass tuba, besides other less frequently used instruments. He very much enlarged the scope of orchestral music by the new effects he devised. =Richard Wagner=, in his great music dramas, makes use of many new means of dramatic musical effects, introducing new instruments, enlarging the various families, dividing the strings into eight parts, increasing the number of brass instruments, giving to his scores a richness of power and a sonorous quality unknown before his time. =Richard Strauss= is, today, the greatest master of the technic of orchestral writing. His tone-poems make greater demands on the resources of the instruments and contain effects beyond those of Wagner.

[Illustration: HECTOR BERLIOZ.]

=Hector Berlioz= (1803-1869) was the son of a French physician, who designed him for his own profession. But the lad’s bent for music was so strong that when sent to Paris to prepare for a medical degree, he spent most of his time in going to the opera and in studying the scores of the masters. Much against the will of his parents, he determined to give up medicine and entered the _Conservatoire_. His early musical training had been far from thorough and his career was at first not successful. This added to his father’s displeasure, and he finally withdrew all support from his son, who, rather than abandon his art, struggled with the most crushing poverty until a violent illness brought on by privation reconciled his parents to his choice of a profession. After several unsuccessful attempts, he gained the great Roman Prize, which entitled him to a period of study in Italy and Germany at the cost of the State, but throughout his life he battled at home with adverse and discouraging conditions, artistic and domestic. Until after his death his works never received the recognition gladly paid them in foreign countries, where he made frequent tours for the purpose of producing them. His demand for exceptional means of performance, based upon their large scope and previously unheard-of effects, was ridiculed in France, where they were also considered dissonant and bombastic; he encountered jealousy and intrigue at every turn and bore them, too, in no patient spirit.

=His Important Works=.—As a winner of the Roman Prize, however, he had a claim on the State. Thus his great “Te Deum,” written for three choruses, soli, and orchestra, was one of several commissions from the Government and was composed for the opening of the Exposition of 1855. Another similar colossal work is his “Requiem,” with its four small orchestras of brass stationed at the corners of the principal orchestra. These cross and re-cross with thrilling effect, simulating the blowing of the last trump. His most popular and widely-known work, “The Damnation of Faust,” a dramatic cantata now frequently heard in this country and in Europe, failed to awaken the slightest interest at its first performance in 1846 and involved the composer heavily in debt. His enthusiasm for Shakespeare led to the composition of what some consider his most important work, “Romeo and Juliet,” a symphony for orchestra, solo voices and chorus. Berlioz’ genius was essentially instrumental and symphonic in character; hence, though he composed a number of operas, none was successful. Indeed, the failure of “Les Troyens” (The Trojans), the subject of which was taken from the “Æneid” and which he intended to be his masterpiece, was his death-blow.

=His Genius as an Orchestral Composer=.—Berlioz was the founder of the modern school of orchestration, as well as the pioneer in the art of expressing a definite program in terms of absolute music. Like his great contemporary, Wagner, he was no executant; he played but little and, curiously enough, only such insignificant instruments as the flute, flageolet, and guitar. The orchestra was his instrument and no one has ever had a more unerring instinct for its capabilities either as a whole or in its component parts. In the origination of weird, unearthly effects he had been anticipated by Weber, whom he greatly admired; but he went beyond him in devising bold and daring combinations, which he justified by the end in view, though it cannot be said that a refined taste always finds this end in itself justifiable. For example, in the last movement of his “Fantastic Symphony,” he pictures an execution by the guillotine. A company of witches and demons dance around the headless body and perform a burlesque requiem—the whole supposed to be a nightmare suffered by an artist under the influence of opium. Color rather than outline, thrilling and novel effects of sonority, rhythmical variety and animation, intensity of expression and dramatic climax are the principal characteristics of Berlioz’ music. Yet delicacy and charm are by no means lacking in his works. Irregular in proportion and unequal in inspiration as they frequently are, they undoubtedly entitle him to the distinction of being the greatest composer that France has yet produced.

=The Music of the Orchestra= includes Symphonies, Overtures, Symphonic Poems, Tone-Poems and Suites and the Concerto for a solo instrument with orchestral support. The symphony is an elaborated sonata, and the first movement is usually constructed on the principles recognized under the term Sonata-form; the same principles are used in the Overture, which consists of but a single movement. Liszt, in his efforts in the program music style, devised the Symphonic Poem, which aims to present a series of emotional pictures in the Symphonic style, but with the various movements continuous. He advocated deriving _all_ themes from a _common source_, transforming them rhythmically as needed to work out his conception. His successors in this style of music still use the thematic methods devised by the writers in the true symphonic style, but are free in their methods of construction and elaboration.

REFERENCES.

Grove.—Dictionary of Music and Musicians, articles on the Orchestra and the various instruments used, the Sonata, Symphony, Overture, Suite, etc., and Sonata-Form.

Henderson.—The Orchestra and Orchestral Music.

QUESTIONS.

Why is the orchestra the greatest means for musical expression?

Classify the instruments used in the orchestra.

What difference is there in the combination of instruments in the modern orchestra and in the first attempts?

How did the opera influence the development of the orchestra and orchestral music?

Contrast Bach and Handel. Whose methods are used today to the greater extent?

What did Haydn and Mozart contribute?

What did Beethoven contribute?

Contrast the orchestra used by the composers mentioned.

Give an account of the work of Berlioz in the orchestral field.

Give an account of the great writers of modern times.

What form is the basis of writing for the orchestra?

SUGGESTIONS FOR A REVIEW OF LESSONS XVII TO XXIV.

Independent research on the part of pupils is essential to real mastery of a subject. The following topics can be used as subjects for short essays to be prepared by pupils. The material will be found in this book and in the reference works mentioned in connection with the various lessons.

LESSON XXV.—1. The Pianoforte in America. 2. Pianoforte Makers in the 19th Century. 3. Points of difference between the early Claviers and the Modern Piano.

LESSON XXVI.—1. Comparison between the Early Venetian schools of Painting and Music. 2. The composers of the Early Venetian school. 3. The composers of the Later Venetian school. 4. The development of the Science of Thorough-Bass.

LESSON XXVII.—1. Queen Elizabeth as a Patron of Art. 2. Characteristics of the Early French Clavier school. 3. Influence of the Early English and French Clavier schools on subsequent Writings.

LESSON XXVIII.—1. German character as reflected in early music. 2. Comparison of Bach and Handel’s Clavier Works. 3. Influence exerted by the Well-Tempered Clavichord.

LESSON XXIX.—1. Comparison between the Polyphonic and Harmonic styles. 2. Musical influence of J. S. Bach’s Children. 3. The First Sonatas compared with Modern Music.

LESSON XXX.—1. German appreciation of music in Haydn’s time. 2. Haydn as a man. 3. Haydn’s connection with Mozart.

LESSON XXXI.—1. Mozart’s character. 2. Mozart’s struggles with poverty. 3. Mozart’s contributions to form. 4. The Viennese school of this period.

LESSON XXXII.—1. Beethoven’s character as shown in his letters. 2. Beethoven’s peculiarities. 3. Beethoven and his contemporaries.

LESSON XXXIII.—1. Beethoven’s manner of composing. 2. Beethoven’s love of nature. 3. Effect of Beethoven upon succeeding composers.

LESSON XXXIV.—1. The points of superiority of the Violin over the Viol. 2. The three great makers of violins. 3. Why the violin is called the King of Instruments.

LESSON XXXV.—1. The character of early violin music. 2. The development of violin playing and composition. 3. Arrange the great players in their respective schools.

LESSON XXXVI.—1. Classify the instruments of the orchestra. 2. Give a sketch of the development of the orchestra, instruments added, etc. 3. Contrast Beethoven’s work with that of his predecessors and successors. 4. What is the form of a Symphony? In what respects does the form used by modern composers differ from that of the classical symphony?

LESSON XXXVII.

THE ROMANTIC OPERA. WEBER, SPOHR, MARSCHNER.

=The Romantic Movement=.—The revolutionary spirit which arose in Europe toward the end of the 18th century had its counterpart in a similar intellectual and artistic reaction, commonly known as the Romantic Movement. In Literature, this movement was led by France; in Music, by Germany. Briefly described, it consisted in casting aside the classical traditions which the Renaissance had imposed upon art in general and in a substitution of themes and a treatment more in consonance with the atmosphere of freedom which had inspired such momentous social and political changes.

=Its Effect on Music=.—The musician also felt the influence of the general unrest. In seeking new modes of expression, he rose to a consciousness of independence both as man and artist; he refused longer to occupy the position of an upper servant which had been decreed him by court and nobility. Mozart marked the passing of the old order of things by his indignant rejection of the humiliating conditions of service under the haughty Archbishop of Salzburg, only remembered by later generations through his connection with the musician he treated so contemptuously. Heretofore music had been the privileged entertainment of the great and wealthy. Like other privileges, it was to pass into the possession of the people, hitherto shut out from its enjoyment save in the Church. It was to draw inspiration from a rich store of Folk-lore and poetry heretofore disregarded by the scholar and the musician, but soon to be recognized as a national heritage of high import; it was to create new forms instead of being dependent on time-worn formulæ which were repressing growth and development.

=The Romantic Opera=.—The Romantic Movement had the effect of finally banishing from the stage the characters of classical mythology, the heroes and personages of antiquity who had been thought alone worthy of representation by the poets and savants who had thus far prepared the texts for operas. In the romantic opera their places were taken by figures of legend or chivalry, elves and spirits of earth or air; the action paid no regard to the unities of time and place; it was brisk and animated and the supernatural played an important part in it. The music, instead of being governed by the restraints of definite forms, adapted itself to the varying exigencies of the drama; the sharp division between the recitative and the aria was softened by the introduction of the Scena, a peculiarly effective mingling of the features of both; the overture became an integral part of the whole by the use of themes associated with leading dramatic situations. The orchestra not only supplied an harmonic and a rhythmically interesting accompaniment but its power of independent expression was enormously enlarged; it became, so to speak, one of the _Dramatis Personæ_ and vied with the singers in indicating psychological and dramatic crises. This was largely due to the development of a new phase of instrumentation, perhaps the most striking detail of the Romantic school—that of novel and original combinations of instruments to produce varying and expressive shades of tone color. Heretofore the orchestra had been considered in the main in its more obvious divisions; sonority and beauty of tone had been the chief aim of the classical composers. =Carl Maria von Weber= (1786-1826) was the first to utilize the individual timbres of orchestral instruments to secure effects of a weird, unearthly character.

[Illustration: CARL MARIA VON WEBER.]

=Weber and the Romantic Opera=.—In his _Der Freischütz_ (The Freeshooter) we first find the union of all these characteristics. Hence Weber is rightfully considered the founder of the romantic opera; but it would be a mistake to assume that he was the originator of all its features. These had been long in the air. In Haydn, the works of Mozart and Beethoven, in the ballads of Loewe, the songs of Schubert, unmistakable romantic traits can often be found, but they are embodied in established forms. Weber, however, brought together the qualities now associated with the term romantic in music, and in applying them to the drama freed them from the restrictions of a fixed musical structure.

=Influence of “Der Freischütz.”=—The effect of _Der Freischütz_ on its production in Berlin in 1821 was instantaneous. The story of the hunter’s recourse to unholy arts in order to win success in the chase, of his rescue from Satanic power and the final triumph of good over evil; the music, fresh, vivid, essentially national in color, appealed to the people to whom the legend was well known. It meant the birth of German opera, German alike in drama and music; it gave the final blow to the supremacy of foreign influences in Germany. This success at first, however, was confined almost entirely to the people. Critics and musicians generally could not reconcile themselves to its mingling of styles; the supernatural element seemed to them exaggerated, the introduction of the Folk-song wanting in dignity. Only the greatest of them all, Beethoven, deaf and cynical as he was, realized the signification of _Der Freischütz_ as the beginning of a new era for German art. He said to Rochlitz: “Weber should now write operas—one after the other without hesitation.”

=Euryanthe=.—Weber’s next opera was _Euryanthe_, produced in 1823 in Vienna. In this he was hampered by a text of more than doubtful merit and lacking the national element which had been so strong a factor in _Der Freischütz_. The story is laid in the medieval chivalric epoch and strongly resembles Shakespeare’s _Cymbeline_. He also ventured upon an innovation which was not in favor with the German public: he set it to music throughout, the place of the dialogue customary in German opera being taken by accompanied recitative. _Euryanthe_ and Spohr’s _Jessonda_, which appeared several months before the former, were the first German operas in this style since Schütz’s _Dafne_. This and its confused plot kept _Euryanthe_ from the popular success achieved by _Der Freischütz_, yet it contains some of Weber’s most thrilling inspirations, and is the direct prototype of the modern music drama.

=Oberon=.—In _Oberon_ (1826), composed for London to an English text, Weber returned to his former manner, though somewhat against his will. He found the English opera much the same as in Purcell’s time, practically a play with music as an incidental feature rather than as an integral part of the drama. He intended casting _Oberon_ into a larger mould, reducing the dialogue and adding to the music, but this was prevented by his premature death in London two months after its production.

=Recitative and Dialogue=.—The chilling effect of alternating speech and song has already been spoken of in connection with the English opera. At that time, both English and German taste was against the use of recitative in the narrative parts of an opera. The _recitativo secco_, which it will be remembered is a recitative supported only by chords on the harpsichord or piano, sometimes accompanied with a single stringed instrument, has never met with favor outside of Italy, where its intonations nearly approach the half-singing inflections of Italian speech. The exclusive use of accompanied recitative—that is, the recitative accompanied by the full orchestra, however, delays the

## action and moreover appears weighty and overwrought unless applied to

subjects of an elevated or heroic character. In Germany and England the desire to understand clearly the dramatic movement led to the retention of dialogue in all operas. In France a distinction was made between operas with dialogue and operas with recitative only. The first is called Opéra Comique, originally an offshoot from the Italian _Opera Buffa_, in which the _recitativo secco_ was replaced by dialogue. Later the term assumed a technical meaning by which it was applied to all operas containing spoken dialogue whether their subjects were comic or tragic, in contradistinction to what is known as Grand Opéra, in which the accompanied recitative is used exclusively.

=The Melodrama=.—The so-called melodrama is a compromise between the dialogue and the recitative. In this the performer recites in the speaking voice while the orchestra supplies an accompaniment which seeks to intensify the dramatic situation. This device originated in Germany and has found the most favor from German composers. It was first employed by =Georg Benda= (1721-1795) in a recitation, _Ariadne in Naxos_ (1744), which created much interest. Two of the most striking instances of the melodrama are to be found in the grave-digging scene in _Fidelio_ and in the incantation scene in _Der Freischütz_. But however effective its occasional use may be, the ear suffers from the inevitable dissonance between the fixed pitches of the musical scale and the natural inflections of the speaking voice. This is now so generally recognized that it has been practically ignored by modern composers in their works for the stage.

=Spohr and the Romantic Opera=.—=Ludwig Spohr= (1784-1859), Germany’s greatest violinist and a composer of eminence in many fields, wrote a number of operas. Of these, _Faust_ and _Jessonda_ stand first in showing a vein of genuine romanticism, albeit they lack the Folk-element which brought Weber’s music so close to the hearts of the people. Full of beauty as they undoubtedly are, like all of Spohr’s music they are weakened by the constant recurrence of certain mannerisms, such as chromatic progressions of a persistent type, enharmonic modulations, the over-frequent use of diminished intervals. Spohr exercised a strong influence in favor of the new direction on account of his high position as the most esteemed composer and performer of the day. His significance in the romantic movement consists in his being, as it were, an intermediary between the late classical period represented by Beethoven and the modern music drama. He knew Beethoven in Vienna, and in his latter days, when director of the opera in Cassel, did his utmost to introduce Wagner’s early operas to the German public.

=Marschner, Weber’s Successor=.—Weber’s legitimate successor in the romantic opera was =Heinrich Marschner= (1795-1861). He had been associated with Weber as assistant conductor at the opera in Dresden, and a strong friendship existed between them. Weber’s influence, however, was wide and far-reaching; it extended beyond the opera. Marschner’s sphere was practically confined to the stage, which he enriched with a series of strongly characterized works mainly of a gloomy, uncanny nature. He shows but little of the genial art with which Weber avails himself of the supernatural merely as a background for the doing and striving of his characters, and thus never compromises the human interest they have for us. Marschner makes it the salient characteristic of his strongest works. In these his principal _Dramatis Personæ_ are demons and evil spirits who tempt and torment the innocent and loving. His first romantic opera was _Der Vampyr_ (1825) composed to a text prepared from Byron’s poem, “Lord Ruthven,” which is founded upon a Scotch legend. Notwithstanding the repulsive nature of the subject, its powerful treatment brought it immediate success in Germany and a little later in England. It was followed by _Der Templar und die Jüdin_ (The Templar and the Jewess), a version of Scott’s “Ivanhoe.” This, however, met with less success than _Der Vampyr_ or its successor, _Hans Heiling_, Marschner’s masterpiece.

=The Spieloper=.—The Romantic school had a strong influence in the development of a form known as the _Spieloper_ (literally play-opera), which occupies a place between the works we have been considering and the _Singspiel_. As thoroughly German as the latter, it shows more finish and greater elaboration of musical effect. Though essentially romantic in the freedom of its scope and choice of means, its real sphere is neither the heroic nor the mystic; it concerns itself rather with the lighter aspects of life, those which require no exalted powers of imagination or wide culture to appreciate—humor, good cheer, the merriment and mirth of the people in holiday mood. =Albert Lortzing= (1803-1851) is accepted as the creator of this type, of which his most popular opera, _Zar und Zimmermann_ (Czar and the Carpenter), is the best known example.

=Influence of the Romantic Opera=.—The value of the application of all the resources of music to the unfettered delineation of feeling and emotion in all their phases inaugurated by the romantic opera can hardly be over-estimated. From the opera it has won its way into absolute music, creating new and original forms. The change it has wrought in the progress and development of the art in general is only second to the revolution occasioned by the birth of the opera itself, three centuries ago. The impulse of the romantic movement in music is far from being exhausted at the present day. On the contrary, it seems to have gathered strength and if it has reached its culmination, as some would have us believe, the signs are not yet apparent to an unprejudiced observer.

QUESTIONS.

What was the Romantic Movement? Its effect on music?

Tell about the Romantic Opera.

Who was the founder of the Romantic Opera?

Give an account of Weber’s operas.

Contrast the use of Recitative and Dialogue in opera.

What is the Melodrama?

Give an account of Spohr and his work.

Give an account of Marschner and his work.

What is the Spieloper?

What was the influence of the Romantic Opera?

LESSON XXXVIII.

THE FRENCH SCHOOL OF THE XIXTH CENTURY.

=French Schools of Opéra=.—As already explained, French opera is divided into two styles, known as Opéra Comique and Grand Opéra, according to the use of dialogue or recitative. Not that this is the only difference. The Grand Opéra is naturally adapted to subjects of a large or heroic scope; the Opéra Comique, like the _Spieloper_ in Germany, to lighter episodes of a romantic or humorous nature. As will be seen, however, it not infrequently happens that the latter form is adopted for serious subjects, owing to the fact that it is generally easier for a composer to find acceptance at the Opéra Comique than at the Grand Opéra. The youthful composer or the one who has not yet acquired a name for himself is expected to win his spurs in the former before attempting to enter the latter. Hence, even if his work is somber or tragic in character he often finds it advisable to cast it into the lighter form for the sake of having it produced.

=The Opéra Comique=.—The Opéra Comique had its origin in the introduction of the Opéra Buffa in Paris by an Italian company about the middle of the 18th century, which led to the Gluck-Piccini controversy. Pergolesi’s _La Serva Padrona_ in particular awakened great admiration and brought about the creation of a similar type of French opera. It was at first hardly more than an elaboration of the already existing vaudeville, or play with songs. =François Philidor= (1726-1795) and =Andre Grétry= (1741-1813) were its founders. Grace and simplicity, scrupulous adaptation of the music to the clearness of diction always demanded by French taste were its distinguishing characteristics.

=Its Development=.—=Étienne Méhul= (1763-1817), a pupil of Gluck, gave it a larger musical development and a greater depth of dramatic feeling. His _Joseph_ (1807), founded on Biblical history, is a classic of this school. Its dignity, its severe and noble style won less cordial recognition in France than in Germany; a generation later it was to exercise a decisive influence on the future creator of the music drama. It was through a performance of _Joseph_ that Richard Wagner, then director of the opera in Riga, first felt inspired to battle against the empty conventionalities of the operatic stage. Méhul’s enlargement of the Opéra Comique was carried on by Cherubini, who through the ill-will of Napoleon found the doors of the Académie de Musique, the technical title of the Grand Opéra, closed against him. Even his greatest tragic opera, _Medée_ (Medea), was produced (1797) as an opéra comique without recitative and ballet, the latter being also reserved exclusively for Grand Opéra. Thus it often happened that there was little, in many cases no intrinsic difference between the music of the two schools.

=The Typical Opéra Comique=.—There was, on the other hand, a development of a type more closely corresponding to the original scheme of the Opéra Comique. Strongly influenced by the romantic tendencies of the day, its romanticism by no means resembles that of the German school as represented by Weber and his followers. This, in its appeal to the deeper emotions by the idealization of nature and recourse to the supernatural, is thoroughly alien to the Gallic temperament, and had no appreciable effect on French composers. Gaiety and humor, freshness of invention, lightness of touch, elegance and finish characterize the true Opéra Comique. Its pathos never sinks below a certain sentiment which is skilfully used rather for the sake of contrast than from any persistent attempt at awakening the more somber feelings. The singer and the actor both meet with consideration; the former by sparkling melodies, expressive and grateful to sing, not over-burdened with the technical difficulties in which the Italian school abounds; the latter by a drama furnishing piquant situations, seasoned with wit and interesting in itself as a play.

=Boieldieu, its Founder=.—As Méhul gave the impulse to the graver, more dignified style, so =François Boieldieu= (1775-1834) laid the foundation of the typical Opéra Comique, the most original and essentially national French operatic form. His _Jean de Paris_ (John of Paris) and _La Dame Blanche_ (The White Lady) placed him at the head of this school. The latter in particular, based on a curious combination of situations taken from two of Scott’s novels, “The Monastery” and “Guy Mannering,” has been sung the world over and still remains an unsurpassed example of the Opéra Comique in its best estate.

