Christoph Willibald Gluck.
Christoph Willibald Gluck.
Gluck and His Reform of the Opera.—This so-called concert opera reigned with almost undisputed sway until the influence ofChristoph Willibald Gluck(1714-1787) wrought a momentous change. Persuaded of the low estate to which the opera had been reduced, Gluck stood for a return to first principles; he advocated a ruthless sacrifice of the conventionalities which through the vanity of singers and the love of sensation on the part of the public had grown up around the opera and the placing of it upon its original foundation of the drama. He was a man of mature years when in 1762 he put his theories into practice by the production ofOrfeoin Vienna. He had composed many operas in the prevailing Italian style, but his judgment, formed by extensive study and travel, convinced him of the essential weakness of that school: its concentration upon the purely musical element. This he saw made of the opera a puppet-show for the display of vocal art which, great as it was from a technical point of view, was mechanical and meretricious incharacter. He was not alone in his condemnation; critics and thinkers such as Addison and Steele in England, Diderot in France, Marcello and Algarotti in Italy had employed the varied resources of wit, satire and reason to expose the follies and inconsistencies of the opera. From the nature of the case, however, they could work no change; most of them were literary men who could criticise but not create.
Gluck’s Travels and their Influence.—Gluck had traveled much. There was hardly an art-centre in Europe from Copenhagen to Naples which he had not visited for the purpose of bringing out his works. In England, he had heard Handel’s oratorios, which profoundly impressed him; in Paris, he had made acquaintance with Rameau’s operas. Both of these masters exercised a strong influence over his change of style; the former by his powerful handling of the chorus which had been practically banished from the Italian stage, the latter by his consistent adherence to dramatic truth of expression. He was in addition a zealous student of art and literature in all their phases; he brought to his problem not only the ear of the musician but the intellect of the scholar.
“Orfeo.”—InOrfeo, Gluck took the same stand which Peri had taken in his opera on the same myth a century and a half before: theillustration of the drama through musicwhich should give it a poignancy of expression denied to the spoken word. The later composer had the immense advantage of musical resources undreamed-of at the time of the Florentine opera, but both stand upon the same artistic platform. It was a daring task that Gluck had attempted. Orpheus, robbed by death of Euridice, seeks to regain her by forcing entrance to the place of departed spirits. On his descent to the nether world he is confronted by a band of demons who bar his way, but finally melted to tears by the pathos of his song, they allow him to pass. The composer must make this appeal adequate to the effect; anything less would result in an anti-climax totally disastrous to dramatic illusion. Gluck passed this test triumphantly. Even today this scene remains one of themost powerful known to the operatic stage.Orfeo, in its strength and simplicity, was so opposed to the taste of the day that its victory was by no means unquestioned, but it soon won universal recognition and with its successor,Alceste(1767), is the oldest opera heard at the present day.
Gluck in Paris.—Alcestewas followed byParide ed Elena(Paris and Helen), but the severity of the new style aroused such a storm of hostile criticism that the discouraged composer turned to Paris with hisIphigenie en Aulide(Iphigenia in Aulis) to a French text after Racine’s tragedy. Marie Antoinette, then the wife of the Dauphin, had been his pupil in Vienna, and through her influence the opera was produced, though not without arousing one of the most bitter wars in musical annals. Twelve years before, ItalianOpera Buffahad gained a footing in Paris. Its lightness, melodic grace, and witty dramatic situations captivated many who immediately attacked the prevailing type of French opera, of which Rameau was the head, as heavy and unmusical. This opinion was strenuously combated by others who upheld native art. Thus there were two strongly-opposed parties, one defending the Italian, the other the French school of opera. After Rameau’s death, the Italian party was in the ascendency, but on Gluck’s arrival with a French opera he was taken as the representative of the national school. Piccini, the most popular Italian composer of the day, was pitted against him, but it needed only the production of Gluck’sIphigenie en Tauride(Iphigenia in Tauris) to crush his rival’s claims. This was his last great work. He retired to Vienna, which was his home until his death.
Influence of Gluck.—The influence exerted by Gluck was far-reaching and permanent. The reform he initiated did not create a school—it did far more; itprofoundly affected all schools. With no immediate followers among the composers of his time he stood alone, as he stands today, one of the most commanding figures in musical history. HisOrfeomarks the beginning of a new era by rescuing a great andimportant form of art from a decadence which had robbed it of legitimate power and effect. The opera more than any other form of music is dependent upon popular favor for existence. It is therefore peculiarly susceptible to influences which tend to lower artistic standards. Gluck, however, made it impossible that it should ever again sink to the level of the mass of crudities and puerilities from which he lifted it.
