The Concert Orchestra.Meanwhile the concert orchestra was rapidly winning wider recognition, since Haydn and his contemporaries, Sammartini, Gossec, Grétry, had already excited marked attention. In 1770 the "Concerts des Amateurs" were founded by Gossec, followed shortly by his reorganization of the "Concerts spirituels." And but a few years later the Leipzig Gewandhaus, of which Hiller was the first conductor, was placed on a permanent basis, being largely due to his untiring efforts in behalf of orchestral concerts.
Although the permanent bulwark of modern instrumentation was reared by Haydn, important experiments were successfully developed by the Milanese, Sammartini, and the Bohemian, Stamitz, both of whom were born at the sameperiod with Gluck; further by the German, Cannabich, and the Belgian, Gossec, both born in the same decade as Haydn; finally, by the Frenchman, Grétry. Thus representatives of five nationalities were simultaneously engaged in carrying on the same work, their fields of activity being, moreover, widely dispersed. Sammartini, also noted as the teacher of Gluck, remained loyal to his own city; Gossec and Grétry were occupied in Paris; Stamitz and Cannabich, conductors rather than composers, were successively settled as directors of the Electoral band at Mannheim.[9]
It is a peculiar coincidence that Italy, which has never yet produced a great symphonic writer, should be able to point to Giovanni Sammartini as the earliest exponent of this form in the modern sense. For already in 1734 his first orchestral symphony was produced in Milan where he was conductor. At that date Haydn was but two years old. Of course Sammartini obtained no such results as did his great German successor, but he at least suggested the proper course by which clearer form and healthier orchestration might be secured, and his instrumentation abounds in new and interesting traits. In addition to having written a host of symphonies, of which twenty-four were published, his labors in other branches of composition were prodigious. Incidentally, his experience as a writer of string quartets taught him the value of the viola, in consequence of which, independent parts for that instrument as advocated by Scarlatti are likewise to be found in his orchestral scores.
The value of Gossec's persistent energy in both building up the standard of already existing orchestral organizations and in establishing a new one is twofold. For not only was the French public educated to encourage home talent to seek expression in independent orchestral language, but also by affording these same French aspirants frequent opportunity for hearing the masterpieces of foreign contemporaries was the French style of writing for the orchestra immensely strengthened and broadened. Considering the close affinity that bound Gossec's birthplace to France, he may well be regarded as a representative of the country which he had adopted as his own. As the founder of the first genuine symphonic orchestra in France, he himself set the example as a diligent composer of symphonies and string quartets, although, unfortunately, the former were at first not favorably received. Nevertheless, his perseverance eventually won the day, especially after he had been crowned with new laurels as an operatic composer; and at the time of the Gluck-Piccini controversy, some of his later symphonies finally obtained for him that recognition to which he had aspired. Lavoix aversthat Gossec was the first French writer to make use of the clarinet. Again, its introduction into the Opéra in 1772—just in time to be of service to Gluck—is apparently authenticated by Francoeur. Since, however, the clarinet was already embodied in Rameau's scoring, the present writer desires to call attention to these obvious discrepancies. At all events, we know that the resources of the clarinet were developed by both Gossec and Gluck, even though at that time only an incomplete scale in the keys of C and F could be obtained from the instrument. Gossec was not conspicuously original either in instrumental form or in orchestration, even though his Requiem, for example, does contain instances of interesting scoring. Neither does the fact that his first symphony preceded Haydn's by five years credit him with being an epoch-making orchestral composer. For his productions, like those of Sammartini, are now but of historic interest, whereas Haydn's still find ready listeners. And so his place in history is distinctly that of pioneer and promoter of independent orchestral performance, and with the organization of the "Concerts des Amateurs" his programs included the works of such foreign composers as the Belgian, van Malder, the Bohemian, Wanhal, likewise Stamitz, eventually Haydn. His career is certainly unique, since in view of the fact that he was born two years after Haydn's birth and died two years after Beethoven's death, the complete panorama of the classic era was unfolded before his eyes, and during the course of his ninety-five years it was his privilege to witness the ascendency in turn of Gluck, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven together with their co-workers. During his lifetime, moreover, there sprang into existence also the Romantic Movement which, emerging out of the later works of Beethoven, was seized upon and elaborated by Spohr and Weber with their followers.
A striking illustration of the extent to which at this period the concert stage was already exerting its power is afforded by the biography of Grétry, who in spite of his restless dramatic disposition found time, in the enthusiasm of his productiveness, to write no less than six symphonies, not to mention a number of minor works in the form of chamber music—and this in the face of the fact that he did not know how to write for the orchestra! His saving grace in this field was his fund of humor, tuneful melody and sound musical judgment.
Notwithstanding all that has just been said, these signs of activity in France cannot be compared with contemporary achievements in Germany, henceforth to be the permanent home and supreme arbiter of cyclic form and stable instrumentation. And not the least of the inceptive stimuli leading to the discovery of the proper constituency of a perfectly balanced orchestra must be accredited to the Mannheim orchestra, which became celebrated under Stamitz and Cannabich. At the time of Mozart's birth, that organization embraced a string band of ten first violins, ten seconds, four violas, four 'cellos and four double-basses. It willbe seen at a glance that excepting a paucity of violas, the value of plentiful strings and their numerical relation one to the other was keenly appreciated. The wood-wind was likewise logically represented by two flutes, two oboes, two bassoons, to which clarinets were added some ten years later. There were also four horns, twelve trumpets and trombones, kettle-drums, an organ, and a chorus of twenty-four voices. Why so many instruments of brass should have been considered necessary is open to question. Independent parts for not more than two horns and two trumpets was the rule among the early symphonic writers, and not one of Haydn's symphonies contains parts for more than two horns, neither did his simple demands require more than two trumpets. True, Mozart occasionally called for four horns in his earlier works, but like Haydn, he used trumpets but sparingly. It is hardly conceivable that competent conductors of so noble an organization could have been guilty of such inartistic procedure as to allow the brass, comparatively unimportant as their functions were at that time, to be reënforced by reduplication. These supernumerary instruments must have remained silent at concert performances, being reserved rather for dramatic representations or sacred renditions for which they could be of more legitimate service.[10]
Interesting are the comparisons between the constituency of the Dresden orchestra in 1732 and that of Mannheim in 1756. It will be remembered that when referring to Hasse, the Dresden Opera was cited as harboring twenty-five strings, wood-wind instruments to the number of twelve, two horns, a number of trumpets and trombones, besides kettle-drums and two clavichords—in all some fifty instrumental performers. And, as already enumerated, the orchestra at Mannheim was comprised of thirty-two strings, six wood and sixteen brass instruments, as well as kettle-drums and organ, making a total of about sixty. All in all, the venerable operatic orchestras during the eighteenth century were the fuller and richer in resources, and were in possession of a larger numerical disposition of wood and brass even if inadequately supplied with strings. But the tendency to correct this deficiency in the constitution of concert orchestras resulted in the acquirement of greater elasticity and transparency, which was of all importance for the interpretation of the works of the great classicists whose servitor the orchestra was soon to become. And subsequently in writing for specific orchestras for which a sufficient number of strings had not yet been supplied, it may be that these masters intuitively presaged that this much needed metamorphosis of internal organization would gradually take place as the direct reflex of their ownexalted demands for improved instrumentation and artistic rendition. Fortunately, sentient appreciation for careful rehearsal leading to a high standard of rendition had already found a champion in Emanuel Bach, and this objective was jealously fostered by Gossec, Stamitz and Cannabich, all of whom devoted themselves assiduously to the obtainment of purity of tone, equality of dynamic force, precision and coöperation, elasticity, phraseology,nuance. Naturally, the violin, by virtue of artistic merit and paramount importance, received their most careful attention, in consequence of which the standard of the strings as a whole was elevated to that proficiency which made it possible for the classicists to employ them with such freedom as had never before been essayed.
