Wellington's Victory and the labeling of "BAD" music

I am currently reading Beethoven's Ninth: A Political History and I came by a very interesting quotation regarding a piece of music that was discussed in a class I took last year. We in the class were discussing music in times of disaster. I chose to talk about (and subsequently submit a bad essay) on the validity of the 1812 Overture... But that's a whole other story.
Our professor went on at length about how people take the 1812 Overture and Beethoven's Wellington's Victory as bad music and how bad music should be taught just to show that even the greatest composers make mistakes.

To that extent this quotation struck me as being odd:
"The last hero is summoned from his retirement to return to the world to accomplish his mission; this 'second time,' when the Ninth Symphony will form a pendant to Wellington's Victory, will have the dramatic force of prayer"

This comes from the part of the book that is describing the situation surrounding the premiere of the Ninth Symphony, which was supposed to take place in London. Many artists, fearing the embarrassment that Vienna would suffer, protested so that Beethoven would premiere it in that very city. They often cited the Battle Symphony as a great triumph... Maybe Wellington's Victory is only bad music to us here in the modern world who know best....

Would make a good dissertation.

MB

Disclaimer

It may seem like I am making some very wild accusations here.... I should provide a disclaimer about the loss of popularity of "classical" music. It was not one cause but many social and political causes... I am just trying to explore some of them.

Just thought I'd note that before someone call me on it.

MB

Theodore Thomas: American Orchestra Builder
Thomas and Toscanini: Fighting the Good Fight… well the sort of good fight.
Colonialism, cultural inferiority, and the worship of the old world.

In the early years of the American orchestral world, stands one man who truly shaped American orchestral practices. Theodore Thomas began his musical training in Germany studying with his father, a violinist. The family emigrated to America where Thomas joined the New York Philharmonic in 1854 as a violinist. Growing and developing as a musician he soon decided to turn his attention to conducting. He began to conduct the New York Philharmonic in 1877 and in 1891 he formed the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. It was during this time that his ideology on orchestral music changed drastically. Originally he programmed ‘popular’ American tunes to be played with the ‘great’ European (German) master works, as to help enlighten his audience through small doses of ‘serious’ music. Towards the end of his career he believed his calling what to preserve the greatness of the Master Composers from the old world. He looked upon it as a calling,

[he refused] to listen to vulgar talk, go to questionable plays, or read immoral books, for fear of poisoning his mind and rendering himself unfit to interpret the music of the classis masters. “I avoid trashy stuff,” Thomas told his wife, “otherwise, when I come before the public to interpret master-works, and my soul should be inspired with noble and impressive emotions, these evil thoughts run around my head like squirrels and spoil it all.” (Levine 134)

This very religious and sacred view towards the Master (Germanic) composers was beginning to gain a foothold in America. Although Thomas helped put forward this cultural elitism he did many good things for orchestral music in America: forming orchestras, developing rigorous rehearsal practices and trying to educate the greater public.

Artuo Toscanini would follow Thomas in the sense that they had to fight against the current trends and traditions to pursue their concept of the proper presentation and interpretation on music whether operatic or symphonic. Thomas discussed his situation noting:

Since the [New York] Philharmonic could not guarantee full-time work, if an orchestra member had another engagement he would go to it rather than to the rehearsal.” Theodore Thomas explained, “A clarinet or oboe part would be played on a violin, or a bassoon part on the cello, etc… The conductor therefore could not rehearse as he ought, and the audience talked at pleasure… such conditions debarred all progress. (Levine 113)

In America the issue was the money and in Italy much of the issue was the audience. Toscanini was constantly in a battle with opera-goers about offering encores or what is called a bis – the repeating of an overture or aria if the crowd shouts loudly enough. This was not only for the benefit of the structure of the music, but many performers welcomed the new practice of not allowing bis’. Sometimes Toscanini would allow them, other times he would not, especially when it could hurt the rest of the performance or the soloist seemed unwilling or unable. Toscanini didn’t try to educate the public as Thomas did because the Italian public was much more a part of the music making. They had direct nationalistic and ethnic connections to the music and thus didn’t need to be ‘educated’ to be excited about it. The result of Toscanini’s fight in Italy wasn’t so detrimental to music in Italy. When he came to direct the NBC Orchestra in 1937 he was sucked into the whole American distain of their own music and the placement of the German Masters and the holiest music possible.

