Johann Peter Sweelinck.
Other famous organists of this period were Johann Pachelbel (1653-1706), located at Nuremberg (Bach studied his works as a lad); Dietrich Buxtehude (1637-1707), organist at Lübeck for thirty-nine years. One of the most important names of this period of development is that of Johann Joseph Fux (1660-1741). His “Gradus ad Parnassum,” published in 1725, a treatise on counterpoint based on the practice of the great masters, played an important part in the training of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.
English Organists.—In the history of English organ playing, the first great name to engage our attention is that of Thomas Tallys, born about 1520. He is called the “Father of English church music.” He served under Henry VIII, Edward VI, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, as organist of the Chapel Royal. English organists of distinction contemporary with and succeeding Tallys were John Merbecke, Richard Farrant, William Byrd, John Bull, Thomas Morley, Orlando Gibbons (a contemporary of Frescobaldi), Matthew Lock, John Blow and Henry Purcell. The last mentioned, born in 1658, became organist of Westminster Abbey in 1680. The name of Purcell is one of the strongest in the history of English music. It was his ambition to found a distinctive school of English composition. Although not successful in this, he made a lasting impression on English church music and produced many charming secular works. It is on record that he stood high in the estimation of his European contemporaries.
Culmination in Bach and Handel.—The Polyphonic Period culminated in Bach and Handel, both born in 1685. These two, who never met, and who worked upon dissimilar lines, were the most famous organists of their day, in addition to their greatness in composition.
The Organ and Polyphonic Music.—Bach must be regarded as the source of modern organ composition and playing. In him polyphonic composition attained its highest perfection and the organ stands as the centre of the Polyphonic school. The development of the Opera and its influence towards a freer style in vocal and instrumental composition and the tendency of instrumental music to develop along harmonic lines had the effect of relegating polyphonic music to the Church with the organ as its chief vehicle. It is only of comparatively recent years that the organ has become a concert instrument. Bach’s treatment of the instrument serves as a model for the composers of all time and the study of his works is indispensable to the development of technical command of the organ and the cultivation of the true organ style. Handel’s permanent contribution to organ literature consists of sets of Concertos. These concertos, a number of which are still played and admired, excited the enthusiasm of Sir John Hawkins, who gives a glowing account of them in his history. Bach was appointed Cantor at the St. Thomas Schule, Leipzig, in 1723, and it was here that much of his greatest work was accomplished. In addition to his duties at the school, he directed the music in the Churches of St. Thomas and St. Nicholas. As to the relative superiority of Bach and Handel as organists, contemporary opinion seems to have differed widely. Each undoubtedly had a style of his own as shown in his published compositions. Each excelled in improvisation.
The Chorale in Protestant Organ Music.—In addition to his incomparable preludes and fugues, toccatas, fantasias and pieces in the larger forms, Bach made the polyphonic treatment of the chorale an art peculiarly his own. In fact, the German style of organ playing may be said to have developed from the chorale and from the music of the Reformation. This furnished a fresher and very different source of inspiration from the Gregorian chant which had been handled so effectively by Frescobaldi and his Italian successors.
Marchand.—One of the most renowned of early French organists was Louis Marchand (1671-1732). In 1717, while living under banishment in Dresden, he was to have entered into a trial of skill with Bach, but lost courage and departed on the morning of the appointed day. A certain triviality has at times characterized the French school of organ music, undoubtedly a reflection of the prevailing style and taste in other branches of musical composition. Of later years, however, a more serious and exalted style has developed.
The German School.—To return to the German organists. A name familiar to all students of the organ is that of Rinck. Johann C. H. Rinck (1770-1846) was a pupil of Kittel, who in turn was a pupil of J. S. Bach. Rinck’s reputation is based largely on his “Practical Organ School,” a work still in use. Another name of importance is that of Johann Gottlob Schneider (1789-1864). He has had the reputation of being one of the greatest German organists since the time of Bach. Of the great composers since Bach, Mendelssohn stands conspicuous as an organist and composer of organ music. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, although occasionally using the organ in their scores, did not compose for the instrument. Mendelssohn developed a decided fondness for the organ, which he played admirably. His six sonatas and three preludes and fugues are masterpieces. Among the representative German organists and composers should be mentioned: Adolph Hesse (1809-1863), author of the “Practical Organist” and a prolific composer; Karl August Haupt (1810-1891), a celebrated teacher, numbering among his many pupils from all countries such prominent American organists as Eugene Thayer, Clarence Eddy and J. K. Paine; Carl Ludwig Thiele (1816-1848) composer of some of the most difficult known works for the organ; Gustav Merkel (1827-1885), a prolific composer, whose sonatas are numbered among the standard works for the instrument; J. G. Rheinberger (1837-1901), one of the finest organists and best teachers of his time and a composer of great ability, whose twenty sonatas form a permanent addition to the best organ literature. A number of American organists were among his pupils.