The aim of this comparative survey of orchestras and orchestration as related with the complex phases of musical progression during the careers of Bach, Händel and Gluck has been to elucidate the artistic situation as found by the three succeeding masters.
(Summaryonpage 68.)
Itis almost superfluous to say thatHaydn[11](1732-1809), the true father of the modern symphony and string quartet, was, after Monteverde and Scarlatti, the most potent factor in establishing a perfectly balanced orchestra as a whole. Indeed, one might modify the eulogy previously bestowed upon Monteverde, and say that whereashemay be looked upon as the father of modern instrumentation,Haydnwas the father of modern orchestration. Like Monteverde, he was constantly experimenting, being, moreover, aided by his exceptionally favorable position at the court of Prince Esterhazy. To such an extent are his achievements known to all, that it is permissible to but touch upon the vital landmarks which constitute the distinguishable features of his quasi-created cyclic forms. This term is used advisedly, for although he accepted the erudite forms of his predecessors and contemporaries, and, like them, devolved the symphony from the earlierconcertofor several instruments, he improved upon these forms to such a degree, that they emerged from their archaic chrysalis in rejuvenated attire.
Lack of space forbids more than a passing reference to the coevolution of the string quartet, that momentous vehicle for the sonata form, whose growth was concurrent with that of the symphony. But in both these branches of art Haydn left his indelible stamp upon the creations of Mozart and Beethoven, indeed Mozart, though more emotional and impressive, did not enlarge upon Haydn's form, and even Beethoven, the tone-poet, remained to the last true to its substance. Parenthetically it should be remembered that on the other hand Haydn's quartets and symphonies were in turn influenced by Mozart, from whom, moreover, both he and Beethoven acquired a more subtle insight into the skilful handling of the wood-wind. The symphonies of Haydn and Beethoven have been felicitously compared by styling those of the former, comedies, those of the latter, tragedies. Finally, the extent to which the reputation of Haydn's symphonies travelled is discovered in the already mentioned performances thereof in Paris (at the "Concerts des Amateurs," founded by the Belgian Gossec, for which organization Haydn specifically composed several symphonies), not to speak of his triumphs in London as well as in the musical centres of his native land.
These rather extended references to the rise of symphonic music are surely justifiable in that from it dates the dynasty of monarchical orchestration.[12]
Haydn's development of his formal architecture can be summed up by saying that he knit together and enlarged the cycle of complex forms, extended the separate movements individually, imparted to them order, clearness, variety, and developed free thematic treatment.
As has just been stated, the orchestra in Haydn's plasmic hands improved as a unit. He introduced no new instruments excepting later on the clarinet, indeed, his scores betray on the whole a greater reticence in the employment of numeric varieties of instruments than do those of Bach and Händel. Haydn's genius matured slowly; his earlier scoring does not exhibit any advanced degree of originality, and not until after Mozart had in turn become the greater did Haydn stand forth in the true strength ofhisgreatness. The antennae of that long-lived crustacean, the Neapolitan School, had touched even Haydn as they had Händel before him, and the influence was directly beneficial, since it modified the Teutonic tendencies inoculated by his predilection for the style of Emmanuel Bach, and fostered a regard for melody. Though he used no new material, Haydn instituted a freer method of employing each instrument according to its peculiarities and powers. Despite the fact that he was addicted to the custom of three-part string writing as established by Cavalli long before, he developed the art of welding the component parts firmly together, and thereby secured vitality and elasticity.
The strings were now one complete and compact body.[13]Careful attention was bestowed both upon the manner of writing for them and upon a judicious numerical selection of each species to the end that they might not only balance, but also assist and show off to the best advantage the characteristic qualities of every part, one against the other. Only the violoncello was as yet subservient, and the harpsichord was still retained.
In the distribution of the parts for the wood-wind, he at first imitated Händel's usual methods of merely reënforcing the string parts in unison. But having benefited by repeated practical experience, and especially after the appearance of Mozart upon the arena, Haydn's writing for the wood became freer.[14]The oboe, whose functions are now largely supplanted by the more feminine and soulful clarinet, was much used as a solo instrument. And when at last the great classicists came upon the discovery that by supporting a solo instrument with held chords in the wind,[15]they could attain a more pliant mode of expression than hadbeen possible in the earlier stiff and formal polyphonic style,—from that time on a new and poetic pathway was opened up, and the modern style of writing for the wood-wind may be said to have fairly begun.
In the use of the brass Haydn was conservative. Trombones were absent from his symphonic scheme, and the province of trumpets, if they were used at all, was exceedingly primitive, so that only the horns gained greater freedom of treatment. Thus, for example, the valuable and eventually common custom of strengthening the bass by sustained tonic and dominant horn parts was employed by Haydn in his symphony in D, No. 2 (Breitkopf & Haertel). But more than two real parts for horns are not to be found in any of his works, and the demand for four horns in the Hunting Chorus in his "Seasons" will, at a glance, be recognized as having for its purpose the reduplication of two-part writing, so as to obtain a clearer melodic delineation. And although prominence of metallic quality was thus acquired, the rich chord effect of later times is conspicuous for its absence.