Questions and Suggestions.
Give an account of the introduction of opera into Germany.
Why did German composers develop slowly?
Describe the early German opera forms.
Who was the chief agent in a change?
Give an account of Handel’s work in connection with German opera.
What had been the influence of singers?
What were the influences to cause Gluck to set about opera reform?
Give an account of “Orfeo.”
Why did Gluck go to Paris and what success did he have there?
What was the influence of Gluck upon the future of the opera?
It will be noted that the Thirty Years’ War in Germany interfered with the development of the Opera. Frederick the Great’s grandfather and father laid the foundations of the Prussian kingdom. In France, Gluck’s works carry us up to the period of social and political agitation preceding the French Revolution. In England, the House of Hanover is becoming more firmly established on the throne; in America, the period is that of the struggles between the French and English colonists.
The Opera after Gluck.—After Gluck the first great name is that ofWolfgang Amadeus Mozart(1756-1791). Haydn had indeed written a number of operas, but they were, in the main, light in character and exercised no influence whatever on the development of the form. At the age of twelve, Mozart had composed two operas, but the first to receive public performance wasMitridate, Re di Ponto(Mithridates, King of Pontus), which was produced at Milan two years later under his own direction. This was followed by others, but these early works do not call for any extended mention. Though they abound in melody and show a maturity remarkable in so young a composer, they were frankly written to please the taste of the time and do not in any essentials depart from the accepted Italian style then in favor, as fixed by Scarlatti and his contemporaries.
Gluck and Mozart Compared.—It was not untilIdomeneo, Re di Creta(Idomeneus, King of Crete) was brought out during the Carnival season of 1781, that he demonstrated fully the gifts which made him the first dramatic composer of his time. In this he shows a great advance over the conventional opera of the period and an approach to the ideals of Gluck, though neither inIdomeneonor in any of his later operas did he attempt to embody these ideals in the uncompromising form chosen by the older master. Though contemporaries, no two composers could well be more unlike in character, temperament and methods than Gluck and Mozart. The one, a man of years, ripened through travel and study, conditioned his music according to the requirements of the drama; the other, a youth of no great intellectual endowments aside from his art,but aflame with the fire of genius, felt the drama in terms of music. Thus they approached the task from opposite sides. Not that Gluck was without feeling or Mozart without intellect; it was simply a case of the dramatist and the musician solving the problem each in his own way. At the same time it was impossible that Gluck’s theories should be entirely without influence on Mozart. Even a genius must learn from his environment, and Gluck’s position, though sharply disputed by the Italian school to which Mozart belonged, could not be ignored by the younger man. Then, too, Mozart had been in Paris during the height of the Gluck-Piccini controversy, and it is known that he had made a close study ofAlceste, to which Gluck, in the form of a dedication to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, had given a preface containing a clear exposition of his principles of dramatic composition. It is hard to say, however, what direction Mozart’s dramatic course might have taken had his life not been cut so pitilessly short and if his outward circumstances had been less constrained. He was obliged to adapt himself to Italian influences which at that time were all powerful.
The Singspiel.—As already mentioned, the first attempts at German opera took the form of theSingspiel, but it gradually died out during the invasion of Italian opera in Germany. Its revival and development to a higher standard was due toJohann Adam Hiller(1728-1804), who received his first impulse through an English ballad opera of a farcical nature, “The Devil to Pay.” This was translated into German and given (1743) at Berlin with the original English melodies taken from popular ballads. Hiller set this translation to music and followed it with many others which soon acquired great vogue; one or two, for example,Der Dorfbarbier(The Village Barber), are still heard in Germany. Hiller, though one of the most learned musicians of the day, the founder of the celebrated Gewandhaus Concerts in Leipzig and editor of the first musical periodical ever published, adopted a simple, natural Folk-style in these operettas, as they were also called. Goethe was particularly interested in this revival of anational form of opera; it stimulated him to the writing of the ballads which in turn acted so powerfully in developing the German song under the hands of Loewe, Schubert, Schumann and others.
Mozart’s First German Opera.—Emperor Joseph II, wishing to establish theSingspielin Vienna, commissioned Mozart to write a German opera of a similar style. This resulted inDie Entführung aus dem Serail(The Elopement from the Seraglio), and the composer’s hopes of founding a national school of opera were high. Unfortunately, he was doomed to disappointment. ThoughDie Entführungwas received with enthusiasm, popular favor was averse to opera in any other tongue than Italian; the German theatre was open only a few years and with the exception ofDie Zauberflöte, his future operas were composed to Italian texts.