=Auber=.—The most prolific composer in this style was =Daniel Auber= (1782-1871). Though he began as an amateur and after years spent in other pursuits, he outlived all his early contemporaries and became its most widely known representative. With one exception, to be noticed later, his works reveal the salient characteristics of the school—freshness and melodic charm, finesse of rhythm and instrumentation, delicacy and refinement rather than power and depth. His most popular opera, _Fra Diavolo_ (1830), has been sung on all stages and in almost all languages. Others less known but equally meritorious are _Le Maçon_ (The Mason and the Locksmith), _Le Domino Noir_ (The Black Domino) and _Les Diamants de la Couronne_ (The Crown Diamonds.)

=Hérold and Adam=.—=Louis Hérold= (1791-1833), as a pupil of Méhul, inclines to a more serious style. His _Zampa_ contains strongly romantic features which made it more successful in Germany than the melodious _Le Pré aux Clercs_ (The Clerks’ Meadow—a noted duelling ground in Paris during the 17th century), though in France this vies with _La Dame Blanche_ in the distinction of being the most popular Opéra Comique in the repertory. Though less significant than any of the foregoing, =Adolphe Adam= (1803-1856), the composer of _Le Postillon de Longjumeau_ (The Postilion of Longjumeau), deserves mention for the grace and fluency of his melodies, albeit they show a decline in character and style which prefigures the decadent school of the _Opéra Bouffe_ (burlesque opera).

=Opéra Bouffe=.—The attentive observer can hardly fail to perceive that the opera as appealing to the people at large more than any other form of music is peculiarly susceptible to social and political influences. The Opéra Bouffe being a degenerate offshoot from the Opéra Comique, it is no mere accident that the period of its most extended popularity coincided with the extravagance and folly of the Second Empire. As a distinct type it is due to =Jacques Offenbach= (1819-1880), a German by birth, who took advantage of the taste of the time by turning his attention to the parody of the classical and mythological subjects which had furnished material for the early operas. Frivolous and mocking in text, sprightly and vivacious in melody and rhythm, his operettas possess undoubted piquancy and an effervescent style which for a time intoxicated the public. Their vogue was happily broken by a series of light operas of much more worth. Of these, _Les Cloches de Corneville_, known to Americans as “The Chimes of Normandy,” by =Robert Planquette= (1840-1903) is the best example.

=The Influence of the Opéra Comique=.—The Opéra Comique, as founded by Boieldieu and continued by Auber and Hérold, bears a distinctively national character to a much greater degree than the more cosmopolitan Grand Opéra. Unlike this, its development was entirely due to native composers who gave it the thoroughly Gallic impress of spirit, vivacity, and truth to nature which carried it triumphantly through all the theatres of Europe. Thus it served to counteract in part the reactionary tendency of Italian opera. In Paris, as elsewhere, during the first quarter of the 19th century Italian influences were very powerful; Rossini’s works and those of his imitators had the undesirable effect of reviving in a modernized form the conventionalized opera of the 18th century, the chief object of which was the display of the singer. The Opéra Comique, though limited to the lighter phases of the drama, performed a service of no small value in upholding a standard of legitimate musical expression at a time when the allurements of florid song were obscuring the dramatic ideals which Gluck had established at the cost of so much labor and effort.

=Grand Opéra=.—About the same time, important changes were impending in Grand Opéra, though these were more in the nature of a development from the type founded by Lully and afterward enlarged by Rameau, Gluck and Spontini than a revolution such as Weber and his followers had effected in Germany. They were, however, the outcome of the same romantic influences modified by the characteristic French adherence to established form. A grand opera according to tradition must have five acts, consisting of arias, ensembles, choruses, etc., connected by recitatives, with a ballet in one or two of the middle acts, generally the second and fourth.

=Its Change of Style=.—Auber’s _La Muette de Portici_ (The Dumb Girl of Portici—known also as Masaniello), produced at the Académie de Musique in 1828, formed the point of departure for the new style. Though it held to the traditional form of Grand Opéra, it was in spirit, theme and treatment a startling change from the ordinarily genial works of this composer, characterized as it was by a force and fire, a vigor and decision which he had never shown before and was never to show again. It marks the beginning of the modern historical opera, the complete abandonment of classical and ancient history as the only appropriate material for Grand Opéra. The people were brought upon the stage not as slaves or as meekly acquiescing in the will of those in authority, but as insurrectionists demanding rights of which they had been defrauded. The story of the Neapolitan fisherman leading his comrades into rebellion against their tyrannical rulers had a powerful effect in the agitated state of political affairs which culminated in the revolutions of 1830. It is significant that a performance of _La Muette de Portici_ immediately preceded the riots in Brussels, which in that year resulted in the expulsion of the Dutch from Belgium. Rossini’s _William Tell_, which followed in 1829, manifested precisely the same tendencies, musically as well as dramatically. Both were destined to be cast into the shade by the works of a third composer who gave the French grand opera a style which practically dictated conditions on all stages for half a century and is still not without influence.

[Illustration: GIACOMO MEYERBEER.]

=Meyerbeer=.—This composer was =Giacomo Meyerbeer= (1791-1864), German by birth and early education, Italian by training in more mature years, and finally French by adoption. A juvenile pianist of great promise, he studied with Clementi; he went through a severe course of fugue and counterpoint with Zelter, the teacher of Mendelssohn; in composition he was a fellow-student with Weber under the famous Abbé Vogler. In Vienna he knew Beethoven and was advised by Salieri to study in Italy, where he wrote a number of Italian operas after the style of Rossini. In 1826, he went to Paris, the Mecca of all opera composers, with the design of making himself familiar with the conditions of Grand Opéra.

=His First Grand Opera=.—The result of his studies was _Robert le Diable_ (Robert the Devil) produced in 1831. This created a veritable sensation. Nothing of so comprehensive a style had been seen or heard before. Meyerbeer’s cosmopolitan education, his receptive rather than original mind, enabled him to combine the outward characteristics at least of the three schools—French, German, Italian—as no one had ever attempted. The story of the arch-enemy of mankind seeking to ensnare a son by an earthly mother into sharing his lost condition, the struggle between the powers of good and evil for the mastery of the tempted soul gave full scope to such an amalgamation of styles. The ballet and spectacular effects of Lully, the supernaturalism of Weber, the roulades of Rossini were all brought together with an art that dazzled and intoxicated an admiring public.

=His Other Grand Operas=.—Five years later _Robert_ was followed by _Les Huguenots_ (The Huguenots), which achieved a still greater success, and is the one opera of Meyerbeer which continues to hold its own against the encroachments of time. In one or two episodes of _Le Prophète_ (The Prophet), which was produced in 1849, the composer reached the highest level of his creative activity, notwithstanding the manifest artificiality of his scheme. His last work, _L’Africaine_ (The African), was brought out the year after his death and like the others owed its success to a skilful mingling of all the elements, musical, spectacular, and dramatic, which go to make up this type of opera. His _L’Étoile du Nord_ (Star of the North) and _Le Pardon de Ploërmel_ (better known as Dinorah) were composed for the Opéra Comique.

=Influence of Meyerbeer=.—Meyerbeer so held the public in his grip that other composers of Grand Opéra gained but slight attention during his lifetime. Only =Jacques Halévy= (1799-1862) was able to meet him on equal terms in this field with _La Juive_ (The Jewess), in which he shows the earnest spirit of his master Cherubini. Though Meyerbeer’s watchword was success at any cost and his aim to assure it by the accumulation of cunningly devised sensations rather than through the innate power of his music, his works had a powerful and, on the whole, a beneficial influence on the course of modern dramatic music. They placed living, palpitating beings on the stage instead of the cold abstractions of mythology and antiquity; the singer was forced to impersonate as well as to sing. His insistence on all means of expression—vocal, instrumental, and scenic—though often exaggerated and fatal to purity of style, led to an extension of technical ability in all these directions, and prepared the way for a master of greater power and higher aims. It must not be overlooked that Richard Wagner frankly modeled his _Rienzi_ (1842) after _Les Huguenots_, and that Meyerbeer in _Le Prophète_ shows plainly the influence of this work by his German contemporary.

QUESTIONS.

What two styles are found in French opera?

Tell about the origin of Opéra Comique.

Tell about the development of Opéra Comique.

Describe the typical opéra comique.

Mention the prominent composers in this form and their work.

Describe Opéra Bouffe.

What composers were prominent in this form?

What was the influence of the Opéra Comique?

What was the established form of Grand Opéra?

Who contributed to a change of style? What were the changes?

Give an account of Meyerbeer and his work in Opera.

What was his influence?

LESSON XXXIX.

THE ITALIAN SCHOOL OF THE XIXTH CENTURY.

=Later Italian School=.—While Meyerbeer was dominating the French stage and through it exerting a powerful influence on serious opera in all countries, the Italian school was recovering in part from the impulse given it by Rossini. The highly ornamented style which he brought into vogue was modified in the works of several composers who also gave more consideration to truth of expression. With these, melody still reigned supreme, but it was shorn of the excessive ornamentation which overloaded Rossini’s music; in character and rhythm it was also more generally in accord with sentiment and situation. The florid element was by no means suppressed; it had been an integral factor in Italian music for two centuries and was too strongly entrenched in public favor to be banished so completely as it had been in the German romantic opera, but it was kept in subordination and in the main not allowed to dictate the melodic idea. This was a step in advance for the Italian school of that period, which through the fluent warblings of Rossini and his imitators, had approached dangerously near the Scarlatti-Handel type of the previous century.

=Donizetti=.—This reaction in the direction of greater simplicity and sincerity was led by =Gaetano Donizetti= (1797-1848). At first a follower of Rossini, he only attained success after the latter had ceased composing and he himself had acquired a style of his own. Donizetti was not without innate force, but his great melodic facility led him to rely upon melody rather than upon musical development or dramatic characterization. Hence his tragic operas, though often admirable in detail, lack the sustained strength demanded by their subjects. Of these, _Lucia_ (founded upon Scott’s “Bride of Lammermoor”) achieved the greatest popularity, while in _La Favorita_ (composed for the Grand Opéra) he shows more dramatic power than in any of his more than three-score operas. In many of his lighter works he is particularly happy; for example, in _Don Pasquale_, which compares favorably with Rossini’s _Il Barbiere_, and in _L’Elisire d’Amore_ (The Elixir of Love). _La Fille du Régiment_ (The Daughter of the Regiment—written for the Opéra Comique) has made the tour of the world.

=Bellini=.—His younger contemporary, =Vincenzo Bellini= (1801-1835), on the contrary, displays no capacity for humor nor is he much better fitted to cope with the somber or the heroic. Essentially a lyrical temperament, neither broad nor deep but endowed with exquisite sensibility within certain limits, his sphere is the emotional, the tender and the elegiac. For this reason his charming opera, _La Sonnambula_ (The Somnambulist), on account of its idyllic subject, is a more representative work than _Norma_ or _I Puritani_ (The Puritans), though both enjoyed high popularity until within recent years. Much of Bellini’s vogue was due to the admirable singing of a number of Italian artists who were identified with his works—Pasta, Grisi, sopranos; Mario, tenor; Tamburini, baritone; Lablache, basso, not to forget Jenny Lind, who was at her best in his operas. With their passing and the establishment of the modern school of dramatic composition, in which the voice is only one of many factors instead of being the chief element of expression, they have gradually dropped from the repertory.

=Verdi=.—A far more significant personality than either Donizetti or Bellini is =Giuseppe Verdi= (1813-1901). Not merely a melodist but a dramatist as well, his long life gave him the opportunity of profiting by the many influences which brought about the mighty musical development of the last hundred years. The fact that he did so without compromising his artistic or national individuality shows the inherent genius which gives to him the distinction of being the great Italian composer of the century. Strong and sturdy from the first, his early works, if somewhat coarse in fiber, seemed doubly powerful in contrast with those of his contemporaries, which were distinguished by sweetness and melody rather than by depth or vigor. From _Ernani_ to _Rigoletto_, from the much sung _Trovatore_ to _Don Carlos_, to mention only a few of his thirty operas, Verdi shows a steady growth in largeness of style and command of means which culminated in _Aïda_, written for the Khedive of Egypt to celebrate the opening of the Suez canal in 1871.

[Illustration: GIUSEPPE VERDI.]

=Aïda=.—_Aïda_ is the full fruition of the Romantic movement beyond the Alps, manifested, however, in a style and manner thoroughly Italian. Unmistakably influenced by the uncompromising stand taken in Germany by Wagner, Verdi here shows the definite adoption of a new standard, yet by methods which make no decided break with what he had hitherto accomplished. In form, _Aïda_ is closely allied to the Meyerbeer type of Grand Opéra through its succession of dramatic and spectacular features, but these develop naturally in the course of the action and are combined with a sincerity and unity of effect lacking in the more artificial creations of the German composer. The florid style is strictly avoided; without the continuous flow of the music drama, the different movements, recitatives, arias, ensembles, etc., are yet more closely connected and are sustained by a richer, more fluent orchestration than he had hitherto given to his operas, the local color called for by the Egyptian theme receiving adequate consideration.

=Significance of Aïda=.—_Aïda_ marks the beginning of the new Italian school, one more in sympathy with the original conception of the opera as a drama, while retaining the characteristic Italian grace and charm of vocal treatment. This school was still further enlarged and developed by Verdi, but this extension belongs to a later period and will be considered in its logical connection.

=Wagner and the Music Drama=.—It is to =Richard Wagner= (1813-1883) that we owe the renaissance in modern form of the primitive ideal of the opera as embodied in the works of Peri and Caccini. Simple and formless as these now appear, they contain the germ of all that he has accomplished, apart from the question of means, even to the very name of music drama. This he revived because, in his opinion, the term opera had acquired a preponderantly musical signification which made it inappropriate for his later works in view of their dramatic character. An exception to the general rule of precocity among musicians, it was not until his sixteenth year that he resolved to devote himself to music. Like Weber, whom as a child he saw frequently and regarded with the utmost reverence, his early associations were with the theatre and the drama, a fact of no small significance in the careers of both. _Der Freischütz_ was his favorite opera, a liking which bore abundant fruit in later years.

[Illustration: WAGNER IN 1853.]

=His Early Operas=.—The future master of the music drama, however, began by composing operas—operas, moreover, in which he shows originality in one feature only—that of writing their texts himself, and this remained his invariable practice. In other respects they gave no hint of the startling individuality he was to unfold so unexpectedly in his _Flying Dutchman_. His first opera was _Die Feen_ (The Fairies). It was based on a fairy tale of but slight worth, and the music was strongly reminiscent of Weber and Marschner. As the work of a youth of twenty, without reputation or influence, it is hardly surprising that he found no manager willing to produce it. He was somewhat more fortunate with his second opera, _Das Liebesverbot_ (The Love Veto), an adaptation of Shakespeare’s “Measure for Measure.” This was performed once, in 1836, at Magdeburg, where he was director of the opera, and had thus come under the influence of the French and Italian composers then popular in Germany. The music is such a palpable imitation of Adam, Auber, Donizetti, and Bellini that it has never been given since. _Die Feen_ was never produced during his lifetime, but a few years after his death received a number of representations in Munich.

=His Sojourn in Paris=.—In 1839, he determined to go to Paris. Many foreign composers had succeeded in entering the Grand Opéra, among them Meyerbeer, then in the full flush of the renown he had gained with _Les Huguenots_. What one German had done, another might attempt. Accordingly, with the utmost faith in his star and amid manifold discouragements, Wagner made his way to the French capital, where he hoped through the influence of Meyerbeer to secure the acceptance of his _Rienzi_ at the Grand Opéra. He had prepared it from Bulwer’s novel of the same name with the express intention of utilizing it as a framework for the large spectacular style demanded by the Académie de Musique. His sojourn in Paris brought him nothing but disappointment. Neither _Rienzi_ nor _Der Fliegende Holländer_ (The Flying Dutchman), which he wrote during his stay of two and a half years, was successful in winning a hearing, while he lived the greater part of the time in the most painfully straitened circumstances.

=Rienzi=.—Before long, he realized the hopelessness of his endeavor and sent _Rienzi_ to Dresden, where it was accepted and after a long delay performed in 1842. The result was a triumphant success and led to the speedy production of _The Flying Dutchman_. This, however, by no means made a similar impression. _Rienzi_ was an opera of the type made familiar by Meyerbeer, in which effect was secured by the heaping together of every device known to stagecraft. The ballet, the march of the Messengers of Peace, the final catastrophe of the burning of Rome, had as much to do with its enthusiastic reception as the music, which was noisy, showy and brilliant, as befitted a work of such calibre.

=The Flying Dutchman. Change of Style=.—_The Flying Dutchman_, however, showed Wagner in an entirely different light. With it, instead of receiving his inspiration from without, as had been the case with the preceding operas, it came from within. On his way to Paris he had made a stormy voyage of several weeks from a port on the Baltic to London. He was familiar with the myth of the Flying Dutchman, and found that the sailors on board his ship believed it implicitly. This in connection with Heine’s version of the legend, which represents the unhappy mariner as doomed to perpetual wandering on stormy seas until he finds a woman faithful unto death, made a strong impression on him, and while in Paris he wrote the poem and composed the music within seven weeks after finishing _Rienzi_. A more sudden metamorphosis of style is unknown in the history of music. The earlier work was an opera pure and simple, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, characterized by pomp, brilliancy, sonority. Its successor was conceived as a drama in which music served to emphasize the action and to intensify the emotional situations; instead of being master, it was servant; external effects were disregarded save only as they were in harmony with this conception. Not that the composer entirely achieved this ideal; _The Flying Dutchman_ displays not a few lapses into operatic conventionalities, but as a whole it was a startling and radical change which puzzled and displeased the public. They had looked for something in the style of _Rienzi_ and could make nothing of a work so contrary to the popular idea of what an opera should be. Accordingly, after a few performances, it was dropped from the repertory.

=Tannhäuser=.—Nothing daunted by the lack of favor shown his change of style, Wagner carried it to a still greater extent in his next opera, _Tannhäuser_ (1845), founded on a medieval legend. The dramatic motive of this is much the same as that of _The Flying Dutchman_, one of which Wagner was particularly fond—the power of love to redeem and save from the consequences of sin and error. _Tannhäuser_ brought about his head the full storm of hostile criticism which with _The Flying Dutchman_ had only begun to lower. He was reproached for its difficulty, for its lack of pleasing melodies, for the audacious harmonies which many critics considered inexcusable dissonances. Singers objected to the broad declamation it required; they complained that it would eventually ruin their voices.

=Lohengrin=.—This almost general dissatisfaction, however, led to no concessions by the composer in his next opera, _Lohengrin_, which marked a further advance in the unpopular direction taken by its predecessors, but it interfered with its performance. Though he was conductor of the Opéra at Dresden, he could not secure permission to produce it. Baffled and discouraged in his artistic schemes, a radical in politics, he joined the insurrectionists during the revolution of 1849. The failure of the rebellion necessitated a hasty flight from Germany. He took refuge in Switzerland and remained in exile until a proclamation of amnesty in 1861 allowed him to return. In the meantime he had sent the score of _Lohengrin_ to Liszt, then conductor of the opera at Weimar, and there it was brought out in 1850.

_Lohengrin_ proved the turning-point in his fortunes. The romance of the subject, its dramatic treatment and undeniable beauty gradually reconciled the public to the novelty of its style. Before Wagner was relieved from his sentence of banishment it had become one of the most popular operas in Germany—he once ruefully remarked that he would soon be the only German who had not heard it.

QUESTIONS.

Who led in the changes in Italian Opera after Rossini?

Give an account of Donizetti and his work.

Give an account of Bellini and his work.

Give an account of Verdi and his earlier works.

What is the significance of Aïda in the history of Opera?

Tell about the changes that Wagner was to make.

Give an account of his early operas.

Why did he go to Paris?

Describe Rienzi, The Flying Dutchman, Tannhäuser, Lohengrin.

LESSON XL.

RICHARD WAGNER’S MUSIC DRAMAS. OTHER SCHOOLS.

=Wagner’s Theory of the Music Drama=.—_Lohengrin_, like _The Flying Dutchman_, was transitional in character and led into Wagner’s third manner. It was his last opera; all his later works were known as music dramas. In these he pursued unhesitatingly the logical conclusions of the theories which he expounded at great length in his controversial writings, though he was far from being always consistent with himself. Thus he reasoned that since in the spoken drama but one speaker is heard at a time, the same practice should prevail in the music drama, which would naturally do away with all concerted music, choruses, etc. This rule he observed in _The Ring of the Nibelungen_, but he wisely abandoned it in his later works. In _Die Meistersinger_ he also failed to follow his theory that mythical and legendary subjects were the only suitable material for the music drama. Briefly stated, his ultimate conclusion was as follows: that the art-work of the future, as he called it, should consist of a synthesis of all the arts. Music, poetry, painting, sculpture, architecture, he asserted, had exhausted all that was possible to them as separate arts; a higher plane could be reached hereafter only by a combination which should gain unity by subordination to a single principle. This principle he found in poetry. Beethoven, he argued, had felt the insufficiency of music alone to express his deepest inspiration, and for that reason had incorporated in his last and greatest symphony a choral movement to the words of Schiller’s “Ode to Joy.” In the music drama, therefore, the scene painter replaces the artist and the architect, the actor by plastic poses the sculptor, while the musician must allow his music no form but that dictated by the poet in his verses. He ascribed the thrilling effect of the Greek drama to such a union of the arts and this it was his aim to revive through his own works.

=The Leading Motive=.—The part assigned by the Greek dramatists to the chorus who expounded and commented on the events of the play was in his scheme transferred to the orchestra. This he did by means of the _Leitmotiv_ (leading motive). A leitmotiv is a characteristic theme or harmonic progression associated with each of the _Dramatis Personæ_ and which appears with such modification of mode, rhythm, or any of its component parts as the dramatic situation demands. It is not confined to personages alone; in _The Ring of the Nibelung_, for instance, the stolen gold, the ring formed from it, the sword which plays such an important part in _Die Walküre_ and in _Siegfried_ all have their corresponding motives. It is through these motives that Wagner is able to give his orchestra an all but articulate speech and to weld the music drama into an organic whole. By their transformation and development he succeeds in indicating psychological states and changes as well as material conditions and objects. Reminiscent themes of a somewhat similar nature had been used as far back as Mozart and had been employed more freely by composers of the Romantic school, notably by Weber in _Der Freischütz_ and _Euryanthe_, but they were undeveloped and elementary in character. Berlioz in his _Fantastic Symphony_ was the first to conceive a typical theme and to alter it in logical accordance with the progression of his program, but he did not adopt the practice in his operas.

