The Chief Musical Forces of the 19th Century

By Dr. Friederich Niecks

[Professor Friederich Niecks has long been regarded one of the foremost living writers upon musical subjects. He was born in 1845 at Desseldorf, Germany. His father was a teacher, conductor and orchestral musician. Later he studied with Langhans, Grunewald, Tausch and Loepold Auer. He made his debut as a violinist at the age of thirteen, when he was also admitted as amember of the Duselfork Orchestra (Subscription Concerts). Later he studied at Leipsic University, making a specialty of psychology, fine arts, aesthetics, history and philosophy. (Sir) A. C. Makenzie persuaded the young man to remove to Scotland where he met with large success as an organist, violinist and teacher. In 1890 he became Ried Professor at the University of Edinburgh. He has contributed to most of the best known European journals, and has written many very valuable biographical and philosophical books, the best known of which is Friedrich Chopin and his works. A recently received report informs us that he is planning to retire from his professorship at Edinburgh. -- Editors of The Etude]

Can questions like the following be profitable answered? (1) "Which are the best hundred musical works in the world's music?" (2) "Which are the dozen most outstanding musical works in a certain period and country?" (3) "Which are the ten works that in the nineteenth century have exercised the most powerful influence in the development of the art?" In my opinion, such and similar questions cannot be profitably answered. Those who have not the requisite wide and accurate knowledge should, of course, never meddle with them; and those who have that knowledge would be reluctant to meddle with them. And why would they be reluctant? Because they could not answer them to their own satisfaction, and would answer them differently every time they attempted to do so. In fact, only a thorough ignoramus could answer a question of this kind confidently and be pleased with himself. As to the bold venturer ever finding anyone in agreement with him, that would be a hope never to be realized.

Of the above three questions, the third must appear at once and always the most difficult. We need not go far or search long to find the reasons of this difficulty. The works that exercise the greatest influence in the development of the art are not always the most perfect ones, nay, are comparatively rarely so. Again, influences are very varied in force and character. They may be eruptive or propulsive, massive or tenuous, obvious or subtle, above or below ground. What has specially to be noted is that in the onward movement of an art there is implied not one influence, but a most complicated network of influences - or, in other words, currents of all sizes and degrees of energy, and not only current, but also mere infiltrations. Lastly, the close study of influences soon shows us that influence is a matter not of single works but of personalities. It was Beethoven, it was Wagner, that determined the onward course of music, not any individual work of theirs. If, then, the third question is to be dealt with at all, it has to be modified - firstly, by substituting "composers" for "works", and, secondly, by omitting a definite number. These changes having been made, the question would now run thus: "Which composers have in the nineteenth century exercised the most powerful influence in the development of the art of music?"

The Musical Giants

However, the attempt to give a cut and dried answer to the question even in its modified form seems to me still so foolhardy that I for one would never dream of undertaking it. But the problem is extremely attractive. And, although unwilling to pronounce a final judgment on the case, I feel tempted to examine it and gauge its difficulties. If one possessed of a thorough detailed knowledge of the musical history of the nineteenth century, and at the same time a wide and intimate practical acquaintance with the productions of that age, were to conjure up in his mind a general view of that world of music, he would, after some gazing, have his eyes arrested first by the particularly striking eminences of Beethoven, Weber, Chopin, Schumann, Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner. These seven composers, enormously differing in their artistic greatness, must be allowed to have been the most outstanding of the innovators. It need hardly be pointed out that the steepest and most jagged peaks are not necessarily and always the vastest and most important prominences. Chopin was a more powerful influence than Berlioz and Liszt, Beethoven an infinitely more powerful influence than Wagner, great as Wagner's influence has been. As a rule, the would be revolutionary influences are less powerful, less fruitful, than the more gradual and peaceful evolutionary ones. The distinction here is that between excogitated  and inspired changes.

If our qualified observer's gaze on the music world of the nineteenth century is continued, other than the above mentioned seven points will arrest his eyes. As one of them may be instanced Schubert, the unsurpassed and even unapproachable master of song, who also knew so well how to incorporate in his instrumental music an incalculable wealth of new, delightful romanticism. His was a beautiful and original personality, and through it he exercised an undeniable influence on the development of the art, although in the use of its means he was not to a large extent an innovator. Both biography and history prove this. Another point that arrests the eyes is Mendelssohn. In mastery of technique and form he was Schubert's superior, in originality, power and luxuriance of creative genius, his inferior. Admired and imitated more than any contemporary composer, and perhaps beyond his deserts, he is nowadays only too often neglected and even regarded with contempt. That his great achievements - some of them, for instance the poetic overtures, very great and precious indeed - are no longer generally recognized as such is unjust, a caprice of fashion that will be corrected in the course of time. On the other hand, there is nothing derogatory to the master in the judgment that on the future of the art his influence was not only not striking, but also neither far reaching nor deeply penetrating. The judgment is not derogatory, since some of the supreme masters of music - Palestrina and Handel among others - were in no way pioneers.