His Later Operas.—Le Nozze di Figaro(The Marriage of Figaro—1786),Don Giovanni(Don Juan—1788),Die Zauberflöte(The Magic Flute—1791) rank as Mozart’s greatest operas. Considered as music alone, the last reaches a height which gives an idea of what he might have done in nationalizing the opera if he had been spared a score of years longer; but its confused, irrational plot stands in the way of its popularization. The same objection holds good ofCosì fan Tutte(Women are All Alike—1790), which contains some of his most exquisite music.
Characteristics of Mozart’s Operas.—Mozart’sconceptionof the opera is that of themusician,notof thedramatist. This is plain from the indifferent texts he willingly accepted, yet so universal was his genius that he fused the two elements into a complete and consistent whole. Such a union of clearly-cut characterization and musical beauty is unknown in the opera. He made hischaracters eternal typesby means of music so apposite to their individuality that it seems in each case to spring from inward necessity, yet which as music has never been surpassed for intrinsic grace and charm. Italian melody in its best estate on a foundation of German depth and solidity is its distinguishing characteristic. This characterization is confined, however, to details and personages; of the development of the drama asa whole he apparently had but little idea. This, however, was not called for by the taste of the times; the opera was not considered from a dramatic standpoint, save by Gluck and the composers of the French school; the libretto furnished a series of situations suitable for musical illustration, not a consistent and logical dramatic action.
Their Significance to German Art.—Mozart marks the highest point reached by the opera of the 18th century; he alsomarks the passing of Italian supremacy in Germany. The Germans were already masters of the other great forms, the Oratorio and the Symphony; Gluck and Mozart captured the Opera also for Germany, though it was not for several decades after Mozart’s death that German opera rose from its discredited position at the close of the century.
Beethoven’s Fidelio.—A mighty impulse was given to the development of a national school by the production ofFidelio(1805), Beethoven’s only opera. His two great predecessors had been obliged for the most part to write their operas to French and Italian texts.Beethoven(1770-1827), however, showed his independence and sturdy national character by choosing a subject totally alien to the frivolous intrigues which at that time ruled the Viennese stage—a story of heroic, wifely devotion—and composed it to German words and in the German style; that is, with dialogue instead of recitative. Essentially symphonic in character,Fidelioshows the same disregard of vocal limitations which characterizes the Ninth Symphony and the Mass in D. Difficult for the singers, it was still more difficult for the public. In subject and treatment it was above their heads; they turned it the cold shoulder and it soon disappeared from the boards. An appreciation of its greatness was reserved for a later day.
Italian Composers in France and Germany.—The popularity of Italian opera outside of Italy led to the expatriation of many Italian composers who exercised a powerful influence in France and Germany. Among theseAntonio Salieri(1750-1825) deserves mention for hiscareer in Vienna, where he was the successful rival of Mozart in court favor and later the teacher of Beethoven. More important wasLuigi Cherubini(1760-1842), who found his way to Paris just before the Revolution. A master of the severe contrapuntal school, which was then passing away, Beethoven considered him the first composer of the day for the stage and studied his works zealously. Cherubini was present at the first performance ofFidelio, which shows strong traces of the influence exerted upon Beethoven byLes Deux Journées(The Two Days, known in Germany and England as The Water Carrier), Cherubini’s greatest opera. The two were on intimate terms during the stay of the latter in Vienna for the purpose of bringing out several of his operas. There was much in common between them; the Italian had the solidity, dignity and nobility of treatment generally associated with the German character. Beethoven’s choice of a subject for his opera was doubtless influenced byLes Deux Journées; the themes of both are much the same, involving devotion and self-sacrifice of the highest order.
Spontini and Rossini.—Another Italian composer who went first to France and afterward to Germany wasGasparo Spontini(1774-1851), who withLa Vestale(The Vestal) enlarged the sphere of the opera in Paris. Spectacular and pompous in character, sonorous and powerful in instrumentation, it pointed directly to the type of grand opera originated by Meyerbeer nearly a generation later. In 1820, he was summoned to Berlin, where he remained as court composer and conductor for twenty-two years, a period coincident with the most significant development of the German school of opera. Spontini was the last of the many Italians who had for a century and a half borne almost uninterrupted sway in Germany.
