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]
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.
[CHAPTER VII.]
HAYDN, MOZART, AND BEETHOVEN.
I.
It is almost superfluous to say that Haydn[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 whereas he may be looked upon as the father of modern instrumentation, Haydn was 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 earlier concerto for several instruments, he improved upon these forms to such a degree, that they emerged from their archaic chrysalis in rejuvenated attire.