[Illustration: WILHELM RICHARD WAGNER.]

=The Unending Melody=.—Beginning with _Lohengrin_, Wagner abandoned fixed forms and substituted what he called unending melody, a practically continuous flow of tone divided alike between voices and instruments. For the most part he assigned the singer a declamation as far removed from the set aria on the one hand as it was from dry recitative of the early Italian opera on the other. Yet like the latter it was conditioned by principles of speech. Like the early composers, also, his subjects with but two exceptions were mythical or legendary. This, because the supernatural and the unreal correspond more closely with the ideal element introduced by the use of song for speech than material drawn from everyday experience or from the exact chronicles of history.

=The Ring of the Nibelung=.—In the old Teutonic folk-epic, the _Nibelungen Lied_ (Lay of the Nibelung), Wagner found the inspiration for his next and most extended work. This is the great tetralogy, _Der Ring des Nibelung_ (The Ring of the Nibelung), composed of four dramas designed for continuous representation: _Das Rheingold_ (The Rhine Gold), _Die Walküre_ (The Valkyrie), _Siegfried_, _Die Götterdämmerung_ (The Twilight of the Gods). It was begun and partially finished during his stay in Switzerland, but his discouragement over what he felt to be the hopeless task of ever securing its performance led him to abandon it and to set to work on another drama which he decided should be lighter in character and less difficult to execute, in order the more readily to find acceptance.

=Tristan and Isolde=.—The result of this resolution was _Tristan und Isolde_, but far from being a return to his earlier style, as he had planned, it was and probably still is the most intricate operatic score in existence. It was accepted by the Opera in Vienna, but after fifty-seven rehearsals the singers declared themselves unable to learn it and it was given up as impossible of execution. Three years after his return to Germany an unlooked-for change took place in his fortunes. The young king of Bavaria, Ludwig II, who had just ascended the throne, had been an ardent admirer of Wagner since as a boy of fifteen he had heard _Lohengrin_. Hardly had he taken his seat before he summoned the discouraged composer to Munich and assured him support and protection. _Tristan und Isolde_ was soon brought out (1865), and Wagner busied himself with the composition of _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg_ (The Master Singers of Nuremberg), produced in 1868.

=Die Meistersinger=.—This is his only comic work, full of hitherto unsuspected humor and geniality. The story of the young poet endeavoring to gain admission to the jealously-guarded ranks of the master singers who, notwithstanding the beauty of his song, reject him because he has violated their hide-bound rules has a distinctly autobiographic value. Wagner had endured too much from similar pedants to be lenient with the picture he drew of their prototypes in medieval Nuremberg. As strikingly diatonic in style as _Tristan und Isolde_ is chromatic, these two works are the strongest illustrations of his versatility.

=Bayreuth and the Festival Theatre=.—Wagner had long cherished the plan of a festival theatre for the performance of his _Ring of the Nibelung_. Jealousy of his favor with the king led to various intrigues which prevented the building of such a theatre in Munich. The quiet town of Bayreuth, therefore, as being a central point, was chosen, and there in 1876 the _Festspielhaus_ was opened with the first complete performance of the Tetralogy. It made a profound impression, but the expense of the undertaking was so great that it resulted in a heavy loss and the theatre was closed for a number of years. In 1882, however, it reopened with _Parsifal_ and since then its triumphant career has been part of musical history.

=Parsifal=.—Until 1903, when it was given in this country, _Parsifal_ was heard only in Bayreuth. Its semi-sacred character, its mingling of religious mysticism and sorcery, its unrivaled stage effects, its overwhelming power of climax, the consummate art of its thematic construction have made it the most discussed of Wagner’s works. What place it may eventually hold in respect to the others can be decided only by time. As it is, it stands alone; a second _Parsifal_ is hardly conceivable.

=Influence of Wagner=.—Unlike Weber, Wagner did not create a school—he belonged to the school which Weber founded. Like Gluck, his influence permeated all schools but to a much greater extent; none has succeeded in escaping it. Thus far in Germany it has been felt more in the development of program music, the symphonic poem, etc., than in the music drama itself. Many have attempted to follow directly in his steps, among them =August Bungert= (1846———) with a cycle of music dramas, _Die Homerische Welt_ (The World of Homer), founded upon the Iliad and the Odyssey, and =Richard Strauss= (1864———) with his _Guntram_, _Feuersnoth_ (Fire Famine) and _Salome_, but none has yet shown the power to bend the bow of Achilles. =Engelbert Humperdinck= (1854———) is the only one of Wagner’s successors to develop a new phase of the music drama. This he did by applying it to the fairy tale in his _Hänsel und Gretel_ (1893), which soon found its way to all stages, the first German opera to have such a success since the death of Wagner.

=Wagner in France=.—In France, Wagner acted at first not so much directly as indirectly, and more in his connection with the Romantic school of Weber than through his individual style as revealed in the music drama. The characteristic conservatism of the French school was shown in holding to forms which had been fixed for generations, but little by little these were filled with the new romantic spirit. This comes to the fore in =Charles Gounod= (1818-1893), whose _Faust_ (1859) has exercised a strong and lasting influence on the lyric drama in France. Though set forms are not abandoned, they are closely joined by a melodious declamation which approaches the song-speech of Wagner; the orchestration, too, is unmistakably romantic in treatment. =Georges Bizet= (1838-1875) in _Carmen_ (1875), an opéra comique notwithstanding its tragic denouement, produced a work of great individuality, which shows even more plainly the influence of modern romanticism. Had the composer’s career not been cut short by his untimely death, it is possible that the French school would have maintained a more commanding position. For Paris no longer holds her former preëminence as operatic centre; she has been distanced by Bayreuth. Of late years the works that have had the most pronounced success in the French capital have been Wagner’s music dramas. A little more than a generation ago, in the palmy days of Auber and Meyerbeer, a success at the Grand Opéra or the Opéra Comique had an international import and meant a speedy transference to foreign stages. Now the interest is largely local; but few of the modern French operas are heard outside of France. The influence of Wagner is evident in a new French school, consisting in the main of young composers whose works manifest strongly transitional features. At present this school is in its storm and stress period; it is yet too early to forecast its ultimate effect.

=Wagner in Italy=.—Italy proved more responsive to Wagner’s influence than France. The performance of _Lohengrin_ (1868), in Bologna, created much enthusiasm among the young musicians of northern Italy, but it was the septuagenarian Verdi who inaugurated the era of the music drama by his _Otello_ (1887) and _Falstaff_ (1893). Strictly speaking, he had been anticipated by =Arrigo Boïto= (1842———), who, thrown under Wagner’s influence in Germany, had followed his example in being the poet and composer alike of _Mefistofele_ (1868), a version of the Faust legend. But this was Boïto’s only opera, and though he gave the initial impulse to the movement, it was Verdi who carried it to a triumphant issue.

=Verdi’s Latest Style=.—_Aïda_ had been a grand opera with strong musico-dramatic tendencies. In _Otello_ and _Falstaff_, Verdi made a definite entrance into the music drama. The latter in particular, founded on Shakespeare’s “Merry Wives of Windsor,” is an astonishing _tour de force_ for a man of four-score years. Full of the sparkle and freshness of youth, yet in every measure revealing the ripeness of matured genius, it is one of an immortal trio of lyric comedies of which the others are Mozart’s _Figaro_ and Wagner’s _Meistersinger_. The set and traditional forms of the opera here disappear entirely; the music is conditioned by the text and its dramatic requirements; the orchestra supports the voices in a full, melodious, and comprehensive flow, but never overpowers them. Hardly anything can be detached from its context without losing significance and interest; and this, by the way, is one of the most distinctive peculiarities of the music drama and more than anything else points the radical difference between it and the opera. Yet though this change of manner is undoubtedly due to Wagner, Verdi is in no sense an imitator. The style remains his own and is essentially Italian in character—that is, it is based upon vocal rather than instrumental capabilities.

=The New Italian School=.—The latest development of the music drama in Italy has been in the direction of so-called naturalism. This consists in the choice of brutal phases of life for illustration, told in short, concise forms which concentrate and hasten the dramatic action. A greater contrast to the inordinately long and heroic operas of Meyerbeer and Wagner can hardly be imagined; it is more than probable, indeed, that the reaction against the excessive length of the music drama led to the great and sudden vogue of this school. The first impulse to naturalism was given by =Pietro Mascagni= (1863———) in his two-act opera, _Cavalleria Rusticana_ (Rustic Chivalry), in 1890. This is a tale of love, jealousy, and revenge told in music admirably adapted to the vivid, crude representation of elemental passions. Two years later followed _I Pagliacci_ (The Clowns) by =Ruggiero Leoncavallo= (1858———), a work of precisely the same character. Though many others have essayed the same style, these two thus far remain the most representative of their class. Their popularity has been approached only by =Giacomo Puccini= (1858———) in _La Bohême_ (The Bohemians), produced in 1896. Four years later his _Tosca_ appeared and did much to strengthen the impression given by its predecessor—that in Puccini Italy possesses her most promising dramatic composer.

=Schools Compared=.—Thus at the beginning of the 20th century we find the principles of the music drama as enunciated by Wagner influencing all the three great schools of dramatic composition. It is worthy of note, however, that these schools, though thus approaching in artistic ideals, still retain the characteristics which distinguished them from the very beginning: the Italian, melody and beauty of tone; the French, clearness of form and logical dramatic development; the German, elevation of subject and harmonic richness.

=Younger Schools=.—Younger schools having a strongly national character exist in Russia and Bohemia, but as yet they possess only local signification and have produced no practical effect outside of their respective countries. =Michael Glinka= (1803-1857) with his patriotic opera, _Life for the Czar_, founded the Russian opera in 1836. The Bohemian opera is of more recent origin and is associated principally with the names of =Friedrich Smetana= (1824-1884) and =Antonin Dvořák= (1841-1904).

=Resumé=.—From its dual nature, the opera is necessarily a compromise. Composed of two elements, the musical and the dramatic, it is peculiarly susceptible to disintegration; its history is a record of almost continuous veering from one to the other of these two phases. We have seen how the immense proportions of the ancient amphitheatres led to the musical declamation on which the opera is founded, from the fact that the tones of the singing voice are far more reaching than those of the voice in speaking. The Florentine experimenters, in seeking to restore this declamation, soon discovered the capabilities for emotional expression latent in the varying timbres and vastly extended range of the former. As for its musical possibilities, these were entirely beyond their ken. The steps taken in that direction they regarded with disfavor as indicating a deviation from the oratorical standards which were their sole aim. After Carissimi and Scarlatti had developed the elements of symmetrical form and melody, music emerged from this dependent condition and dictated to the drama, which sank to an almost negligible factor. The reaction led by Gluck served to restore the balance for a time, but through Rossini and his followers the pendulum again swung in the other direction. The Romantic movement then brought the drama again to the fore; the spirit of the age was behind it and all schools felt its influence, though each manifested it in characteristic fashion.

=Influence of the Opera on Music in General=.—These alternations have had a powerful effect on the development of music in general, an effect both technical and expressive in nature. From the harpsichord and the few viols used at first merely to support the voice and to give it pitch, the orchestra expanded into a large body of instruments capable in itself of dramatic utterance. From the tiny ritornello of eight measures played by three flutes in Peri’s _Euridice_, there has grown an independent instrumental art of vast significance. The opera also created a school of singing which though often unworthily used for purposes of purely personal display is the basis of the vocal art of today. In short, it is not too much to say that the little band of scholars and musicians who met three centuries ago with the aim of reviving a lost art practically originated a new one.

REFERENCES.

Finck.—Wagner and His Works.

Modern Composers and Their Works.

QUESTIONS.

Give an account of Wagner’s theory of the Music Drama.

What is meant by the term Leading Motive? Unending melody?

What works compose the Ring series?

Tell about “Tristan und Isolde,” “Die Meistersinger.”

In what city was a theatre built for Wagner’s dramas?

Describe “Parsifal.”

What composers has Wagner influenced?

What was his influence on French composers and the names of those most prominent; their works?

What was his influence upon the Young Italian school?

Who are the prominent members of that school?

What changes did Verdi show in his latest works?

What are the characteristics of the various schools?

Give a résumé of the development of opera.

What has been the influence of opera upon music?

REVIEW SUGGESTIONS, LESSONS XXXVII TO XL.

What was the effect of the Romantic movement on the Opera?

Write a sketch of Weber and his work in Opera.

What differences are there between Opéra Comique and Grand Opéra?

Compare the works of Spohr and Marschner with those of Weber.

Describe the typical Opéra Comique and name some notable work in this style.

What changes took place in Grand Opéra through the influence of Auber and Meyerbeer?

State the differences between the German, French and Italian opera styles.

Write a sketch of Verdi and his works.

Give an account of Wagner and the works of his first period. His second period.

What was Wagner’s theory of the music drama?

Explain the two essential principles he used.

Describe Wagner’s later works: “Ring” series, “Tristan und Isolde,” “Die Meistersinger,” “Parsifal.” (Each one may be made the subject of an essay.)

How did Wagner influence opera in Italy and in France?

Give a sketch of the later schools of opera.

LESSON XLI.

PIANO PLAYING AND COMPOSITION: CLEMENTI TO FIELD.

During the period after Mozart to the beginning of the Romantic movement, one name alone attains the first rank—that of Beethoven. At the same time there are several epoch-making pianists, whose compositions display talent rather than genius, but who have each rendered indisputable service in accomplishing the transition from the classic to the romantic composers. The landmarks, so to speak, of this period are Clementi, Cramer, Hummel, Czerny, Moscheles and Field.

=Muzio Clementi= (1752-1832) was born at Rome. His father was quick to perceive his son’s gift for music, and strove to develop it by the best teaching available. While he was still a lad, an Englishman, Bedford or Beckford, took young Clementi with him to England where he lived with his benefactor until 1770, perfecting himself in piano playing and composition. At his first appearances in London he created a furore, and from 1777-1780 he conducted at the piano in the Italian opera there. In 1781, he began his travels as a virtuoso. At Vienna he made the acquaintance of Josef Haydn, and also had a sort of musical combat with Mozart. Each read at sight, played his own compositions and improvised. Opinion was divided as to the outcome. Clementi displayed more virtuosity, while Mozart charmed by his singing-tone, finished phrasing and expressive style. For the following twenty years, Clementi lived in London. He became interested in a piano manufactory and when the firm failed, he established another, which is still carried on. In 1802, Clementi went on a concert-tour with two favorite pupils, J. B. Cramer and John Field. They visited Paris, Vienna and even St. Petersburg, arousing great enthusiasm everywhere. In 1810, he settled in London permanently, devoting himself to composition and business. In 1817, he published his _Gradus ad Parnassum_, a series of one hundred studies treating every branch of technic and every problem of piano playing then known.

[Illustration: MUZIO CLEMENTI.]

=Clementi as Composer and Pianist=.—In addition to his early works, Clementi composed symphonies, more than one hundred sonatas for piano, preludes, toccatas, canons and other piano music and finally the _Gradus_. As Clementi was a true Italian by temperament, and German in his education, the sonatas show the influence of Domenico Scarlatti, as well as of Haydn and Mozart. They are technically in advance of their day, though inclined to dryness musically. However, Beethoven admired them, and is said to have preferred them to those of Mozart. Clementi’s monumental work, the studies, treats every difficulty and style of piano playing so very comprehensively that it is still indispensable to the student. In his youth Clementi was a bravura-player, pure and simple. “Strong in runs of thirds, but without a pennyworth of feeling” was Mozart’s verdict. But later, when Clementi had become acquainted with the larger tone of the English pianos, he cultivated expressive playing. At his best, his brilliancy and facility were dazzling, and he invariably carried all before him. Considering the fundamental value of his studies, and his preëminent abilities as a pianist, it is just to give him the title of “The Father of Piano Playing.”

=Johann Baptist Cramer= (1771-1858) was born at Mannheim, Germany. When he was but a year old his father moved to London. As a boy he studied the violin and the piano, as well as the theory of music, but soon showed the greater aptitude for the piano. Later he became a pupil of Clementi. Handel, Bach, Scarlatti, Haydn and Mozart were the objects of his attention, thus establishing a taste for the classics. In 1788, Cramer began a series of tours on the Continent, living at London in the intervals. In 1828, he founded the music publishing firm of J. B. Cramer & Co. He lived in Paris from 1832 to 1845, but returned to London, where he remained until his death.

=Cramer as Composer and Pianist=.—Of Cramer’s numerous compositions, such as seven concertos and one hundred and five sonatas for the piano, besides variations, rondos, fantasias, etc., a quartet and quintet, little is worth survival. His representative work is a series of seventy-six studies, Op. 50, to which he afterwards added. These studies long enjoyed a reputation second only to those of Clementi. They do not aim primarily at virtuosity, but towards the cultivation of musical style; at the same time they exhibit novelty of technical invention, and demand a decided proficiency. Thus they tend to supplement the studies of Clementi which are chiefly concerned with technic. As a performer, Cramer was greatly admired for his perfect legato, distinctness of phrasing and quiet singing tone. Beethoven is said to have preferred him to all other pianists of his time. While Cramer does not present a technical advance over Clementi, he undoubtedly did much for the cultivation of the more strictly musical qualities and thus stands for a definite progress.

[Illustration: J. B. CRAMER. J. N. HUMMEL.]

=Johann Nepomuk Hummel= (1778-1837) was born at Presburg, Hungary. His father, who had been instructor in music at a military school in Wartburg, moved to Vienna in 1786 to become director at the theatre of Schikaneder, (the author of the libretto of Mozart’s opera “The Magic Flute”). Mozart soon took so deep an interest in young Hummel that he took him to live with him and taught him for two years. From 1788 to 1795, Hummel traveled as a virtuoso. On returning to Vienna he studied composition with Albrechtsberger, and received advice from Salieri and Haydn. From 1804 to 1811 he was music-director under Prince Esterhazy, Haydn’s patron. In 1816, he became conductor at Stuttgart, and in 1819 he occupied a similar position at Weimar. From here he went to Russia, where he made a successful concert-tour, playing at Warsaw, where the youthful Chopin heard him. From 1825 to 1833 he traveled on concert-tours, returning to Weimar, where he passed the remainder of his life.

=Hummel as Composer and Pianist=.—Hummel’s compositions include operas, ballets, masses and other church music, a quintet, trios, rondos, studies and other music for the piano, but he is best known for the piano concertos in A-flat, A minor and B minor, the sonatas in F-sharp minor and D major, the Septet, Op. 74, and a voluminous instruction-book for the piano, chiefly remarkable for its pedantry and absence of practicality. As a pupil of Mozart, he followed his teacher’s form and style, without exhibiting marked creative genius. His technic is noticeable chiefly for its superficial glitter of brilliant passages, which constitute a certain development in themselves. His compositions were in great vogue at one time, and he was once even regarded as the equal of Beethoven. As a pianist, Hummel was unusual. His style was distinguished by precision, clearness, and command of brilliant effect. His influence as a concert pianist was very great, and in this direction his extension of the province of the virtuoso is considerable. He undoubtedly affected Chopin’s piano style for a time and for this reason alone should claim our attention.

=Carl Czerny= (1791-1857) was born at Vienna. His father, an excellent musician, taught his son piano playing at an early age. Beethoven became interested in him, and gave him lessons. He also learned much from Hummel and Clementi. Czerny soon became in great demand as a teacher. He made concert-tours to Leipzig, Paris, London and Lombardy. For the most part he lived quietly in Vienna, teaching and composing. In 1850, his health gave way from overwork. His most celebrated pupils were Franz Liszt and Theodore Leschetizky.

=Czerny’s Compositions=.—Czerny was an indefatigable and over-fluent composer who weakened his powers by over-productivity. Hence, of more than a thousand works, his masses, requiems, symphonies, overtures, chamber-music, etc., are obsolete, but his educational works are destined to live. Of many valuable sets of studies, the most used are those for Velocity, Op. 299, and Finger Training, Op. 740. Musically, they are of slight importance, but they are invaluable to this day in acquiring facility. Czerny had an immense knowledge of the higher mechanism of piano playing, and a keen perception of practical methods. His fame as a pianist was overshadowed by his ceaseless work as teacher and composer.

[Illustration: CARL CZERNY.]

=Ignaz Moscheles= (1794-1870), described as “the foremost pianist after Hummel and before Chopin,” was born at Prague. He studied the piano with Dionys Weber, director of the Prague Conservatory, and at fourteen played a concerto of his own in public. After the death of his father, he went to Vienna to make his way as a teacher, and to continue his studies in composition. He soon became in great demand as a pianist and teacher, and for ten years lived the life of a traveling virtuoso. In 1824, he gave lessons to Mendelssohn, then a boy of fifteen, at Berlin. Soon after his marriage at Hamburg, in 1826, he went to London, where he remained with some interruptions for nearly twenty years of activity as pianist, teacher and conductor. In 1845, he took the post of teacher of the piano at the Leipzig Conservatory, founded by Mendelssohn.

[Illustration: IGNAZ MOSCHELES.]

=Moscheles as Composer and Pianist=.—As a composer, Moscheles was divided between his classical training and his unmistakably romantic instincts. Hence, a long list of variations, fantasias, rondos, written to please publishers, in accordance with the fashion of the time, have not survived, but his best works, the concerto in G minor, the “Pathetic” concerto, the sonata, Op. 49, his duet for two pianos, “Hommage á Handel” and especially the studies, Op. 70 and 95, combine a respect for classic form with the growing Romantic movement. The studies may be regarded as the legitimate successors to those of Cramer, and paved the way for the more romantic etudes of Chopin. Moscheles was a solidly trained pianist of great brilliancy. He had many characteristics of the classical school; he used the pedals sparingly, he played octaves with a stiff wrist, his phrasing was precise and his accents were sharply marked; but in the brilliant style he had no rivals. He was famous for his improvisations; his cadenzas to concertos and his extempore treatments of well-known themes were marked by spontaneity, brilliance and exquisite feeling.