The most brilliant and gifted of all these wandering sons of Italy wasGioacchino Rossini(1792-1868). As rich in melody as Mozart, though of a less refined type, he owed more to nature than to study. His first successful opera,Tancredi(1813), set all Italy agog with the freshness and vivacity of its airs, and it was not long before hewas the most popular composer in Europe. Gifted with prodigious facility—in one period of eight years he wrote twenty operas—his operas ruled all stages and fixed the standard by which all others were judged.
Gioacchino Rossini.
Gioacchino Rossini.
Characteristics of Rossini’s Operas.—They are, on the whole, areversionto the conventionalized opera of Handel’s time in being written for the singer to exhibit his art and not to express the significance of the drama; this notwithstanding their undoubted charm, the many piquant and original touches in rhythm and harmony, the occasional suggestive instrumentation. An intenselyflorid styleis used not only in thebuffaschool where it can readily be justified,but in operas of a tragic nature where it is manifestly out of place. InSemiramide, for instance, a story of battle, murder and sudden death is told in the same rippling rhythms and highly ornamented melodies that illustrate the intrigues of hisBarbiere di Siviglia(Barber of Seville), where they are eminently appropriate.
His Change of Style.—This is true, however, only of his works composed for the Italian stage. HisGuillaume Tell(William Tell), produced in 1829, five years after his arrival in Paris, showed the influence of his new environment by an almost startling change of style. Elevated and dramatic in treatment, shorn of redundant ornament as befits the character of the subject—taken from Schiller’s play of the same name—it remains his greatest achievement; at least in serious opera. It was also his last work for the stage. It is not known by what strange caprice he practically closed his career as composer at the age of thirty-nine.
Questions and Suggestions.
Name the most prominent successor of Gluck in opera.
Compare the two.
Describe the Singspiel.
Name some of Mozart’s operas.
Mention their characteristics and influence.
Give an account of Beethoven’s work in Opera.
Tell about Salieri, Cherubini, Spontini, Rossini.
Give the characteristics of Rossini’s operas.
What change in his style is evident in “William Tell”?
We now approach the period preceding the American and the French Revolutions which so greatly affected the masses of Europe, an influence extended by the wars of Napoleon. Music shows traces of the powerful forces at work, losing the former artificiality and becoming more and more, in the hands of Beethoven, an expression of dramatic and personal feeling.
Oratorio in Italy after Carissimi.—After the beginning made by Carissimi, the next work of importance in Oratorio is that ofAlessandro Scarlatti, who established the Aria form as explained in the study of the Opera. The composers of the Italian school of the last part of the 17th and the early part of the 18th century used practically the same methods in Opera and Oratorio, the difference being mainly in the character of the text, and in the earnestness or religious feeling of the composer. Scarlatti is also signalized by his improvements in the Recitative, which resulted in several forms made use of by his successors,Recitativo Seccoand Accompanied Recitative. He wrote ten oratorios. Contemporaries whose work should be mentioned areAntonio Caldara(1678-1763) andLeonardo Leo(1694-1746), a pupil of Scarlatti, who wrote nearly a hundred works for the church, the chief one being the oratorio,Santa Elena al Calvarioand aMisererefor a double choir. He was strong in his writing for chorus, making splendid use of the fugal style. Another contemporary of the first rank wasAlessandro Stradella(1645-1681), whose oratorio,San Giovanni Battista(St. John the Baptist) is a most beautiful work. It contains a free treatment of the accompanying instruments, the arias are clear and well-designed, the chorus writing for five parts is effective as well as ingenious, and the work as a whole shows considerable power of dramatic expression, forming a sort of transition between Scarlatti and Handel. Stradella is said to have been a pupil of Carissimi.
Oratorio in Germany.—In Oratorio as in Opera, the style spread to other countries, there, in the case of the Oratorio, ultimately to find a more congenial home; for the Oratorio, in Italy after the time of Stradella, seemed to lose hold on composers and public. The latter did not grasp the fact that the Oratorio had within it one element, the chorus, to give to it a definite individuality. They submitted to the public’s preference for solo singing and made up their oratorios largely of conventional arias—thus inviting comparison with the Opera, and reserved their writing in choral form for their works for the Church service, such as psalms, magnificats, masses and motets. In Germany, the attitude of the people toward religious music, doubtless owing to the Reformation as well as to the serious nature of the people, was much more favorable than in Italy. This temperament is shown by the fact that when German composers cast about for themes for their oratorios they seemed to choose the story of the Passion. The oldest example of the German Oratorio is “The Resurrection of Christ,” written byHeinrich Schuetz(1585-1672), a pupil of Giovanni Gabrieli, which was produced at Dresden in 1623. The narrative portions were committed almost entirely to the chorus. We mention also a setting of the Passion, byJohann Sebastiani, published in 1672, which contains interspersed chorales, sung as arias by one voice with violin accompaniment, and byReinhard Keiser(1674-1739).