The French School.—Prominent among organists of the French school in the 19th century may be mentioned: L. J. A. Lefébure-Wély (1817-1869) and Antoine Eduard Batiste (1820-1876). The works of both these organists are still widely played and have won much popularity. Wely has been called the “Auber of the organ.” His works display fertility of melodic invention and a piquancy of harmonic treatment, but are entirely lacking in the polyphonic element. Much the same may be said of Batiste, who was a fine player and teacher, and who equalled Wely in tunefulness but not in musicianship. Nicholas Jacques Lemmens (1823-81), a great player (especially of Bach) and author of the celebrated “Ecole d’Orgue” may be said to have laid the foundation of the modern French school. Conspicuous among his successors have been: Camille Saint-Saëns (1835-——), a most versatile musician and a noted organist; Théodore Dubois (1837-——), Théodore Salome (1834-——) and Felix Alexandre Guilmant (1837-——). Guilmant, one of the most noted organists and composers of the present day, was a favorite pupil of Lemmens. He has been one of the most prolific composers since the time of Bach, is a master of all the resources of the modern organ, and has a fertility of invention and a fluent command of contrapuntal resources. Another eminent French organist is C. M. Widor (1845- ——), also a composer of distinction. A powerful influence was exerted on modern organ music, as well as general composition, by the eminent organist and composer, César Franck, who was, for a number of years, in charge of the organ class at the Paris Conservatoire.
The Italian School.—Among recent Italian organists Filippo Capocci (1840-——) and Enrico Bossi (1861-——) are worthy of mention. Both are splendid organists and prolific composers. They are leaders in the revival of good organ playing in Italy, where a determined effort is being made to restore the art to its former supremacy.
The English School.—England has furnished a long line of 19th century organists of ability, prominent among whom are: Sir John Goss (1800-1880), Henry Smart (1813-1879), E. J. Hopkins (1818-1901), S. S. Wesley (1810-1876), Dr. Wm. Spark (1825-1897). Foremost among English organists stands the name of Wm. T. Best (1826-1897). He was one of the most famous concert organists of his time, but is best known to organ students by his “Arrangements from the Scores of the Great Masters,” in which he demonstrated that the organ is in itself capable of reproducing certain orchestral effects without transcending its proper functions or descending to trickery. “The Organ,” by Sir John Stainer (1840-1901), is one of the most widely used elementary works for instruction in organ playing. Dr. Stainer was the successor of Sir John Goss, at St. Paul’s, London, and was appointed Professor of Music at Oxford University in 1889. Frederic Archer (1838-1901) has been considered one of the greatest of organ players. After a successful career in England, he came to America in 1880. He did much towards popularizing and elevating the art of organ playing in this country. Prominent among contemporary English organists stands Edwin H. Lemare (1865-——), who succeeded Frederic Archer as organist of Carnegie Hall, Pittsburg, in 1902. He is a skilful virtuoso, a composer of originality, and a leading representative of the modern English school.
Modern Organ Music.—Organ playing and composition have kept pace with the mechanical and artistic evolution of the instrument, and the lines between the various schools are becoming less closely drawn. The tendency of builders to imitate orchestral tone and effects has had influence on composers and players alike. This tendency is less noticeable in the works of the German school, where a modified polyphony still flourishes, based on the principle of the classic treatment of the chorale and growing out of the music of the Lutheran Church. The organ compositions of the modern French school are characterized by grace, refinement and originality, coupled with a certain dignity and elegance. They combine free harmonic treatment and modern polyphony, together with certain ornate characteristics, growing out of the elaborate ceremonial music of the Latin Church, and bringing into play all the resources of tone color and expressive treatment of the modern instrument. Much the same may be said of the modern English school, which nevertheless still shows traces of the early English style, based on the dignity and purity of cathedral use and tradition. The orchestral tendency, both in composition for the organ and in the transcription of orchestral works for the instrument, shows itself more or less in all schools, and the organ, in addition to its position in the church, is becoming more and more a concert instrument. The compositions of the American organists reflect, in a measure, the characteristics of the schools in which they have been trained, and in particular show traces of the styles of the masters with whom they have chiefly studied.[9]
Questions.