When Haydn wrote his first symphony at the time when Mozart was in his infancy, he employed, in addition to strings, only two oboes and two horns. By the end of the eighteenth century, the normal symphonic orchestra had been increased so as to include strings, two flutes, two oboes, two bassoons, two horns, two trumpets and kettle-drums. To these were quite occasionally added two clarinets. The rôle of the trumpets as well as of kettle-drums was to augment the effectiveness of climaxes, to emphasize rhythm, to add virility, or to suggest martial portraiture. But the harp shared the fortunes of the trombones in that it was as yet denied admittance to the symphonic phalanx.
Of incidental interest is the characteristic deployment of bassoons in the slow movement of the symphony in D already referred to; and the introduction into the orchestra of massed short chords struck simultaneously by all the strings must also be attributed to Haydn.
Finally, his "Creation" embodies successful expedients for descriptive writing. In this masterpiece, the strings, together with a full complement of wind instruments in pairs, are further augmented by the usual kettle-drums, a double-bassoon, and three trombones,—an aggregation which, apart from the manner of using it for the purpose of tone-painting, is typical of Beethoven's enlarged orchestra as employed in his crowning graphic movements. However, this demand for so huge an apparatus as the assistant to Haydn's mightiest choral and embryo-romantic composition was exceptional, and as the corollary of his orchestration, when reviewed as a whole, one might say that he worked with simple means, and although his pages do not present delicate combinations, he obtained vigorous and fresh results.[16]
Mozart[17](1756-1791), universal conqueror, peerless melodist, unrivalled purist, contributed equally to the development of orchestration as to all other branches of musical art. Opera, symphony, chamber and church music alike blossomed and ripened at his magic touch; and the tonal tints of his scoring assumed a mellow guise foreign to the lighter shading of Haydn's orchestration. Mozart was a cosmopolitan in so far as that he moulded his polyphony, formal structure and orchestration in accordance with the classicism of Teutonic lineage, imbibed the limpid suavity of Italian melody, and adapted the tragic energy and emotional interpretation of the text as initiated by Gluck in France. This vivid emotionalism is plainly to be seen in the dramatic scenes of "Idomeneo" and "Don Giovanni." His perfect command of contrapuntal subtleties, thematic development, and vocal composition, combined with the most precocious creative genius, enabled him not only to build upon the heirloom of Bach's church music and Haydn's symphonies and quartets, but to establish a basis for subsequent genuinely German opera. For it is beyond question that specifically the "Zauberflöte" contains the germ of Weber's romanticism.
For the form of his independent instrumental works, Mozart followed the precepts of Haydn, but he enlarged them, and imbued their contents with a certain strategic power for evoking more serious contemplation and enduring impressiveness. Adherence to tonality, not only in each individually complete movement, but also in successive and related complex forms, was one of the fundamental canons of Mozart's creed. This tonal consistency is to be found even in his operas, whether employed as the connecting link between the more gentle sections—suggestive of a delicate string of pearls, or as a mode of obtaining subtle continuity of thought and action in the dramatic portions.
In orchestration, Mozart combined the best characteristics of both Gluck and Haydn, and in his hands it gained counterpoise and vitality. As a natural outcome, the harpsichord was banished from the orchestra, but incidentally it should be remembered that by no means did Mozart undervalue this instrument in its proper sphere, for to him is due the ascendency of the pianoforte concerto, which he left as a direct bequest to Beethoven, who not only seized upon it with avidity, but even caused it to immortalize some of his most sublime conceptions. Mozart's writing for the orchestra is distinguishable for amalgamating as well as for contrasting the earlier polyphonic methods with the monophonic style that was being cultivated by his contemporaries. The last movement of the "Jupiter" symphony will at once be recalled as an admirable illustration of advanced orchestral polyphony.[18]As has just been said, Mozart followed and elaborated Haydn's symphonic instrumentation, but he added greater freedom to the strings,[19]more variety and contrast to the wood,[20]developed the art of combining wind accompaniment and instrumental solo effects,[21]and in general illustrated the capabilities and ideal functions of each specific instrument. Furthermore, constant application to operatic writing stimulated a desire for varied rhythm, and this attainment is reflected in his symphonic compositions. Finally, it should be said with emphasis that sensitive regard for individualistic tonal tints in instrumentation was one of the most conspicuous attributes of Mozart's genius, and despite the fact that already the masters of his epoch had had recourse to the application of variated tone-color, nevertheless Mozart is universally considered as having been the first to do so in a really successful manner. By relegating the harpsichord, it became necessary to write for the strings in such a manner as to insure independent solidity and coherence. Or, to put it the other way, Mozart's scoring for the string band made further employment of the harpsichord superfluous. This he accomplished in the face of frequent three-part writing. The danger of incurring caesuras in harmonic structure or lack in volume of sound was obviated by the skilful artifice of contrapuntal motion which, so to speak, generates warmth of tonal color—heat and motion being an equivalent one for the other, and, as Gevaërt suggests, this theorem is applicable to music. But Mozart by no means neglected four-part writing,[22]and both the violoncello and the hitherto much neglected viola were advanced to a position more in keeping with their worth.
Mozart's employment of the symphonic orchestra was one of conservatism in regard to compass, as illustrated by the G minor symphony, from which even trumpets and kettle-drums are debarred. Peculiar to the scoring of his greatest symphonies is the consistent use of but one flute, whereas the remaining wind is represented in pairs. Delicacy was the key-note for the wood-wind. For example, he delighted in embellishing a melody by the combination of violins redoubled in the octave by a flute and in the sub-octave by a bassoon. Another distinguishable trait of his was the substituting of an oboe for the violins in the above combination. These are but passing exemplifications of countless dainty conceptions that the most casual perusal of his pages will divulge; and they offer an unwearying source of delectation in consequence of their naïve and guileless character. It is true that forTuttis, Mozart was satisfied with certain conventional methods, such as an exaggerated use of wood-wind passages in thirds and sixths. But this practice was common likewise to Beethoven, and not until after the advent of the Romanticists did it fall into disuse, indeed, no less a modern conservative than Brahms was content to adapt classical mannerisms of thisnature. But only subsequent to Mozart's visit to Mannheim when he was twenty-one years of age, and not until after he had convinced himself of the indispensability of the clarinet—that sympathetic medium between high and low wood-wind—was it possible to give adequate variety of color and effect to this hitherto rather homogeneous secondary choir. And thus, concurrent with the emancipation of the wood-wind from many stereotyped formulas, was the recognition that clarinets began to command in Mozart's orchestral scheme. And although they were originally included only in the symphony in E flat,[23]he eventually added them to the one in G minor; and in the "Zauberflöte" the instrument received effective and original treatment. Again, although Mozart's sunny nature would not naturally conceive such morbid and sentimental effects as elicited by Weber from the lower tones of the clarinet, he at any rate appreciated a certain value of such tones by employing them in the course of flowing passages[24]as in the first Finale of "Don Giovanni." Mention is due, at this juncture, of the prominent appearance in the "Zauberflöte" of the obsolete basset-horn, since, as will be recalled, it belongs to the genealogy of clarinets and is now superseded by its descendant, the bass-clarinet. The classic literature of chamber music presents no more favorable examples for profitable study than do Mozart'sdivertissements, in which various combinations of wind instruments alone are treated with rare delicacy and effectiveness. Not being subjected, as in orchestral compositions, to comparison with the greater agility and more sensitive attributes of the strings, they are enabled to assert themselves, and to display in full measure their individual characteristics and expressive powers.
