Chapter VI: Gluck and His Contemporaries

I.

GLUCK (1714-1787), the third of the great drama reformers, and predecessor of Wagner in the establishment of dramatic continuity, did not appear as the champion of revivified Hellenic ideals until advanced in years. Though he had long harbored an intense antagonism to the paltry conventionalities of the existing lyric drama, his tenets awoke no sympathetic chord in his native land. And thus it came about that the arena of Lulli's scintillating pageantry witnessed the rehabilitation of genuine, legitimate, and unaffected histrionic art. This was attained by a return to a severe and truthful mode of musical declamation, by clothing the several stage characters with distinctive individuality, and by instilling into his music-dramas in their entirety, reflection, simplicity, sincerity, pathos, nobility. The chorus was raised to importance, the function of accompaniment rendered more virile, and the orchestra was made to enhance the dramatic situations. Three defects are noticeable. Gluck made no attempt to break down the barriers of stereotyped operatic forms, his melody is at times stilted, and his music is guilty of frequent grammatical errors. Despite these facts, his choruses are worthy examples of dramatic effect, and the formal structure of his overtures is more rounded than those of even Bach or Händel. But it cannot be said that his genius was conspicuously original; he was essentially a reformer, not an innovator. For as Mr. Edward Dickinson expresses it in general terms: "Gluck's success was not due to his melodic invention or mastery of musical science, for in neither of these particulars can he be ranked among the greatest composers. His ability consisted rather of producing great effects with simple means; the severe grandeur of his style was especially suited to the antique subjects which he chose, and this style was in conformity to the peculiar genius of Greek tragedy."

To independent orchestration Gluck contributed but little, but, considering the age in which he lived, none have excelled him as an interpreter, by means of the orchestra, of pathetic expression, or in the use of appropriate instrumentation, varied and rich tone-coloring. To quote from Parry's "The Art of Music," page 220: "Moreover, the expressive qualities of his admirable recitatives are very much enhanced by his way of dealing with the accompaniment. He neglected no opportunity to make use of the qualities of his orchestral instruments--as far as in him lay--to enforce and accentuate the situations, and even to intensify the passing moment of feeling implied by the dialogue. Composers were successfully developing the sense of the functions and resources of instrumentation. Even Gluck's rival, Piccini, made some very appropriate effects by using his instruments consistently with the spirit of the situations. But Gluck applied himself to the matter with far more intensity, and far more genuine perception of the characters of the instruments. Indeed it would be hardly an exaggeration to say, that he was the first composer in the world who had any genuine understanding of this very modern phase of the art. Mozart was the first to show real natural gift and genuine feeling for beautiful disposition of tone, but Gluck anticipated modern procedure in adapting his colors exactly to the mood of the situation. A good deal had been attempted already in a sort of half-hearted and formal manner, but he was the first to seize firmly on the right principles and to carry out his objects with any mastery of resources." On the other hand, "his orchestration has none of the roundness or balance or maturity of Mozart's. It is unequal and uncertain, and requires humoring in performance to make it produce the effect which is intended."

Gluck relied to an excessive degree upon the string band, and his orchestral writing lacked that balance which the contemporary and sequent classicists regarded as the fundamental requirement. Notwithstanding, his instrumentation exhibits many original insignia that are worthy of record. Thus he demonstrated the dramatic power of low-written viola parts, made varied and characteristic use of the tremolo, was the first to introduce mutes into the orchestra in his "Armide," and caused the trombones to emerge from their hitherto menial subservience, and stand forth in all their dignity and tragic power of portraying peace, sorrow, fear, religion, majesty. And by proving the superior effectiveness in employing a group of three trombones, he established a precedent that has been endorsed by all subsequent composers.

But it must be confessed that in turning over page after page of his scores, one discovers the fact that in deploying his wood-wind Gluck usually laid but modest demands upon them. Their duties were more commonly restricted to the lending of comparatively simple tone-color for heightening dramatic action, or for relieving the monotony of prolonged use of strings alone. Of weird and tragic effect is his concentration of all high wood-wind _unisono_. But many of his other orchestral characteristics bear the impress of conventionalism then in vogue, which soon becomes monotonous; and his manner of writing for the deeper instruments causes much of his orchestration to sound heavy.

All things considered, the same must be said of Gluck as of his vancourier, Lulli, and of the great oratorio composers, Carissimi and Händel--neither he nor they were attracted by the kaleidoscopic potentiality of the orchestra when isolated from its kindred rivals, the opera and the oratorio. And although his name is to be revered for having opened up the resources of the orchestra, the attention he bestowed upon it was but a reflection of the greater glories that he offered up to the shrine of dramatic lustration.

THE CONTEMPORARIES OF GLUCK.

For two hundred years dramatic writing had now dominated musical art, therefore orchestration as well. The best fruits of these two centuries of experiments having culminated in the reforms of Gluck, his music dramas, with their continuity of action and dignity of subject-matter, were to be surpassed only by Mozart's splendid attainments, by reason of the latter's perfect melody, pure form and admirably adjusted orchestration.

A final glance at the dramatic situation of Europe with the date of Beethoven's birth as a consistently convenient landmark will be necessary in order to comprehend the significance of Mozart's operatic constellation as it appeared on the horizon. For the decade beginning with 1770 was replete with big events, preordained, as it were, to do homage to the future master--Beethoven. Of the generation born between 1714 and 1756, further mention has yet to be made of the Frenchman, Grétry, of the Germans, J.A. Hiller and Dittersdorf, and of the conservators of declining Italian dogmas, Jomelli, Piccini, Sacchini, Paesiello, Cimarosa, Salieri.

