Chapter IV: Beginnings of Orchestration

I.

CLAUDIO MONTEVERDE[1] (1567-1643) is justly styled the founder of the modern orchestra; but although modern orchestral organization owes its substratum of solidity and balance of tone to him, only indirectly was he led to attain this end, for his paramount objective was artistic expression. Naturally, the employment of artistically grouped instruments appealed to him as the most flexible conveyance for expressive thought. Again, Monteverde was instinctively a dramatic writer, so that as a matter of course the histrionic efforts of the Florentine experimentalists attracted him. Finally, when Monteverde entered upon his dramatic career after having already become celebrated as a writer of madrigals and of other vocal forms, pure choral music as perfected by Palestrina and Lasso was at its zenith, and instrumentation in its elementary state was inseparable from the drama,--it being understood that the early attempts at oratorio in the _stilo rappresentativo_ were built on the same general principles as the early operas, without differentiation in musical or instrumental treatment. Nor were the incipient efforts at orchestral accompaniment to religious worship of sufficient importance to be taken into consideration. Therefore, _Monteverde's_ contribution to the chain of æsthetic and practical musical development consists of his successful search after expressive and dramatic effects and his reconstruction of the orchestra. He also broke away from the Church Modes, employed a system of harmony nearer akin to our own, made free use of the Chord of the Dominant Seventh, and introduced bolder harmonies and unprepared dissonances. These harmonic innovations were already noticeable in his earlier vocal compositions.

[Footnote 1: See Appendix of Musical Illustrations, Examples 1 to 5.]

As we have seen, Peri contributed much to his successors from a dramatic standpoint, but as for expression, the Florentine _pseudo_ music dramas consisted of a monotonous and long-spun succession of primitive and dreary _recitativi_ with but little support other than a _basso continuo_ and meagre chords, whereas Monteverde, absorbed in the discovery of means by which he might emphasize expression, developed true creative talent in a diversity of ways. For although his chord successions were still crude and his perspective for design but slightly evolved, his realization of the importance of stage effects led him to intensify the dramatic action, to vary the tone-color, to extend the functions of the accompaniment to the voice, and to relieve the monotony of constant _recitativo_ by a more liberal and artistic use of the _arioso_.

These innovations were destined to wield far-reaching influence. Though admiration for the earlier pure choral style was soon rekindled in Italy, it was not long before the two styles, the old and the new, were combined, as embodied in the oratorios of Carissimi; and Schütz, who had been taught by Giovanni Gabrieli of Venice, transplanted these Italian methods into Germany. But the direct line of development from Monteverde's dramatic theories is to be traced through Cavalli, and from him through Lulli, into France, thenceforth the permanent home for histrionic displays; for Italy turned to a more careful consideration of melodic beauty and taste for design, whereas the disciples of Schütz, though cultivating the new principles especially in oratorio, still retained their German characteristics.

Turning to Monteverde's labors in the field of instrumentation, we find, in place of the very rudimentary and heterogeneous combinations heretofore employed, a well-defined and fairly logical assortment of instruments, the nuclei of which were strings, and it is the establishment of this nucleus that is epoch making. True, his first dramatic attempt, "Orfeo," was scored for organs, harpsichords, lutes, harps, guitars, trombones, trumpets, flutes, and various members of the viol family, including so-called little French violins,[2] constituting an orchestra of thirty-six men, of whom nearly one third were performers upon brass instruments. On the other hand, it is necessary to take several contingencies into consideration. In the first place, this orchestra, like Cavalieri's, was concealed behind the scenes, instructive in its suggestion for the modern sunken orchestra at Bayreuth. Again, it has been supposed that the loud-voiced trumpets were muted, a device sometimes employed for special effects in modern scoring. (As to this supposition, however, the present writer is of the opinion that the instruments actually employed were the _cornetti muti_ or soft-speaking trumpets of wood, and that in translation, the word "muted" has been erroneously applied.) Finally, although Monteverde was not, like Peri and Cavalieri, content to depend entirely upon the performers to supply the necessary chords and embellishments, nevertheless in the art of instrumentation he was but a pioneer, and most of his accompaniments were light and of a primitive nature. The very simplicity of his rudimentary method of scoring is proof that neither he nor his contemporaries could have realized the resonant powers of so formidable an aggregation of brass when properly handled; and just this non-realization was propitious for the early development of the orchestra, in that, by negative means, noisy trivialities were excluded from the scores of the early masters. But in antithesis to this undue preponderance of metallic tone-quality, the employment of no less than seventeen instruments played with a bow was an immense stride forward, especially when we consider the fact that within the same decade lutes and the harpsichord had constituted the body of embryo orchestras.