Use of the Chorale.—A step in advance was taken when German composers began to use the chorale of the German Protestant Church as the subject for contrapuntal elaboration, a tendency shown in the work of Sebastiani referred to in the preceding paragraph. The Chorale had absorbed into itself the spirit of the Volkslied, and its use supplied the medium for the public to enter fully into the spirit of the oratorio. Two composers who developed the “Passion Music” idea to its height,Karl Heinrich Graun(1701-1759) andJohann Sebastian Bach, made the Chorale an integral part of their works. The greatest work in oratorio form written by Graun was calledDer Tod Jesu(The Death of Jesus), which was first produced in the Cathedral at Berlin in 1755. This work consists of recitatives, airs and choruses, the fugal treatment of the latter being admirable in point of clearness of design and breadth of form. Graun used in this oratorio six chorales.Der Tod Jesu, owing to a bequest, is still given in Berlin.
Bach.—The greatest of all the settings of the Passion are those byJohann Sebastian Bach(1685-1750). The first work in this style by Bach was the one according to “St. John,” in 1723, first performed on Good Friday, 1724, at Leipzig. This work, fine as it is, must yield to the second setting, according to “St. Matthew,” first produced on Good Friday, 1729, afterward revised and given again in 1740. A few notes on the “Passion according to St. Matthew” will serve for both works. The characters introduced are Jesus, Judas, Peter, Pilate, the Apostles and the People. Certain reflections on the narrative are interpreted by a chorus. The text which furnishes the narrative is assigned to the principal tenor. Fifteen chorales of the Lutheran Church are introduced, and in the singing of these the general congregation was expected to join. The choruses contain powerful and dramatic vocal effects, and though not strictly fugal are intricate in their part-writing. A double chorus is used, each chorus having a separate orchestra and organ accompaniment. The performance of this work (St. Matthew Passion) was restricted to Leipzig in the 18th century, and was discontinued altogether in the 19th until Mendelssohn revived it in 1829. It is given very frequently at the present day during the Lenten season, in part or in full. The “Christmas Oratorio” (1734) is really a series of cantatas for each of the first days of the Christmas week, and contains no new ideas so far as form is concerned.
Stabat Mater.—In connection with the “Passion” reference should be made to the Latin hymn, “Stabat Mater,” which has been made the subject of treatment in oratorio form, byPalestrina,Giovanni Battista Pergolesi(1710-1736) for soprano andcontralto accompanied by strings and organ,Emanuele d’Astorga(1681-1736) for four voices with instrumental accompaniment, the more modern work, in large form, byGioacchino Rossini(1792-1868), most beautiful as music if partaking too much, as critics say, of the sensuous, and the magnificent setting ofAntonin Dvořák(1841-1904). This work has been placed, by musicians and the public, in the category of the world’s masterpieces of choral writing.
George Friedrich Handel(1685-1759).—We now come to Bach’s contemporary, the greatest name in the history of the Oratorio, to the composer who brought to his work a musical learning equal to that of Bach, German earnestness and mastery of contrapuntal science, tempered by knowledge of and experience in Italian vocal methods, producing simple, clear melody supported by rich, firm harmonies, a complete mastery of the orchestra of the day, a clear understanding of the value of the chorus in working out dramatic effects; and this combination was offered a congenial field for labor in England, one of the great Protestant countries of Europe, with a deep reverence for religion and for the narratives of the Bible and the truths and lessons they enforce. This latter point is strikingly present in the texts of Handel’s oratorios; the symbolic meaning of the narrative is clearly indicated and made the central thought of the work, producing a remarkable effect of Unity. As a writer has said: “Handel preaches through the voices of his chorus.” The orchestra for which Handel wrote was smaller than the full orchestra to which we are accustomed today. The proportion of string players to the whole number of players was smaller, but on the other side, more than two oboes and bassoons were used; flutes were most frequently used as solo instruments or to double the part of the oboes; the clarinet Handel never used, doubtless because of its imperfections, which were not remedied until later; the brass instruments used were trumpets with kettle drums for their natural bass, horns and the three trombones, alto, tenor and bass; other instruments of a soft-voiced quality, like the harp, viola da gamba, were occasionally used for obligato accompaniments. The organ wasalways used, the part being written according to the figured bass system, and the harpsichord was used by the conductor. The reader who is able to analyze one of Handel’s oratorio scores will be surprised to note the superb effects he makes with comparatively small resources. Compared with the polyphonic writing of his predecessors and his great contemporary, Bach, his fugues seem light and simple, but that very thing gives them their admirable clearness and purity; compared with later works, his diatonic progressions and harmonies based on common chords seem colorless, especially so in contrast with the kaleidoscopic chromatic figures and strongly dissonant harmonies of the newer school; yet in this point is the strength of Handel’s works with the public; simplicity is valued more highly than complexity, naturalness rather than the indications of science.