And now we come to a very curious fact - namely, that one of the most power forces in the development of the music of the nineteenth century was born in the seventeenth and did his work in the eighteenth. I allude, of course, to Johann Sebastian Bach, who was not discovered till the nineteenth century, and only then began to take part in the moulding of the new styles. In his own time and among immediately succeeding generations, the main and general tendencies ran in quite other directions. IF the proportionate amount of influence exercised by the composers so far named by me were gauged, the reader may be sure that Bach's would not be the least. And let us not that his is a growing influence. This is shown by the publications and frequent performances of his works, and by the writing of books such as Philipp Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach (1873-80), Albert Schweitzer's J. S. Bach (1908), and Andre Piroo's Esthetique de J. S. Bach (1907), which are the outcome of boundless admiration and boundless research and study.

The Lesser Masters

But there are powerfully influential masters who can by no means be counted with the most sublime and perfect. Take, for instance, Meyerbeer, one of the most abused dramatic composers in our time, one of the pet aversions of many a noble artist of this and earlier generations, Mendelssohn, Schumann and Wagner included. Although the abuse is greatly overdone, it must be admitted that Meyerbeer's uncritical eclecticism, the impurity of his style, or rather his style-less-ness, and his striving after effect at all costs, justify a good deal of it. What, however, the abusers overlooked entirely or too much is the excellencies of the man - his innovations not only in instrumentation but in every respect, including operatic form. Wagner, Meyerbeer's most rabid antagonist, had no idea how deeply he was indebted to his hated rival. Berlioz and Liszt, too, were indebted to him, but they knew it and respected and admired him. But he was not a rival for theirs. From what I have said it follows that, whatever the shock may be to some critics, professional and unprofessional, I must number Meyerbeer with the chief moulding forces in the musical development of the nineteenth century. I have spoken of Meyerbeer only an an innovator. If I had had to consider his artistic work as a whole, I should have had to state that in some of his best operas there are scenes which in beauty, truth, power and originality have not been surpassed by any composer whatsoever. Familiar examples in Les Huguenots are the love duet at the end of the fourth act, the Conjuration and Blessing of the Swords in the same act, and the duet of Valentine and Marcel in the second act. Even Wagner acknowledges the love duet to be one of the supreme things in dramatic music.

The influence of two great but very dissimilar individualities - Brahms (1833-1897) and Verdi (1813-1901) - forms an exceedingly difficult problem. Brahm's personality and style are not sympathetic to the non-Teutonic nationalities. Of this Tschaikowsky's attitude towards the German composer, one of positive aversion, was characteristic. And even among Teutons Brahm's greatness is not universally acknowledged. He appeals strongly to certain types of temperament only. If I were asked in which branch of composition he was most original and consequently most influential, I should say in his chamber music for several instruments - quartets, quintets, sextets, etc. I should say it with a full knowledge of his splendid songs and important achievements in choral and orchestral music. No one is likely to deny Brahm's influence on the development of music, but who shall gauge its force and extent?

Verdi's is another troublesome case. But why is it so difficult to assign him a place in the onward course of the art? I believe it is this: Verdi went with the times, but not in advance of them. He was affected by the tendencies of his time, but worked them out in his own individual and perfectly original way. Verdi's third and most interesting style is not imaginable without the presupposition of Wagner's innovations, and yet there is nothing in Aida, Othello, and Falstaff that reminds one of Wagner. Verdi's was an immensely massive and powerful artistic organism capable of safely absorbing large quantities of extraneous matter. And he gave as well as he took. The present generation can still feed and grow on his last works, especially on Falstaff, which, indeed, remains almost untouched.

The Influence of the Italian School

I suppose many up to date wise people of the present day, considering our problem, would pass by Rossini (1792-1868), Donizetti (1797-1848) and Bellini (1801-1835) with a shrug of the shoulders and a contemptuous grimace. They would think them composers that should never have engaged the attentions of anyone in the past and cannot possible engage the attention of anyone in the present. But they would be egregiously wrong. This Italian triumvirate was a real power in its day and beyond. Take even the weakest of the three, Bellini. Poor in harmony, instrumentation, form and everything but melody; but what a wealth, what a power, what a witchery in that one thing! As to Rossini, talk of his slipshod writing, his superficiality, his meretricious appeals to the ear, his phenomenal laziness, as much as you like, still he was one of the greatest universal geniuses that ever lived, the author of the most delightful comic opera. Il Barbiere di Siviglia, and of one of the most impressive grand operas, Guillaume Tell, who through these and other works had a vigorously stimulating and revivifying effect on opera and music generally.