[Footnote 2: Ex. 2.]

At the close of the sixteenth century there were still many varieties of the viol family, but the value of the erroneously styled "little French violin" is said to have been first appreciated by Monteverde, who introduced it into his orchestra where its inestimable value was at once recognized. Profiting by this felicitous innovation, he continued to emphasize the importance of the string band, enlarged it, and, by a judicious suppression of the weaker members of the viol family, established a body of strings that conforms, at least approximately, to the violins, violas, 'cellos, and basses of the present day.

Having once for all instituted a rational and permanent foundation for obtaining solidity of tone combined with facility of execution, it was a matter of course that the brass should ultimately appear in more logical proportion to the strings. The progress of the wood-wind was of slower growth, largely due to technical imperfections and mechanical difficulties of performance. But, considering the means at his disposal, a commendable appreciation for contrasted groups of instruments is embodied in the pages of his later works,--indeed, already in "Orfeo" can be traced this tendency to enhance the dramatic situation by means of judicious tone-coloring. Oft-quoted illustrations are the accompaniment of Pluto's songs by four trombones, the lament of Orpheus by bass viols, the chorus of spirits by _organi di legno_. And in his riper works, intelligent instrumentation and characteristic orchestration progress simultaneously. The introduction of the _tremolo_, _pizzicato_, and other dramatic and expressive devices is attributed to him. He showed some system of scoring, which included more specific instructions for the performers than had hitherto been the custom.[3] And the fact that he distinguished between vocal and instrumental effects is of historic value in that it paved the way for the advent of purely orchestral composition.[4]

[Footnote 3: Ex. 1.]

[Footnote 4: Monteverde's admitted position at the dawn of orchestration constitutes so vast a point of departure in scientific method, that the unprejudiced writer of to-day must, toward Monteverde rather than toward anyone else, weigh and sift opinions as to his intention, however much these opinions combat each other. The statements of the present writer that Monteverde was the first to suggest instrumental characterization in his music--the same being evidenced in the scores that have come down to us--are supported by the majority of investigators. There are, however, others who have followed the same trail and whose conclusions are as worthy of future credence. These declare that it is only a fantastic conceit, which grew out of the circumstance that in the list of characters and instruments in the prefatory matter of the score of Monteverde's "Orfeo," there is a chance association like Pluto's name standing opposite the trombones, etc., which, falsely reasoned, has placed Monteverde in an epoch-making niche where he should not be.]

II.

It is remarkable that the direct successors of Monteverde should have been more or less blind to the latent powers of this newly vitalized organism,--this prototype of the modern orchestra. Even Carissimi (1604) cannot be included among the progressive writers for the orchestra, indeed, his art of scoring stands lower than Monteverde's. Of course, in the development of oratorio, his dramatic influence was of great importance. He caused the monodic style to advance rapidly, by infusing into _recitativo_ and the _aria_ more spontaneity, into instrumental accompaniment greater interest. Though inferior to Monteverde in originality, Carissimi evinced a keener appreciation for plastic and tonal effects. His eminent pupil, Cesti (1620), is likewise to be remembered less for his instrumentation than for his further development of _recitativo_ and the _da capo aria_ in connection with the operatic stage.

On the other hand, Cavalli (1600), apart from the fortuitous influence his sojourn at the court of Louis XIV had upon Lulli, inherited a more decided talent for orchestration from Monteverde, whose pupil he was. His interesting experiments in writing accompaniments for two violins and a bass established a precedent that survived the test of many years. Like Monteverde, his instincts were strongly dramatic, but perhaps his connection with St. Mark's Church modified his style of writing for the orchestra. For more especially his _a capella_ sacred works are imbued with considerable warmth of expression, and show sentient regard for melody, rhythm, and form. And thus, even as Carissimi displayed but little feeling for purely instrumental effects, though holding a unique position as a composer of oratorio, so Cavalli must be regarded as primarily a dramatic writer,--indeed, among the immediate successors of Monteverde, he alone succeeded in substantially furthering dramatic development in Italy, that is to say, the development of dramatic ideals as had been attempted by the Florentine neophytes of Greek tragedy. For as Langhans expresses it: "After him Italian opera gradually diverges from the path originally taken, and sacrifices the antique simplicity aimed at by its founders to the ever increasing demand for sensuous charm. The alliance of poetry and music, dissolved in the Middle Ages and renewed but a few decades before, is again broken off, and the equilibrium that had just been acquired is sacrificed anew to the claims of music."