Handel wrote seventeen works that can be classed as oratorios. The first of these was “Esther,” in 1720, revised and brought out anew in 1732. In 1733 “Deborah,” perhaps best-known for a powerful double chorus, was offered to the public; “Athaliah” in the same year. In 1739 came “Saul” and “Israel in Egypt,” the former best-known today for its famous “Dead March,” the latter for the music descriptive of the plagues. In 1741, he wrote his greatest oratorio “The Messiah,” which was first performed publicly, April 13, 1742, in Dublin. In this we find a certain reflective character which recalls the Passion music of the German school. The only other oratorio which is still given in anything like entirety is “Judas Maccabæus” (1747); other works from which certain portions are still in use are “Samson” (1743), “Solomon” (1749), “Theodora” (1750), a work which Handel considered his best, and “Jephtha” (1752). Great as was Handel’s fame in England, the character of his works and the forms he used made little or no impression upon German and Italian composers.Johann Adolph Hasse(1699-1783),Niccolo Porpora(1686-1767),Antonio Sacchini(1734-1786),Giovanni Paisiello(1741-1816),Niccolo Jommelli(1714-1774) andPietro Guglielmi(1727-1804) wrote in the Italian style, and their works are, properly speaking, concert oratorios, scarcely distinguishable from the opera save by the text.
Franz Joseph Haydn.—The next name of importance is that of Haydn (1732-1809), who wrote “The Creation” and “The Seasons” toward the end of a long life, after his work as a composer had given him a command of musical resources excelled only by Beethoven, who did not equal him in skill in writing effectively and suitably for voices. It was in 1798 that “The Creation” was first given in Vienna. The score abounds in effective writing for the solo voices, in the florid style and in the conventional aria form, and in brilliant choruses which, however, cannot compare in dignity and breadth with those of Handel. The orchestral accompaniments are much more elaborate than those used by Handel, as can naturally be expected from a composer who had given his greatest efforts to the development of instrumental music. “The Seasons” was first performed in Vienna in 1801. It proved as successful as “The Creation.” Haydn’s simple, genial nature is apparent in this beautiful work, really too light to bear the name of oratorio, which has such close association with works of a deep, religious character.
Mozart and Beethoven.—As the orchestra developed under the masters of tone and dramatic effects, Mozart, Gluck and Beethoven, so the works in oratorio form took on a different texture. In the earlier periods, the accompaniments were subordinate, the interest was centred in the voices. But as composers realized the possibilities of the constantly-improving orchestra and the opportunities for effective combinations of voices and instruments, the tendency became more and more marked to elaborate the instrumental parts and to create an ensemble more complicated and gorgeous, based upon the orchestra and its tone-color scheme rather than on pure vocal effects.Mozart’s“Requiem” (1791), written just before the composer’s death, brings into use the most powerful dramatic resources of orchestra and voices to portray the spirit of the “mass for the dead.” In oratorio, as in opera,Beethovenwrote but one work, “The Mount of Olives” (1803). The style is florid and operatic, somewhat in the style of the Italian composers; the resources of the orchestra are drawn upon more extensively than marked the methods of Haydn. The chorus is freely used, the “Hallelujah” being the strongest movement. The choral movements in the Ninth Symphony suggest what Beethoven might have done had he set himself to writing an oratorio in greater submission to the capacity of the human voice.
Spohr.—From now on, oratorio composition is associated with the masters of instrumental music, the orchestra is drawn upon for its richest and most powerful resources to work out the emotional and dramatic qualities of the texts; it is now no longer a mere accompanying instrument; it is in the highest degree essential to the effects designed by the composer.Ludwig Spohr(1784-1859), a great violinist, wrote his first oratorio, “Das Jüngste Gericht” (The Last Judgment), when he was but twenty-eight years old. A later work produced in 1826, goes by the English name “The Last Judgment,” although that is not the literal translation of the German titleDie Letzten Dinge. In this work we find the romantic idea clearly in evidence. The composer’s style had been developed and individualized by his long experience as player and conductor; he was a master of the resources of instrumentation, conversant both as composer and conductor with the limitations of voices—he wrote a number of operas—so that he was prepared for the creation of a work which has a character of its own. A striking feature of this oratorio is the frequent use of chromatic progressions, which is indeed a characteristic of Spohr’s writing.
