CHAPTER IX.
RICHARD STRAUSS AND ANTON BRUCKNER.
Position with regard to classical form — Strauss’s chamber music — Bruckner’s character and individuality — Bruckner’s symphonies — String quintett in F major — Hanslick on Bruckner’s works — Krehbiel on Bruckner’s Seventh Symphony — Weingartner’s opinion.
Position with regard to Classical Form
Richard Strauss, born at Munich in 1864, is without doubt one of the most distinguished of living musicians, and although his recent works are written in a very advanced style, it cannot be said that he has arrived at this condition without due deliberation, for his earlier compositions are all in classical form, and his present position is therefore due to growth rather than to a wanton setting aside of the established forms in which the great masters wrought. It is only when we come to the symphonic poem “Don Juan,” op. 20, that we find him embracing the programme music ideal, and all the seven large works which have since appeared are fashioned after this kind.
That Strauss displays an enormous talent for orchestral effect, and a breadth and vigour of style which carries all before it, no one acquainted with his works will dispute, but whatever abiding hold he may have gained on the musical thought of the world will be found not to be primarily due to qualities of this kind, influential as they no doubt are, but to his being endowed with the power to write true and convincing tunes. For example, one may regard programme music and the hurly-burly of works like Till Eulenspiegel as entirely obnoxious and subversive of true art, but all the same it is idle to ignore the character and charm of such tunes as these:—
Till Eulenspiegel.
R. Strauss.
With the following curious metamorphosis of its first notes, which plays an important part in the work:—
Till Eulenspiegel.
R. Strauss.
Don Juan.
R. Strauss.
Strauss’s Chamber Music
The earlier Symphony of this composer, in F minor, op. 12, exhibits also, although in a lesser degree, the same melodic charm; but on the other hand (and such inequality is a perplexing feature of Strauss’s works) his chamber music, such as the String Quartett, op. 2, the Piano Quartett, op. 13, and the Violin and Piano Sonata, op. 18, when tried by this standard, are more or less disappointing. True, the andante and the finale of the String Quartett show a certain amount of melodic interest, as also does the andante (improvisation) of the Sonata; but in the other movements, and in the Piano Quartett, while the writing is always masterful, and indeed at times overpowering in its strength and directness, the want of real tune renders these works unconvincing.
All the same it must be admitted that Richard Strauss is one of the most interesting personalities among contemporary composers, a position which is also occupied by our own countryman Edward Elgar, and the only thing which may with certainty be said is that they both baffle the prophets, for, judged by what they have already done, we know not what a day may bring forth.[39] Men who in the prime of life have given us “The Dream of Gerontius,” and “Till Eulenspiegel,” have within them possibilities of a far-reaching kind, and it is to them, with Coleridge-Taylor and some others of, as yet, lesser fame, that we have to look for the next important contributions to the literature of the art.
In addition to the chamber music named above, Richard Strauss has written a Serenade, op. 7, for wind instruments; a Sonata, op. 6, for piano and ’cello, which is an interesting work; and a Sonata, op. 5, for piano solo.
Bruckner’s Character and Individuality
A composer who has given to the world as many orchestral symphonies as Beethoven; a number of choral works, all laid out on the largest scale; who enjoyed the esteem and admiration of Richard Wagner; who lived for about thirty years in Vienna as neighbour, and in a sense the rival, of Brahms; whose compositions, and even whose name, are almost unknown to English musicians; such was Anton Bruckner (1824-96), a man of strong character and individuality, who by diligence and determination has made for himself a name and position in the world of music. Nor has this been accomplished by mere push and personal assertiveness, for Bruckner was a man of simple, straightforward character, who was content to let his life speak for itself, and so far as his works were concerned, to wait for a hearing. It is said that some of his early symphonies were not performed until many years after they were written.
An examination of his scores reveals an extraordinary command of the resources of counterpoint, as well as a vigorous and direct manner of presenting his ideas. He writes, too, in a manner grateful to the orchestral performers, affording, without any mere striving after effect, the several instruments opportunities for the display of their powers.
Bruckner’s Symphonies
There is also a certain romantic formality, if such a contradiction in terms may be allowed, about his symphonies, which in part creates a feeling as though Cherubini had come to life again and become imbued with the modernity of the men of our time. Had Bruckner been as great a melodist as he is a contrapuntalist, the balance of musical power would not have been exactly what it is to-day, and Schumann and Brahms would have had a serious competitor.