III.

But while the nature of Italian music after Cavalli's time was subject to variable influences, France took up the cause of drama with enthusiasm, and in this field LULLI (1633-1687) looms up as the sole dictator of his age. Favored by the extravagant demands for display and spectacular effects prevalent at the court of Louis XIV, Lulli proceeded to develop dance forms as had been inaugurated by his predecessor, Cambert, whose position he usurped. The _ballet de cour_, already in vogue in France, consisted of dances, dialogues set to music, combined with dramatic episodes. Out of this native form of entertainment, modern French opera was destined to germinate. Having found this a suitable prototype as a basis for his operas, Lulli proceeded to imbue it with exotic principles. Like Monteverde, he discarded the ecclesiastical modes. Again, he adhered strictly to the requirements of his text, and developed declamatory recitative as promulgated by Cavalli. And to the reactive influence of the Italian monodic theorem upon French literature during this brilliant period of Corneille, Molière, Racine, does France owe the excellence of her declamation.

But, considering the versatility of the man, once again a disappointing analogy to the peculiarly prominent deficiency of Carissimi and Cavalli confronts us. For Lulli's orchestration was, like that of Meyerbeer two hundred years later, sensational rather than of enduring worth. By no means is Lulli's universal genius as organizer, composer and orchestrator to be undervalued, nor is the importance of his influence upon subsequent French music to be lost sight of. But it is evident that the direct evolution of really stable instrumentation was benefited, during this period, more by the crowning achievements of Scarlatti, and by the labors of the secondary Italian composers, who devoted themselves more especially to purely instrumental music, and thereby sowed the seed for subsequent purely orchestral music in Germany. It is true that credit is due to Lulli for having introduced into his orchestra a large variety of instruments, which he used with considerable skill, although all of them were not suitable for permanent retention; but it would appear to the present writer that Lavoix, in his "Histoire de L'Instrumentation," page 216, is, perhaps, somewhat extravagant in his eulogy of Lulli's orchestration, especially since he previously makes but passing reference to that of Scarlatti. Again, similar use of solo effects and of contrasted groups of instruments as cited by Lavoix is also to be found in the scores of Lulli's predecessors and contemporaries in Italy. Indeed one might say that in general the efforts of these early composers to obtain genuinely characteristic tone-color are apt to be overestimated, for, as Lavoix himself subsequently acknowledges in regard to Lulli:--"[French: Il faut l'avouer, c'était encore au violon qu'il avait confié ses scènes symphoniques les plus délicates et les plus expressives.]" Finally, even though strings formed the basis of his orchestra, augmented by wind instruments both wood and brass, the irrepressible harpsichord, solicitous for the welfare of her flock, and fearful lest emancipation from her protectorate should result in chaos, still closely followed the harmonic delineations of the legitimate orchestral instruments, supporting them, as it were, in concentual leading-strings! Had Lulli and his contemporaries understood the art of judiciously distributing the notes of a chord throughout the orchestra, not to mention the proper choice in number and species of instrument, this custom would have soon fallen into disuse; and, as we know, not until this did take place one hundred years later, was it possible to obtain ideal solidity, balance of tone, contrast, and variety. By a coincidence, the year of Beethoven's birth sounded the death-knell of the orchestral harpsichord, for in the opera "Mitridate," written in that year, Mozart was the last of the great composers to employ it as a regular component of the orchestra.

To Lulli, therefore, orchestration was but a secondary issue, in spite of the importance he attached to it. Form, on the other hand, was permanently benefited by his labors, whereas, in musical history, he occupies the second of the four pedestals sustaining the arch that spans the realm of pure music drama, and retires into the mythical haze of Hellenic tragedy.

IV.

As intimated above, further survey of the field of instrumentation in Italy discovers commendable activity, such as was displayed by Legrenzi; by Steffani and Clari; by the violinists Torelli, Vivaldi, and especially Corelli; finally, by the greatest musician both active and creative of the seventeenth century, Scarlatti.

The labors of Legrenzi (1625) are worthy of consideration on account of his logical development of the constituency of the orchestra. As Maestro at San Marco, Venice, he increased the number of instrumentalists at that church to over thirty. It is noteworthy that he employed almost exclusively violins and viols, supported in the bass by four theorbos (_i.e._ bass instruments of the lute family). The wood-wind was represented by a solitary bassoon, whereas two cornets and three trombones replaced Monteverde's earlier assortment of brass. And thus, already in the seventeenth century was found a man whose perspicuity in the choice of a modest band of loud-voiced instruments commended itself for some of the mightiest climaxes of Beethoven's immortal works.