Mendelssohn.—The next great composer in Oratorio was a German; like him also his works had their greatest reception in England,Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy(1809-1847). His first work, “St. Paul,” was given at Düsseldorf in 1836. His greatest oratorio, one that ranks with Handel’s “Messiah” in public favor, is “Elijah,” which was written for the Birmingham, England, Festival. It was first produced in1846. As a diligent and enthusiastic student of Bach, it seems natural that Mendelssohn should have adopted the great master’s methods. In style “St. Paul” and “Elijah” show leanings toward Bach and the German oratorio rather than toward Handel. Mendelssohn, who produced Bach’s “Passion according to St. Matthew” in Berlin, in 1827, was thoroughly familiar with the plan of the German oratorio, a mingling of narrative, dramatic and meditative or reflective elements, and especially the Chorale to represent the Church, the chorus being, properly speaking, a part of thedramatis personæ, representing masses of people who share in the action, while the congregation represents the reflective element. He uses a fugal style quite freely in his choruses, but a strict fugue, in the style of Handel, is rare, as the composer’s feeling for emotional effects demands a freer style; the accompaniments are elaborate, partaking of the dramatic element and drawing upon the fullest resources of the orchestra. Mendelssohn had started the composition of another oratorio, “Christus,” on the lines of the “Passion” music of Bach, but died before the work was completed. His “Hymn of Praise” (1840), a large choral work that is occasionally sung, well represents Mendelssohn’s skill in combining vocal and orchestral effect. Riemann calls it a symphony-cantata, Parry says it “combines the qualities of a symphony and of an oratorio.”
Questions and Suggestions.
Give the names of the Italian composers who followed Carissimi in the Oratorio.
What contributed to make Germany a congenial field for Oratorio?
Who are the early composers of the “Passion” music?
Give an account of Bach’s work in Oratorio.
Give the names of the leading composers of the “Stabat Mater.”
Describe Handel’s orchestra.
Mention Handel’s most important works in Oratorio form.
Give an account of Haydn’s work in Oratorio.
What works did Mozart and Beethoven write in Oratorio form?
Describe Spohr’s work in Oratorio.
Where did Mendelssohn’s work become most popular? Give an account of his compositions in Oratorio form.
The class should, if the works are at hand, read through the text of Bach’s, Handel’s, Haydn’s, Spohr’s and Mendelssohn’s oratorios, all or as many as can be secured. Each pupil may be asked to write an account of one work.
Suggestions for a Review of Lessons XVII to XXIV.
The teacher or a pupil should study the subject of the Renaissance in a history of literature and also of art, and then present to the class an abstract of the study, to show the spirit of the movement and its influence on art, especially music.
Use the paragraph heads in each chapter with the important sentences in the paragraphs to make an outline of each lesson. This is a great help in fixing the lessons in the mind in preparing for examination.
Sum up Monteverde and his work, his relations to predecessors and successors.
Why did the centre shift from Florence to Venice?
Give a sketch of Scarlatti, his life and contributions to music.
If time will permit, some pupil should prepare a short account of such composers as Pergolesi, Porpora, Piccini and Paisiello.
Give a summary of the development of the art of Singing.
A pupil should consult Grove’s “Dictionary” and make a paper on the great singers of the olden times, their personality; also interesting anecdotes.
Compare the Italian Opera with the form developed by Lully and Rameau.
In what respects did the English Opera differ from the Italian and French form?
State the characteristics of the German Opera.
Handel’s work in Opera, especially in England, will make an interesting study for a short paper to be read before the class by some member of it.
Gluck’s career is full of interest and incident and his growth is clearly a matter of experience. A pupil can, to advantage, study his life in some biography or in Grove’s Dictionary and present an abstract to the class.
In what respects did Mozart’s and Beethoven’s operas show differences from the conventional Italian form?
A study of Rossini’s life and works is full of interest, on account of his strong personality and striking characteristics.
What is “Passion Music”? Why is it specially suited to the German Protestant Church?
Compare Handel’s, Haydn’s, Spohr’s and Mendelssohn’s work in Oratorio.