Mozart's requirements of the brass show but a slight improvement upon those of Haydn,[25]excepting that his style of writing for it betrays better judgment. A demand for more than two horns was rare, and occurs, strange to say, in his earlier works, for some of which he employed four. Later on he again exceptionally used this number in "Idomeneo." But of his representative creations, the G minor symphony is scored for but two horns, the E flat and C for two horns and two trumpets. Consistent with the usage of his predecessors, it was only in church music for redoubling the voices and in operatic works for dramatic effects that Mozart drew upon the trombones, at first sparingly, eventually, as in the "Zauberflöte," more freely; and Gluck's precedent of employing them in three-part harmony was sustained.
In so brief an outline, it is not possible to more than indicate the cardinal points of evolutionary advancement as contributed to orchestration by Mozart. But one prominent feature of his preëminent versatility reveals itself in the fact that whereas the long line of his illustrious predecessors had, with the one exception of Haydn, developed the art of writing for the orchestra more as a secondarymeans to some one particular and all-absorbing primary end, Mozart's genius devoted itself with impartiality and parallel success just as much to instrumentation and orchestration as to the formal structures of his instrumental works or to the contents of his operas and masses. And the laurels that crown the herculean achievements of his brief life are symbolic of the æsthetic, the chaste, the ideal.
Three prominent characteristics are associated with the name ofBeethoven[26](1770-1827), the greatest universal master in the chronicles of musical history. To him must be attributed the ideal culmination of classic purity, both as to structural design and thematic development. Through him, form became subordinated to human expression. From him the Romantic Movement drew its direct inspiration. In other words, Beethoven forged the connecting link between the classicists and the romanticists, between absolute and programmatic, objective and subjective music, between the primarily formal and the essentially soulful. In the general principles of form and technical procedure, Beethoven accepted the precedents established by his immediate predecessors, and his earlier works show the influence of both Haydn and Mozart. But the impelling force of his independent and assertive genius, nurtured by the rugged characteristics peculiar to the tendencies of his Dutch and German descent, urged him to further bold and unhesitating innovations whenever novel effects could thereby be attained.
In connection with distinctively formal treatment, the most prominent feature of this amplification lies in the development even to minuteness of inner details, the unification of thematic material, the increase of proportion, and the acquisition of breadth of style and nobility of subject-matter.
But of far more momentous purport are the fruits of his spirituality and profound religiousness. Beethoven was a tone-poet to the core, and his search for emotional expression caused him to disregard fixed design whenever it interfered with freedom of thought. Thus in adapting the cyclic sonata form, he enhanced it by means of perfected monody based on the higher Folk-song, by means of richer harmonies, freer modulations, varied rhythm, greater license in the juxtaposition of tonalities, and elasticity in the application of traditional forms—Beethoven's quest for beauty of form being, moreover, only secondary in importance to its own reactionary fitness for beauty of expression. Thus Beethoven became the master of form and expression combined, reconciled, unified.
Mozart and Beethoven share the same unique and unparalleled characteristics in that the genius of both of them was so universal in nature as to make the question of deciding in what particular branch of composition they excelled a difficult one. So Beethoven, greatest of symphonic exponents, enriched the world with string quartets and chamber music that are perfection exemplified, produced a mighty series of pianoforte concertos and sonatas that are unexcelled, and dedicated a host of his loftiest inspirations to the glorification of the Church. He wrote but one opera—it has become immortal; but one oratorio—the sincerity and depth of its pathos awaken sympathetic response at each renewed hearing; but one violin concerto—it is still the ideal, likewise the despair of every violin virtuoso. And upon riveting the attention solely upon the instrumentation of his orchestral pages, one finds that every bar of the score bears the impress of a master's touch, and of such a master as the world had never before produced. He discovered the utmost capabilities of each instrument, introduced innovations in the method of handling them, both as solo interpreters and in combination, and illustrated that even without the aid of a so-called modern orchestra, picture-painting can be attained. That is to say, impressions of the mind of insufficient distinctness to call forth verbal utterance, are nevertheless capable of tonal exposition. Hence arises the expression "musical language," and quite especially in connection with instrumentation one says that the orchestra "possesses the faculty of language." The Pastoral Symphony is a graphic exemplification of this truth.
Beethoven's instrumentation bears the unmistakable impress of his own personal individuality, and purely sensuous tone-effect is ever subordinated to the inceptive æsthetic scheme and clearness of thematic delineation. The employment of specific tonal quality of the various instruments capable of variated coloring, effectiveness, and scope, was absolutely faithful to the momentary requirements of the orchestral situation. And thus, while his predecessors had been absorbed in the contemplation and exposition of abstract musical thought, and, on the other hand, the sequent composers of the nineteenth century laid undue stress upon the portrayal of their conceptions in gorgeous orchestral raiment, Beethoven's masterpieces embody the temperate assimilation of fervent feeling, architectural structure, contrast of the various choirs, and intermixing of instrumental coloring, simultaneously and harmoniously developed, without apparent effort, all-satisfying, inseparable.