In America, to form a fulltime professional orchestra one had to depend on either one or more guarantors who would provide their own money to offset debt and pay the players. This resulted in the personal influence of millionaires upon musicians and performed music. The solution to both these issues both helped and damned music. The opera houses in Italy during this period still enjoyed wide and enthusiastic audiences while those in America shrank and audiences (apart from the rich and ‘enlightened’) became indifferent to new works. The main difference between these two audiences was that one had a direct connection to the music and the other (American) did not. One can see that “a little experience, [Thomas’] wife has written, taught him that neither children nor what are called wage workers were sufficiently advanced intellectually to be able to appreciate the class of music of which was his specialty.” (Levine 115) I think that there is more to it than that. The audiences in England, Germany and Italy all had their national composers that they followed with great enthusiasm. Along with these composers, many appreciated the composers of other countries who wrote music of the same form. However, in North America the greatest problem was that ‘intellectual,’ ‘educated,’ ‘artistic,’ Americans consistently rejected their own composers and music in favour of the GREAT EUROPEAN (GERMANIC) MASTERS. Many argue that music is one of the least progressive aspects of humanity, owing everything to the past and trying to postpone the future. This was not always the case, especially in operatic and symphonic music. The progress stopped when it was America’s turn to take the torch. Progress halted because to many European music what all that they needed. Only what was European could be considered truly artistic. It was this cultural inferiority, I think which arose out of colonialism (yes, I said colonialism) that helped stagnate and repress operatic and symphonic music in America.

Why would we need new music if there were rich Americans willing to pay Europeans millions of dollars to play the music of the past? Thus started the trend. Why should new music be created if there was no one to commission or perform it? Americans were willing to pay huge sums of money to European conductors to come and ‘teach’ America about their great music. This created a long line of conductors imported, enticed by the money (who could blame them) and the chance to work with the very disciplined American orchestras, who are going to perform what… music that is strange to them? Or music that they are firmly rooted in? They played what they were firmly rooted in. The list includes: Eugene Ormandy of the Philadelphia Orchestra, George Szell of the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra, Fritz Reiner of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Karl Muck of the Boston Symphony, Pierre Monteux of the San Francisco Symphony, and Artuo Toscanini thrice with the Metropolitan Opera, the New York Symphony Orchestra and the NBC Symphony Orchestra. Compare that to the list of conductors in America promoting American/new music: Leopold Stokowski, Dimitris Mitropoulos, Otto Klemperer and Serge Koussevitzky. There were no more major conductors promoting American music. I would think that their work culminated in Leonard Bernstein, which is research for another day… Perhaps I should also look into the works premiered by Herbert von Karajan as that would be an interesting look at what was going on in Europe.

Who is at fault here? Where is North American expressive culture? It found other ways to express itself through Jazz, country and western music and most notable through rock and roll (which the British did the best job of ironically). All these genres were suppressed and thought of as the anti-culture by the elite in America where as they missed the point. That was their culture because they themselves had stopped the progression of ‘classical’ music. Thus we end on two quotations. The first is by Mark Twain regarding an American musical group and the second a part of a eulogy of Theodore Thomas reinforcing the point of divine musicians and music.

“I think that in the Jubilees and their song America has produced the perfectest flower of the ages; and I wish it were a foreign product, so that she would worship it and lavish money on it and go properly crazy over it.” (Levine 143)

“The Reverend Frank Wakely Gunsaulus told a memorial meeting, “We have said goodbye to a priest and prophet… The art of interpreting great music comes as a duty, and Theodore Thomas, like a true minister, made it a privilege and joy.” (Levine 133)

L. v Beethoven = F. Flintstone?

I have a challange:

Listen to Beethoven's Piano Sontata No. 17 in D Minor "The Tempest" and I dare you to not hear the theme to the Flintstones. Very weird.

Roll over Toscanini, von Karajan was the high priest.

Quite the photo eh? This has to be my most favourite. This is conductor Herbert von Karajan who at one time was the main conductor of the Salsburg Easter Festival, the Berlin Philharmonic, the Orchestre de Paris, the Vienna State Opera and closely associated with the Vienna Philharmonic... making him the ipso facto General Music Director of Europe. If there is one conductor to be elevated to the top with regard to their influence and power he would be the one. But that is a conversation for another day.

I think the picture, however, is a great example of music/music makers being portrayed as sacred... Which is going to be discussed at the end of this post.


First of all my wonderful sister bought me a new Leonard Bernstein DVD. It is LB and the New York Philharmonic in a performance in Japan of Schumann's Symphony No 1 and Shostakovich's Symphony No 5. I have very little knowledge of the Schumann so this is a great opportunity for me to get to know it. I can't wait till I have a few hours free so I can sit and enjoy the whole thing.