=John Field= (1782-1837), one of the last connecting links between the Classical and Romantic schools, was born at Dublin. Early in life, he was taken to London and apprenticed to Clementi, who gave him lessons, and employed him to show off his pianos. In 1802, he went on a concert-tour with Clementi to Paris, Germany and Russia. Field lived for many years as pianist and teacher at St. Petersburg and Moscow. After returning to England, he made a long tour through Belgium, Switzerland, and finally, Italy, where his health gave way. Shortly after he returned to Moscow, where he died.

=Field as Composer and Pianist=.—Field’s compositions in classical forms include seven concertos, four sonatas, rondos, variations, etc. They are forgotten now, although Chopin had a partiality for his concerto in A-flat and gave it to his pupils; but his lyric pieces for piano, entitled nocturnes, are still played. They are the forerunners of the type so extended and developed by Chopin. He is thus one of the first of the romanticists in spite of his classical training. In 1802, Field astonished the Parisians by his masterly playing of Bach and Handel, but his individuality later took a more romantic turn. His tone was tender and melancholy, and his phrases gently expressive. Shortly before his death, though broken in health, he created a stir in Vienna by his interpretations of his own nocturnes. In some respects his playing was akin to Chopin’s highly individual style.

=To sum up=, it will be seen that Clementi was the originator of a system of technic that has served as the foundation of modern piano playing; Cramer was the conserver of classic style and purity of standard; Hummel, as a brilliant pianist, had a decided influence on the piano playing of his time, but as a composer attempted to pass superficial brilliance for the true coin of musical substance; Czerny, one of the greatest educators in the history of piano playing, has had an immense influence through his invaluable educational works, and as the teacher of Franz Liszt, the epitome of modern piano playing, and also of Theodore Leschetizky, possibly the foremost teacher of the present day; Moscheles, the classic pianist, gave decided impetus to the cause of romanticism by his best compositions; Field, though the pupil of Clementi, prepared the way through his own individuality for the greatest piano composer of the Romantic period, Chopin, and thus became an important factor in the transition from the Classic to the Romantic period.

REFERENCES.

Grove.—Dictionary of Music and Musicians, articles on Pianoforte Playing and players mentioned in this lesson.

Weitzmann.—History of Piano Playing.

Bie.—The Piano.

Fillmore.—Pianoforte Music.

QUESTIONS.

What composers form the transition from the Classic to the Romantic school?

Give a summary of this transition period.

Give a sketch of Clementi.

What was Clementi’s greatest work?

What were his contributions to piano playing?

Give a sketch of Cramer.

What work is most representative of Cramer as a composer?

Mention his contributions to piano playing.

Give an account of Hummel’s life.

What classic pianist was a pupil of Mozart?

What was his influence on piano playing?

Give a sketch of Czerny’s career.

Who were Czerny’s most famous pupils?

What influence did he exert on piano playing?

Give a sketch of Moscheles’ life.

What composer was the intimate friend of Moscheles?

What is the value of his educational works?

Give a sketch of Field’s career and his influence on piano playing.

What form did Field originate?

[Illustration: FRANZ PETER SCHUBERT.]

LESSON XLII.

FRANZ PETER SCHUBERT.

The rise of the Romantic school involves a greater freedom in form, a fuller play of poetry and imagination, a general artistic evolution and independence in comparison with the formality of the Classic period. The struggle to establish these principles was long and obstinate, but the outcome was as inevitable as the victory won by Beethoven’s sonata and symphonic forms over the more primitive types of Haydn and Mozart. The first departures from the classic attitude were made by Schubert, whose influence has been permanent in the development of romanticism.

=Schubert’s Early Life= (1797-1816).—Franz Peter Schubert was born in a suburb of Vienna, January 31, 1797. At an early age he had lessons on the violin from his father, who was a school teacher, and on the piano, from his elder brother. He so quickly outstripped both teachers that he was sent to Michael Holzer, choir-master of the parish, who taught him piano, organ, violin, singing and theory. In later years, Holzer disclaimed the value of his instruction, saying: “If I ever wished to teach him anything new, I found he had already mastered it.” After singing in the parish choir, he passed an examination for admission to the Imperial _Convict_ or school for the Royal choristers. The training included general education as well as music; there was also an orchestra among the boys in which Schubert played the violin and sometimes conducted. There were privations connected with life at the _Convict_, the practice rooms were insufferably cold, and the food insufficient. In 1810, Schubert began to compose, dating his pieces carefully, and the only check to his inspiration was the lack of music-paper, which he was too poor to buy. A generous friend made up the deficiency. In 1813, he left the _Convict_, although his general education was by no means complete, since he had neglected his studies on account of his increasing passion for composition. After leaving the _Convict_, Schubert taught elementary classes at his father’s school, but the drudgery became insupportable. An ardent friend and admirer, Franz von Schober, realizing that Schubert’s creative powers were greatly hampered by the conditions of his life, gave him a home. Already he had composed some of his most famous songs, including “The Erl-King.”

=Later Years= (1816-1828).—From 1816 on, Schubert appears to have lived in Schober’s apartments, except for two years shared with the poet Mayerhofer, and a period spent with a friend, Schwind. It is a mystery how Schubert managed to live, for he taught little, and his few publications could have brought him at best only small sums at irregular intervals. He had already failed to secure a position in a Government school of music, but in 1818 he passed the summer as music teacher to the household of Count Johann Esterhazy, in Zelescz, Hungary. The record of his life hereafter is one of incessant composition, with few interruptions or facts of interest. In 1823, he showed Weber his eighth work for the stage: “Alfonso and Estrella.” The only advice he received was that “first operas, like first puppies, should be drowned.” The summer of 1824 was spent again with the Esterhazys and many characteristic compositions, such as the quartet in A minor, the “Hungarian Divertissement,” the piano sonata in B-flat, etc., date from this time. In 1826, Schubert failed to obtain either of two positions, which would have placed him above need, the second because, like Beethoven, he refused to alter a trial aria to suit the voice of a capricious singer. Schubert was taken to see Beethoven during his last illness, in 1827. In 1828, he went to live with his brother Ferdinand in a new and damp house. His health, which had been troublesome before, now gave way, and he died of typhoid fever, November 28, 1828, in his thirty-second year.

=Personal Traits and Habits of Work=.—Schubert was short of stature, thickset and rather heavy in features. His face in repose was rather devoid of expression, but when interested in anything, his eyes glowed with enthusiasm and his whole appearance changed. His disposition was even and good-tempered, he was simple and trusting by nature, and could rarely be induced to put himself forward. Although receiving many favors from friends, his generosity often led him to give to others when he could ill spare it. He began composing early in the morning and worked uninterruptedly for several hours; he walked much in the afternoon or paid visits to friends, spending his evenings with congenial spirits at various taverns. Composing was the mainspring of his existence, and he often wrote down his ideas while in the midst of conversation with others. Thus he wrote his immortal “Serenade” on the back of a bill-of-fare at a tavern; a piece for four-hands while waiting at a hospital for a friend, “and dinner missed in consequence”; a movement of a string quartet was begun about midnight and finished in the early morning. Although he set many poems by Goethe, Schiller and Heine, his inspiration was quite as effectively aroused by second-rate poems of his friends Mayerhofer, von Schober, or the artless poems of Müller. Schubert was shy and reserved in what might be called “good society”; he preferred the company of congenial friends in an humbler social station. He seems to have cared little for literature, and his love of poetry was limited to its availability as texts for songs. In early life he played the violin and the viola in a family string quartet. Schubert was no virtuoso on the piano, but he played exquisite accompaniments, and he read well at sight in spite of defective eyesight. His performance was marked by earnestness and attention to the inner sentiment of the music rather than by the superficial polish of the mere pianist. It was said that no one could forget the effect of Schubert’s songs as performed by himself and his friend Vogl; the two seemed absolutely united, the ideal condition for the rendering of vocal works.

=Schubert’s Compositions=.—Schubert completed more than eleven hundred pieces in about eighteen years. Such fertility is unique in the history of composition, and is scarcely equalled even by Mozart, whose activity extended over nearly thirty years. Schubert’s powers of spontaneous invention have never been approached; he composed generally without making sketches; he seldom revised, for his ideas came faster than he could write them down. It is impossible to enumerate all Schubert’s works, but the following comprise the most important: Nine symphonies, eleven works for the stage, six masses, over seventy part-songs, choruses, etc., for various combinations, twenty-four sonatas for piano, fantasies, overtures, variations, marches and dances for piano duet, impromptus, moments musicals, fantasies, variations and over two hundred dances for piano solo, two trios for piano and strings, a quintet for strings and piano, a string quintet and several string trios, twenty-four string quartets, besides about six hundred songs with piano accompaniment and occasionally with obligatos for other instruments. It is obvious that such fertility is not consistent with evenness of quality; we must pick and choose to find the real Schubert. However, the symphonies in C and B minor (“Unfinished”), the string quartets in D minor and G major, several sonatas for piano, the impromptus, moments musicals, the fantasy in C for piano, the Hungarian Divertissement, several marches and other compositions for four hands, many charming two-hand waltzes, and, finally, such song-cycles as the “Miller-Songs,” the “Winter Journey,” those called “Swan-Songs” by the publishers, as well as about thirty separate songs “The Erl-King,” “The Wanderer,” “To Sylvia,” “The Omnipotent,” “The Young Nun,” the “Serenade,” “Hark! Hark! the Lark,” “Sei mir Gegrüsst,” “Du bist die Ruh,” “Ave Maria,” “Litany,” and others, are the works of Schubert which will live. Schubert at his best entrances us by his wonderful flow of melody, his spontaneity, his symmetrical form, which, however, is sometimes diffuse. His chief qualities lie in the simple expressiveness of his music, a direct appeal to sincerity of emotion, and to the sense of the poetic. He began by imitating the form and style of Mozart and Beethoven; but from his eighteenth year onward he developed an individuality entirely apart. Despite the virtues of his instrumental music, his great achievement was the creation of the German song, in which department he stands unrivalled in the inexhaustibility of his melody, the variety of mood which they display, the subtlety and harmonic beauty of his accompaniments, as well as art in creating vocal effects.

=Schubert’s Influence on Music=.—In abundance of resource, poetic feeling and true imagination, Schubert has brought new forces into music. His influence on romantic composers was widespread and deep. Schumann was a thorough admirer of Schubert. Schumann’s songs could hardly have come into existence but for those of Schubert, and the latter’s short pieces for piano were undoubtedly as potent an inspiration for his piano works. Brahms, too, had a real reverence for Schubert, that is plainly exhibited in his works. Despite the differences of their artistic individuality, there are traces of Schubert in the former’s songs as well as in some of his short piano pieces. Liszt’s partiality to Schubert was untiring in its zeal. He played his piano music, transcribed the “Hungarian Divertissement,” arranged some of the marches for two hands and for orchestra; he made a version of the fantasy in C for piano and orchestra, which is still popular; and, finally (perhaps his greatest service to Schubert) he transcribed no less than fifty-seven of his songs for piano. In this form he created an interest in Schubert where the original versions were unknown, and did much to spread their renown. In spite of all shortcomings, Schubert’s genius was so remarkable, and his immediate effect upon the Romantic movement so apparent and his legacy to the musical world so imperishable that it is difficult not to agree with Sir George Grove when he wrote: “There has never been one like him and there never will be another.”

REFERENCES.

Grove.—Dictionary of Music and Musicians, article on Schubert.

Frost.—Life of Schubert.

Von Hellborn.—Life of Franz Schubert.

Dvořák.—Franz Schubert. (Century Library of Music.)

QUESTIONS.

From what rank in life did Schubert come?

Give the leading incidents in his life.

What kind of man was he physically, mentally and socially?

How did Schubert compose?

In what forms of composition did Schubert work?

What form of composition did he especially enrich?

Which of his productions have the greatest vogue today?

What influence did Schubert exert on music?

Who did much to spread a knowledge of his works?

Name some composers who have felt his force.

LESSON XLIII.

WEBER. MENDELSSOHN.

Schubert’s operas had no appreciable effect on the Romantic composers, for the simple reason that they were never heard on account of the absurdities of their librettos and the weakness of their stage situations. At about the same period, a slightly older composer was beginning a series of works destined to place German Opera on a firm basis, to exercise a decided influence on Wagner, besides contributing not a little to the development of piano technic.

=Carl Maria Friedrich Ernst von Weber= was born at Eutin, December 18, 1786. His father, a restless man of many talents, was a theatrical manager during Weber’s early years, when constant traveling was the rule, and music lessons the exception. His irregular early instruction under several teachers, of whom Michael Haydn was the most eminent, was supplemented by two years of solid study under the gifted and eccentric Abbé Vogler. From 1804 to 1806, Weber was music-director at the Breslau theatre, and soon made a name for himself as composer and pianist as well as conductor. After this he remained under the protection of the Duke of Wurtemburg, earning a living by giving lessons, and acting as secretary to the Duke’s brother. During this period he composed an opera “Silvana,” overtures, a cantata, piano music, etc. Three years of wandering, chiefly on concert tours, ensued after his banishment from Wurtemburg on account of unjustly suspected complicity in an intrigue for a position at court. To these years belong a comic opera, “Abu Hassan,” the piano concertos in C and E-flat, three concertos for clarinet, the piano sonata in C, etc. In 1814 and 1815, he composed the choruses, “Lyre and Sword,” and a cantata, “Battle and Victory,” both the outcome of political events, and widely popular from their patriotic character. In 1816, he became music-director of the German opera at Dresden. He revived interest in German opera, stimulated public support and in the following years began the composition of “Der Freischütz,” an opera thoroughly German in its character and the keystone of Weber’s fame. It was not finished until 1820, for in the meantime he wrote much of his best piano music, songs and incidental music for a gipsy play “Preciosa.” Just after the completion of his popular Concert-piece for piano and orchestra, “Der Freischütz” was given for the first time at Berlin, June 18, 1821, and the result was one of the greatest triumphs ever bestowed on a German composer. It was soon given in all the principal theatres in Germany, including Dresden, and also in Vienna. In 1823, Weber’s most ambitious opera, “Euryanthe,” was given in Vienna and proved almost a failure. Weber’s health, which had not been satisfactory for some years, showed signs of being undermined. “Euryanthe” was performed with greater success during 1824 and 1825, at Dresden, Leipzig and Berlin, where Weber was almost too ill to conduct. In spite of his ill-health he agreed to write an opera for the Covent Garden Theatre, in London, beginning the music to “Oberon” early in 1825 and finishing the last number in the spring of 1826. The performances were more than satisfactory, and Weber was received everywhere with enthusiasm. His strength was now entirely overtaxed, and he hoped to return to his family, but he died suddenly from consumption, on June 4, 1826.

=Weber’s personality= was pleasing; of excellent birth, his experience of the world through his positions as opera-director and his frequent concert-tours, made him an agreeable companion and a favorite in society. He was cultivated, well read in philosophy and science; he possessed considerable literary and critical ability. In consequence of his intellectual and social gifts, he was a new type of musician, who did much to improve the social status of the composer. He was a remarkable pianist, with an immense command of technic, original in style and eloquent in expression; also a forceful conductor.

=Weber the Composer=.—Weber is, first of all, the composer of the three operas, “Der Freischütz,” “Euryanthe” and “Oberon,” which are discussed in Lesson XXXVII. The overtures to his operas are his best orchestral works; his symphonies and chamber-music are unimportant. However, his three concertos for clarinet and orchestra are classics in the literature of that instrument. Weber’s songs are interesting for the sidelight they throw on the development of the Folk-song tendency, but in this line he was entirely overshadowed by Schubert and Schumann. However, Weber’s piano music is exceedingly important. The concertos for piano are seldom heard, but the “Concert-piece” is still amply worth study. The piano sonatas (especially those in C and A-flat) show great technical inventiveness, melodic charm and original effects, but they are less happy in point of form. Next to the sonatas in interest comes the delightful Op. 65, “Invitation to the Dance,” so well-known in Berlioz’ orchestral version. In addition are the “Momento Capriccioso,” Op. 12, the Rondo in E-flat, Op. 62, the “Polacca Brillante,” Op. 72, the Polonaise, Op. 21. Weber did much to develop the technic of the left hand; his piano compositions are thoroughly pianistic and rank high in the music of the Romantic period.

=Weber’s Influence=.—Weber’s position in the evolution of the Romantic school is extremely important. In Opera his exploration of the imaginative field in so many directions not only opened a new vein in dramatic music, but its influence was felt in every branch of composition. Thus several of Schumann’s choral works, Mendelssohn’s “Midsummer Night’s Dream” music, the “Walpurgis Night” cantata, the concert overtures, and pieces for piano and orchestra are direct musical descendants of Weber. Mendelssohn’s Concerto in G minor, the “Serenade” and “Allegro Giojoso,” his scherzos and “Songs Without Words” are the direct outcome of Weber’s example. In general, the technical style of Weber’s piano music was thoroughly absorbed by both Mendelssohn and, to some extent, Liszt, who edited Weber’s sonatas and solo pieces with tempting additions; he transcribed for piano the overtures “Jubilee,” “Freischütz” and “Oberon,” and arranged the “Polacca Brillante,” Op. 72, for piano and orchestra. Liszt was very fond of Weber’s music, his piano style was sympathetic to him, his interpretation of the Concert-piece, Op. 79, never failed to produce an overwhelming effect. Finally, Weber’s influence on Wagner must be mentioned. Wagner greatly admired Weber’s dramatic insight, his picturesqueness, and especially the poetry and novel color of his orchestral style.

MENDELSSOHN.

The influence which Mendelssohn exercised during two-thirds of the 19th century among the more conservative German musicians and in England was nothing short of extraordinary. He undoubtedly gave great impetus to the study of the classic masters, especially Bach, and his romantic tendencies were so balanced and controlled as to gain a speedy recognition for his music. Today, Mendelssohn the classicist is less admired, and his music will live chiefly for its romantic qualities.

=Mendelssohn’s Life=.—Jakob Ludwig Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy[15] was born at Hamburg, February 3, 1809. His father, a prosperous banker, moved to Berlin in 1811. His first lessons in music were given him by his mother, but he soon began to study the piano with Ludwig Berger, a pupil of Clementi, and composition with Zelter. In 1820, he began to compose systematically. In 1821, he made the acquaintance of Weber, and his enthusiasm for the romantic composer lasted all his life. In 1824, he formed a life-long friendship with Moscheles, who gave him piano lessons. Already he was remarkable for his improvisations and for playing from scores. In 1825, a trip to Paris brought him into contact with the celebrated musicians there. In this year he composed his octet for strings, in which his individuality first asserted itself strongly. In the following summer he wrote the overture to “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” a precocious evidence of originality. In 1827, he made the first draft of his overture “A Calm Sea and a Prosperous Voyage,” a further step into the realm of imagination. In 1829, he organized the first performance of Bach’s “St. Matthew Passion” music since the composer’s death. In this year a visit to England, where some of his compositions were performed, was followed by a trip to Scotland, the Hebrides and Wales, of which his impressions are recorded in the “Hebrides” overture, the “Scotch” symphony and other works of later years. He traveled much during the following years. In 1833, after another visit to England, where his recently composed “Italian” symphony was played, he conducted a musical festival at Düsseldorf, the first of many similar engagements. During the next few years he was constantly employed in conducting, playing and composing, especially his oratorio “St. Paul.” In 1837, he married Miss Cécile Jeanrenaud. From this time dates his second piano concerto in D minor, in which are to be seen traces of Thalberg’s piano style. During the next few years Mendelssohn lived at Leipzig. In 1843, he established a conservatory at Leipzig, long the most celebrated in Europe. Schumann, and later Moscheles, were among the teachers as well as Mendelssohn himself. In 1846, Mendelssohn’s oratorio “Elijah” was given a triumphant first performance at Birmingham under the composer’s direction. In 1847, he made his tenth visit to England for performances of “Elijah,” of his completed “Midsummer Night’s Dream” music (composed in 1845), the “Scotch” symphony and other works. The death of his sister, Fanny, following soon after those of his parents, was so great a shock to him that he went to Switzerland for a rest. He returned improved in health, but could not consider commissions for new works from England, Frankfort and Cologne. He was considering a trip to Vienna to hear Jenny Lind sing in “Elijah” when he was taken suddenly ill and died, November 4, 1847.

=Personal Traits=.—Mendelssohn is described as having an unusually animated, winning personality. He was immensely fond of society, which he could enjoy without detriment to his work. His letters describe in detail his innumerable professional engagements, his round of social festivities and his journeys with equal fidelity. Mendelssohn was fond of out-of-door life, walking, riding and swimming; he also greatly enjoyed dancing. One of his favorite relaxations was to sketch from nature or paint in water-colors. Mendelssohn was a remarkable pianist, of an unaffected type, not a virtuoso, yet his interpretations were full of vigor, charm and a thoroughly musical spirit. His improvisations were remarkable for their spontaneous invention, brilliance and science displayed, and his cadenzas to Beethoven’s 4th concerto and Mozart’s, in D minor, were striking examples of his skill. Mendelssohn was also a remarkable organist, if English testimony is to be credited. At all events, he did much to further the knowledge of Bach’s organ works. Mendelssohn’s incessant activity undoubtedly hastened his death; the amount that he compressed into his short life was incredible.

=Compositions=.—The works most representative of Mendelssohn are the “Scotch” and “Italian” symphonies, the overtures “A Calm Sea and a Prosperous Voyage,” “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” “The Hebrides,” “Melusina,” “Ruy Blas”; the concertos and two smaller pieces for piano and orchestra; the concerto for violin; the octet for strings; two quintets and seven quartets; three quartets for piano and strings; two trios; two sonatas for piano and ’cello; for the piano, six preludes and fugues; three sonatas; the “Serious Variations”; six books of “Songs Without Words”; many smaller pieces, including the “Capriccio,” Op. 8; the “Rondo Capriccioso,” Op. 14; the Caprices, Op. 33; the Scherzo à Capriccio and others; sonatas, preludes and fugues for organ; the oratorios “St. Paul,” and “Elijah”; music to “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” to the dramas “Athalie,” “Antigone” and “Œdipus”; the cantata “Walpurgis Night.” He also wrote a great deal of church music, psalms, hymns, motets, and cantatas for various occasions, including the “Lobgesang,” a symphony-cantata; many part-songs, duets and songs for single voice with piano accompaniment.