One feature of Beethoven's greatness is emphasized by the self-restraint he exercised in usually making demands for but a modest apparatus as the interpreter of his orchestral conceptions. Thus, in spite of being tremendously progressive, and betraying at every step the inclination to enlarge the scope of his creations in every way, he was content to employ Mozart's scoring for all of his symphoniesexcepting the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth,—that is to say, strings, the four usual wood-instruments in pairs, two horns, two trumpets, and kettle-drums, were practically sufficient for his needs. This numerical distribution of parts differed but slightly in all but the above three excepted symphonies. Comparing this aggregation with those in Mozart's three representative symphonies, we find, as the only difference, that Beethoven's wood-wind includes two flutes in all but the Fourth Symphony, and that clarinets were now enrolled as a permanent adjunct to the orchestra. Two horns sufficed for them all excepting for the Third, "Eroica," where three are to be found, this being, moreover, the first time that more than two had been employed in symphonic writing by Beethoven.
The orchestral canvas of the Fifth, C minor, presents the coöperation of a piccolo flute, a contra-bassoon, and three trombones; all of these, however, remain silent until the victorious entrance of the Finale. To the Sixth—the Pastoral—are added a piccolo flute and two trombones instead of three, whereas in the Ninth, the usual symphonic cohort is supplemented by a piccolo, a double-bassoon, four horns, three trombones, and human voices. It is worthy of note that this new departure of employing a second couplet of horns in the symphonic scheme concludes the evolution of the classical orchestra. For the incorporation into the concert orchestra of the oboe da caccia, resuscitated in the form of the English horn, of the modern bass-clarinet, of the opheicleide and the usurper of its functions, the bass-tuba, was an outgrowth of the Romantic Movement. Likewise the harp, in spite of its venerable origin and perennial usage, was, during the eighteenth century, an adjunct to the operatic orchestra only, for histrionic effects and historic representations.
The scores of no other composer can be more profitably studied than those of Beethoven, and a high percentage of the examples set forth in all standard treatises on instrumentation are drawn from his works. Apart from the fact that his orchestration not only embodied but improved upon and matured the orthodox style of writing as bequeathed to him by Haydn and Mozart, his pages abound in daring innovations, bold and startling; in subtle combinations, delicate and pathetic; a kaleidoscope of sequent effects now contemplative and restful, now tender and languishing, impetuous and fiery, at times even jocose, weird, bizarre. And throughout is manifested the depth of his nature, the nobility of his purpose.
In writing for the strings, Beethoven attained a degree of excellence that has never been surpassed. He fulfilled every requirement, whether of solidity, sonority, flexibility, or delicacy.[27]With bold and vigorous strokes, he infused warmth and increased vitality into the inner and lower voices, and the quartet being thereby more closely knit together, the resultant effect was that of breadth and power. He was the first to carry the orchestral violins into theethereal domain of their highest range in the overture to "Egmont." Incomparable is the boisterous string passage toward the close of the "Leonora" Overture, No. 3, as well as the fughetta in the Scherzo of the Fifth Symphony, where the double-basses are for the first time allowed unfettered license.[28]Finally, Beethoven elevated the violoncello once for all to its proper sphere as an emotional and heroic interpreter, of which the C minor Symphony affords a favorite example in that the 'cellos, assisted by the violas, usher in the opening theme of the slow movement.[29]The violas likewise gained in individuality, and in the last movement of the Ninth Symphony even divided viola parts are to be found.
Beethoven was especially happy in discovering the ideal potentialities of the wood-wind, and from him originated the practice of reuniting the higher species both in contrasting and amalgamating choirs.[30]No better model for successful flute writing can be cited than that in the Allegro of the "Leonora" Overture, No. 3; and the genial attributes of the oboe which, though latent, had never before been exposed, are fittingly treated in the scherzos of the Pastoral and Choral symphonies. The clarinet was now a regularly constituted member of the orchestra, and specimens of characteristic writing for it are to be found in the slow movements of the symphonies in B flat and A, and also in the Finale of the "Eroica," where a judicious introduction of clarinet arpeggios lends warmth and color to the Melos.
Perhaps no other orchestral instrument received more careful consideration from Beethoven than the bassoon, and his partiality for it resulted in detaching it from its former subservient position as bass for the wood and horns, and elevating it to the dignity of an equal associate to the remaining wood-wind, with especial regard for the quality of its tenor range.[31]Thus Beethoven evinced a peculiar predilection for redoubling a melody, assigned either to violins or to an instrument of wood, with a bassoon in the sub-octave. Again, he recognized its sustaining powers as independent bass, provided the balance of the instruments to be sustained were nicely adjusted. Gevaërt calls attention to just such a combination in "Egmont," where one bassoon acts as bass to the strings while the 'cellos and double-basses occasionally assist. And, as he further remarks, the choice was admirable, for no other instrument, as, for instance, the horn, would have been suitable. Consistent with his sentient appreciation for the bassoon, Beethoven rescued the double-bassoon[32]from comparative obscurity, and although he employed it invariably as a reduplication of the 'cellos and basses, it was awarded a more conspicuous rôle in "Fidelio" than in the C minor Symphony.
Classic conservatism in the use of the brass found no exception even when consigned to Beethoven's inspired pen other than the previously mentionedaugmentation of horn parts and the more frequent requisition for trombones. His horn writing[33]followed that of Mozart, but his style was freer, bolder, and the results more resonant, especially in such passages as the familiar jubilant fanfare in the Scherzo of the "Eroica" and again in the Scherzo of the "Pastoral." On the other hand, the decidedly primitive functions of the trumpets[34]were in no wise ameliorated, an incident that is largely to be accounted for by the mechanical limitations of the instrument which still existed at that day. As for the trombones, to have drawn upon them merely for increase of volume, would have been contrary to the ethics of Beethoven's artistic creed. The fact that they did add sonority was therefore but a subsidiary issue, and in climaxes such as the Finale of the Fifth Symphony, their mission was primarily that of lending grandeur and richness to the final scintillating tableau.[35]
In conclusion, the kettle-drums must receive especial mention. It will be noticed that as yet but passing reference to them has been made in these pages, for it was left to Beethoven to discover their genuinely tragic resources. He not only enlarged the scope of the instruments by having them tuned to intervals other than the conventional and stereotyped fourth and fifth, but gave them expressive powers such as had never been attained before. Consequently there was added to the orchestra a practically new member, since he caused the tympani to respond to his dictates, as it were, with warm and throbbing pulse-beats, at times permeating, dominating, subduing the entire orchestral color-scheme. Striking illustrations of this latent power are to be found in the third movement of the C minor Symphony[36]and the Finale of the Pianoforte Concerto in E flat; likewise in the Finale of the Eighth and the Scherzo of the Ninth symphonies, in both of which they are tuned in octaves; and in the introduction to the second act of "Fidelio," where they are tuned to the interval of the diminished fifth. Further specimens of specifically solo writing will be recalled in the Adagio of the B flat Symphony, the beginning of the Violin Concerto, and the introduction to the "Mount of Olives."