I have done some more reading in Highbrow/Lowbrow. I would like to share this interesting quotation taken from a certain George Templeton Strong'’s diary regarding a New York performance of Bellini's La Sonnambula: "Everybody goes, and nob and snob, Fifth Avenue and Chatham Street, sit side by side fraternally on the hard benches."” (Levine 85) This was happening in the summer of 1851. This clearly shows that opera (now very closely linked with the Shakespeare situation in the book) was very much a public event. 150 years later this is not the case. Is the sole factor in this the passage of time and the aging of an art? I don't think so. Society doesn'’t worship the great Greek playwrights like we do the GREAT COMPOSERS, however the Greek tragedies, like much of classical music is now left to scholars and enthusiasts. There is something more surrounding "classical"” music. There is a notion that one must be very educated and smart/intelligent to even begin to ‘appreciate “classical” music.

Is this true?

I don'’t know. How intelligent would someone have to be to say appreciate Beethoven'’s Symphony No. 9 (the work on which the other book I am reading is about)? Recently, my future mother and grandmother in law visited our small yet cozy abode here in Newfoundland (before I get in trouble - I am in no way saying that they are unintellegent - just not highly musically trained). I was bored (no good TV station problem again) so I played my Otto Klemperer/ New Philharmonia Orchestra 1964 DVD recording of Beethoven'’s 9th. For those who are "“in the know" and perhaps pedantic” the interpretation of the music by Klemperer is somewhat questionable, but that is beyond the point. To my great surprise our guests were glued to the TV screen! They seemed very interested, even in the parts where I truly was bored. The same counts for seeing some of my former students at a Hamilton Philharmonic Orchestra concert. They seemed to enjoy it, however, they were not at a very high level of education (the highest was Grade 10) or heavily trained in music. So how could they appreciate this music? Some even of which (aghast) was not in the established canon?

They liked the music because there were lots of catchy tunes and when they listened carefully it was exciting - plain and simple. This is the same reason why the greater public of New York in 1851 could go to the opera and enjoy it. Everybody forgets that "“classical"” music WAS "popular" music, just as the performance and reading of Shakespeare WAS a regular (not forced) part of society. The real driving factor here is the same one that Highbrow/Lowbrow is pitching -– the transforming of an art for enjoyment into a worshiped form of expression separates the art from being everyone'’s to being only for the upper, more educated/intelligent classes. Who is responsible for this?
Critics
Historians
Composers
Singers
Conductors etc ad infinitum.
All those who made it more than it was and is.
Professional classical musicians (ie not Brittney Spears) do not line in mansions and drive expensive cars. Throughout history even great composers sat at the tables of servents. Did we need a reason to elevate ourselves to something higher because we didn't feel appreciated enough? Hmmmm.... is music for the glory of "god"? Is it the greatest form of expression, the highest of the high arts? I doubt a literary scholar would answer yes to these questions. I also doubt that a Shakespearian actor or art historian would answer yes either. Thats because it is poppycock. Music is one art out of them all, not the highest.

Perhaps it has been the musicians (that incompases all of us who deal closely with classical music) who have elevated "modern WESTERN serious/classical/art/whatever you want to call it" music to such a high status that its creation and performance has become almost supernatural and out of the grasp of most of society. von Karajan didn't open his eyes when condusting because he felt that there was a strong mystical bond between himself and the orchestra... that is just one of many many examples of this.

Than again, all this may all just be incoherent ramblings.

My next subject:
Theodore Thomas and Artuo Toscanini - fighting the good fight

Beethoven's Ninth Symphony

Having only two TV stations here one has to find some way to waste their time. I try and read two books at a time so that if I get bored with one, I still have another to turn to.

So along with Highbrow/Lowbrow, I am now reading Beethoven's Ninth, a political history. In the introduction to Beethoven's Ninth the author explores the different uses/abuses of one of the most grandiose and beautiful pieces of music written in the western tradition. Interestingly enough, for a piece that was written with the brotherhood of all men in mind it has been used in the most odd ways. The Ode to Joy which is in the fourth movement and based on Schiller's poem, An die Freude (To Joy), has been used as the national anthem's of the racist republic of Rhodesia and that of the European Union; Hitler used it to celebrate his birthday, Toscanini used it to raise money for the war effort against Hitler; Leonard Bernstein used it to celebrate the unification of Germany. And now here in Newfoundland, the second movement (scherzo) is being used on a radio commercial for the St John's Fog Devils hockey team. This is the same movement that was used in A Clockwork Orange. Maybe that is why it was chosen by the creators of this commercial. Working at Mark's Work Warehouse I have to listen to the radio station in question all day long and hear this commercial over and over and over again.... not too many sponsors here in NFLd.