The significance of chamber music as fostered by Steffani (1655) and Clari (1669) is, of course, well known in musical history. And the wonderful impetus given to the art of violin-making, by stimulating a development of executive technique, brought forth fruit that culminated in the regency of a number of famous violinist-composers. Among these, Torelli (died 1708), for the creation of the _concerto grosso_, Vivaldi (died 1743), for the development of harmonic design and figuration characteristic of his instrument, and Corelli (1653-1713), for combining principles of harmony with contrapuntal devices, rendered invaluable service to the nascent architecture of modern string writing. For by exploring the possibilities of the violin, by establishing its superiority as a solo instrument, by demonstrating not only its potentiality but also its limitations in relation to other instruments, there arose, in consequence, a more delicate perception as to the necessary constitution of an evenly balanced string band. This acquirement was accompanied by improved methods of writing for the strings.

No composer of his time combined these requirements more successfully than Corelli, for the types of composition which occupied his attention were the precursors of the classic sonata, and his contributions thereto mark the starting point of genuinely artistic instrumental music. Corelli's relation to chamber music and the concerto is as that of Monteverde to the orchestra. Neither of them was a radical reformer; they both proceeded along the more conservative lines of evolution, selection, elaboration. The scaffolding of their respective spheres of activity had already been reared by that countless throng of forgotten and unappreciated workers, whose mission it is to make smooth the path for the greater lights, that appropriate and mould into collectaneous form the puny though individual originality of the lesser. But whereas nothing more than a pious interest in an historic heirloom has preserved Monteverde's efforts from falling into oblivion, those of Corelli have been perpetuated by reason of their intrinsic merit.

V.

The highest development of productive musical art during the seventeenth century culminated in SCARLATTI[5] (1659-1725). And orchestration was aided by him to no small degree. Of course, his name is primarily coupled with the Neapolitan operatic principles,--principles that ultimately led to baneful results, in spite of having enriched the world with sensuous and beautiful melody. Only a cursory review of Scarlatti's expansive activity is permissible as being mostly irrelevant to our subject. Reared in the characteristic atmosphere of Carissimi's cantatas and oratorios, impelled by poetic instinct and fondness for melodic design, he enlarged upon the _da capo aria_, the _recitativo accompagnato_, and in general paid careful attention to the external structure of the separate numbers in his operas. Above all, Scarlatti became the knight errant though eventually the thrall of _il bel canto_.[6] Now highly developed vocal phraseology demands judicious accompaniment, and good orchestral accompaniment requires a nice adjustment of dynamic force combined with skill in writing. It was fortunate, therefore, that Scarlatti possessed both these attributes; and through the channels of this important branch of orchestration, independent orchestration received permanent form. Let us see how this metamorphosis took place.

[Footnote 5: See Appendix of Musical Illustrations, Examples 6 to 9.]

[Footnote 6: Ex. 7.]

Retrospection shows us that Peri, initiating a rudimentary dramatic style in place of Flemish polyphony, contributed but slightly to the advancement of instrumental accompaniment. He and his collaborators wrote little more than a figured bass for the harpsichord, and at performance they evoked the aid of the adventitious efforts of a motley aggregation of instrumentalists. The printed scores of Schütz are equally primitive. In France, the lyrical stage piece of Perrin and Cambert, "La Pastorale" (produced in 1659--the year of Scarlatti's birth) showed some slight improvement in the art of scoring; but it has been said that even Lulli composed his operas at the spinet, and at times delegated various details of instrumentation to his secretary. Monteverde established a nucleus of strings. Cavalli developed three-part writing for two violins and a bass. Legrenzi regulated the "distribution" of instruments. Corelli and his contemporaries advanced technique of performance and cultivated instrumentation in the miniature.

The task allotted to Scarlatti was, therefore, not difficult. He accepted the already established supremacy of strings, but soon realized that three-part writing did not produce even balance of tone. Consequently, he adopted a manner of writing which comprised a division of the violins into firsts and seconds. He added, moreover, an individual part for the violas, and thereby established a canon of phonetics that has been accepted by all erudite composers since his time. It is true that these characteristics of orchestration cannot be said to have originated with him, but his persistent use thereof established a precedent of permanent value. In three-part writing, not only the violoncellos and basses progressed simultaneously in unison or octaves, but also the viola, if present, reënforced the bass in slavish delineation. It is obvious that this practice was the result either of sophism or of indifference and ignorance. And the fact that as late as the eighteenth century no less a composer than Haydn and even Mozart should have continued to frequently employ three-part writing for the strings is certainly a paradox, and tends to prove how circuitous the process of evolution is. However, Haydn and Mozart had such perfect command of florid counterpoint, that no matter what the distribution of string parts might be, the results were invariably effective.