A discussion of Beethoven's titanic achievements, even if confined to his orchestral writings, is prone to lead the student into so deep a maze of absorbing illustrations of his genius, that it becomes necessary to find an arbitrary stopping place. Therefore this review may be tersely summed up by saying that the culmination of classic purity, the subordination to human feeling of purely formal structure and sensuous tone-effect, and a systematic development of descriptive music, are the essentials of Beethoven's creations. His orchestration stands as a model for all time. He is the connecting link between the classicists and the romanticists. And in a word, the consummation of his artistic striving was freedom and spirituality.
(Summaryonpage 68.)
Thecareer of Beethoven, extending well into the nineteenth century, overlaps the rise and growth of the Romantic Movement,—a movement that embodied tendencies with which his later works show sympathetic accord. The authors of this new departure were instigated by poetic aspirations closely allied to those of Beethoven; and since his creative horizon was constantly expanding, the idealistic texture of his productions and theirs was harmoniously interwoven. But while the scope of German art was being assimilated into channels of which the objective was natural emotion so expressed as to be portrayed in tangible form, Rossini's seductive charm had hypnotized all Europe, with the result that the progress even of Beethoven was momentarily hampered and his immediate reputation eclipsed. Therefore before proceeding to a further analysis of orchestration as advanced by the exponents of the Romantic Movement with which all prominent German composers after Beethoven are to be more or less conspicuously identified, a final bird's-eye view of musical activity in other countries will properly conclude the history of the so-called classic era. To do this it will be necessary to take up again the thread of dramatic development which we have already traced as far as Grétry, in whom the first period ofopéra comiquemay be said to have culminated. Moreover for the sake of continuity, this discussion may well include such of the nineteenth century composers as were not noticeably affected by the magnetism of the romanticists or of the sequent "New Movement." And the preferential arena for the reproduction of both French and Italian works was still the Parisian stage, in which was vested the dangerous power of passing conclusive judgment upon the offerings of her votaries. Consequently, the characteristics of such luminaries as were deemed worthy of her benisons can be briefly summed up without regard to nationality; and these meteor-like apparitions captivated in turn the entire musical world, to the neglect of the worthier creations of Gluck and Mozart.
The lyricgenreas bequeathed by Grétry was ardently cultivated by a series of sturdy exponents including his contemporary of evanescent fame d'Alayrac, followed by Boieldieu, Isouard, a native of Malta, the long-lived Auber, Hérold,Halévy, Adam. All but the last of these were born in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, being, together with the domiciliated Isouard, typical Frenchmen, devoted to national tradition, style of writing, and methods of instrumentation. And conspicuously through the collective efforts of Boieldieu, Auber and Hérold was the standard ofopéra comiqueelevated to high dignity. This exclusive aggrandizement of the lyric stage by native composers affords a striking contrast to the history of opera in serious vein. For in reference to the latter, the attitude of the public was marked by illogical preferentiation, in consequence of which their vacillating plaudits were bestowed with but scant discrimination. True, French composers at first tenaciously held their own, as exemplified by the sterling achievements of Méhul (1763) and by the fleeting triumphs of his contemporaries, Lesueur, Berton, Catel. Nor did subsequently the more important representatives of the lyric style such as Boieldieu, Auber and Halévy allow undisputed sway to foreign interlopers in the field of grand opera. And the so-called "historic school" of grand opera, first introduced by the Italian, Spontini (1774), and eventually abused by the German, Meyerbeer (1791), was admirably exploited by Auber's"La Muette di Portici," which was produced the year after Beethoven's death. This work directly paved the way for "Guillaume Tell," the crowning achievement of Rossini (1792), as well as for Meyerbeer's initiatory embodiment of French romanticism, "Robert le Diable." Sequent to the baneful revival by Rossini of more or less retrogressional Italian opera appeared the mellifluous fabrications of Donizetti (1797) and of Bellini (1802), with which undramatic productions must be classed also the earlier works of Verdi (1813) in consequence of their voluptuous melodic exuberance.
In Germany, meanwhile, the standard of opera in lighter vein was upheld by Konradin Kreutzer (1780), the heir of Hiller and Dittersdorf. In England, the pianist, Field (1782), was initiating a new style of writing for the pianoforte that was to serve as a model for Chopin.
It is proper that the compositions ofCherubini(1760-1842) be treated apart from those of his contemporaries, for they are in many respects distinct by themselves. The fact that he was born in Italy bears little relation to the style of his productions, for only in his earlier works are Italian methods particularly noticeable. The name of Cherubini has become immortal chiefly on account of his church music, of which he is the first truly great modern master. Nor must his permanent influence upon the form of French opera be underestimated, notwithstanding the fact that his own operas were only moderately successful. For the Gluck-Piccini controversy impressed him deeply; moreover, Mozart's operaswere at that time already exciting world-wide admiration. As a result of these powerful influences, Cherubini was led to combine both the German and the French styles, as exemplified in "Lodoiska"; and henceforth the drama of France may be said to have acquired permanent and definite form.
The chief characteristics of his church music consist of a fusion of the elevated style of the sixteenth century, a severe yet masterly contrapuntal treatment, and withal a remarkable clearness in form and details. These models of sacred writing which belong, perhaps, more particularly to the French school, are convincing proof that so-called antiquated principles can be assimilated into modern methods. Lavoix calls attention to the criticism that whereas Cherubini's operas were not sufficiently dramatic, his church music was too much so. This may be true; but the purity and nobility of subject-matter, the warmth and breadth in instrumentation, counteract any possible theatrical tendencies.
The orchestra is much used in Cherubini's sacred works. The orchestration is flexible and vivid; each instrument is treated judiciously, and the tonal color is ever sonorous and varied. Prout refers to the Requiem in C minor as being a splendid piece of sombre tone-painting, and masterful in its appropriateness. The opening chorus is remarkable for its pathos, being scored for divided violas and 'cellos, double-basses, two bassoons, two horns and muffled kettle-drums. In the introduction to the "Chant sur la Mort de Joseph Haydn," an extended passage for four violoncelloscon sordiniproves that Rossini was not the first to discover the value of their independent employment. In the same work, one of Wagner's procedures in the use of the bass-tuba is anticipated in that the opheicleide is detached from its usual alliance to the trombones, and is employed alone as a reduplication of the double-basses. Cherubini was conservative in the use of the brass, although in isolated cases, where special effects were needed, larger choirs of loud-voiced instruments are, of course, to be found. As an example, the mass in A calls for four horns, three trombones, and an opheicleide. On the other hand, the instrumentation of Cherubini's operas shows greater reserve, and in one or two cases, entire acts are effectively scored without once drawing upon either trumpets or kettle-drums. It might be added that an interesting example for English horn is to be found in "Anacréon"; that the instrument was as yet but rarely heard in France is demonstrated by the fact that Cherubini felt it necessary to write "clarinetad libitum" under the English horn part.
