And now, for a word or two with the leaders. That ‘stamping of feet,’ Mr. Editor, which you complain of, is, most assuredly, an abominable nuisance, which, strange as it may appear to those of your readers who have not witnessed it, even the Philharmonic Concert, with the best band, perhaps, in Europe, is not entirely free from. I am amazed how any man possessed of common sense, and who is capable of enjoying good music, can so far forget himself, as to be guilty of a practice so glaringly absurd, and there have been times when I have expected the whole band would simultaneously lay down their instruments, and remonstrate against the use of so barbarous a custom. Some years ago, I heard the following anecdote: A very respectable member of the Philharmonic Band obtained permission to take with him to the rehearsal, a blind youth, who had a great passion for music, and, being self-taught, played on the violin. This lad had never in his life heard any music of a high class, such, for instance, as an overture, or symphony; nor, indeed, had he ever before heard a full band. Judge then of the delight he experienced upon hearing a symphony performed by the Philharmonic orchestra! yet, in the midst of his raptures, he complained of a noise which at intervals disturbed his attention and greatly annoyed him, and very innocently exclaimed, ‘what a pity it is that mill should be so near the concert-room!’ Alas! poor boy, the noise which so much offended him, was produced by the leader’s foot-clack.
I will venture to ask, did the elder Cramer, Salomon, or Viotti—men of as great talent, I apprehend, as any in the present day—did they, or either of them, annoy both the audience and the band by beating the time, as it were, with a wooden shoe? If I may form an opinion by what I have seen and heard of Mr. Weichsel, (who may be considered as belonging to the same school,) I should answer—No.
Then, Sir, there is another habit which of late years seems to have become fashionable with at least some of our leaders, but which, in my opinion, is as useless and offensive as the ‘stamping of feet.’ The custom I allude to is, for the leader to leave off playing at certain intervals, and then, assuming what I presume he thinks a very elegant attitude, and commanding position, flourishing his bow backwards and forwards most heroically. So that, while this species of charlatanism is going on, there are, in fact, two conductors, and no leader! I presume this is done either to catch the attention of the ladies, or to impress on the minds of the unthinking part of the audience, an idea of his importance and zeal. I have more than once shut my eyes to avoid looking at this—what shall I call it?—coquetting with the audience—and have exclaimed in the words of Shakspeare—‘that’s villainous, and shows a most pitiful ambition in the fool that uses it.’ I have always entertained the notion that the leader, or principal violin, should play his part, and that he, like every other performer, should take the time from the conductor[49]. This, I understand, was the method pursued by M. Chelard, the maestro at the German opera last season at the King’s Theatre. He proved himself an excellent conductor; and I have been told by one of the best musical critics in this country that, with confessedly an inferior band, (for he had not the assistance of Nicholson, Willman, Platt, Lindley, or Dragonetti,) the orchestral accompaniments were much more effective, and in every respect superior to the Italian Opera.
I am happy to close these remarks, by stating that the same judicious and rational plan appeared to be adopted at the second Philharmonic concert this season; the consequence was, that two very difficult symphonies of Spohr and Beethoven were most admirably performed.
I am, Mr. Editor,
Your most obedient servant,
Z.
MAELZEL’S NEW METRONOME.
REPORT made to the Academy of the Fine Arts, 20th October, 1832, by its Musical Committee on the Third Metronome of Maelzel.
MESSIEURS,
YOU have heard read the two first reports made to you by your musical committee on the Metronome of Maelzel, the first dated 14th October, 1815, and the second 23d May, 1818. Your committee are of opinion, that in the two former reports the utility of this ingenious instrument, and the perfection of its mechanism, have been so fully demonstrated, that it will be needless to fatigue your attention by further dissertation on those points. What your committee now beg to call your attention to is, a still further improvement which the author has added to his instrument.
From the time of Sauveur to the present, all the time-keepers and metronomes have been limited to marking the time to be occupied by each bar of a composition, and all have performed this in a uniform manner; but, as in our musical system, the bars are divided into accented and unaccented parts, and none of the instruments hitherto invented indicated this division, they were, if the comparison may be permitted, like foot-measures divided into spaces by a number of equidistant parallel lines, but on which the marks indicating inches, half-inches, &c. had been totally omitted. The indications of the accented and unaccented parts of a bar can only be felt in relation to the bar itself, of which they form subdivisions, therefore they cannot be classed as accented or unaccented until the beating of the bar itself has been heard.