[Illustration: FELIX MENDELSSOHN-BARTHOLDY.]

=Mendelssohn’s Tendencies=.—Although he wrote almost exclusively in the conventional forms, Mendelssohn cannot be regarded as a continuator of the classics. In form, thematic development, counterpoint, part-writing, etc., he imitated the letter of classic example closely, but could not attain the inner spirit. To some extent he followed Bach, Handel, Mozart and Beethoven, but the chief source of his individuality is the romanticism of Weber. His piano style is adapted from that of Weber with some extensions of his own. Showered with praise as he was during his lifetime, as the possessor of all the classic virtues, we now admire him chiefly for his romanticism, timid and fastidious though it appears by comparison with the genuine innovations of Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner. In the light of the sturdy qualities of Brahms, his classicism seems superficial. His style was too polished to admit of real vigor. Nevertheless, Mendelssohn of the two symphonies, the “Midsummer Night’s Dream,” “Melusina” and “Hebrides” overture, the violin concerto, the piano concerto in G minor, the sonata for piano and ’cello in D, the scherzo of the octet, the “Serious Variations,” the Scherzo à Capriccio and some half a dozen of the “Songs Without Words” shows us a delicate and charming individuality with the refinement and decided perceptions of the poet, who regarded the world with the eyes of a romanticist recording many impressions of picturesqueness and grace, if seldom of strength.

=Mendelssohn’s Influence as an Artist=.—For a time, Mendelssohn’s influence was unbounded. His symphonies and overtures were considered worthy successors to those of Beethoven; his chamber-music was equally valued; his oratorios were regarded as on a level with those of Handel; his piano music, especially the “Songs Without Words,” were in universal vogue. His orchestral style contained many novel features, it is true, but his chamber-music was not written in the genuine manner and is far inferior to that of the later master, Brahms. His oratorios contain some notable choruses and airs, but on the whole are only faint imitations of the real oratorio style. Still they sufficed to form the foundation of an English school of composition in this form. His piano music contains much that is trivial, but at its best undoubtedly did something to prepare the way for the deeper romanticism of Schumann, Chopin and Liszt. His songs also have far less variety of mood and lyric inspiration than those of Schubert and Schumann, but they too acted as prophets of the more vital creations to follow.

That this reverence for Mendelssohn was no mere infatuation of the moment but a sober respect can best be judged from the diversity in nationality and temperament of those who came under his influence: Gade, the Norwegian; Sterndale Bennett, the English composer and pianist; Hiller and Reinecke among the Germans, and Rubinstein from Russia. These names constitute but a small proportion of Mendelssohn’s disciples, his personality dominated musical England in every branch of composition for many years; and English composers are only just beginning to throw off the yoke of adherence to the traditional oratorio form as exhibited in “St. Paul” and “Elijah.” Schumann admired Mendelssohn without reserve and without a suggestion of jealousy, although the tide of popular favor neglected him for his more easily understood contemporary. Today, criticism has swung possibly too far in the opposite direction, and Mendelssohn suffers from depreciation.

REFERENCES.

Grove’s and Riemann’s Dictionaries.—Articles on Weber and Mendelssohn.

Benedict.—Carl Maria von Weber.

Rockstro.—Life of Mendelssohn.

Lampadius.—Life of Mendelssohn.

Reinecke.—Mendelssohn (Century Library of Music), Mendelssohn’s Letters.

QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.

Mention the significant events in Weber’s life.

Describe Weber the man.

Sketch the work of Weber as a composer.

Show the influence of Weber upon music.

Name some of Weber’s best-known piano works.

What composers were greatly influenced by Weber?

Give an account of Mendelssohn’s boyhood, manhood.

What educational work in music did Mendelssohn originate?

In what lines of musical work did Mendelssohn excel?

Name representative compositions of Mendelssohn.

What composers did Mendelssohn follow?

What influence did Mendelssohn exert on music?

For students who wish to study Weber’s characteristics, the Momento Capriccioso, Op. 12, the “Invitation to the Dance,” Op. 65, the piano sonatas in C and A-flat are the most representative, while the overtures to “Der Freischütz,” “Euryanthe” and “Oberon” show his style as a dramatic composer.

The following suggestions may aid the student in his study of Mendelssohn’s works: The “Italian” and “Scotch” symphonies, the “Midsummer Night’s Dream,” “Hebrides” and “Melusina” overtures, the Nocturne and Scherzo from the “Midsummer Night’s Dream” music, the violin concerto, the concerto in G minor and the Capriccio Brillante for piano and orchestra, the pieces for piano, Op. 7, Nos. 3 and 7, the Rondo Capriccioso, Op. 14, the Caprice, Op. 16, No. 2, the Prelude and Fugue, Op. 35, No. 1, the Serious Variations, Op. 54, the Scherzo à Capriccio without opus number, and the following “Songs Without Words,” Op. 19, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6; Op. 38, Nos. 2, 3, 5; Op. 62, Nos. 3, 6; Op. 67, No. 4, and Op. 102, No. 3. Liszt has made an exceedingly effective transcription of Mendelssohn’s song “On the Wings of Song,” which is a popular concert number today.

LESSON XLIV.

ROBERT SCHUMANN.

=The Romantic Movement before Schumann=.—Schubert gave a decided impetus to the Romantic movement through his spontaneous melody and deep fund of imagination. He infused poetry into the classic forms, his piano works in the small forms showed the way to future achievement in these lines, but especially he founded German song, which had scarcely been hinted at by Mozart and Beethoven. Although Weber extended the province of piano technic, and exhibited further possibilities of romantic feeling in combination with the rondo and sonata forms, his chief work was the realization of German opera, elsewhere described. But still another German was destined to contribute richly to romantic piano literature, to prove no mean successor to Schubert in the province of song, and to add further proofs of his genius in chamber-music, choral works and the symphony.

=Schumann’s Early life=.—Robert Alexander Schumann was born at Zwickau, in Saxony, June 8, 1810. His father was a bookseller with some attainments as an author. Schumann’s gift for music asserted itself early. He had piano lessons from a local organist at the age of six, and began to compose soon after. A taste for improvisation also developed. For several years his literary interests were as pronounced as those for music. He read assiduously, and was especially devoted to poetry. His general education was continued at the Zwickau Academy, where he studied until 1828. In 1827, he came under the joint influence of the writings of Jean Paul (Richter) the poet and novelist, and of Schubert’s music, both of which played an important part in his mental and artistic growth. In 1828, he entered the University of Leipzig with the intention of studying law. He kept up his music, however, and not only became enthusiastic over the clavier works of Bach, but took piano lessons of Friedrich Wieck, a celebrated teacher in Leipzig. In 1829, Schumann went to Heidelberg. Here he continued his law studies in a desultory fashion, but worked with the greatest persistence at piano playing. In 1830, he resolved to study law with more seriousness, but it was intensely repugnant to him, and after some reflection, he determined, with Wieck’s advice, to adopt music as a profession. Accordingly, he returned to Leipzig to study the piano with Wieck, but having the misfortune to injure a finger in his zeal for speedy perfection, he was obliged to forego the career of a virtuoso, perhaps to the great gain of music.

=Schumann’s Professional Career=.—He now devoted his attention to thorough study of composition with Heinrich Dorn. In 1834, Schumann founded the “New Journal of Music” in the interests of a higher critical standard, and the furtherance of worthy compositions. During ten years of editorship, Schumann found abundant outlet for his literary interests, and his paper exerted a considerable force on public opinion. Two of his greatest piano works, the Carnival, Op. 9, and the Symphonic Studies, Op. 13, belong to the year 1834. During the years 1836 and 1837, he had some intimacy with Mendelssohn. From 1836-39 date most of Schumann’s important works for the piano. In 1840, Schumann married Wieck’s daughter, Clara, the celebrated pianist, after several years’ struggle to gain her father’s consent. Schumann’s marriage was the turning-point in his artistic career, and his wife’s sympathy was a great stimulus to his creative activity. In the year following his marriage, Schumann turned to song-composing, producing more than one hundred songs in this period. In 1841, he gave himself up wholly to orchestral composition, writing his symphony in B-flat, the first draft of his D minor symphony, a third work, afterwards published as Overture, Scherzo and Finale, as well as the first movement of his piano concerto. In 1842, he confined himself almost exclusively to chamber-music, composing three string quartets, the masterly quintet, Op. 44, the quartet, Op. 47, for piano and strings, and a trio. To 1845 belong the “Variations” for two pianos, and a large choral work, “Paradise and the Peri.” In 1844, Schumann began the music to Goethe’s “Faust,” but ill-health interrupted him for more than a year. However, in 1845 he completed the piano concerto, wrote several works for pedal piano, and in 1846 finished his second symphony. In 1847, he began his opera “Genoveva,” which was not given until 1850. Late in 1850 he went to Düsseldorf to take a position as director. While here he composed his third symphony. In the following years he wrote several overtures, works for solo instruments and orchestra, the overture and incidental music to Byron’s “Manfred,” “The Pilgrimage of the Rose” and many other choral works, including a Mass and a Requiem. Early in 1854, symptoms of a mental disorder, which had been increasing of late years, culminated in an attempt at suicide. He passed the remaining years of his life in an asylum near Bonn, where he died July 29, 1856.

[Illustration: ROBERT SCHUMANN.]

=Schumann’s Personality=.—By reason of his two-fold activity as critic and composer, Schumann was a new force in music. Highly cultivated in literature, philosophy and poetry, he possessed a keen and discerning critical taste, and a literary style that was picturesque and eloquent. Schumann was shy and reserved by nature, he talked little but observed and reflected abundantly. He was never fond of society, and as years went by he lived more and more like a hermit, absorbed in composition and family life. For ten years, however, he was in touch with the public by reason of his editorship of the “New Journal,” and by his championship therein of all that was good and progressive in the music of the day, did much for the encouragement of true art. His articles on Schubert, Mendelssohn, Gade, Chopin, Berlioz, Liszt, Brahms and others formed a new epoch in musical criticism, and helped the cause of Romanticism immeasurably. No estimate of Schumann’s character is complete without taking into account these distinct tendencies as critic and composer. His collected writings give a graphic illustration of his views on music, and form a supplement to his personality as expressed in his music.

=Schumann’s Compositions=.—Schumann’s most representative works include four symphonies and the “Overture, Scherzo and Finale,” the overtures “Genoveva” and “Manfred”; three string quartets, a piano quintet, a piano quartet, three piano trios and two sonatas for piano and violin; the music to “Faust” and “Manfred”; “Paradise and the Peri,” “The Pilgrimage of the Rose” and other works for solos, chorus and orchestra; more than two hundred songs; the piano concerto and two smaller works for piano and orchestra, besides a monumental series of works for piano alone. In addition there are duets, part-songs, choruses, pieces for piano duet, a concert piece for four horns and orchestra, a concerto for ’cello and orchestra, a fantasy for violin and orchestra, besides short pieces for oboe, viola, clarinet and ’cello with piano accompaniment, the opera “Genoveva,” the overtures “The Bride of Messina,” “Julius Cæsar” and “Herman and Dorothea,” the Mass, Op. 147, and the Requiem, Op. 148.

It will be seen that Schumann wrote much in the sonata or symphonic form, yet his command of it was far from complete. In this respect and in instrumentation, Schumann was inferior to his romantic contemporary, Mendelssohn. On the other hand, he was far more original and his music has a much greater depth of sentiment, a higher sense of beauty and a noble human breadth that forms one of the highest points in the development of romanticism. What he lacked in technical attainment, he more than made up in beauty of themes, vigor and spontaneity of treatment, and thorough-going romanticism in moods. It is difficult to say which is his best symphony, they all have merits of their own; of the overtures, that to “Genoveva” (almost the only surviving portion of the opera) and “Manfred” are examples of Schumann’s ardent romanticism at its best. The string-quartets are not always in quartet style and their structure is sometimes open to criticism, but they are individual and contain much that is beautiful. The piano-quartet is a genial work of great spontaneity that took Europe by storm. It was immediately hailed as the greatest work since Beethoven, although its position might now be assailed by the piano quintets by Brahms and César Franck. The piano quartet, as well as the quintet, is a pioneer in this form of chamber-music, but has not the same flow of melody as the former. The trios and sonatas for violin and piano, although not on a level with the other chamber-music, have nevertheless striking qualities to commend them. Schumann’s choral music is decidedly unequal, but the “Paradise and the Peri,” and portions of the “Faust” and “Manfred” music display the same breadth of human emotion so characteristic of his best music. In the field of song, Schumann is a worthy successor to Schubert. Schumann’s songs have not the inexhaustible melody of Schubert’s, but they are richer harmonically, the accompaniments more individual, and the character of the poems more subtly brought out.

=Schumann’s Contribution to the Short Piece=.—Perhaps Schumann’s most conspicuous service to music lies in his development of the short piece. In this direction he has cultivated a branch of expression, with an originality, a freedom and a richness that have no parallel in the Romantic movement except in Chopin. Mendelssohn undoubtedly did something for the short piece, but his “Songs Without Words” are limited to a few types, while Schumann made the short form serve every variety of expression. He undoubtedly owed much to the examples of Schubert with his waltzes and other dances, the impromptus and moments musicals, but in richness of resource and spontaneity of expression he went much beyond the older master. His piano style is highly distinctive; it does not offer much that is new in finger technic, but in polyphonic treatment of melodies, in striking rhythms and harmonic effects and in original use of the pedal it is remarkable. Both in the sets of small pieces, such as the “Papillons,” Op. 2, the “Davidsbund Dances,” Op. 6, the “Carnival,” Op. 9, or the Flower pieces, Op. 19, and in the Novellettes, Op. 21, the Fantasie pieces, Op. 12, the Symphonic Studies, Op. 15, the Toccata, Op. 7, and the great Fantasy, Op. 17, Schumann displays a wealth of imaginative poetry that makes him one of the greatest romanticists in piano music. His piano works from Op. 2 to Op. 28 are matchless, although the sonatas, Op. 11 and 22, suffer from lack of coherence. The variations for two pianos, Op. 46, and the concerto, Op. 54, are models of their type. The “Album for the Young,” Op. 68, the “Forest Scenes,” Op. 82, the “Varied Leaves,” Op. 99, and the “Album Leaves,” Op. 124, are all admirable, and contain a great variety of short pieces, many of which were composed early in his career. Schumann’s songs and piano pieces are the best examples of his contribution to romanticism.

Schubert and Jean Paul Richter (the romantic novelist and poet) were the earliest influences in Schumann’s studies, nevertheless he admired Beethoven greatly, and shut himself up with his quartets as a preparation for his own chamber-music. As a student in Leipzig, he was devoted to Bach’s clavier works, and later in life he renewed his enthusiasm for Bach while writing the works for pedal piano and the piano fugues. Fugal form and romantic sentiment do not go well together, however, and Schumann’s compositions in this form are not his greatest. Schumann’s influence is strongest upon composers of songs and short piano pieces. It would be difficult to name even the most representative, but the most signal example is Brahms, whose songs and piano pieces could hardly exist but for Schumann. In many of the modern Russian composers we find distinct traces of Schumann, as well as among the Frenchmen Gabriel Fauré and Vincent d’Indy, the German Adolf Jensen, the Italian Sgambati, and many others.

=Compositions Suggested for Study=.—The symphonies, overtures, the chamber-music and the larger choral works are all characteristic of Schumann at his best, but for more detailed study of his piano music and songs the following are suggested. Of the piano works, the “Papillons,” Op. 2; the “Paganini Caprice,” Op. 3, No. 2; the “Davidsbund” dances, Op. 6, Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18; the “Toccata,” Op. 7; the “Carnival,” Op. 9; the Sonata, Op. 11, especially the “Aria” and “Scherzo”; the “Fantasy Pieces,” Op. 12, entire except the “Fable”; the “Symphonic Studies,” Op. 13; the “Scenes from Childhood,” Op. 15, Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 13; the “Kreisleriana,” Op. 16, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8; the “Arabesque,” Op. 18; the “Flower Pieces,” Op. 19; the “Humoreskes,” Op. 20; the “Novellettes,” Op. 21, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8; the Sonata, Op. 22; the “Night Piece,” Op. 23, No. 4; the “Carnival Prank,” Op. 26, Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4; the “Romance,” Op. 28, No. 2; the Variations for two pianos, Op. 46; the Concerto, Op. 54; the “Album for the Young,” Op. 68; “The Happy Farmer,” “May, Lovely May,” “First Loss,” “Small Romance,” “Remembrance,” November 4, 1847 (the date of Mendelssohn’s death); “Canonic Song,” “Theme,” two pieces without name, “Northern Song”; Op. 76, Nos. 1, 3 and 4; “Forest Scenes,” Op. 82; “Entrance,” “Lovely Flower,” “Inn,” “Bird as Prophet,” “Hunting Song,” “Elves”; Op. 99, Album Leaf, and Novellette; “Album Leaves,” Op. 124, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 13, 15 and 17. Of the songs: “Dedication,” “The Nut Tree,” “The Lotus Flower,” “Highland Cradle Song,” “Two Venetian Songs,” “Thou Art like a Flower,” and “Conclusion,” “The Boy with the Magic Horn,” “To the Sunshine,” “Forest Dialogue,” “Moonlight,” “Spring Night,” “Woman’s Love and Life,” “Spring Journey,” “In the Wondrous Month of May,” “From My Tears,” “The Roses, the Lily,” “When I Look into Thine Eyes,” “I Grudge it Not,” “The Two Grenadiers,” “Folk-Song.”

REFERENCES.

Grove’s and Riemann’s Dictionaries.—Article on Schumann.

Grieg.—Robert Schumann (Century Library of Music).

Hadow.—Studies in Modern Music. (Chapter on Schumann.)

Maitland.—Schumann.

Wasielewski.—Life of Schumann.

Finck.—Chopin and Other Essays. (Chapter on Schumann.)

QUESTIONS.

Who represented the Romantic movement prior to Schumann?

Give the important events in Schumann’s early life.

Give the important events in Schumann’s professional career.

Give an account of Schumann as a man and as a critic.

How did Schumann help in musical progress?

What composers influenced him in his development?

In what forms did Schumann write?

Name representative works in the different forms.

What contribution did Schumann make to the development of the short piano piece?

What composers did Schumann influence?

[Illustration: FREDERIC CHOPIN.]

LESSON XLV.

FREDERIC CHOPIN.

=Schumann and Chopin=.—Among Schumann’s many able reviews of new music, showing the keenest critical insight, none exhibit a more just appreciation of an original talent than his article on some variations by a young composer who was destined to exert so deep and widespread an influence on piano style and piano composition. Chopin’s romanticism, somewhat affected at first by both Hummel and Field, is one of the most individual developments of the entire period.

=Chopin’s Early life=.—Frederic Chopin was born at Zelazowa-Wola, near Warsaw, in Poland, on March 1, 1809. His father, who had served in various positions as a teacher, finally established a boarding-school in Warsaw. Chopin showed great sensitiveness towards music at an early age. His first lessons on the piano were given him by a Polish teacher of some celebrity, Adalbert Zwyny. He soon became famous as a pianist, and from the age of nine, played constantly at the houses of the nobility, and was eagerly received by them. In 1824, he entered the Warsaw Lyceum in order to pursue his general studies. About the same time he began lessons in composition with Elsner, who had a high reputation as a teacher. He had already composed pieces for the piano on his own account, and continued with such success that as early as 1825 his Op. 1, a Rondo, was published. In 1827, he left the Lyceum, and gave thereafter all his time to playing and composing. Soon after, he made great strides in composition, and many of his studies and smaller pieces, as well as his two concertos, belong to this period, or were begun then. Early in 1829, Hummel played in Warsaw, and the influence of his piano style is evident in the works of Chopin for some time to come. Later in this year, Chopin went to Vienna, where he gave two concerts, winning instant recognition both as pianist and composer. After his return to Warsaw he continued to compose much.

=Chopin’s Manhood=.—A second visit to Vienna occurred toward the end of 1830. He gave concerts, came into contact with many musicians, and even found time to compose; but being dissatisfied with conditions in Vienna, determined to go to Paris. Early in 1831, after giving concerts on the way, he arrived at Paris, which was henceforth to be his home. Here he was soon thrown with many of the leading musicians, his playing caused an immediate sensation, and as at Warsaw, he was welcomed in the most exclusive society. In 1832, he began to acquire fame as a piano teacher, especially of pupils from the aristocracy. From 1833 to 1835, his compositions began to appear, and gained him much approval as a composer. In 1835, he went to Leipzig, where he saw Wieck and his daughter, afterwards Clara Schumann, Mendelssohn and Schumann. In 1837, he met Madame George Sand, the famous writer, whose influence on his life was so great. During this year the first sinister symptoms of ill-health made their appearance. With the idea of benefiting his health, Chopin passed the winter of 1838-39 on the island of Majorca, with Madame Sand and her two children. The climate had a bad effect upon him; he could compose but little, and the condition of his lungs obliged a return to France. He was so ill as to be obliged to spend several months at Marseilles, recuperating. After a summer at Nohant, Mme. Sand’s country home, he was again at Paris in the fall of 1839. From 1840 to 1848, he lived in Paris, with occasional visits to Nohant in the summer, teaching as much as his health would allow, passing much time in the most aristocratic society. He seldom played in public, and would only play for pupils, or when persuaded by devoted friends to display his extraordinary gifts as a pianist. During these years, however, his health grew more and more precarious.