II.

=France.= After the defeat of the kindly Piccini,--who deserves more credit than is usually awarded him, not alone for his graceful melody, clear and sonorous orchestration, but especially for his judicious application of the orchestral instruments to the demands of a situation,--the stage of the French capital, now monopolized by foreign composers, patronized for a brief period the productions of the Neapolitan Sacchini, and of Salieri. The former was also a fair composer of chamber music, whereas the latter is signally notorious for his intrigues against Mozart. Both of them were pupils of Gluck, and their instrumentation was but an imitation of his. But meanwhile, after GRÉTRY (1741-1813) had fairly launched his graceful conceptions, the public soon recognized in him a worthy successor to Rameau, even though the _genre_ of his offerings was of a different mould. Interest in imported art waned, and the career of the second great French composer began.

Grétry, though founding a permanent and powerful national school that was distinctly the opposite of tragedy, was an ardent disciple of Gluck's doctrines, being himself even more of a radical in his indifference for actual singing as a mode of dramatic interpretation. But in spite of his sensitive perception not alone for truthful interpretation, but as well for melodic design and novel scenic effects, his comparative neglect of the orchestra is unique in the annals of musical history. His strings were generally written in three parts, with frequent gaps between the bass and the two upper voices. His harmonies were usually too thin, and his orchestration as a whole was conventional and uninteresting. Fortunately his delicate musical thought did not require elaborate instrumentation as a means for expression, and so he rarely drew upon the resources of the orchestra for more than was absolutely necessary in simple accompaniment to the voice. Grétry is cited as having declared that the accompaniment to solo singing should be as the pedestal to the statue; but unfortunately his own orchestral accompaniments do not conform to this pretty saying, for his pedestals were feeble and lacked the essentials of ornamentation. And although Grétry towers above his contemporaries as the first great representative of _opéra comique_, he contributed practically nothing new to orchestration other than the introduction, in a few isolated cases, of some unusual instruments of percussion and other minor details of instrumentation.

III.

=Italy.= In 1770, Jomelli, who for fifteen years had occupied the post of Hofkapellmeister in Stuttgart, had just returned to Italy, where he found Paesiello in high favor, and Cimarosa about to begin his operatic career. Both Paesiello and Cimarosa were soon to pose as rivals to Piccini as well as to each other, but of the two, Paesiello was possessed of more scholarly attributes which found outlet in numerous independent instrumental works, including twelve symphonies and six quartets, whereas Cimarosa displayed simpler though more spontaneous fertility, and his works are better known to posterity with whom he ranks as one of the greatest Italian composers of his day. Nevertheless, the instrumentation of both Paesiello and Cimarosa was weak and non-progressive. The most prominent contemporary exponent of chamber music was Boccherini, who is credited with the authorship of no less than three hundred and sixty trios, quartets, quintets and the like, besides twenty symphonies. In antithesis to the transportation into Germany of exotic ideas, Jomelli and other Italians living in Germany showed the influence of their new surroundings by improved orchestration, though unfortunately this had but little immediate effect on their compatriots at home. For the Italians still held tenaciously to their traditions, and handled the orchestra principally as a means of support for and contrast to the human voice. Fearful lest the singer should be overpowered, they were overcautious; as a result, their scoring was thin, and decidedly weak in the bass. Jomelli's efforts are therefore especially praiseworthy. In his operas, the orchestra acquired greater importance, and, like Sammartini, he awakened also a keener interest for purely instrumental music. He was one of the first to make really effective use of the _crescendo_, increased the efficiency of the violins by adding richer and more varied ornamentation, and showed a tendency to make proper use of tone-color. In a word, his instrumentation, together with that of Pergolesi, ushered in a new epoch in Italy.

IV.

=Germany.= The seed of the new movement in France soon bore fruit in Germany in the form of the Singspiel, which, however, sturdily maintained its indigenous characteristics, since not the form but the spirit only of the French comic opera with spoken dialogue had been accepted. J.A. Hiller, as the prime mover in thus establishing a national form of operetta, was emulated by Dittersdorf, who learned much from the French composers, though more from Haydn, as is evidenced by the form and instrumentation of his symphonies. The climax of German operatic enterprise in the eighteenth century was reached when in 1778 the "Deutsches Nationalspiel" was founded in Vienna, bringing to that city lasting prominence in dramatic affairs. For the liberal spirit that was shown in throwing open its doors to all worthy applicants, irrespective of nationality or style of writing, attracted such composers as Gluck, Dittersdorf, Salieri, Mozart. And the eclecticism in objective, in form, in orchestration, that consequently pervaded the artistic atmosphere which Beethoven was soon to breathe, must have unconsciously struck a sympathetic chord in the insatiable longings of Beethoven's soul to find food for his selective and synthetical methods of procedure.

V.

=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 same period 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]

[Footnote 9: To this list might properly be added the name of the Italian, dall'Abaco, since his scores, being now also available for study, reveal many interesting traits pointing toward originality and progress. He is to be classed among the earlier composers of this period, for he was prominently associated with the musical life of Munich during the first part of the eighteenth century.]

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 avers that 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 will be 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]

[Footnote 10: Another plausible explanation is that the extra trumpeters and trombonists should be accredited to the "Hof Musik," which may have been only an adjunct to the "Hof Kapelle." Their principal duty may have been to announce the arrival of the Elector by a fanfare, and to give other signals at the many public functions of the Court. It has been pointed out to the present writer that this theory seems confirmed by an illustration in a book covering this period where is shown a boxful of trumpeters at a Court performance of opera at Dresden.]

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 own exalted 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.

(Summary on page 68.)