In what early instrument is the germ of the organ found? Describe its gradual development.
Describe the general character of the early organs.
Describe the various mechanical improvements.
When and by whom were pedals introduced?
Mention some of the early organists.
In whom did the Polyphonic Period culminate? Who is the source of modern organ composition and playing?
Mention some German organists since the time of Bach.
Mention some prominent French and English organists of the 19th century.
Describe the modern tendencies in organ composition.
Suggestions for a Review of Lessons VIII to XVI.
Get a clear idea of the period, which includes the years between 1100 and the death of Palestrina in 1594, almost 500 years. The lesson on the organ and organ playing belongs to this period, chronologically, in part only.
The difference between the monophonic and polyphonic styles must be clearly appreciated in order to get a clear grasp of the two fundamental styles in music. Illustrations from the masters are to be placed in contrast. Polyphony developed from melodic principles, the simultaneous sounding of several melodies. Monophony depends upon a harmonic basis.
Indicate the steps in the growth of Polyphony.
How did the Church contribute?
What political and other conditions made Paris the centre of Europe in the 12th century?
What is the force of Imitation as a principle to secure Unity in musical composition? How was it used by the composers of the Paris school?
What advances in the use of Imitation did the men of the Gallo-Belgic school make?
Indicate certain historical events and name prominent personages of the periods included in this section.
Why did the early English school exercise so little influence on music?
What noted musical composition is credited to the English school? What kind of work is it?
What historical periods coincide with the English school as described in this section?
Compare the Gallo-Belgic and the Netherlands schools. What did the former contribute to the latter?
What is the musical value of the principle of the Canon?
Why did the musical centre shift respectively from Paris to Belgium, to the Netherlands and then to Italy?
Make a list of the composers of the different schools of this period and trace the connection between them.
Give a sketch of Palestrina and show his contribution to church music.
Describe the madrigal. Compare a madrigal with a modern part-song and note the difference in style.
Give the classification of musical instruments. Examples in each class.
Give a sketch of the development of the viol.
What is the germ of the principle of the organ?
What is the necessity for the use of a bellows?
What are the successive steps in improving the organ?
Mention the important players in chronological order.
Classify them in the proper schools.
Compare the German, French and English schools.
The Renaissance.—The Opera, in its inception, was literary rather than musical in nature. It was a result of what is known as the Renaissance, so-called because its most prominent manifestation in Italy was a revival of the learning of the ancients. This phase of the movement was initiated by Petrarch (1304-1370), who devoted his life to the study of the classical past of Italy. The Latin classics had never been entirely lost, but those of the Greeks had become practically extinct during the dark ages which followed the conquest of the Roman Empire by the barbarians of the North, in the 5th century. The arts had been kept alive only through the fostering care of the Church, and all had taken on a conventionally ecclesiastical character. Education had declined; it was practically confined to churchmen—even kings and rulers could barely sign their names, while the people at large were sunk in gross ignorance. The revival of Latin literature through the influence of Petrarch led to an interest in the Greek classics which soon became the engrossing study of the learned. Diligent search was made for lost and forgotten manuscripts; academies of learning were founded; lectures were given on Greek philosophy. In the enthusiasm thus created it was even thought that not only the arts and literature of the ancient world might be restored, but its governmental, social and political structure as well.
Scope of the Renaissance.—The Renaissance, however, was not merely literary in nature. It was in reality the awakening of man from the spiritual and intellectual slumber which had bound him for nearly a thousand years. Long before it was defined it had been perceptible in many ways. First, materially, in a spirit of exploration, of adventure and enterprise. Traders and travelers startled Europe with glowing accounts of the far East; missionaries took long and dangerous voyages in the hope of converting its heathen inhabitants. An eager desire for increased commercial facilities with these favored countries by means of a westward passage brought about the discovery of America, with which modern history may be said to have opened.
With this extension of the world’s boundaries, the mind of man began to expand as well. As he looked forward with eager anticipation to the future, he studied the past with an eye newly alive to the treasures of its buried culture. Instead of his former acquiescence in being one of a dull, inert mass, serving without question those in authority over him, he began to feel and to assert his own individuality, to resist the crushing weight of feudalism which had hitherto oppressed him. Freedom of intellect, of conscience, of science, of art, was in the air.