=The Last Years of Chopin=.—In 1847, the intimacy of Chopin and Madame Sand came to an end, for various causes, but largely because of a character caricatured from Chopin in one of Madame Sand’s novels, and because she was tired of taking care of him. Ill as he was, he went to England, after a farewell concert in Paris, arriving in the spring of 1848. He gave two concerts in London with some success, besides playing at friends’ houses. He went to Scotland at the instance of a pupil, Miss Stirling, gave concerts at Edinburgh and Glasgow, besides one in the interval at Manchester. During this entire tour he suffered greatly from ill-health and exhaustion, and after one more appearance in London, he returned to Paris, exceedingly ill, in January, 1849. He was not able to teach and was obliged to depend upon the generosity of friends; among them his pupil, Miss Stirling. After several months of hopeless struggle to regain his health, he died of consumption on October 17, 1849, surrounded by devoted friends.

=Chopin’s Personality=.—Chopin was extremely refined and delicate by nature. He was fastidious about the color and fit of his clothes, the furnishing and arrangement of his rooms, and other details of everyday life. He was always extremely fond of society and moved in the highest circles. As a rule, he was averse to seeing much of musicians, in spite of his friendship with Liszt, Hiller, Berlioz and Schumann. As a young man he was fond of dancing, acting and practical jokes; though sensitive, he was well and strong, and able to endure rough stage-journeys. He was a capital mimic all his life, and a witty companion who pleased by his gentle irony or sarcasm. He was extremely reserved in spite of his sociability, his intimate friends (either Polish or favorite pupils) even quarrelled as to which knew him best. He was genuinely confidential only in his music. Chopin was exceedingly patriotic; he was always ready to appear in concert in behalf of Polish refugees, he corresponded untiringly with his Polish friends, and gave many proofs of his devotion to Poland, which he never forgot in spite of years of absence.

=Chopin as Pianist=.—Chopin was a pianist of extraordinary distinction, in spite of the preëminence of Liszt. His technic, founded in the school of Clementi and Cramer, with great attention to Bach, was influenced to some extent by Hummel and Field, but later became highly original, and expressive of great individuality. Although he possessed great brilliancy, the most prominent trait in his playing was its all-pervading and inexhaustible fund of poetry. It had nothing harsh, unmelodious or ungraceful. His sense of rhythm was unusually piquant, and one of its features was the skilful use of _tempo rubato_, a slight variance from strict time without disturbing it fundamentally. In later life, Chopin became disinclined to appear in public, his performances were limited to the drawing-rooms of aristocratic friends, where he would play or improvise for hours. He was never a robust pianist at his strongest, and the transparent delicacy of his playing during his last years was almost incredible.

=Chopin’s Compositions=.—Chopin’s music constitutes the true revelation of himself. His life, not full of action, was, however, rich in emotion and sentiment of great variety and subtlety. Its mainsprings were his patriotic love of Poland and everything connected with it, and the poetic impressionability of his temperament, which were all transferred to his music. Although Chopin composed a number of works in which he uses the orchestra, some chamber-music, and a set of Polish songs, he was first and last a composer for the piano. In addition to the works referred to, he wrote three sonatas, four ballades, four scherzos, ten polonaises, fourteen waltzes, twenty-eight studies, fifty-five mazurkas, twenty-five preludes, seventeen nocturnes, three impromptus and a fantasie-impromptu, three rondos, besides a superb fantasy, a concert allegro, a barcarolle, a berceuse, a tarantelle, a bolero, a rondo for two pianos, and a few trifles.

Of his two concertos, the second published (although the first composed) is the finer. It is riper and more poetic, the slow movement reaches a high point of lyric style, and the treatment of form throughout the concerto is less awkward. Chopin is not at home in the sonata form, the concertos are interesting in spite of, rather than on account of, their treatment of form. The piano sonatas, Op. 35 and 58, have faults of structure, and occasional incoherence, but they are so full of poetry, romantic melody and dramatic mood that one almost overlooks their technical shortcomings.

=Chopin Most Successful in Free Forms=.—The most representative works of Chopin are those in which he adopts no conventional form, but follows his own instinct entirely. Thus, in his ballades, scherzos, and especially in the fantasy, Op. 49, one finds freedom of invention and variety of treatment combined with logical development and real coherence. The ballads are dramatic poems in which sentiment and virtuosity are happily united. The scherzos are original conceptions quite distinct from the accepted type; they have bold outlines, variety of mood and demand virtuosity in their performance. The fantasy is instructive in its logical structure, there is no sign of the constraint of the sonatas, and its contents are both dramatic on a large scale and lyric by contrast. The impromptus are shorter pieces of a lyric nature, although the element of virtuosity is not lacking. The nocturnes are lyric pieces of simple form but intimate style. Their general plan was at first copied from Field, but the imitator went so far ahead of his model as almost to eclipse it. Some of them portray idyllic moods, others are sentimental or even dramatic in their outlines. The studies, Op. 10 and 25, epitomize in a remarkable way Chopin’s technical innovations, and piano style. They are brilliant, poetic and highly dramatic by turns, and in their contents are the most musical studies composed up to their time.

=National Spirit in Chopin’s Music=.—Chopin, the patriot, was devoted to the dances and Folk-melodies of his own country. He was thoroughly national as a composer; hence in some respects his mazurkas and polonaises are the most characteristic of his compositions. The mazurkas with their vital rhythms and novel harmonies, contain much poetry of mood and variety of expression within small limits. The polonaise, as treated by Chopin, was less a dance form, and more an independent form with characteristic rhythms. The polonaises, Op. 44 and 53, are virtually patriotic poems. The preludes are sketches of varying size; some are genuine lyrics; some frankly technical in their object; others have a distinct touch of the dramatic. Some of the waltzes suggest the _salon_, but in others Chopin has individualized the type until it has risen above its origin. Among the single pieces, the Concert Allegro is large in dimensions, very interesting technically and musically. The Barcarolle, in nocturne-form on a larger scale, is almost heroic in its outlines, and a superb example of his mature style. Another piece equally deserving of distinction is the Berceuse, an ingenious series of variations on a persistent bass. The Tarantelle and Bolero are merely fascinating salon pieces.

Of the youthful works with orchestra, the variations on a theme from Mozart’s “Don Juan” are more interesting from the novelty of their piano styles than as variations; the Fantasie on Polish themes attracts attention chiefly on account of its Folk-song character, while the “Krakowiak” rondo is remarkable for its spirited national-dance rhythms. The orchestral accompaniments to these pieces are not significant; in fact, Chopin’s use of the orchestra was his weakest point. The Polish songs are unequal, and at best add little to his fame. Liszt, however, has transcribed six, of which two are frequently heard in concert, while Sgambati has arranged one.

=Originality and Freshness of Invention=.—The most extraordinary trait of Chopin as a composer is that, in spite of the limitations imposed by repeating the same form over and over again, he is almost inexhaustible in variety of expression. As the poet of lyric mood he accomplished almost as much as Schumann for the development of the short piece, while in his longer pieces of dramatic mood and large contours he has shown that the sonata-form is not the only structure by which to convey heroic sentiment. His was the most subtle originality, the most personal style which stamped itself indelibly on nearly every composition. He immeasurably broadened the technical treatment of the piano, not only as a virtuoso, but in the direction of variety of expression, delicate accentuation and exquisite tone. Among romantic composers he has done more for the advancement of piano style than anyone except Liszt. In spite of the latter’s gigantic achievement, the value of Chopin’s contribution is still unimpaired. From the point of view of expression, Chopin is more individual even than Schumann, but the honors as the most important composer for the piano during the Romantic period must be divided between them. Chopin’s influence has been immense not only on the composers and pianists of France and Germany but also markedly among living composers in Russia. Chopin is the preëminent poet of the piano.

=Representative Compositions=.—The following list for the student contains the works and pieces most thoroughly characteristic of his genius: The sonatas, Op. 35 and 38; the scherzos, Op. 20, 31 and 39; the ballades, Op. 23, 38, 47 and 52; the polonaises, Op. 22, 26, 40, 44 and 53; the waltzes, Op. 18, Op. 34, Nos. 1 and 2; Op. 42, Op. 64, Nos. 1, 2, and Op. 69, No. 1; the studies, Op. 10, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 12; Op. 25, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12; the mazurkas, Op. 6, Nos. 1, 2; Op. 7, Nos. 1, 2, 3; Op. 17, Nos. 2, 3, 4; Op. 24, Nos. 1, 3, 4; Op. 30, Nos. 2, 4; Op. 33, Nos. 1, 3, 4; Op. 41, Nos. 1, 2; Op. 56, No. 2; Op. 59, Nos. 2 and 3; Op. 63, No. 3; Op. 68, No. 2; the nocturnes, Op. 9, Op. 15, Nos, 2, 3; Op. 27, Op. 37, Op. 48, No. 1; Op. 55, Op. 62, No. 1; the preludes, Op. 28, Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23 and 24; the prelude, Op. 45; the impromptus, Op. 29, Op. 35, Op. 51, and the Fantasie-Impromptu, Op. 66; the Fantasy, Op. 49; the Tarantelle, Op. 43; the Berceuse, Op. 57; the Barcarolle, Op. 60, and the Concert Allegro, Op. 46.

REFERENCES.

Grove’s and Riemann’s Dictionaries.—Article on Chopin.

Finck.—Chopin and Other Musical Essays.

Hadow.— Studies in Modern Music. (Chapter on Chopin.)

Huneker.—Chopin: The Man and His Music.

Niecks.—Frederic Chopin.

QUESTIONS.

Give an account of Chopin’s early life.

Name the important events in his manhood and later life.

What were the striking traits of Chopin as a man?

What were Chopin’s qualities as a pianist?

In what forms did Chopin compose?

In what form was Chopin most successful?

In which of his compositions is the national spirit strongly evident?

What characteristics do we note in Chopin as a composer?

Name some representative compositions.

What composer influenced Chopin’s piano style in his early life?

What celebrated musicians were friends of Chopin?

LESSON XLVI.

FRANZ LISZT.

The piano music of Chopin and Schumann reached the highest level attained during the Romantic period, in subtle originality of style and deep human sentiment, respectively. Notwithstanding their preëminence in these particulars, a master was destined to come who summed up the entire development of piano technic in his achievements, the greatest virtuoso of the century, to whose influence all piano playing since has been obliged to acknowledge its indebtedness. In addition, his services in breaking away from symphonic tradition, in achieving propaganda for various composers of epoch-making works, including Wagner, in giving up himself as teacher without remuneration, are equally significant.

=Liszt’s Early Life=.—Franz Liszt was born October 22, 1811, at Raiding, Hungary. His mother was of Austrian birth; his father, a Hungarian, occupying an official position on the estates of Prince Esterhazy, was devoted to music. Liszt was a somewhat delicate child of acute sensibilities, especially in the direction of music. At the age of six he received piano lessons from his father. The intensity of his interest in music and his phenomenal progress soon showed the uncommon extent of his gifts. At the age of nine, he gave his first concert before an audience composed largely of Hungarian nobility. His performance was so extraordinary that some of those present agreed to give Liszt a pension for six years to insure his proper education. Accordingly, father and son went to Vienna, where the boy studied the piano with Carl Czerny and composition with Salieri. Czerny put Liszt through so thorough a course of discipline that at eleven years of age Liszt was known for his playing from scores, and reading the most difficult compositions at sight. In 1823, he gave two successful concerts; Beethoven was present at the second, and publicly kissed the boy in token of his approval. Liszt’s father now took him to Paris to study at the Conservatory, but the director, Cherubini, refused to allow him to enter because he was a foreigner. Liszt studied composition, however, with Paer and afterwards with Reicha. In the meantime, letters of introduction from Liszt’s Hungarian patrons soon sufficed to make him known throughout the most aristocratic circles, where he created an absolute furore. A public concert produced the same results on a larger scale. Later, Liszt made two visits to England; he was received at the Court of George IV, played in private, and gave concerts. On returning to Paris, he completed an opera, which was performed in Paris. This opera and other compositions of this period have entirely disappeared. Tours through France and a third visit to England followed. In 1827, Liszt’s father died, and his mother came to Paris to live; he supported her by giving lessons, and was soon in great demand as a teacher. An unfortunate love-affair caused him to consider entering the church. He lost interest in music, fell ill, and was supposed to be dead. Liszt gradually recovered, however. He now underwent a remarkable series of formative influences; he read widely, formed the acquaintance of many celebrated personages, including Chateaubriand, Lamartine, Victor Hugo and George Sand, became interested in the principles of St. Simonians, a somewhat socialistic sect, dallied with free-thinking and revolutionary tendencies, formed a friendship with the Abbé Lamennais, and became intimate with Berlioz and Chopin.

[Illustration: FRANZ LISZT.]

=Period of Preparation=.—Of far deeper result was the appearance of Paganini in Paris during 1831. Liszt bent all his energies towards devising a transcendent piano technic to reproduce Paganini’s caprices on the piano. It was at this time that he laid the foundations of his gigantic achievements in piano technic, not merely in the interest of virtuosity, but for extending the limits of expression. He was also much affected by Chopin’s poetic individuality. In 1834, Liszt entered into an intimacy with the Comtesse d’Agoult, which lasted for several years. Three children were born of this union, of whom two survived. One daughter married M. Ollivier, a French statesman, the other became successively Mme. von Bülow and Mme. Wagner. During this period Liszt composed much for piano, made many transcriptions, and began his literary activity on musical subjects. He gave concerts, chiefly for charity. In 1837, he made a trip to Paris to contest the supremacy of the piano with Thalberg. Among his compositions of this period may be mentioned the etudes, the Rossini transcriptions, many arrangements of Schubert’s songs, the piano scores of several Beethoven symphonies, besides opera-fantasies, original pieces for piano, etc.

=Professional Activity=.—In 1838, Liszt created an extraordinary sensation by his concerts in Vienna, and from 1839 to 1847 lived the life of a traveling virtuoso, giving an unparalleled series of recitals throughout the length and breadth of Europe, which were a series of triumphs such as no artist had ever before experienced. In 1832, he was made court music-director at Weimar, his duties only requiring his presence for three months in the year. In 1847, Liszt met the Princess von Sayn-Wittgenstein, who exercised a remarkable influence over him. She persuaded him to give up his career as a virtuoso, and turn to composition. From 1848 to 1861 Liszt passed the most significant period of his life at Weimar. From his position as conductor he was of inestimable service to the cause of romantic music through his performance of operas and orchestral works by Wagner, Berlioz, Schumann, Raff, Cornelius and others. He was equally active with his pen in deference to the new artistic principles. To this epoch belong Liszt’s most important orchestral works, the concertos and other compositions for piano and orchestra, many transcriptions and editions of the classics.

=Later Life=.—In 1859, opposition to Liszt’s progressiveness became so pronounced that he resigned. He did not leave Weimar, however, until 1861. The rest of his life was somewhat irregularly divided between Rome, Weimar and Budapest. During the first few years at Rome he composed chiefly church music and oratorios; in 1865, he took minor orders in the Church of Rome. From 1869 on, persuaded by the Duke and Duchess of Saxe-Weimar, he passed portions of every year at Weimar in a beautiful house especially furnished for him by the Duke. Pupils flocked to him, he held a sort of musical court, and was treated with the respect due to royalty. His later years were full of activity, and generous sympathy to all that was worthy, and he was the constant object of homage and affection. In 1886, Liszt became overtaxed by a series of trips to hear his own works performed, including a reception in his honor at London. He also made exceptional effort to attend a performance of “Tristan and Isolde” at Bayreuth. A cold was speedily followed by pneumonia, from which he died on July 31, 1886.

=Liszt’s Personality and Character=.—Liszt’s character was remarkable for its conspicuous virtues and almost equally prominent faults. His was a large, noble nature, with deep humanitarian traits. His life was one long service to his art, accompanied in his later years by devotion to the church. Though not highly educated, except in experience of men and the world, he had an extremely keen mind, omnivorous in its tastes, and his interests were wide and penetrating. Perhaps his salient characteristics were generosity and unselfishness. Often during his career as a virtuoso he gave freely of the proceeds of his concerts to charity. After the close of his concert-tours he taught for years without remuneration. His help to younger artists was incalculable in its extent. As conductor at Weimar his motto was to help living composers first, and by his energy he did valiant work in helping Wagner’s cause. Largely endowed with wit, a fund of irony and charm of manner, men and women alike almost literally fell at his feet, and it is all the more admirable that in spite of the homage so unsparingly lavished upon him, he did not swerve from his artistic purposes. The strain of mysticism so marked in his youth, became later so pronounced that he felt compelled to give it expression by entering the church.

=Liszt as a Pianist=.—Liszt was the most phenomenal pianist in the history of music. Other pianists have surpassed him in single qualities, but no one has united in so stupendous fashion as much as he. Beginning with a strictly classical education, Liszt evolved a new technic which completely summed up the difficulties of piano playing. In velocity, wide stretches, double-notes, octaves, and a whole system in itself of interlocking passages, he all but attained the impossible. He carried independence of fingers, especially in fugue playing, to a pitch hitherto unequalled. His performance of brilliant music represented the last word in bravura; in the classics his interpretation was, as Wagner says: “not reproduction, but production,” so vivid and glowing was it. His so-called “orchestral style” in its bold color and rich pedal effects was as distinct from the piano playing before him as the modern orchestra was from that of Mozart and Haydn. As he assimilated everything in the field of piano playing before him, so has everything since him been forced to take his method into account.

=Liszt’s Compositions=.—Among Liszt’s chief compositions are the “Faust” and “Dante” symphonies, with choral epilogues; twelve symphonic poems, a form which he invented, and which is epoch-making in the development of music; many shorter orchestral works; two concertos, the Hungarian fantasy, the “Dance of Death” for piano and orchestra, besides several compositions for the same combination on themes of other composers; the oratorios “St. Elizabeth” and “Christus,” a Solemn Mass, the Hungarian Coronation Mass, several other masses, twelve sacred hymns for chorus, five psalms, and many other pieces of church music, choruses for men’s voices, several compositions for solos, chorus and orchestra for various festival occasions; fifty-five songs for voice with piano accompaniment; three collections containing twenty-five pieces for piano, entitled “Years of Pilgrimage,” a collection of the piano pieces named “Poetic and Religious Harmonies,” twelve “Etudes of Transcendent Technic,” three concert studies, a sonata, two ballades, two “Legends,” a concert solo, afterwards arranged as a “Pathetic” concerto, a Valse Impromptu, two polonaises, six Consolations, a Spanish Rhapsody, and nineteen Hungarian Rhapsodies are the best known of the piano music. There are five ballades for declamation with piano accompaniment. For organ, there is a fantasy and fugue on a choral from Meyerbeer’s “Prophet,” a fugue on B. A. C. H., and variations on a theme from a Bach cantata.

=Liszt’s Arrangements=.—Of almost equal importance with Liszt’s original compositions are his matchless transcriptions. Instead of a trivial and literal process of transcribing, he penetrated the intimate spirit of the piece, and translated it into his own piano idiom, often adding considerably but always with supreme artistic effect. What is lost in fidelity of transfer is more than gained in added charm, new harmonic significance and a subtle enhancing of individuality. Liszt started the evolution of his epoch-making technic while experimenting with his arrangement of Paganini’s caprices, and of Berlioz’ “Fantastic Symphony.” He made easy arrangements from operas of Rossini, Mercadante and Donizetti. Then he turned to setting Schubert’s matchless songs for the piano, arranging in all fifty-seven; he continued by making piano scores of Beethoven’s symphonies, of Rossini’s overture to “William Tell,” and to Weber’s overtures “Jubilee,” “Freischütz” and “Oberon.” He also made many transcriptions from Wagner’s operas, including “The Flying Dutchman,” “Tannhäuser,” “Lohengrin,” “Die Meistersinger,” “Tristan and Isolde” and “Parsifal,” besides a fantasy on themes from “Rienzi,” and an arrangement of the “Walhalla” motive from “The Ring of the Nibelungs.” Liszt’s arrangements of six preludes and fugues as well as the fantasy and fugue in G minor by Bach are not only remarkable for the extent to which they reproduce organ-effect, but as pioneers in the transfer of organ pieces to the piano, in which Liszt has been followed by Tausig, d’Albert and Busoni. In addition he transcribed fourteen songs by Schumann, thirteen by Franz, eight by Mendelssohn, seven by Beethoven, six by Chopin and two by Weber, besides an arrangement from Mendelssohn’s music to “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” and “piano scores” of the septets by Beethoven and Hummel. Liszt arranged Weber’s “Polacca Brillante,” Op. 72, and Schubert’s Fantasy, Op. 15, for piano and orchestra. There are also many transcriptions of pieces by Palestrina, Di Lasso, Arcadelt, Mozart, Glinka, Dargomischky, Saint-Saëns, Verdi, Raff, Gounod, Rubinstein, Tchaikovsky, César Cui and others. Liszt scored the accompaniment of several Schubert songs for orchestra, he also orchestrated several of the Schubert four-hand marches. He also arranged many of his own songs, orchestral and choral works for piano and for organ. His transcriptions as a whole are monumental not only on account of their artistic merit, but because they served an educational purpose in spreading the works of little known composers. In this way Liszt cultivated the public taste for Schubert’s songs, and brought Wagner within the reach of the average concert-goer.

=Liszt as Writer=.—As a critic, Liszt must stand as a pioneer although in a different direction from Schumann. Liszt’s early essay on the position of the artist is extremely significant; his criticisms during the Weimar period, especially his analyses of Wagner’s operas were of great value; his “Life of Chopin,” while untrustworthy in detail and somewhat overdrawn, is nevertheless graphic; “The Gipsies and Their Music” is picturesque if not entirely accurate. Liszt’s letters contain glimpses of his high qualities as well as vital presentations of his musical views. The correspondence between Wagner and Liszt gives conclusive evidence of the latter’s unselfishness in Wagner’s behalf.