Is this what the great classic pieces of music have become to popular culture? Catchy tunes that makes your commercial sound better than it should. One can also look at the "drink milk, love life" milk commercials. Or maybe there is nothing wrong with it. Maybe these pieces of music have been so closely linked with our western way of life that they have become common cultural property? Did the milk commercial use the Ode to Joy because the creators felt that that piece was so widely known and appreciated that using it would give their product a more universal range? In that case the fact that these pieces are used could indicate that they are truly great and they transcend generations and ethnicity (Yes Beethoven was German, however his music has been heard all over the world over and over again).

Just something to think about I guess.
Or not think about....

Misunderstanding Toscanini/Understanding Shakespeare?

I had left off without really basing my opinions on Understanding Toscanini on anything. Well most of them come from reading the Harvey Sachs extensive bio on Toscanini, and his follow-up collection of essays, Reflections on Toscanini. He is one of a few conductor biographers that will admit their subjects faults such as a horrible temperament and even worse womanising.... which just so happens to be the case here. I would more willingly believe someone who is willing to accept their subject's humanity, their faults and successes. Regardless of this, going back to a soley musical topic, I now turn to Shakespeare.


I am currently reading Highbrow/Lowbrow. It was recommended to me by my very astute and close friend Sean Luyk. The author, Lawerence Levine is exploring the cultural hierarchy that developed in America throughout the 19th and 20th centurys. He uses Shakespeare as the first example. Little did I know that Bill Shakespeare was really very popular in America during the first half of the 19th C. Not just to the highly educated though but to all many social classes.

Eventually though Shakespeare becomes something of an 'educated' man's property.... losing his appeal to the general public. It becomes stuffy, something that is elevated above all other literature to be revered and studied, not related to and enjoyed.

And supprisingly enough this all comes back to Artuo Toscanini as he becomes the "High Priest of Music" through his tenure at NBC and that orchestra's national radio broadcasts. An artform is taken from being popular to being forced upon people as something that makes them better.......

Well if you remember being a kid and not wanting a certain food because it was good for you ... you can see why these past times that were meant to be enjoyed became artforms to be worshiped...
MB

Marches are music too

Just had to say that.

Topic of my first discussion:
Understanding my understanding of Undertanding Toscanini

Over the past couple of months I have been reading various books detailing the life of Artuo Toscanini and the effect that he had, and still has, on the operatic and orchestral world. The first book, Joseph Horowitz's Understanding Toscanini, discusses Toscanini's direct involvement in the dissemination of "high" culture to the masses. According to the author, this resulted in the dilution of "high" culture into what is known as midcult. Midcult is a form of intellectual or artistic culture that has qualities of high culture and mass culture without being either.

The end result of all this is the state we are in today. Horowitz names Live from Lincoln Centre and PBS's Great Performances series as the consequences of the dissemination and dilution of high culture. It was David Sarnoff's NBC (it was a radio network before TV) in the 1930's that decided to persuade Toscanini to direct their radio orchestra and thus to start the true mass marketing of classical/art/serious/whatever you want to call it music.
This was not the first attempt to bring culture to or educate the 'masses.' For many years before this, there were various music appreciation radio shows. Many of these were offered so that they could be listened to in schools. Some of these hosts would find neat little ways to help the public, say, remember a motif or theme of a Beethoven symphony. For example:
My name is Matt B!
You're now listening to me!


I think I could have done a great job as one of these hosts.

Regardless.... I digress.

It is very easy to hate and try and bring down the people on top. Conductors including Klemperer, Walter, Solti, Szell and Karajan all stated at one time or another their fascination and reverence for Artuo Toscanini. They must have been pretty dedicated to the lie... I would venture to say that there were probably hundreds of musicians and singers who would have agreed. The fact of the matter is that we all have faults and using a documentation of Toscanini's tantrums and displays of bullheadedness to get the reader so disgusted that they will believe whatever the author feels like postulating is unfair. This is what I believe happened in Understanding Toscanini.

I would have to agree with Toscanini's biographer Harvy Sachs when he states that Toscanini could have had a chapter dedicated to him and NBC's role in the dilution of high culture in a larger book on the subject. But blaming a 75 year old conductor for not wanting to conduct new or American music in 1937 onward is a little far fetched to me. The NBC orchestra was created for him so he could play the pieces he wanted to. After a 55 year career of totally reforming the Italian Operatic scene, bringing German Music to Italy, rehearsing and conducting over 170 operas from memory, many of them world and Italian premieres who can blame him?

By the way, for a man who didn't help new music at all, he sure did a lot before 1930 promoting both lesser and widely known CONTEMPORARY composers. He conducted the Italian premier of Salome, Eugene Onegin, the first Italian productions of Siegfried and Gotterdammererung and the world premieres of Pagliacci, La Boheme, La fanciulla del West, Madame Sane-Gene, Nerone and Turandot.

Pretty impressive if you ask me.

More on this soon.
MJB