The effect of this transition from medievalism toward modern liberty of thought and action varied with different nationalities. In northern nations it took the direction of rebellion against prevailing religious and political conditions, for example, in Germany and England. Italy, however, remained steadfast in religion and government; the revolt was against traditions in matters of art and literature. Roman law and Greek philosophy were exhumed; the classics were zealously studied for standards of taste and culture.
Music of the Ancients.—Notwithstanding this research, no trace was found of the music actually in use among the ancients. From the evanescent nature of the art and the total lack of examples, the elaborate descriptions of its complicated system of scales and modes given by Greek philosophers failed to yield a trustworthy clue to its real character.
It was known, however, that the drama, owing to the enormous proportions of the amphitheatre in which it was performed, was musically declaimed, and that the voices of the actors and chorus were sustained by lyres and flutes. Thus, in the Greek tragedy we find the principal features of the modern opera—scenery, dramatic action, solo and choral singing, the orchestra. It was also known that in the music of the Greeks the word was the governing principle; that there was no independent instrumental music—nor was there elsewhere for many centuries afterward. The tone was regarded only as a means of heightening the effect of the poetry; the succession of long and short syllables dictated both rhythm and melody. Of harmony in the modern sense of the term, there was none; instruments and voices alike were in unison.
Music Chiefly Choral.—In the 16th century, Florence was the centre of the enthusiasm for Greek culture. She and her sister-cities in the north of Italy were the arbiters in matters of taste, of learning and erudition. There, toward the end of the century, a small group of scholars and musicians, known as the Camerata (Chamber), meeting at the house of Count Bardi, discussed the possibility of reproducing the musical declamation of Greek tragedy. The time was ripe for such an experiment. The polyphonic school had reached its climax in the intricate works of di Lasso (1520-1594) and Palestrina (1514-1594). Though admirably suited to the Church, the contrapuntal style of these great composers was manifestly unfit for dramatic purposes; it could voice the aspirations of a body of worshipers swayed by a common belief, but could not express individual feeling. No voice was more important than another, all progressed according to canonic law, their complex intertwining practically destroying the essentially secular elements of accent and rhythm. It was, in short, the embodiment in music of the medievalism which had so long controlled Church and State.
Thus far the spirit of emancipation which had produced such great results in the other arts and in politics elsewhere had touched music but lightly. Attempts had been made to break the restraints of contrapuntalism, but there was a total ignorance as to what steps would prove most effective in reaching that end, and nothing definite had been accomplished. Aside from the Folk-song, which was ignored by musicians save only as it served as Cantus Firmus for their counterpoint, there was no music for the solo voice; it was conceived solely from a choral standpoint.
The Recitative.—Their dissatisfaction with the school of music then in vogue and the impossibility of adapting it to their purpose led to various experiments by this band of enthusiasts to discover the principles upon which the Greeks had founded the musical declamation employed in their tragedies. They argued that it must have followed as closely as possible the inflections of the voice in speaking; therefore they made this their study. Thus originated the Recitative, the distinguishing feature of the lyric drama, which, though using the definite pitches of the musical scale, reproduces in its progressions and cadences the characteristic but intensified effect of an oratorical delivery of the text. It was the exact contrary of the music of the age in which the word counted for almost nothing, the art of combining independent voices and of playing them off one against the other for everything.
The Cantata.—The first result of their efforts was the Cantata (from cantare, to sing), meaning a composition for the voice in contradistinction to the Sonata (from sonare, to sound), which was applied to one for instruments. The Cantata had but little in common with what is now understood by the term. It was a recitation on musical intervals for a single voice accompanied by but one instrument. Anything like a formal melody was carefully avoided, and the accompaniment, generally played on the lute, was of the most unpretending character. The first of these cantatas was composed by Vincenzo Galilei, the father of the celebrated astronomer, on the tragic fate of Count Ugolino, as related by Dante in the Inferno. This, therefore, was the first art-song ever composed. Unfortunately, it has been lost; but contemporary accounts tell of the profound impression it created. Other cantatas were written and sung by Giulio Caccini (1550-1618), a skilled and an admirable lutist as well, and all awakened the utmost enthusiasm among the little company.
These works were known as Nuove Musiche (new music) and such as have survived are, in general, painfully thin and crude to modern ears. When compared with the rich polyphony of the prevailing Church style they seem at the first blush to indicate retrogression. Progress, however, seldom advances in a direct line; it generally moves by spirals which at times apparently retreat only to mount the higher at the succeeding curve. These dull recitatives bore the germ of emancipation from the scholastic laws which had heretofore prevented music from expressing individual emotion; they typify the spirit of the Renaissance and are the foundation of the art as we now know it.