=Liszt’s Position and Influence as a Composer=.—Liszt’s rank as a composer was undoubtedly overshadowed by his fame as a pianist and teacher, and by his facility as an arranger. For many years neither critics nor public would acknowledge his creative gifts. Whatever our opinion of the symphonies, the symphonic poems and the concertos, there is no doubt that Liszt rendered an inestimable service to the development of music in breaking away from the sonata form, and in demonstrating that form and substance can go hand-in-hand without detriment to organic unity and coherence. His forms are novel, his orchestration highly effective in spite of the achievements of Berlioz and Wagner in this direction. Liszt’s church music and his oratorios are worthy efforts towards a reform of ecclesiastic music. His songs are truly spontaneous lyrics, which are not appreciated at their true value. In spite of Liszt’s unquestioned attainments as a composer, there is a suggestion of skilful assimilation in his individuality rather than of unique and unquestioned personality. Nevertheless his influence has been vast. In his old age he encouraged Borodin and Glazounoff, he conducted works by Rimsky-Korsakoff, he made his pupils play Balakireff’s “Islamey.” In turn, the “new-Russian” school owes much to him. Tchaikovsky could hardly have written his symphonic poems without Liszt’s pioneer work to show the way. Saint-Saëns admits a similar influence. In fact, the entire development of the symphonic poem is directly due to Liszt; it is so considerable in extent that the details cannot be examined here, but while both Wagner and Berlioz contributed much to the growth of orchestral style and individuality of expression, the originality of the symphonic poem form belongs entirely to Liszt. Thus Liszt’s share in the evolution of ultra-modern orchestral music, as well as in the development of piano playing, is very important, and the greatest living composer, Richard Strauss, although also influenced by both Berlioz and Wagner, frankly avows himself to be a disciple of Liszt.

REFERENCES.

Grove’s and Riemann’s Dictionaries.—Article on Liszt.

Newman.—A Study of Liszt. (Century Library of Music.)

Ramann.—Franz Liszt as Artist and Man.

Saint-Saëns.—Franz Liszt. (Century Magazine, Feb., 1803.)

QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.

What was the nature and extent of Liszt’s early musical education?

What was the effect of his wide travels and meeting with notable persons on his character?

What set him to perfecting his technic?

Name the most important events in his career.

What educational work was the feature of his later years?

Sketch Liszt’s personality and character.

Give an account of Liszt’s contribution to piano technic.

In what styles and forms of composition did Liszt write?

What works did he transcribe for the piano?

What literary work did he do?

What composers did he influence?

What song composer was brought into greater prominence by Liszt?

Whose symphonies did he arrange for the piano?

What opera composer did he assist greatly?

What important form did Liszt originate?

What has been Liszt’s share in the development of the “modern school”?

The student who wishes to examine Liszt’s works for himself, should study the symphonies and symphonic poems in Liszt’s own arrangement for two pianos. They require, however, a technic beyond the average player. The same difficulty applies to his piano music, but the following may serve as guides to Liszt’s style: The “Lake of Wallenstadt,” and “Eclogue,” Nos. 2 and 7, in the Swiss “Years of Pilgrimage”; the “Gondoliera” and “Tarantelle” from “Venice and Naples,” the “Valse Impromptu,” “Ave Maria,” “Waldesrauschen” and “Gnomenreigen,” the pieces for Lebert and Stark’s Piano School, the Concert Studies in F minor and D-flat, the Love Dreams, the Consolations, Nos. 1, 2 and 4; the Legends, the “Benediction of God in the Solitude” and “Love Song” from “Poetic and Religious Harmonies,” and the Fantasie on “Rigoletto.” For the more advanced player may be suggested the Etudes, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12; the Mephisto Waltz, the Second Ballad, “Au Bord d’une Source” from the Swiss “Years of Pilgrimage,” the Second Polonaise, the “Funerailles” from “Poetic and Religious Harmonies,” the Sonata, the Hungarian Rhapsodies, Nos. 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, and the Spanish Rhapsody; the two concertos in E-flat and A, the Hungarian Fantasy, and the concert piece “The Dance of Death,” the Fantasy on “Don Juan.” Among the transcriptions, the Schubert songs, “Hark! Hark! the Lark,” “Du bist die Ruh,” “Frühlingsglaube,” “The Wanderer,” “By the Sea,” “Meeresstille,” “Barcarolle,” “Trockne Blumen,” “Wohin,” “Ungeduld,” “Erl-King”; the Mendelssohn song, “On Wings of Song”; the Schumann songs, “Dedication,” “To the Sunshine,” and “Spring Night”; the Weber “Slumber Song” may be suggested. Of the Wagner arrangements, “The Evening Star”, from Tannhäuser, the “Spinning Song,” from “The Flying Dutchman,” and “Isolde’s Love Death,” are the most characteristic. The Paganini Studies, Nos. 2, 3 and 5; the waltz from Gounod’s “Faust,” the Tarantelle after Auber, and the Overture to “Tannhäuser” are among the best. Of the songs, “Mignon’s Lied” and “Ueber allen Gipfeln,” “Comment disaient-ils,” “Angiolin dal biondo crin,” “Es muss ein wunderbares sein,” “Die drei Zigeuner,” and “Der du von dem Himmel bist” and “Die Lorelei” are the best.

LESSON XLVII.

PIANISTS AND TEACHERS SINCE LISZT. I.

=Introduction=.—The achievements of Liszt in developing piano technic, in enlarging the scope of piano playing through his masterly transcriptions, in variety and intensity of interpretation, have brought results that are enormous in extent and far-reaching in their developments to the generations that have succeeded him. When Liszt was in the height of his career as a virtuoso, few could master the difficulties which his epoch-making works presented. Gradually the secrets of his technic were revealed to the ambitious few; now they are almost common property. The great concert pianists of today possess a technic that would have been unique forty years ago. The repertory which all pianists worthy the name play from memory (a practice which Liszt initiated) is exceedingly extensive, while the endurance which they display and the facility with which they reproduce the masterpieces of piano literature is stupendous.

PUPILS OF LISZT.

Liszt was undoubtedly the greatest revealer of the secrets of piano playing in the 19th century, and his pupils and those who have assimilated his teachings occupy a large part of the pianistic activity of today. Among the first of Liszt’s pupils to become famous were Tausig and von Bülow. =Carl Tausig=, born in 1841, died in 1871, was trained by his father, and later studied with Liszt, under whose guidance he achieved a phenomenal accuracy of technic, and a commanding power of interpretation. His short life was spent mainly in concert tours. He established a school of music in Berlin for advanced piano playing. His untimely death cut short a brilliant career. His edition of Clementi’s _Gradus_ and a collection of finger exercises are invaluable to teachers and to students. =Hans von Bülow=, born in 1830, died 1894, was intended for the law, although he studied the piano as a boy under Friedrich Wieck. In 1850, he became so absorbed in Wagner’s music that he abandoned all idea of the law. He studied the piano with Liszt at Weimar, and soon acquired a remarkable technic. He was never a pianist of the virtuoso type; his strength lay in striving to reproduce the intention of the composer as faithfully as possible. His interpretations of Beethoven were especially famous, although he was progressive in his tastes. In 1876, he made a tour in the United States, where he did much to advance the cause of new music. As early as 1865 he conducted performances of Wagner’s operas, and later his association with orchestras at Meiningen and of the Berlin Philharmonic Society placed his reputation as a conductor in the front rank. He was extremely energetic in Wagner’s behalf and did much to bring his works to a public hearing. His editions of Cramer’s studies and Beethoven’s sonatas are of great value.

Among Liszt’s later pupils, one of the foremost is =Eugen D’Albert=, born in 1864. He received his early training in England, but in 1881, as a prize scholar, he studied with Liszt at Weimar. After brilliant concert tours through Europe, he came to America, in 1889, with Sarasate, where his ability was at once recognized. He has since largely renounced the career of virtuoso for that of composer, although he made a visit to the United States in 1905, giving a number of recitals.

=Moritz Rosenthal=, possibly the most fully equipped virtuoso technically now before the public, was born in 1862. At first a pupil of Mikuli, a disciple of Chopin, and later of Joseffy, he came ultimately to Liszt, with whom he studied for ten years. After numerous European tours he came to the United States in 1888, where he dazzled his audiences by his unusual command of technic. He reappeared in America in 1896-97, and has since made triumphal progress through Europe. As an interpreter he is less successful than as a virtuoso. He is court pianist of Roumania. He has published a collection of technical exercises with Ludwig Schytté.

=Bernhard Stavenhagen=, born in 1862, is another noted Liszt pupil. He acted as Liszt’s secretary during his later years, and at the same time received lessons. In 1890, he became court pianist at Weimar. In 1894-95, he visited America. Since then he has acted as conductor at Dresden and Munich.

=Emil Sauer=, another phenomenal pupil of Liszt, was born in 1862. At first a pupil of Nicholas Rubinstein, he studied with Liszt from 1884 until the latter’s death. He possesses an extraordinary technic, and is almost unrivalled for the extreme brilliancy of his effects. He has received many decorations from various courts of Europe. In 1897-98, he visited the United States, where he made a sensation. Since 1901, he has been at the head of the piano department in the Vienna Conservatory, giving his attention to pupils in the artist department.

Among other talented pupils of Liszt may be mentioned Alfred Reisenauer, Arthur Friedheim and Richard Burmeister, all of whom have been heard in this country. The foregoing account does not begin to enumerate all, merely the celebrated pupils of Liszt. Others will be referred to in the course of this and the next lesson.

=Belgian Pianists=.—In piano playing, the Brussels Conservatory is far below the level of the Paris Conservatory, although the director =Gevaërt= has a world-wide reputation for his text-book on orchestration, and the symphony concerts at the conservatory, led by him, have a high place in orchestral standards. Nevertheless, in the piano department two names deserve mention: Brassin and Dupont. =Louis Brassin= (1840-1884) studied at the Leipzig Conservatory under Moscheles, where he remained five years, winning numerous prizes. In 1866, he became first piano teacher at the Stern Conservatory in Berlin. Later he joined the Brussels Conservatory, as professor of piano playing, where he taught from 1869-1878. In 1879, he accepted a position at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, where he remained until his death, in 1884. Brassin was not only known as a fine pianist and teacher, but also by his transcriptions from “The Ring of the Nibelung.” He also composed piano pieces and even two operettas. =Auguste Dupont= (1828-1890) studied at the Liége Conservatory. After several years of wandering life, he became professor of piano at the Brussels Conservatory, a position which he held until his death, in 1890. He is known also as a composer of graceful piano pieces, a concerto and a concert-piece, in all of which the influence of Schumann is seen.

=Johannes Brahms= (1833-1897), famed both as composer and pianist, was the son of an orchestral musician in Hamburg, whose circumstances were of the humblest. As a child he developed remarkable ability as a pianist, but his first lessons in composition awakened an enthusiasm that absorbed his entire being. He was comparatively unknown when at the age of twenty Schumann brought him into public notice by hailing him as the successor of Beethoven.

Unlike most composers, Brahms was mature from the very beginning. His early works bear no trace of the uncertainty and imitation generally associated with youth, and it was this remarkable maturity that interested Schumann and gave point to his predictions for the future of the young musician. Unaffected by the pomp and glow of the ultra-romantic tendency initiated by Berlioz and culminating at present in the works of Richard Strauss, he remained true to the great classical school which rests on Bach and Palestrina. Unlike the modern impressionistic school, his art is based on essentially musical ideas and their contrapuntal treatment; it is architectural rather than pictorial. In such a scheme, color is subordinate to thematic interest, hence his instrumentation often appears heavy and austere to those who look for the brilliancy and tone painting of Liszt or Wagner. His music in general is founded on Bach and Beethoven.

[Illustration: JOHANNES BRAHMS.]

His works for the piano are large and orchestral in style, and demand a technic of their own, which was at first considered unsuited to the nature of the instrument. Von Bülow remarks that while in Bach we hear the organ, in Beethoven the orchestra, in Brahms we hear both organ and orchestra. Notwithstanding their dignity and nobility of conception, they won their way but slowly to favor. Their newness of style and difficulty of execution estranged both public and musicians. Though Brahms’ four symphonies have become reasonably familiar, his piano works have not even yet achieved widespread popularity. They comprise two concertos, three sonatas, many variations, and a host of smaller pieces—ballades, scherzos, intermezzos, capriccios, etc. Brahms never wrote for the stage but was active in all other departments of music. His greatest choral work is the “German Requiem,” composed in memory of his mother, to texts selected by himself from the Scriptures and sung in German, instead of in Latin, hence its name. He drew no little inspiration from the Folk-song, which he uses not only in the form of harmonies and rhythms distinctly based on Folk melodies, but in literal quotations serving as themes in several of his instrumental compositions. This contact with the people through their songs gives

## particular freshness and vigor to much of Brahms’ music, as well as a

sturdy Teutonic character that stamps it as distinctively national in spirit.

It is perhaps too soon to deliver an authoritative judgment as to the ultimate rank that Brahms will take among the great composers of the past. There is no doubt, however, that he is one of the commanding figures of the last century and that he has enriched the world with a mass of noble music, all of which deserves to be known for its elevation and consummate mastery of detail.

RUSSIAN PIANISTS.

Of a somewhat independent development from Liszt, although much influenced by his personality and his method, was =Anton Rubinstein=, born in 1829, died in 1894. He studied the piano at Moscow with Villoing, who gave him so thorough a training that he had no other teacher. From 1840, after concerts in Paris, he had universal recognition as a pianist. Further European tours increased his fame. He lived successively in Berlin and Vienna, and later returned to St. Petersburg. In 1872-73, he made a remarkable tour through America, arousing an enthusiasm only equalled in later years by Paderewski. Although he passed most of his life in constant activity as a composer, he directed the Russian Symphony Concerts in St. Petersburg. As early as 1862 he founded the St. Petersburg Conservatory, which has had a prominent place in Russian music. He was a complete master of the piano, his technic was gigantic, although his vitality of interpretation was so intense that details paled before it. His historical recitals covering the entire literature of the piano were his most conspicuous achievements as a pianist. He may be regarded as second only to Liszt, and in some respects he even surpassed him. He was disappointed at not being accorded high rank as a composer, as well as a pianist.

His brother, =Nicholas Rubinstein=, born in 1835, died in 1881, although not so distinguished a pianist, and a composer of slight account, exerted almost as strong an influence on Russian music. A pupil of Kullak, he founded the Russian Musical Society at Moscow, in 1859, and in 1864 the Moscow Conservatory, which has been exceedingly

## active in Russian musical affairs. He directed the Moscow Conservatory

until his death; he was an intimate adviser of Tchaikovsky, while his worth as a teacher may be guessed from the prominence of his pupils, Karl Klindworth, Emil Sauer and Alexander Siloti, possibly the foremost Russian pianist today.

=Mili Balakireff=, born in 1836, has been a considerable force in Russian music, besides being a capable pianist. After studying physics and mathematics at the University of Kazan, he turned to music. In 1862, he founded a Free School of Music in St. Petersburg. Among his associates were César Cui, Nicholas Rimsky-Korsakoff, Alexander Borodine and others. He has done much to aid the Neo-Russian school of composition. His piano music is effective and highly colored, especially his fantasy on Georgian themes, “Islamey.”

=Alexander Siloti=, undoubtedly the most widely-known of Russian pianists, born at Charcow, 1863, was a pupil in piano playing of Nicholas Rubinstein, at the Moscow Conservatory. From 1883-1886, he studied with Liszt. His technic is enormous; while not intensely magnetic, his intellectual grasp of music is remarkable. He made an American tour in 1898, when he introduced much Russian piano music that was new. Although Siloti has taught at the Moscow Conservatory, he has lived of late years at Leipzig and Paris.

Among other Russian pianists are =Vassili Sapellnikoff=, born 1868, a pupil of Kessler, Louis Brassin, Sophie Menter; =Vassili Safonoff=, a pupil of Leschetizky and Zaremba in St. Petersburg, since 1887 director of the Moscow Conservatory, and more lately a conductor; =Sergei Rachmaninoff=, born 1873, a pupil of Siloti, not only a brilliant pianist but also a composer of originality; =Alexander Scriabine=, born 1872, a pupil of Safonoff, who has made successful European tours, and like Rachmaninoff, has composed much for his instrument.

Two German pianists, Henselt and Klindworth, were so associated with Russian music as to warrant their mention here. =Adolph Henselt=, born 1814, died 1889, at one time a pupil of Hummel, was for the most part self-taught. He passed most of his life in St. Petersburg, giving lessons and playing frequently in public. He also had an official position as music inspector. As a pianist, Henselt was exceedingly eminent, and may be ranked next to Rubinstein and von Bülow, although in later years nervousness prevented his playing in public. His etudes are distinct additions to the technical resources of the piano, his arrangements of Cramer etudes with second piano accompaniment are praiseworthy.

=Karl Klindworth=, born 1830, was a pupil of Nicholas Rubinstein and later, of Liszt. After living in London, he became professor of piano playing at the Moscow Conservatory, from 1868-1884. Later he settled in Berlin, became conductor of the Philharmonic Society, and opened a conservatory with von Bülow, which was merged with that of Scharwenka in 1893. Klindworth’s edition of Chopin is in some respects the best. He has also edited Beethoven’s sonatas, and he prepared the piano score of the entire “Ring of the Nibelung.”

FRENCH PIANISTS.

In presenting the famous French pianists, =Charles Henri Valentine Alkan=, born 1813, died 1888, must not be forgotten. A brilliant pianist, he claims our attention chiefly on account of his etudes, introducing novel and extremely difficult problems of technic. Musically his studies cannot be compared with those of Chopin or Liszt, but they merit attention, particularly in the modern editions.

Although =Camille Saint-Saëns= is known chiefly as a composer, he was, during his early years, a remarkable pianist. His contributions to piano literature, five concertos, etudes and smaller pieces, are all valuable.

A group of Paris Conservatory professors constitute the most distinguishing teaching talent in France today. Further than that, Paris is one of the great centres of piano playing in Europe. Its teachers follow their own traditions, yet have assimilated from Liszt.

The oldest of these is =Georges Mathias= (b. 1826), pupil of Chopin, Kalkbrenner and the Paris Conservatory, who has been professor of piano playing since 1862. =E. Delaborde=, a pupil of Alkan, Moscheles and Liszt, has taught at the Paris Conservatory since 1873. One of the most successful teachers now living is =Louis Dièmer=, born 1843, a pupil of Marmontel. Winning the first piano prize at the age of thirteen, he succeeded his former teacher in 1888. Dièmer has turned out many first prizes; he has an impeccable technic; he has done much to foster interest in the harpsichord, the oboe d’amore and other obsolete instruments. He has published valuable collections of old French harpsichord music, besides original works. A Conservatory teacher well-known in America is =Raoul Pugno=, born 1852. A pupil of the Paris Conservatory, he obtained first prizes in piano playing, organ and harmony. He came to America in 1897-98 with Ysaye and others, and again in 1902. He has taught at the Paris Conservatory since 1897. He has a superb technic, and is versatile as an interpreter. He has also composed much. A teacher of unusual insight into technic is =Isidor Philipp=, born 1863, a pupil of Mathias, Saint-Saëns and others. He possesses a flawlessly accurate technic, and has appeared frequently in public, although he devotes the greater part of his energy to teaching. He has published many valuable sets of exercises, collections of difficult passages, some transcriptions and original pieces. He has been professor at the Conservatory since 1904.

=Louis Breitner=, a pupil of the Milan Conservatory, Anton Rubinstein and Liszt, has lived for many years at Paris as pianist and teacher. He also has visited America. Among the younger French pianists are =Leon Delafosse=, =Edouard Risler=, an eclectic pianist, a pupil of Dièmer, D’Albert and Stavenhagen.

REFERENCES FOR LESSONS XLVII AND XLVIII.

Fay.—Music Study in Germany.

Walker.—My Musical Memories.

Lahee.—Pianists of the Past and Present.

Grove’s Dictionary.—Article on Pianoforte Players.

Finck.—Paderewski and His Art.

Leschetizky.—Autobiography.

Mason.—Memories of a Musical Life.

Lenz.—The Great Virtuosos of our Time.

QUESTIONS.

Who were the earliest of Liszt’s pupils?

Name some later pupils of Liszt.

Who are the leading exponents of the Belgian school?

Whose principles did Brahms follow?

What are the characteristics of his works?

What was Anton Rubinstein’s chief characteristic as a pianist?

Whom did Nicholas Rubinstein assist greatly?

By what piano piece is Balakireff best known?

What Russian pianist has visited America?

Name two young Russian composer pianists.

Give some account of Henselt.

Who made the piano score of Wagner’s “Ring of the Nibelung”?

Name some successful teachers of the piano at the Paris Conservatory. Which one has twice visited America? Which has published many valuable sets of exercises?

LESSON XLVIII.

PIANISTS AND TEACHERS SINCE LISZT. II.

One of the greatest living teachers in authority and breadth of influence is =Theodor Leschetizky=, born in 1831. A pupil of Czerny, he began to teach at the age of fifteen, having played in public since 1842. He became a teacher in the St. Petersburg Conservatory, where he taught for many years. Soon after 1880 he settled in Vienna, where he has lived ever since. Since the success of his pupil Paderewski, Leschetizky has been the most sought-after teacher in the world. He has been obliged to have assistants to prepare pupils for him. Students have come to Vienna from all parts of the world. A brilliant pianist, he has written piano music and even an opera, but his merit as a teacher is due to the foundation given him by Czerny, who acquired his traditions from Beethoven, to the keenness of his ability to prescribe for the individual needs of the pupil and the simplicity and directness of his “method.” His pupils have met with great success, although he has not yet produced a second Paderewski.

=Ignaz Paderewski=, probably the greatest pianist since Liszt, although like him excelled in some respects by others, was born in 1859. A pupil of the Warsaw Conservatory, he also studied at Berlin. He taught piano at the Warsaw Conservatory from 1878-83, and also at Strassburg. Later he went to Leschetizky for a thorough course of study. After his début at Vienna, in 1887, he conquered by degrees Paris and London. His first visit to America was in 1891, when he carried all before him. Since then he has visited the United States three times, he has traveled over all Europe, and has visited Australia with overwhelming success, financial and artistic. His most noticeable qualities are a magnetic personality, a virtuoso technic, the color and piquant rhythm of his playing, and the poetry and deep human intensity of his interpretations. He has written several sets of pieces for the piano, a concerto, and a fantasy with orchestra, and an opera. His generous gift of the endowment of triennial prizes to American composers is an admirable instance of his warm-heartedness.

