Part 12

=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]

REFERENCES.

Grove.—Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Articles on the Organ, and Organists mentioned in this lesson.

Williams.—Story of the Organ.

Lahee.—The Organ and its Masters.

Matthews.—Handbook of the Organ.

Pirro.—J. S. Bach: The Organist and His Works.

Audsley, G. A.—The Art of Organ Building, 2 vols.

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.

LESSON XVII.

THE BEGINNING OF THE OPERA.

=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.

[Music: Radoppia e fiamm’e lumi al memorabil giorno, Febo ch’il carro d’or rivolgi intorno.

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.