The First Opera.—Another of the number, Jacopo Peri (1561-1633), also a musician, took the next step by composing music of the same style to a drama, the Dafne (Daphne) of the poet Rinuccini, who was the life and soul of this attempt to revive the lost declamation of the Greeks. This was performed privately in 1595 at the Corsi Palace, and produced so strong an impression that it was repeated a number of times at the Carnival seasons of the succeeding years. In 1600, Peri was invited to compose a similar work for the marriage festivities of Henry IV of France and Maria di Medici. This was Euridice, also written by Rinuccini, which bears the distinction of being the first opera to receive public performance, and thus introducing the new art-form to the world at large. The score of Dafne has been lost, but that of Euridice still exists.
It was then known as a music drama (melo dramma or dramma per la musica); the term opera (abbreviation for opera in musica, that is, musical work) did not come into use until the middle of the century. The orchestra, which was played behind the scenes, consisted of a harpsichord, two lutes and a bass-viol. In addition, three lutes played a short ritornello (interlude) in one scene. With this exception, the instruments were used merely to support the voice; the tonality was almost exclusively minor, and the harmony of the simplest. It is thought that Peri sang the part of Orpheus and that Francesca Caccini, daughter of the composer and one of the most gifted singers of the day, sang Euridice.
Part of an Air by Caccini.
Caccini claimed the new style as his invention, and it is certain that parts of Euridice were composed by him, though Peri’s name alone appears on the title page of the published work. Emulating the success of his colleague, the former soon set the same drama to music.
Characteristics of the Early Opera.—The two settings are so similar that one might almost be taken for the other. Both display the same characteristics. Of dramatic feeling or characterization as understood at the present day there is no sign; development of musical thought, none whatever; a dreary waste of recitatives is but slightly relieved by the occasional flourishes (giri e gruppi, that is, runs and turns) allowed the singers by the taste of the times. The choruses, however, which are introduced freely, serve to vary the monotony somewhat. They exhibit a singular mingling of the old and new styles, natural under the circumstances. The voices sing either in a recitative-like unison, or begin in fugato, and later move in simple harmonic progression. Their distaste for the contrapuntal style led these reformers to reject it so far as they could. Its appearance at all is due to the fact that no other mode of writing for a number of voices had as yet been devised—a strictly harmonic treatment had not been thought of. Since, then, they were at a loss as to the management of choral masses, they were obliged to have recourse in part to old methods.
Another name associated with the Florentine school deserving mention is that of Marco da Gagliano, a priest who soon took the lead in the new movement. His first opera was Dafne (1607), composed to Rinuccini’s drama which had already served Peri; it was a common practice in those days for composers to use the same text. As a scholar and musician, Gagliano was superior to his predecessors. He shows a greater warmth of feeling and a tendency toward melody which they considered as a lowering of their ideals.
The Florentine School.—One particular characteristic of the Florentine school was a sedulous avoidance of anything like extended melody or definite form. To the composers of this school, music was not an end in itself; it was subordinate to the distinct, impassioned declamation of the poet’s verses. They held that any independent development of musical thought was a weakness; that it tended to distract the attention of the hearer from the drama, and to interfere with its logical continuity. The predominant influence was that of the scholar, not of the musician. This was to be expected from the character of the little coterie interested in the new art-form. The majority were wealthy amateurs, zealous students of the classics and aflame with the desire for the actual revival of the Greek tragedy. Peri and Caccini were the only musicians and they were strongly averse to the contrapuntal music of the day. Its persistently ecclesiastical effect debarred it from expressing the personal feeling which was the object of their research. In the effort to escape its ban, they unwittingly emancipated their art from the control of the Church, and made it accessible to mankind in general. This, therefore, is the great service of the Florentine reformers: the establishment of a purely secular school of music susceptible of indefinite development.
Making allowance for the vast difference in means due to the practical creation of independent instrumental music since the 17th century, their practice was precisely the same as that of the modern composer who writes a music drama and uses the same term to define his work. When Dafne and Euridice first saw the light, however, there was neither knowledge nor experience to point the way; it was found only after a slow and laborious process of experimentation, involving the acceptance of much that was rejected after having served its turn. Though Peri and Caccini with their confrères did not succeed in the end they had in view, they accomplished far more by originating the Opera, the point of departure for the whole modern art of music.
Questions and Suggestions.
What was the Renaissance?