Méhul(1763-1817) ranks among the greatest evolutionists of French instrumentation. His talents developed at an early age; his career was one of steady progress, and culminated in "Joseph," one of the loftiest dramatic worksFrance possesses. Following in Gluck's footsteps, he emphasized the value of declamation and made much use of melodrama. The operatic overtures also were carefully developed. Although his orchestration was somewhat heavy, and embodied the frequent repetition of certain stereotyped formulas, he proved himself a worthy successor to Gluck in the successful portrayal of dramatic personages by means of instrumental expression. Much of his music is decidedly picturesque even though his instrumentation is lacking in daintiness. The distinctive features of Méhul's orchestration are sonority, novel combinations, and at times a certain melancholy coloring. The earliest use of low string effects is attributed to him, and especial prominence was given to the viola. As is well known, his opera "Uthal" is unique in that violins are absent throughout the entire work. The harp is an important factor in both "Uthal" and "Joseph." Méhul showed considerable partiality for the brass, and more than once, four horn parts are to be found in his scores.
Lesueur(1763) has been called the predecessor of Berlioz as an exponent of "program" music. He was fond of grand and majestic combinations, but was artistically more successful in writing for the church than for the drama. He was fortunate in having under his control a large orchestra at the Notre Dame, and his contributions to French instrumentation in detail are important. He frequently multiplied the violin parts into four, and even divided the violas. Again, the violins were at times omitted, although he did not go to the extent of leaving them out through an entire work as Méhul did in his opera "Uthal." Lesueur may have indirectly influenced Wagner's scoring of the tetralogy in that twelve harps, divided into two sections, are required for a faithful rendition of "Les Bardes," and in a footnote he specifically exacts a predominance of harp quality of tone. Like many of his subsequent compatriots, he frequently made requisition for curious instruments of percussion.
In turning to the works ofBoieldieu(1775-1834), we find therein a refreshing example of naïveté, spontaneous originality, and flowing melody. Italian tendencies are noticeable, but the style remains pure and distinctly French. Though "La Dame Blanche" does not contain the attributes of profound scholarship, it satisfies in full the requirements of refined and poetic French comedy. Schumann regarded some of Boieldieu's creations as the representative comic operas of the world. His orchestra is not large and it is rarely used in its entire strength. The key-note is dainty scoring; the singing can always be distinctly heard, and although few novel effects of instrumentation are to be noted, variety and contrast of tone are constantly to be met with. The accompaniment is everappropriate, and especially the clarinet and horns receive characteristic treatment. Moderation in the use of the brass was carried to such an extent that trombones are frequently omitted altogether, and even in "La Dame Blanche" only one was employed. In one opera not even trumpets and kettle-drums are to be found.
The founder of the lyric drama in the modern sense wasAuber(1782-1871). The pillars of modern lyric drama are genuine dramatic expression, varied resources, and extensive proportions. Add to these charming melody, sparkling instrumentation and piquant coloring, and we have the sum total of Auber's creations. He was, perhaps, the most typically French composer that ever lived, and yet his orchestration is not that of an innovator. He accepted the already existing French and Italian characteristics of instrumentation, but adapted them to the needs of his poetic instincts. The functions of his orchestra are essentially those of accompaniment, and the dramatic situations are lightly sketched rather than elaborately portrayed. And this lightness of touch, together with grace and elegance, is already to be found in "La Muette de Portici," as well as in the more popular "Fra Diavolo."
In spite of the fact that Auber's orchestra presents nothing actually new, the charm of his instrumentation has exerted great influence upon that art in France. When the full orchestra is employed, the effect is sonorous without being noisy, ever clear yet scintillating. For more subdued effects, Auber was especially happy in the choice of mixed tonal tints, such as the reduplication, by a piccolo flute in the octave, of a melody given to one of the wood-instruments. Moreover, he was the first to employ the piccolo in piano passages. And whether reference be made to his use of soft chords for the trombones, or to his dainty triangle effects,—these are but a suggestion of the many characteristic insignia that distinguished his sterling achievements.
The operas ofHérold(1791) contain strong expressive and dramatic attributes. His form and instrumentation show German rather than Italian influence, modified withal by unquestionable French coloring. The impress of "Don Juan" and of "Freischütz" is especially noticeable in the overture to "Zampa," his representative work; three principal themes from the opera itself are more or less scientifically developed, and the manner of writing for certain wind instruments like the clarinet in some ways resembles that of Weber. Although Hérold's orchestration does not embody that transparency and that grace which characterize the scores of Auber, it is more compact, and his accompaniments conform to the demands of the dramatic situation. He occupied himself also with chamber music and concert overtures, which are superior in form to many similar efforts of prominent contemporary French writers, even though they are insignificant in comparison with German models.
The works ofHalévy(1799) present a perplexing composite of genuineart and sensational trivialities. Frequently carried away by desire for pomp and effervescent personal glory, he nevertheless gave the art of dramatic scoring a powerful impetus toward modern methods. His instrumentation is often like Meyerbeer's, and Rossinian tendencies are apparent as well. Nevertheless, his pages are imbued with his own individuality. Each instrument received characteristic treatment when not used in massed harmonic combinations. The strings were employed with much skill and variety, as exemplified, for instance, by phrases for violins alone in four parts, or for solo 'cellos in five parts. The former idea bears the germ of Wagner's subsequent ethereal string passages, whereas the latter corresponds to Rossini's familiar 'cello scoring in "Guillaume Tell." The wood-wind played an important part as dramatic interpreter, with especial attention to the expressive characteristics of the English horn and the clarinet. Above all, Halévy was an untiring advocate in behalf of improving and supplementing both the variety and functions of the brass, and was strongly in support of the newly invented instruments of Sax. As components of the orchestra proper, they were not used aggressively, although, of course, when they appeared as an independent cohort upon the stage itself, their united efforts inclined toward the bombastic. Halévy was among the first to employ a second couplet of valve horns in addition to the customary natural horns, and the manner of writing for them displays a marked departure from previous usage. Besides absorbing into the orchestra proper different varieties of sax-horns and especially the sax-tuba, he employed at times as many as eight trumpets. A part for a soprano trombone is likewise to be found in one of his scores. "La Juive" is the embodiment of Halévy's higher ideals and novel orchestral combinations, and among other interesting details of instrumentation, the employment of two English horns, the trombone solo in the fourth act, and the semi-military band on the stage will readily be recalled.