Excellent results will be obtained by having pupils prepare charts which are filled up from lesson to lesson. Take a large sheet of paper, divide it into columns, each column into quarter sections, each column representing a century, each section, twenty-five years. Add dates of birth and death of the great musicians, marking each name I, F, G, to show nationality (Italian, French, German, etc.). Another chart should show the various national schools, France, Germany, Italy, etc., by centuries and quarter centuries; another the development of such phases as opera, oratorio, singing, sonata, etc.
A very valuable chart is one showing contemporaries, in musical and general history, also parallel events, for example, the musicians who lived in a certain century, famous kings, statesmen, explorers, poets, scientists, discoveries (such as America, printing, etc.), famous battles, events in Biblical and American history, and other political events of the same century. Credit should be given in class standing for these charts.
While the violin, on account of the simplicity of its construction, arrived early at a stage of perfection, the complicated mechanism of the pianoforte required many generations and many scores of more or less successful experiments to attain anything like a corresponding plane. Indeed, such experiments are still constantly in progress; so that the pianoforte of the future may conceivably realize possibilities as far ahead of the present piano as that is ahead of its predecessors. The first attempts at piano manufacture, however, had little in common with our modern pianos, save the principle of the combination of the keyboard with strings; since in construction and resulting tone few points of similarity exist.
Clavier a Substitute for the Organ.—We are probably indebted to the extensive use of the organ for the earliest combinations of keys and strings. As the demand arose for a more conveniently-keyed instrument than the large church organs, for practice or private houses, small portable organs were invented; yet even these did not satisfy the want entirely, owing to thedifficulties in their wind supply, which required an assistant as blower. Thus the organ keyboard came to be applied, as early as the 11th century, to already existing stringed instruments which were adapted to the purpose.
Two Classes.—There were two classes of these, each made on the principle of the zither: namely, by stretching strings over a flat surface or box, generally across bridges, this box serving as a resonator, to reinforce the weak tone of the strings. One suchinstrument, in which the strings werestruck bylittle woodenhammers, was called the Dulcimer; another, in which the strings were sounded bypluckingwith the fingers or by a quill, was called the Psaltery; and from these two were developed the earliest instruments of the piano class, called by the general name of “Claviers,” fromClavis, a key. The dulcimer type resulted in theClavichord; the psaltery type in theHarpsichord, and, although many other names were given to varieties of these instruments, all may be placed in one of the two classes of which they are the chief representatives.
Cymbalum or Dulcimer.
Cymbalum or Dulcimer.
Psaltery.
Psaltery.
This instrumentalso came in squareand other forms;strings variedfrom 6 to 38.
Principle of the Clavichord.—The first of the Clavichord instruments had the name of Monochord, or one-stringed instrument—a name of great antiquity, first given by the Grecian Pythagoras to an instrument of one string used by him in determining the relations of tones. Similar experiments were made in the Middle Ages, in which thevarious tones resulting from the vibrations of parts of a string were studied by means of movable bridges; facility was gained by increasing the number of strings to four or five, tuned in unison. Next,keyswere applied to these in place of the bridges, which keysstruck the strings at variousdefinitepointsby means of upright pins ortangents, as they were called, producing varying pitches, according to the length of the part of the string allowed to sound, the remaining segment being silenced by a piece of cloth. Thus several tangents struck the same string at different points, producing different degrees of pitch. At first, when only the scales corresponding to the white keys were employed, four or five strings sufficed to sound the necessary tones, not over twenty-two in number. Later, however, when chromatic notes were adopted, the number of strings and keys was increased, so that, by the beginning of the 16th century, the keyboard had a range of three or four full octaves. From this time on, this instrument, now generally known as the Clavichord, won a popularity which extended to the beginning of the 19th century, when the Pianoforte gradually displaced it. A familiar instrument in England and Germany, it was especially cultivated by musicians of note in the latter country, even the renowned Bach preferring it to all other forms of its class.
The Clavichord.—In shape, the Clavichord was an oblong box, the strings of brass extending lengthwise. The fact that one string served for several keys made it impossible to sound certain intervals together; yet the device of giving a separate string to each key seems not to have come in till about the year 1725, and even then not to have been generally adopted. Without legs, the Clavichord was supported on a table when in use. Its tone was exceedingly weak and tremulous, audible only within the distance of a few feet; yet the fact that this tone could be given different degrees of intensity, and could be varied to some extent even while sounding, by a peculiar pressure on the keys (bebung), imbued its tone with a sympathetic quality which helps to account for the tenacity with which musicians clung to it, notwithstanding all its imperfections.