What was the effect of this idea on music?
What was the origin of Recitative?
What was understood by Nuove Musiche?
Who wrote the first opera? What term was applied to this kind of musical work?
Give a description of the early opera.
Give an account of the Florentine school and their fundamental ideas.
Since the beginning of the Opera is practically the beginning of a century, the 17th, it should not be a difficult matter to keep this date in mind. It therefore antedates the settlement at Jamestown, Va., by a few years, making the beginning of American history under English auspices and the Opera coincide.
The First Oratorio.—The novelty of the new style, which was called the stilo rappresentativo (representative style), the vigor and freedom it gave to an impressive delivery of the text, aroused universal attention. Among the composers who essayed it was Emilio del Cavaliere (1550-1599). By applying it to a sacred subject, he originated the Oratorio. Roman by birth, he had passed part of his life in Florence, and though not a member of the Camerata, was familiar with its aims and practice.
The germ both of the Opera and Oratorio is to be found in the Miracle Plays or so-called Mysteries of the Middle Ages. These were dramatic representations of Bible scenes or religious allegories by means of which a populace unable to read was taught the great truths of sacred history. Cavaliere’s oratorio, La Rappresentazione di Anima e di Corpo (The Representation of Soul and Body), was given in 1600 in Rome, at the Oratory of the Church of Santa Maria in Vallicella—hence its name.
Passage from Cavaliere’s Oratorio.
Its Characteristics.—Save for the nature of the subject, there was no apparent difference between it and an opera. The allegorical characters taking part appeared in costume and in action. The score even gives directions by which it may be concluded with a dance if so desired. By this, however, dignified and stately movements are understood, in nowise resembling the rapid dance of modern times. The composer in his instructions for performance, which are unusually full and complete, lays great stress upon an expressive delivery of the text, and the swelling and diminishing of the tones by the singers. In vigor and characterization it far surpasses Peri’s and Caccini’s operas. Cavaliere’s death, which occurred ten months before the production of his work, and the great popularity of the Opera, put a stop to the immediate development of the Oratorio; that was reserved for Carissimi a generation later.
Monteverde.—The task of taking the opera from the experimental stage and of placing it on the artistic foundation which it now occupies was accomplished by Claudio Monteverde (1568-1643), a man of extraordinary genius and originality. A harmonist of surpassing force and boldness, he had always rebelled against the restraints of the contrapuntal school, though, unlike Peri and Caccini, he was skilled in its intricacies. He was viol player in the band of the Duke of Mantua, and had composed masses and madrigals, many of which were severely criticised by the pedants of the day. He joined definite issue with them in his freedom of treating dissonances, the distinguishing feature of modern harmony. Heretofore, sevenths, ninths, augmented fourths and the like had never been heard without preparation. Monteverde, however, introduced them without regard to this restriction, little heeding the anathemas heaped upon his head by those who considered his infractions of established rules unpardonable. His ardent, restless temperament, seeking novel modes of expression, often led to wild and extravagant combinations which even today appear harsh and forced. At that time they must have seemed wilful attempts at outraging the ear and the sense of harmonic propriety. These innovations, however, are the cornerstone of modern harmony; of this as well as of the opera, Monteverde is the real founder. What are defects in his church music are excellences in his operas. The discords which disturb the serenity of a religious atmosphere are admirably fitted to produce dramatic effects and powerful climaxes. Monteverde belonged to the stage as his great contemporary, Palestrina, belonged to the church.
Position of Music in the 17th Century.—The interest which the success of the Florentine composers would have for a man thus gifted can be readily imagined. Yet he was obliged to wait a number of years for an opportunity to emulate their achievements. Music then was the especial pastime of the great; it was part of the state with which they surrounded themselves. Almost all titled and wealthy families had their own bands of musicians and choirs of singers. These assisted in their private chapels and lent additional eclat to seasons of festivity. Concerts and operas were given only at court or in the palaces of noblemen; public halls for any kind of musical occasion were unknown. A musician or composer could make his way only by attaching himself to a noble house or by securing a patron in court circles. Dafne and Euridice were made possible through the interest and protection of Count Bardi and Count Corsi. The opera was also attended with great expense. The taste of the times demanded an enormous outlay for mounting—costumes, scenery, decorations; only the extremely wealthy could afford it, and they reserved it for occasions of especial importance.
Ariadne’s Lament.