Brief mention is due to the "historic school" which found its first exponent inSpontini(1774-1851). The tenets of this school were in sympathetic accord with the general desire for pomp attendant upon the ascendency of Napoleonic imperialism. And Spontini's masterpiece "La Vestale" entirely satisfied these demands. For in spite of many glaring defects, it is a worthy example of superb dramatic power. In this work, a new style of orchestration was inaugurated, one that has been more or less imitated by all French writers since his time. Spontini transplanted into serious opera a principle with which already Piccini and Paesiello had experimented in their lighter operas, in that, for the description of certain picturesque episodes, the orchestra appears as chief exponent, the voice as secondary.
Entirely new was the amalgamation of the whole orchestra into one mighty organism by means of doubling and redoubling each part, similar to the practice of adding the four- and two-foot stops in organ playing. Each of the three choirs is harmonically complete by itself; being absorbed into the general Melos, it is, of course, impossible for the ear to analyze the combined tone-color. Such massive tonal edifices are the embodiment of unity and sonority, but there is danger of monotony, and, as Gevaërt remarks, this method of orchestration was subsequently abused by Rossini. Spontini's style embodies much that is German, and his mastery of brilliant effects is unrivalled. And although he frequently lowered the standard of his works by a craving for ostentation, the details are carefully worked out and the orchestration is rich and manly.
With the advent ofRossini(1792-1868), the triumph of Italianariawas resumed. His operas are the embodiment of Italian emotionalism. But although much of his music must be condemned as entirely irrelevant to the demands of the dramatic situation or of the sentiment to be expressed, his orchestration was certainly an advance upon antecedent Italian methods. On the other hand, there are but few new features in his instrumentation; this consisted of certain restricted and oft-repeated formulas, of which, however, Rossini had perfect command. His crowning achievement was, of course, "Guillaume Tell." Here the orchestration plainly betrays a happy fusion of Italian and French styles. The string writing is full of life; due regard is shown to the wind instruments, and effective solos are assigned more particularly to the English horn and the French horns. The improvements that Rossini made in horn writing were probably due to the fact that his father was a horn player. Parenthetically, the same statement might be made in reference to Richard Strauss. It is also interesting to note in passing that Rossini used two batons in conducting,—a short one forariasand a long one forensemble.
At this point it is fitting that we examine the dazzling orchestration ofMeyerbeer(1791-1861), for his career is, of course, inseparably allied with the evolution of French opera. As the most famous representative of French romantic and historic grand opera, Meyerbeer would appear, at first sight, to have embraced in his operas every conceivable meretricious device for the sensational and the spectacular. He was above all an eclectic, modelling his works largely after those of Spontini, being likewise strongly influenced by Weber, combining German harmony, Italian melody, and French rhythm. His was a marked departure from the school of Gluck—so much so, that he has been accused of "playing with dynamic effects" and writing "hollow" music thatcannot withstand æsthetic analysis. In a large measure such censure is merited, but it is manifestly an error in judgment to declare as one writer does that his productions are comprised of but "dazzling effects, glaring contrasts, and clever instrumental devices." True, the contents of his operas are certainly an alternating mixture of the grandiose and the paltry, but as for orchestration, none have surpassed him in judicious distribution of sonorous masses, in forceful dramatic effects, richness of details, and successful application of the individual characteristics of each instrument. Again, the consistent recurrence of a specific tone-color as the annotator to a dramatic personage contains the germ of theLeit-motiv. And for ever varying resource of instrumentation few can excel him! And no composer before him was his peer as a dramatic painter.
Meyerbeer of course relied primarily upon the strings as the basis of his orchestra, but they are frequently replaced by independent combinations of wind instruments. In this connection, it is worthy of especial note that complete groups of kindred instruments are employed alone, and almost invariably in complete four part harmony. Meyerbeer's scoring for full orchestra was practically identical with Spontini's; each group is again complete in four part harmony, doubled and redoubled in the octave. Though his accompaniments are heavy, it will be found that the voice is usually supported by a solo instrument. He developed great variety in string writing. The violins and violoncellos are frequently subdivided into numerous parts. The characteristics of high violins and again of low double-bassessoliare brought into prominence. Passages are to be found in which parts of the strings are muted while the remainder are simultaneously employed without mutes. The viola d'amore is carefully treated, as, for instance, in Raoul's Romance in the first act of "Les Huguenots." The harp is used extensively, both in arpeggios and in broad chords. The English horn and bass-clarinet are constantly used as regular constituents of the secondary group, and the latent dramatic powers of the clarinet are intensified; again, every one is familiar with the earliest of bass-clarinet solos in "Les Huguenots." Apart from more common methods of employing the wood-wind group by itself, Meyerbeer was fond of peculiar combinations such as piccolo flute and English horn, or bass-clarinet and trumpet an octave apart. Further entirely novel combinations are the assignment of a melody to the English horn and bass-clarinet in unison, or the redoubling of the violoncellos by a flute two octaves above. Great variety in mixed tints is to be found. The most common is the combination in solo passages of violoncello and bassoon; more complex is the union of violins,tremolo, together with three flutes, all in the high range, while an English horn or a bass-clarinet produces the melody below. Or two clarinets and two bass-clarinets are united to violoncellos in three-part writing. One of Meyerbeer's chief contributions to instrumentation lay in his methods of scoringfor the brass. In "Les Huguenots" a veritable military band is introduced upon the stage; the band includes both reeds and brass—likewise piccolo flutes. And the newly invented sax-horns were drawn into requisition for "Le Prophète." The kettle-drums acquired greater freedom than even Beethoven had allowed them, and "Robert le Diable" contains actual solos for the instruments. In different works, as many as three and four kettle-drums were employed. In conclusion, it is not necessary to dwell upon the realistic impression provoked by the sounding of a gong in connection with the Resurrection of the Nuns in "Robert le Diable"; nor need the reader be reminded of the deep-toned bell used for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew in "Les Huguenots." All in all, though Meyerbeer's scoring is frequently brutal, it is intensely dramatic and original.