Four instead of three notes of a chord being now properly dispersed among the strings,[7] Scarlatti proceeded to enrich his orchestra by a logical employment of wind instruments in pairs. The harpsichord, of course, continued to hold its own, but the Händelian principle of long held notes in the wind against more agile string passages is already to be found in his scores, a principle of which Lulli was also cognizant. But Scarlatti's orchestra was more plastic than Lulli's, and his overtures more purely instrumental.

[Footnote 7: Ex. 6.]

As has been stated, Italian culture of the violin and the increasing regard in which that instrument was held, led to the development of execution as well as to an appropriate style of writing for it on a well defined harmonic basis. These improvements were, moreover, further reflected by a more earnest attention to the progress of other instruments, both as to mechanism and technique. As a result, musical performances improved rapidly, and the isolated, purely instrumental numbers of the opera, heretofore utterly disregarded by the public, began to excite comment. Whereupon Scarlatti, keen to perceive any nascent inclination on the part of his audience, turned to a more careful consideration of the overture. His motives for doing so may not have been of the highest, but the results were directly beneficial in that by eliciting warm approval, these overtures were eventually performed as concert numbers apart from the opera. Though short in form, they consisted of three or four distinct, well-rounded movements, and were destined to become the prototype of the classic symphony.

In specifically instrumental music, Scarlatti paved the way for Bach and Händel by writing for two violins and a violoncello, treated as soli instruments to an accompaniment of a string orchestra.

Finally, the components of his orchestra--represented in his most felicitous scoring by violins, violas, 'cellos, double-basses, two oboes, two bassoons, two horns--were practically identical with those of the early classicists.

So we see that the orchestra as bequeathed by Scarlatti was based upon a well organized body of strings, supported by a modest array of wood and brass instruments. Differentiated style of choral and instrumental writing was accentuated, and although polyphonic mannerism was still prevalent in orchestration, a tendency for individualistic instrumentation was at least apparent. On the other hand, the latent passion of the violoncello, when emancipated from the double-bass, was as yet unknown; and the harpsichord, by reënforcing the inner harmonies, covered the deficiencies of the wind instruments. That the mechanism of the latter should have remained in so immature a condition at a time when the delicate organism of the ideal string quartet had already been perfected, is but the result of natural causes. For when the supremacy of the viols was once for all established, it was of primary importance that _their_ efficiency, above all others, should be enhanced; and thus subsidiary instruments were for the time subjected to at least comparative neglect.

The varied labors of Purcell (1658) were without the zone of eclectic progression. Although he adapted the cyclic style of Corelli, and kept in touch with the music of Lulli, whom, it is claimed, he even excelled in instrumentation, he remained true to the traditions of the English Church and English drama.

VI.

While examining the progress of orchestration, the parallel growth of organ and clavier music should not be forgotten. A comprehensive glance at the series of important writers in these branches will suffice to refresh the memory.

A distinctive style, initiated by the earlier Italian composers, Merulo, Andreas and Giovanni Gabrieli, was first exploited by Frescobaldi (1583). He promulgated a novel style of organ playing and contributed to the development of the fugue. After him, organ composition became the prerogative of the Germans, and the seventeenth century is represented by Scheidt, Froberger, Kerl, Reincken, Buxtehude, finally Pachelbel (1653). In Germany, Italy, and France, the subsequent chief exponents of clavier music were respectively Kuhnau, Domenico Scarlatti, and Couperin. Coincidentally, all three were born in the same decade as Bach.

By thus comparing the prodigious activity displayed in every branch of music, we find, as the ultimata of this epoch, that homogeneity in general had given place to a system of related tonalities, vitalized rhythm, diversified figuration, and a rational mode of expression. Moreover there were two distinct elements to build upon,--polyphony, as embodied in the contrapuntal _sonata da chiesa_, and the popular dance, the pivot of the _sonata da camera_. These two styles were capable either of further unassociated development or of reconciliation. By still further adding to such an amalgamation the principle of reiteration and thematic development of a single thought as the motive for a composition, we have as a resultant the cyclic form--first the Suite, earliest of complex forms, then the Sonata.

Musical art was now ready for a master hand who should weld its component parts firmly together. And that master was Bach.

(Summary on page 27.)

SUMMARY OF PART I