Monteverde’s First Opera.—In 1607, the marriage of Margaret of Savoy to Francesco Gonzaga, son of the Duke of Mantua, opened the way for Monteverde’s first opera, Arianna (Ariadne), which was received with the utmost enthusiasm. Unfortunately, but a fragment of it remains, Ariadne’s lament after her desertion by Theseus, the most celebrated opera air ever written. In its unprepared discords of the harshest nature, in the poignant expression of grief and despair so at variance with the placid art of the day, this shows how, by a single stroke, Monteverde cut loose from all the traditions of the past. In its less than a score of measures it also anticipates principles of artistic structure which were not formulated for nearly a century later and which hold good to the present day. It is said that it brought tears to every eye.
Ritornello by Monteverde.
His Second Opera.—The following year he produced his second opera, Orfeo (Orpheus), so called to distinguish it from Peri’s Euridice on the same subject. Though most of Monteverde’s works have been lost, the score of Orfeo has been preserved. It shows a surprising advance over the simplicity of the Florentine operas. First of all, in the great expansion of the orchestra. This numbers thirty-seven instruments which throughout are combined in groups and as a whole with an art prefiguring certain effects of orchestration supposed to be purely modern. Like harmony, instrumentation dates from Monteverde. Instead of the customary vocal prologue, it begins with a Toccata (instrumental prelude). The composer’s keen dramatic instinct is shown by the masterly way in which he avoids the monotony of his predecessors; the recitatives are varied by the introduction of ritornelli, and each act ends with a chorus and a stately passage for the orchestra. Five years later, the most famous composer of the day, he left Mantua for Venice, where until his death he was director of music at St. Mark’s.
Monteverde’s Characteristics.—Monteverde’s greatest service to the opera lay in enlarging the sphere of the orchestra, and in the initiation of a thoroughly instrumental style adapted to the character of each instrument. He increased the number of players and released the orchestra from the subordinate position of being a mere support for the voice by employing it to heighten the dramatic situation. He originated many previously unknown effects, among them the pizzicato and the tremolo of the violins in precisely the same form as used at present. The latter so astounded the players that at first they refused to attempt it, saying that it was impossible. He endowed the Recitative with far greater freedom and depth of expression; under his hand it lost much of the dryness of the Florentine school. His manner of writing for the voice was declamatory rather than melodious; what traces of definite melody occur in his works are generally confined to the instruments, in which he curiously anticipates the practice of latter-day dramatic composers.
Popularization of the Opera.—Until 1637 the opera was restricted to royalty and the nobility. In that year the first public opera house was opened in Venice, and such was the popularity of the new amusement that before the end of the century there were no fewer than eleven in that city alone, then with a population of about 140,000. It spread through Italy with almost like rapidity, bearing in its wake an unparalleled development of the art of song.
Change of Character.—With its introduction to the people, it was manifestly impossible for the opera to retain its original character. So long as it was confined to the cultivated, the classical ideals of its founders met with intelligent appreciation, but when confronted with audiences drawn from the masses desirous only of being amused, a change was inevitable. Mythological and classical subjects were gradually discarded in favor of those involving intrigue and disguise; comic personages were introduced to enliven the scene. As the dramatic action was thus brought nearer the comprehension of the unlearned, so the music departed from the oratorical standards of the early school, and showed a frank tendency toward melody and regularity of form. What was lost in elevation of theme, however, was made up by the human interest imparted to the play and the consequent endeavor of the composer to express, by his music, the varying vicissitudes of life. Thus it gained in warmth of feeling and flexibility in means of expression, while the evolution of rhythmic melody and definite musical structure laid the foundation of the art as we now have it.
The Venetian School.—Venice naturally became the centre of an important development of the opera. Of the numerous composers forming the Venetian school, Francesco Cavalli (1600-1676) and Marco Cesti (1620-1669) are second only in importance to Monteverde. The first was Monteverde’s pupil, and had much of his broad dramatic style modified by the influences of which we have just spoken. Cesti came to Venice from Rome, where he had been the pupil of Carissimi, and brought with him the smoothness and melodic flow of his master, albeit lacking in essential power. Other names of a later date are Giovanni Legrenzi (1625-1690), especially noted for spirit and vivacity, and Antonio Lotti (1667-1740), his pupil, known by one or two charming airs which still survive.