String Quintett in F major
But it is here that a weakness is revealed which no mere technical skill or elaborate orchestration can hide. Many of Bruckner’s works are no doubt here and there quite melodious, but this is the case when the influence of other masters, chiefly Beethoven and Wagner, is most evident. In spite, however, of considerations of this kind, his music deserves more than a passing word, although so far as concerns the subject treated of in this book, Bruckner has left but one chamber music composition, a Quintett for strings in F major.
This work, however, made a considerable stir in musical circles when it appeared, and it is said to have been played with the greatest success by the Hellmesberger Quartett in Vienna, that most critical of musical centres. We are not aware if Bruckner has written any other chamber music; at any rate nothing further appears in the list of his music which has reached England. This Quintett has not, it is believed, been performed here, nor indeed, so far as we know (1902), has any work of Bruckner’s been given, save his Seventh Symphony, which was performed in London, under Dr. Richter, in the year 1887.
The two extracts from this Quintett which are quoted below will illustrate better, no doubt, than any written description both the weakness and the strength of this composer. The first movement has much ingenuity, but little charm. Counterpoint and modulation are copiously poured out, and are indeed made to do service for those higher qualities without which there is no true art.
1st Movement, String Quintett in F.
Anton Bruckner.
The adagio, on the other hand, reveals a feeling for emotional beauty of no ordinary kind, and doubtless it is writing of this character, which is found also in the slow movements of the Orchestral Symphonies, that explains the effect which Bruckner’s works have created on the Continent.
3rd Movement, String Quintett in F.
Anton Bruckner.
Hanslick on Bruckner’s Works
Krehbiel on Bruckner’s Seventh Symphony
The scherzo of the Fourth (Romantic) Symphony may also be cited as a movement full of character, and while good, is pleasing even in the popular sense of that word. Music such as this, indeed, justifies the bringing forward of Bruckner’s name, and renders it difficult to acquiesce in some of the severe judgments which have been passed on his works. For example, when a new Symphony of Bruckner’s was performed by the Vienna Philharmonic Society some few years ago, Dr. Edward Hanslick, the well-known critic, said, in his notice printed in the Neue Freie Presse, that he had left the concert-room before the performance began, because he did not wish to witness the desecration of the hall! And in his notice of a New York concert, in which Mr. Theodore Thomas conducted Bruckner’s Seventh Symphony, Mr. H.E. Krehbiel, the musical critic of The Tribune, says:—“As an instance of what the intellect can do in music it is perhaps as startling and interesting as anything that the century has produced. But as a musical composition it is nine-tenths cold intellectuality and one-tenth beauty. It is polyphony gone mad. If one wants originality, here it is in abundance. There is nothing under the heaven, or on the earth, or in the waters under the earth like unto this symphony. Those who think the thematic work in Tristan and The Ring complex and laboured, should hear this symphony, if for no other reason than to see how, in comparison with it, Wagner’s is a complete exemplification of good music as defined by Galuppi in a conversation with Dr. Burney one hundred and sixteen years ago: ‘Beauty, clearness, and good modulation.’ Every element of symphonic writing which Herr Bruckner uses he uses in a manner which stamps a unique character on the work. But it is only unique, not beautiful.”
And after discussing several technical points in the work, Mr. Krehbiel adds that, all the same, it is not wise or just to condemn an art-work like this in so superficial and flippant manner as nearly all the New York newspapers have done; “but bearing in mind a score of marvellous things in the symphony, notably several moments that approach grandeur in the slow movement, and remembering that that is not always the highest type of beauty which is obvious at a glance, we are yet constrained to say that for the present the work is a failure. It may be beautiful in twenty-five years; it is not beautiful now.”
Weingartner’s Opinion
In the article by Herr Felix Weingartner, on the post-Beethoven symphonists, which was previously mentioned, we find the following opinion of Bruckner and his works:—“In these last ten years has been often mentioned a powerful rival of Brahms, born in that artist’s second fatherland, in that city of Vienna which seems to be the city of the symphony.[40] Though much older than Brahms, Anton Bruckner, recently deceased, only became universally known even later than him.... His was a musical talent veritably rich. For that reason one would be almost tempted to compare him to his great compatriot Schubert, if only he had created works perfect enough to be considered really masterly. But it was not so.... I was once asked my opinion of the rivalry of Bruckner and Brahms. I replied, ‘I should like nature to give us a musician uniting in himself the qualities of the two composers, the immense imagination of Bruckner with the knowledge of Brahms. From such a combination would arise an artistic figure of the highest possible value.’”