Many other names suggest themselves. In fact, it would be impossible to point out, still less to discuss, all the men who in a greater or less degree have helped in the development of music. And let us not overlook that very slight contributions may yet be of considerable significance. Here are a few notable composers ungrouped as regards rank and character: Cherubini with his exquisite overtures and noble operas and masses, Spontini with his stately marital grand operas, Auber with his many light and sprightly comic operas and the one indescribably fiery grand opera La Muette (Masaniello), the elegiac Spohr with his violin concertos, operas and oratorios, the sentimental Gounod, the puquant southern Bizet, the songful Hugo Wolf, etc.

The Leaders in Evolution

About the foremost among the chief forces of the nineteenth century a few explanations have yet to be given. Beethoven stands at the head of all, over-towering all, out-living all. The combined triple qualification, the spiritual, emotional, and expressional, in the noblest and intensest form, secures his indisputable supremacy. Whilst extending the art in all respects and in all directions, he attained the rare thing, artistic perfection. The key to this secret is that his progress was purely evolutionary. The case of Wagner differs greatly from that of Beethoven. Wagner enlarged the resources and the boundaries of the art immensely, and for this we are deeply indebted to him. But his progress was in part revolutionary, not evolutionary. Hence the absence of the same artistic perfection in the realization of his ideas and the probably shorter life of his works. With what I have said about Beethoven and Wagner I expect considerable agreement from my readers. My opinion about Chopin, I imagine, will meet with more surprise than instantaneous concurrence. To pronounce the startling judgment: I consider Chopin to one of the three most powerful factors in the development of nineteenth century music, the other two being of course, Beethoven and Wagner. The absolute originality of Chopin's personality, and that of its expression through novel harmony, chromaticism, figuration, etc., justifies the assertion. And none will deny the fact who takes the trouble to trace the Polish master's influence on his contemporaries and successors. The greatest and most powerful composers came under this influence, to a large extent by the process of infiltration. The Chopin was not a successful producer of big works, and confined himself almost entirely to the pianoforte, misleads many in their estimate of the artist, but in reality that has nothing to do with the matter.

In the second class of chief forces in the nineteenth century development I would place Schubert, Weber, Schumann, Bach, Paganini, Meyerbeer, Berlioz and Liszt. Of some of these I have already spoken, and of others I need not speak. A few words have, however, to be said of Paganini. Why should he have a place among these illustrious masters, he who composed so little, and that little for the most part so poor as high art? Nevertheless, his extraordinary virtuosity inspired many. It inspired not only violinists but pianists; and not only executants but also composers in general. Liszt's virtuosity was largely inspired by Paganini's. And how many instrumental composers were deeply interested by his best and most original work, the Capricci for violin. Both Schumann and Liszt translated them into pianism.

My first list of chief forces consisted of only seven. In the meantime we have inquired further, and now cannot but feel included to reconstitute that original list. To be able to take in the state of matters it will be advisable to group the names in three classes, using different kinds of type. The first shall be distinguished by large Gothic type, the second by large Roman capitals and the third by italics. Thus:

BEETHOVEN

SCHUBERT            PAGANINI
WEBER            MEYERBEER

CHOPIN

SCHUMANN     BERLIOZ
J. S. BACH       LISZT

WAGNER

Cherubini, Spontini, Auber, Spohr, Gounod, Bizet, Verdi, Brahms, Hugo Wolf, etc., etc.

With regard to the above table, I wish to say that I set it out tentatively, not assertively. But I believe it to be suggestive and not without a considerable amount of significance, both in the selection and grouping of the names. The third class is admittedly incomplete, and the legitimacy of the presence and absence of names disputable.

Among the questions suggested by our meditations on the problem we had under consideration we are sure to find the following one: What are the bearings of the tendencies of the music of the nineteenth century on that of the twentieth? The tendency of the nineteenth century which bears most distinctly on the twentieth is the dissolution of the firm and solid elements of music. Beethoven, Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner illustrate this tendency in form; Schumann, Chopin and Wagner in harmony and rhythm; Beethoven, Weber, Meyerbeer, Berlioz, Schumann, Wagner, etc., the instrumentation. But are the musical counterparts of the post impressionists, cubists, and futurists of the twentieth century a legitimate offspring of these illustrious masters of the nineteenth century? I hold that they are not. I hold that these newest phenomena are not links in the evolution of the art, but morbid excrescences that will quickly decay, fall to the ground and disappear. The newest systems of composition, if systems they can be called, are leaps in the dark that end in the chaos or nothingness.