Carissimi and the Oratorio.—Giovanni Carissimi (1604-1674), though he never wrote for the stage, was the strongest musical influence of his day. He was an ardent admirer of the new school, and adapted it in the form of oratorios and cantatas to the Church. In such works the necessity for form as regards definite tonality, distinct rhythm and melodic sequence is naturally much greater than in the Opera where music is used to illustrate the dramatic situation, and is furthermore elucidated by the action of the play. When the ear alone is obliged to pass judgment there must be evidence of design in these particulars, else the effect is confused and bewildering. Carissimi’s musical instinct grasped this truth. His oratorios and cantatas show a logical arrangement of choruses and ensembles, recitatives and arias combined with a unity of effect and a clearness of characterization heretofore unknown. The choruses in particular are strongly rhythmic and far more dramatic than those which were commonly heard on the stage.
From “Jephtha” by Carissimi.
Secularization of Church Music.—This introduction of the new style into the Church marked the passing of the old school and strongly affected methods of dramatic composition. The public had never been in sympathy with the austere standards of the Florentine school and welcomed the appearance of intelligible melody and the spirited rhythms to which Carissimi gave the first direct impulse. Not only this; he fixed the form that the music of the Church was to bear for a century to come. This secularization of church music had its good and bad sides; good by reason of the greater freedom and variety of expression thus gained; bad because of the bold and mechanical imitation of Carissimi’s purely formal details by his successors, which in the end led to a tiresome monotony of style.
Characteristics of the Venetian School.—Thus was taken the first step toward the complete reversal of the conditions under which the early Opera had arisen. Instead of the music’s being subordinate to the drama, the drama was soon to serve merely as an excuse for the music; the opera was destined to sink to the level of a concert sung in costume; the dramatic action reduced to a minimum. The Venetian school marks the turning-point in this direction. The high ideals of Monteverde and his predecessors were gradually thrust into the background; the singer began to assume precedence over the actor; truth of expression yielded to the fascinations of time and tune, which even the musically uncultivated could enjoy without bothering their heads as to real dramatic fitness. Closely connected with these tendencies was the establishment of a school of singing which, if we may believe contemporary accounts, surpassed in technical facility and brilliancy any vocal art heard either before or since that time. The result was that singers finally regarded the opera only as a field for the display of their dazzling accomplishments and in this they were willingly supported by a public eager to be entertained and amused.
Questions and Suggestions.
Who wrote the first oratorio? In what respects did an opera and an oratorio differ?
Give an account of Monteverde and his innovations in Opera.
What was the state of music in the 17th century?
Describe Monteverde’s first opera.
Describe Monteverde’s second opera.
What was understood by the terms Toccata, Ritornello?
What were Monteverde’s contributions to the Opera?
What change took place in the character of the Opera in the latter half of the 17th century?
Who were the prominent members of the Venetian school?
Give an account of Carissimi and his work.
Give a characterization of the Venetian school.
A short account of the Mysteries or Miracle Plays of the Middle Ages may be assigned to a pupil as special work. The Passion Play, still given today at Oberammergau, Germany, is a relic of the old-time religious plays.
The Neapolitan School.—What in the Venetian school had been a reaction in favor of form and melody became the established practice of the Neapolitan school. Political disturbances had hindered the spread of the Opera in southern Italy, particularly in Naples, but at the end of the 17th century it assumed the position formerly occupied by Florence and Venice. Before this, however, a strong influence had been exerted by certain composers in Rome, of whom Carissimi was first in importance. Had it not been for the disapproval of the Church, a definite Roman school might have arisen. Such a school would doubtless have been advantageous to the artistic growth of the Opera, since the public taste at Rome in matters of art was more serious in nature than at Naples. In 1697, public performances of opera were forbidden by the ecclesiastical authorities, and thus the seat of further development was transferred to Naples through the removal thither from Rome of Alessandro Scarlatti (1659-1725), the founder of the Neapolitan school. As a lad, he had been a pupil of Carissimi and also probably of Legrenzi, whose influence is clearly seen in his early works.
Alessandro Scarlatti.—Scarlatti invested his operas with a melodic charm and a symmetrical form which thus far had appeared only sporadically. Fascinated by the freedom of the new style, the early composers had neglected the severe study which had been indispensable to mastery in the Contrapuntal School, and had in the main relied on natural gifts. Following the ideal of Peri and his associates, their operas were largely a succession of recitatives which in the end grew monotonous and wearisome; of form, of structure, of purely musical effect they bore but slight traces. Scarlatti saw that the time had come for a change in style—one that should combine the musical interest of the old with the dramatic spirit of the new. The foremost musician of his time, he perceived the weakness of the exclusively declamatory opera—its lack of variety and want of appeal to the public in general.