=Josef Slavinski=, born 1865, who studied with Stroeble, Anton Rubinstein and finally Leschetizky, is a pianist of great ability who came to the United States in 1873, and again in 1901. Other Leschetizky pupils are =Ossip Gabrilowitsch=, born 1878, also a pupil of Anton Rubinstein and the St. Petersburg Conservatory, who came to America in 1900 and 1902; =Mark Hambourg=, born in 1879, who first studied with his father, and after a tour of the United States in 1900, has had brilliant successes in Europe and England; =Martinus Sieveking=, born 1867, a pupil of Röntgen at Leipzig, who visited America in 1895 and again in 1896-97 and afterwards went to Vienna. There are many other brilliant pupils of Leschetizky, but the foregoing are some of the best known.

Paderewski has not taught, as a rule, since his great triumphs as a virtuoso, but he has made exceptions. =Sigismond Stojowski=, born 1870, was a pupil of the Paris Conservatory, where he won first prizes in piano playing and composition. Later he studied with Paderewski, and lived as pianist, teacher and composer in Paris. In 1905, he accepted the position of head of the piano department at the Institute of Musical Art, New York City. =Antoinette Szumowska-Adamowska= was born in 1868. She studied at Warsaw, and later, for several years, with Paderewski. She has made successful appearances in Europe and America. Later she accepted a position at the New England Conservatory, in Boston, U. S. A.

Another pianist of great ability who has profited by Paderewski’s suggestions is =Harold Bauer=, born in 1873. A student of the violin, as well as of the piano, he did not consider making a career as a piano virtuoso until encouraged by Paderewski. In 1892, he studied with Paderewski, although he is largely self-taught, for his individuality and musical style show slight effects of Paderewski’s influence. Bauer’s technic is superb, although he is not a virtuoso pure and simple. His interpretations are healthy and vigorous, and especially faithful to the composers’ intentions. His repertory is enormous. He has made several extremely successful tours to the United States. He has traveled also widely in Europe as well as to South America. Bauer is one of the most eminent of living artists.

Among Norwegians, =Edvard Grieg=, born 1843, is a remarkable interpreter of his own individual works. =Christian Sinding= and =Wilhelm Stenhammar= also deserve mention.

The Italians have not produced many remarkable pianists, nevertheless, several are well known. Chief among them is =Giovanni Sgambati=, born 1843, a pupil of Liszt. Sgambati has composed charming music for the piano, as well as chamber-music, a concerto and symphony. He is director of the Academy of St. Cecilia, at Rome. =Giuseppe Buonamici=, born 1846, a pupil of the Munich Conservatory and of von Bülow, has done much to promote music in Florence. He has been connected with several musical societies in that city, and has been active as a teacher. His editions of Beethoven’s sonatas, of Bertini’s etudes, and a treatise on scale playing are of great value to the student. The most prominent Italian pianist, who has lived a cosmopolitan life, is =Feruccio Busoni=, born in 1866. Early in life he became a member, as a pianist, of the Bologna Philharmonic Academy, after a severe test. In 1888, he accepted a position at the Helsingfors Conservatory. In 1890, he won the Rubinstein prize as composer and pianist. Subsequently he taught the piano in the Moscow Conservatory, and later he was connected with the New England Conservatory at Boston. Since then he has lived in Europe as a pianist and conductor of ultra-modern music. Busoni has one of the most formidable technics of any pianist living. He has edited Bach’s “Well-Tempered Clavichord,” with many helpful technical suggestions, also the smaller preludes and inventions; he has made masterly transcriptions of Bach’s organ works for the piano, of a fantasy for organ by Liszt, the same composer’s “Mephisto Waltz,” etc. He re-visited America in 1904.

=Stephen Heller=, born 1814, died 1888, was much influenced by Chopin. He was a talented pianist, who will be remembered chiefly by his studies, and a few other pieces, which have decided educational value.

Among other living pianists who escape classification for one reason or another are =Moritz Moszkowski=, born 1854, a pupil of the Dresden, Kullak and Stern Conservatories; while a successful pianist and teacher, he is known chiefly for his fluent and graceful piano music, although he has composed works in larger forms. =Franz Rummel=, born 1853, died 1901, a pupil of Brassin and the Brussels Conservatory, toured Europe and visited America several times; he taught at the Stern Conservatory in Berlin; =Rafael Joseffy=, born 1853, went to the Leipzig Conservatory, he then studied with Carl Tausig and later with Liszt; of late years he has taught at the National Conservatory at New York. His concert appearances have invariably been successful, although he has devoted himself largely to teaching. A pianist of especial distinction is =Vladimir de Pachmann=, born in 1848, a pupil of the Vienna Conservatory; in spite of a brilliant début he retired for many years’ study; on reappearing he gave concerts over all Europe, and has made several visits to America; his chief triumphs have been as the inimitable interpreter of Chopin; =Leopold Godowsky=, born 1870, appeared as a prodigy at the age of nine; he studied at the _Hochschule_ in Berlin, made European tours, and studied with Saint-Saëns from 1887 to 1890; he taught at conservatories in Philadelphia and Chicago; in 1902, he returned to Europe, where he has given concerts constantly with phenomenal success. A composer of piano pieces, he has devised many extraordinary versions of Chopin’s studies.

Among English pianists, =Frederic Lamond=, a pupil of the Raff Conservatory, of von Bülow and Liszt, and =Leonard Borwick=, a pupil of Mme. Schumann, are the best known, although there are many pianists of rising reputation.

Two young pianists deserving of especial recognition are Ernst von Dohnanyi and Josef Hofmann. =Dohnanyi=, born 1877, is a pupil of Kessler and D’Albert. In 1898, he won a double success as pianist and composer with a piano concerto. In 1900, he made a brilliant tour in America. Since then he has devoted himself largely to composition. =Josef Hofmann= was a pupil of his father, and later, of Anton Rubinstein. He played the piano when six years old; in public at the age of nine. In the following year he gave fifty-two concerts in the United States. After retiring for study under Rubinstein, he reappeared a mature artist. He has since visited America several times. Hofmann has an unusual technic; his individuality is not striking, but he is an artist of conspicuous merit.

AMERICAN PIANISTS.

The rapid progress of music in America renders it impossible to do justice to piano playing in this country. However, the pioneer work of =William Mason=, a pupil of Moscheles, Dreyschock and Liszt, active as pianist and teacher, the author of “Touch and Technic” and other technical treatises; of B. J. Lang, a pupil of his father, F. C. Hill, Salter and Alfred Jaell, an active pianist, teacher, and conductor, of W. S. B. Mathews, Otto Dresel, Ernst Perabo, and others, was of great importance. Later =Carl Baermann=, a Liszt pupil, Carl Faelten, =William Sherwood=, also a Liszt pupil, Carl Stasny, Arthur Whiting, Edward MacDowell and many others have continued the work so ably begun. =Edward MacDowell= is easily the most noted American composer-pianist. His technical equipment, personality, and interpretative gifts justly entitle him to this distinction. A pupil of Mme. Carreño, Marmontel and Carl Heymann, he has had thorough training. His pianistic career has been limited by his efforts as a composer, and by his work as Professor of Music at Columbia, which position he resigned in 1904, as well as his activity as a teacher. His studies, concertos and smaller pieces show great individuality of technical style, besides being among the most valuable contributions to piano literature since Liszt. MacDowell has appeared with leading orchestras in this country; he has given many recitals, including a tour of the United States in 1904.

WOMEN PIANISTS.

Of the many distinguished women pianists since Liszt, the most eminent was =Mme. Clara Schumann=, a pupil of her father, Friedrich Wieck. She played in public from the age of thirteen, winning instant recognition. Her marriage to Schumann diminished her public activity, but after his death in 1856, she resumed her career. She taught at the Hoch Conservatory at Frankfort, besides playing in public in Europe and England. Among other famous women pianists were Madame Clauss-Szavardy, =Mme. Arabella Goddard Davidson=, and Mme. Sophie Menter. =Mme. Teresa Carreño=, a pupil of L. M. Gottschalk and G. Mathias, has had a remarkable career as concert-pianist. =Mme. Essipoff=, a pupil of Wielhorski and Leschetizky, taught for many years at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, after brilliant concert tours. Miss Fanny Davies, a pupil of Reinecke and Mme. Schumann, Mme. Roger-Miclos and Mlle. Clotilde Kleeberg, pupils of the Paris Conservatory, are all pianists of distinction. In this country Miss Adele aus der Ohe, a pupil of Kullak and Liszt, =Mme. Bloomfield-Zeisler=, a pupil of von Wolfssohn and Leschetizky, and =Mme. Helen Hopekirk=, a pupil of the Leipzig Conservatory and of Leschetizky, now a teacher at the New England Conservatory, and =Mme. Szumowska-Adamowska=, before mentioned as a pupil of Paderewski, are all pianists of great ability.

In conclusion, it may be stated that while Liszt’s pupils have done much to carry on the traditions which he originated, much has also been accomplished for the advancement of pianistic art by Leschetizky and his pupils, a remarkable group of teachers at the Paris Conservatory, and by such independent pianists as de Pachmann, Busoni, Siloti, Godowsky, Bauer and Hofmann, while many able conservatories and private teachers in America are enabling the American pianist to compete favorably with Europe.

QUESTIONS.

Who is the best-known piano teacher of today?

Name some of his famous pupils. Which one instituted prizes for American composers?

Name some pianists who have profited by Paderewski’s advice. Which one has made successful tours of America?

Name the most famous Italian pianists. Which one has made masterly transcriptions of Bach and Liszt?

What pianist has made a specialty of Chopin?

What young pianist has made an especially brilliant impression in America?

Name the pioneer pianists of America.

Who is the most famous of American composer pianists?

Name some talented women pianists.

SUGGESTIONS FOR A REVIEW OF LESSONS XLI TO XLVIII.

This period is of great interest to the student, as the greater part of the piano literature in use today is the work of composers belonging to the Romantic and Post-Classical schools. It must not be forgotten that in studying the history of music the object is to learn to know the music of the best composers, not merely certain facts and dates in the lives of these composers. The works cited in the lessons give a wide latitude in the matter of choice and a clear idea of the contribution of the different composers.

LESSON XLI.—1. Take a composition by each of the composers mentioned and show its distinctive qualities. 2. Show the deeper, fuller, more poetic character of the compositions of Field as compared with Clementi.

LESSON XLII.—1. Give a sketch of Schubert the man. 2. Name the special qualities of Schubert’s music. Why does he belong to the Romantic school?

LESSON XLIII.—1. What is the nature of Weber’s contribution to music? 2. What are the special qualities of Mendelssohn’s works?

LESSON XLIV.—1. Compare Schumann’s work in the short pieces and in the large forms. In which was he the more successful? 2. Give an analysis of some of his short pieces.

LESSON XLV.—1. In what forms did Chopin do his best work? Mention some pieces as illustrations. 2. In what ways did he show national spirit? Mention pieces.

LESSON XLVI.—1. Give a sketch of the important factors in the making of Liszt the pianist. 2. What influence did he exert on music?

LESSON XLVII.—1. Compare Rubinstein and Liszt. 2. What influence did Brahms exert on music?

LESSON XLVIII.—1. Make a list of the various pianists and classify them as to nationality and school.

LESSON XLIX.

THE ART-SONG. ORATORIO AFTER MENDELSSOHN.

=Development of the Art-Song Idea=.—A most significant phase of musical

## activity is that centred around the art-song for solo voice. In the

period before the opera, choral singing was the principal medium for vocal music. With the Opera came a style of composition from which was developed the principle of the Aria, the latter dominating both Opera and Oratorio for many years, as the form for an art-song for a solo voice. In this form, as we have seen, the production of vocal effects, the making of attractive melody, and the opportunity for virtuosic display were sought first of all. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century, when Schubert’s peculiar genius asserted itself, that we meet what can be truly called the art-song, a form of composition without the artificiality of the operatic aria and with higher musicianly and artistic qualities than those that mark the people’s song. Several tendencies contributed to bring this about. Gluck’s theories and practice led both composers and people to pay closer attention to the text and to its delivery. The development of instrumental music, particularly the principles of thematic treatment, led composers to the inventing of new melodic and rhythmic figures that should serve as the basis of accompaniments of higher artistic quality than those founded on some variation of the Alberti bass figure. Piano technic had greatly improved, and so had the instrument. And it may also be said that the verse of this period was better suited for a dramatic musical setting than the formal, often stilted and artificial lyrics of earlier days, with their shepherds and shepherdesses and constant reference to pastoral and classical life.

=Italian, French and English Forms=.—A study of musical conditions in Italy, France, Germany and England shows a different style of the solo song in each country, each having some distinctive feature that maintains today, and one that may be said to characterize the song-idea of that people. The Italians were so taken with the opera and in the course of its development it so fully embodied the national love for sweet, graceful melody that a species of art-song apart from the opera had little or no chance to shape itself. The French _Chanson_ has never yielded place to the methods which distinguish the modern art-song. The French language has certain qualities which seem to call for a treatment that centres the attention in the voice part rather than on the song as a whole, according to the German idea. Yet French composers have produced and still make most beautiful and charming songs which unmistakably embody the national characteristics, clearness, polish and an effective singing melody. The old English Ballads are pieces of narrative verse; but the term has been used so freely and for almost every kind of verse that it is not possible to give it a precise definition. Thomas Morley, in a work on music, which he published in 1597, mentions “songs which, being sung to a dittie may likewise be danced”; in 1636, in a book called “The Principles of Musicke,” the author, Butler, refers to “the infinite multitude of Ballads set to sundry pleasant and delightful tunes by cunning and witty composers, with country dances fitted to them.” The principles of musical construction and the character of the text are such that we do not find in the English ballad the true germ of the art-song.

=The German “Lied”=, a poem intended for singing, as it came from the hands of the great poets, such as Goethe and Heine, seems to have afforded to composers the inspiration to the making of a style of song that should have the value of a musical setting in full consonance with the character of the text. As instrumental music developed, the _Volkslied_, the people’s song, the natural medium for expression, gradually disappeared. Yet composers made use of it as a medium, such masters as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Weber giving attention to it, although the demand for a simple, clear melody, due to the dominance of the Italian opera, and for an accompaniment that was always much subordinated, prevented the art-song (_Kunstlied_) from taking a high place. Since then the accompaniment has been given more and more prominence, less attention being paid to pure melody and more to the value of harmony and rhythm as the means for characteristic color and expression. Melody, which is made up of a succession of phrases, cannot furnish a sequence of sharp effects so readily as can well contrasted chords; hence the old idea of tune changed as harmony became better understood. The methods of song composers vary, and a classification is made by German writers: A song that has simple form and tune akin to that of the Folk-song is called “_Volksthümlich_”; one that has the same tune to the different stanzas is called strophic; one that is carefully worked out, the music illustrating every shade of meaning and emotion is called “_Durchcomponirt_”; a narrative song is called a “Ballad” or “Ballade.” The great masters in song composition are Schubert, Schumann, Franz and Brahms.

=Schubert as a Song Writer=.—A consideration of Schubert’s education and his general make-up shows clearly why he should seek outlet for self-expression in song rather than in the large instrumental forms. We find that he was not systematically educated in musical science, like Mozart, Beethoven or Weber, and that he was by nature very spontaneous and amenable to external influences. Such a composer is particularly open to the effect of a poem and will turn to the small song form rather than to the elaborate instrumental forms. Many of Schubert’s songs were written on the spur of the moment in response to an impulse from reading a chance bit of verse. The first reading of the poem usually gave the complete idea, both tune and accompaniment; whether it should have the simple folk-song character, a more declamatory style, strophic or the more elaborate form, depended upon the character of the text. It is fortunate for music that he was brought into contact with some of the finest lyrics in the field of poetry, such as called forth his highest powers in melody, harmony, rhythm, modulation, declamation and recitative, for he aimed to the very fullest extent possible to heighten the thought of the text by the emotional power of music. It is a phase of Schubert’s genius that some of his finest songs were written before he had reached his majority.

=Schumann and His Songs=.—Schumann brought to song writing a different type of mind from that of Schubert, more poetic, more gloomy, more emotional, a fine literary training, a faculty for expression in word as well as in tone, a fund of new forms of expression in instrumental music, particularly the piano, so that we find in his songs certain elements that indicate development toward a more highly organized structure. Schumann was highly intellectual, hence we find in his songs a close union of voice and instrumental parts in working out the fundamental conception of the poet’s meaning; and so deeply does he carry out this plan that the accompanist must enter most thoroughly into the singer’s part, and _vice versa_, that the full effect be brought out; as compared with the songs of Schubert and Mendelssohn we can say that the latter are the “verses set to tunes, while Schumann’s songs are poems in music.” The piano part of a Schumann song contains the atmosphere of the poem, is an attempt to heighten the meaning by suggesting thoughts and feelings which the words, spoken or sung, cannot express; sometimes it is an entirely independent composition, and carries out to a final close the thought left unfinished by the voice, thus avoiding the conventional ending, by the singer, on the tonic chord. Schumann’s effort was to express his own reading of the poet’s lines by the musical means that seemed to him best suited to the purpose. To this end he refused to allow himself to be bound by conventional treatment, either of voice or instrument.

=Robert Franz= (1815-1892) combined in his songs the romanticism and general methods of Schumann, with a polyphonic treatment inspired by his deep study of Bach. He wrote to various styles of verse, hymns, love-songs, lyrics of the field, the forest, the hunter, the soldier, and though his songs lack the tender, passionate, melodious quality of Schubert’s and the deep poetic feeling of Schumann’s, they are nevertheless models of perfect, even elaborate workmanship in which the composer follows with great faithfulness the mood of the poet; Schumann, on the contrary, seems to project his own interpretation of the poem into his music, while Schubert seems to grasp the emotion at its highest moment and the song pours out as the spontaneous expression of the singer.

=Three Modern Writers=.—Of modern writers, those who contributed most to the development of the art-song are Wagner, Brahms and Richard Strauss, the first-named by his style and treatment of the voice and the instrumental part rather than by his songs, which are few in number. =Brahms= wrote nearly two hundred songs, varying in character and quality, and using a highly-developed accompaniment, often intricate in its construction, complicated in rhythm and restless in harmonic support, employing all the resources which his mastery of chromatic harmony placed at his disposal. He frequently wrote in the style of the Folk-song, making use of its simple melodic quality, enriching it, however, by his great skill in elaboration in the accompaniment. Brahms’ songs are great favorites on concert programs. =Richard Strauss= (b. 1864) is the leading composer of today, and has used in his songs the principles that distinguish his large works. These songs are very difficult, both for voice and accompaniment, and are full of tonal coloring, for Strauss has adapted to the miniature form of the song the means of harmonic and rhythmic effects which he uses so powerfully in his orchestral scores. When well sung and well played, the hearer cannot but be absorbed by the wealth of musical effects of the highest emotional and picturesque quality displayed in Richard Strauss’ songs. In a full study of songs and song writers, many more names would be mentioned; those selected for consideration in this lesson represent those who have contributed most significantly to the development of the modern art-song.

=Oratorio Composers after Mendelssohn=.—The later history of the Oratorio requires some consideration at this point. After Mendelssohn, many of the leading composers of Europe turned their attention to this form of composition, influenced, in many instances, by the splendid opportunities for production offered by the strong choral organizations and festival associations of Germany and England, as well as by the great advances made in orchestral playing, which gave to composers resources far beyond those at the hand of Mendelssohn and his predecessors. We may mention, among the Germans, =Schumann=, whose “Paradise and the Peri” was produced in 1843; =Liszt=, who was much attracted to sacred subjects, wrote two oratorios, “The Legend of St. Elizabeth” and “Christus”; =Rubinstein=, who used his great skill in tone painting with orchestral masses in “Paradise Lost” and in his sacred opera “The Tower of Babel”; =Brahms=, whose “German Requiem” is a standard work to be done well only by thoroughly disciplined vocal and instrumental forces; and =Dvořák=, who has shown great power in his “Stabat Mater.” Among the French writers most prominent in this form of composition are =Berlioz=, whose “Requiem” is a colossal work in which he drew upon all the resources of the orchestra to heighten the powerful, dramatic character of the text; =Gounod=, who wrote his remarkable works, “The Redemption” and “Mors et Vita” for English production; =Saint-Saëns=, whose “Noël,” a Christmas work, is oratorio in style and construction, although small in dimensions; and =César Franck=, the most modern of all, whose “Beatitudes” has been made the subject of much discussion. English composers, following the lead of Handel and Mendelssohn, have given great attention to this form. =Bennett=, the friend of Mendelssohn, produced a beautiful work, “The Woman of Samaria”; =Costa=, an Italian by birth, spent a great part of his professional life in England; hence his oratorio, “Eli,” may be classed with English works; =Sullivan= wrote two oratorios, “The Prodigal Son” and “The Light of the World”; =Macfarren’s= “St. John the Baptist” and =Mackenzie’s= “Rose of Sharon” can be classed among oratorios. The most eminent in this form at the present day is =Elgar=, “The Dream of Gerontius” and “The Apostles.” Young Italy has lately shown interest in this form, the most noteworthy being the =Abbé Perosi=, who is under the patronage of the Pope. In the United States the leading representatives are =J. K. Paine=, of Harvard University, with the oratorio “St. Peter,” =Dudley Buck=, “Golden Legend,” and =H. W. Parker=, “Hora Novissima.”

=The Cantata=.—More popular even than the Oratorio with choral societies is the Cantata, both sacred and secular, and the great increase in strong choral organizations, particularly in England, Germany, France and the United States, has resulted in the production of a number of splendid works which show dramatic power and the highest skill in handling voices and instruments. These works contain opportunities for the use of the finest quality of melody, variety of rhythm, solid harmonic or the more fluent polyphonic style, richness of harmonic coloring and every accessory in the way of tone painting by the orchestra, which such masters as Berlioz and Wagner pointed out. The important works are too many to be mentioned here; only the composers’ names can be given. In Germany, Brahms, Bruch, Dvořák, Gade, Goetz, Hiller, Hofmann, Rheinberger; in France, Berlioz and Massenet; in England, Bennett, Corder, Cowen, Macfarren, Mackenzie, Smart, Sullivan, Coleridge-Taylor among the younger men; in the United States, Buck, Foote, Chadwick, Gilchrist, Paine, H. W. Parker, and Carl Busch.

REFERENCES.

Finck.—Songs and Song Writers.

Grove’s and Riemann’s Dictionaries.—Articles on composers mentioned, on Song, Lied, Volkslied, Chanson, Oratorio and Cantata.

Parry.—Evolution of the Art of Music,