It's Only the Truth if you can Yell
the Loudest!
Brahms writes a "letter to the editor"
Back in the good old days of the 19th
century life was simple and friendly;
people acted with honesty and
integrity, and folks' anxiety about
the future was rather low.
And if you bought
that, I've got a bridge you may be
interested in.
|
 |
People always find
something to squabble about...even that
"universal" language called music. In fact,
be particularly suspicious whenever you see
people referring to it as a universal
language. Usually
what that means is that people are under the
assumption that the things they value in
music are universally good, and the things
they don't care for are universally
bad. They may cite the very
fundamental laws of the universe as
justification, or the immovable wall of
custom.
Why am I bringing this
up? Because just such a debate raged in
musical Germany in the 19th century. And one
of the principle characters was a young man.
Perhaps you've heard of him. His name was
Johannes Brahms.
He had a rather heavy
burden on his shoulders. One of his mentors,
the very zealous Robert Schumann, had
announced his compositional debut in quite
Messianic terms. Actually, the eager elder
composer had borrowed indiscriminately from
a number of mythological traditions to
proclaim to the world that the future of
music had arrived. "Over his cradle graces
and heroes have kept watch" he wrote of this
young man whom he seemed to think had sprung
directly out of Zeus's forehead, forgetting
for the moment that it had actually been the
goddess Athena. For some time, Schumann
wrote, the world had been preparing for
someone to show them the way forward, and
here, at only 20 years of age, was a
finished product. He needed no training. All
his compositions were revelations of another
world, the range of ideas enormous, the
working out of the themes without a misstep
anywhere, in a word, perfect.
How would you like a
recommendation letter like that? And
Schumann published it, no less, in a major
newspaper devoted to music. Now, our dear
zealot had been guilty of trespasses of
decorum on several previous occasions. Many
names you have never heard of, in fact, were
given great fanfare and predicted fine
futures by his enthusiastic pen. But this
article was over the top even for Schumann.
He had his reasons,
partisan though they were. Brahms's visit to
the Schumann household in 1853 confirmed
several of Schumann's own ideas about music.
For one, Brahms was above empty displays of
virtuosity. The musical idea expressed
in the composition was more important than
being a pianistic show-off, even though, as
Schumann's wife Clara commented "his
[compositions] are very difficult." And
those compositions were also sonatas, songs,
quartets--surely he would write a symphony
too, wouldn't he? All those old forms in
which Schumann's idol, the great Beethoven,
had excelled. And
his music was not driven by an
external program, or fanciful story.
Schumann had his
enemies. Two of the worst offenders
were close contemporaries. Richard
Wagner and Franz Liszt both championed music
as drama, as subservient to a story line,
not a time-tested musical process. Franz
Liszt was a great musical showman who
stunned his audiences (particularly its
female members) with his thunderous
paroxysms of sound. And Richard Wagner
was out to reform Germany by requiring it to
sit through his six hour operas.
A twenty-year old Brahms had already managed
to sleep through Liszt's virtuosity en-route
to the Schumann household in 1853. Liszt's
programmatic, massive one-movement piano
sonata, its apocalyptic fugues, its heroic
octave passages, its constantly shifting
moods, must have disoriented the
tradition-conscious Brahms, who is said to
have dozed off while Liszt performed it for
him shortly after it was written.
Liszt wrote music as if trying to fill a
wing of the music library in Weimar, and his
pen was an active supporter of music which
clothed an idea or a drama, a decisive break
with the old concept of the sonata as
Beethoven knew it. But it was Liszt's
cantankerous son-in-law who really gave
Brahms pause. Wagner was a true high
priest of his own music and an implacable
enemy of anyone who got in his way. Even
Liszt eventually made the unfortunate
mistake of dying during Wagner's annual
opera festival, and received no deathbed
visit from the younger genius' widow, his
own daughter Cosima. It was unforgivable to
distract the attention of the faithful.
Brahms was less than thrilled
with Wagner's attitude. It was shrill, it
was paranoid, it made enemies of everyone
who wasn't part of the self-appointed
musical seer's inner circle. And in a
typical rhetorical tactic, it assumed for
itself a title that left no room for
dissent, calling itself "The Music of
the Future." In other words, get with the
program, this is the one true musical faith.
Wagner had no
reservations about expressing himself in
prose either--in his 1000 page autobiography
that he dictated later in life or in
innumerable articles in journals that
outlined his place in the musical
universe. His first task, familiar to
many a high priest of a new religion, was to
appropriate to his own cause the prophets of
old. In other words, he had to claim
Beethoven.
The
last symphony of Beethoven is the
redemption of Music from out of her
own peculiar element into the realm of
universal art. It is the human
evangel of the the art of the future.
Beyond it no forward step is possible;
for upon it the perfect artwork of the
future alone can follow, the universal
drama to which Beethoven has
forged for us the key. |
There's that word
universal again! By
universal drama Wagner was of course
referring to his own operas, the glorious
consummation of what Beethoven had
prophesied in his ninth symphony when he had
introduced voices into the finale. To
Wagner, and the host of young, rabid
disciples that sprang up around him, they
were in the midst of a great historical
tradition with Beethoven as its patriarch,
its Father Abraham, and Wagner as the
logical heir to this throne. Wagner's
massive orchestra, his epic operas (he did
not write Symphonies or Concertos, only
operas), his fusion of mythic legend, drama,
singing and music into one great cloth--this
was the consummation which Beethoven's
prophecy had predicted.
Not that Wagner was alone
in his use of "prophecy." Peruse Schumann's
article for a bit and you'll notice that
Schumann also declares Brahms the heir to
the great Beethoven.
See a problem here?
Biographers
tell us that most of the shots fired were
from the Wagner camp. Wagner, himself a
master of the poison pen, wrote endlessly
about his position and its correctness,
denouncing his enemies, even basing
the part of a pedantic buffoon in one of his
operas on a critic he didn't like.
Eventually Wagner-friendly forces took over
operation of the very newspaper Schumann had
used to predict Brahms's future greatness
and kept up a raging string of editorials.
Everybody had to choose sides.
History records that the
two combatants met once. Brahms played his
piano Variations on a Theme by Handel, op.
24 for Wagner, who came astoundingly close
to launching a compliment. He said "it just
goes to show what can still be done by
somebody who knows how to use the old
forms." In other words, Wagner recognized
that Brahms really knew how to compose, even
if he was using the "backward" mold of piano
variations instead of the wave-of-the-future
music drama. It was a backhanded compliment,
but still astonishing for Wagner.
Brahms, for his part, actually owned the
score of Wagner's Die Meistersinger, an
opera which celebrates an ancient tradition
of artist-singers in Germany, and which
begins with a long display of contrapuntal
writing with which Wagner no doubt wanted to
prove that he stood on the shoulders of
Bach. Like many leaders of opposing
parties, there seemed to be a bit of
admiration between the two mixed with all
that scorn.
Brahms, for his part, had mellowed a little
by the time of that meeting. He had been a
young firebrand once, but had not taken part
in the Dresden revolution of 1848, not
nearly gotten himself arrested for
associating with a member of the communist
party, not been banished for non-payment of
debts--in a word, he had never been Wagner.
Brahms, too, lived in poverty while he tried
to get the world's attention, but he pinched
his pennies and lived within his means.
Wagner had to let the world know he was
entitled to the privileges of genius. It was
rare for Brahms to leave the country. Except
for a few summers in Switzerland as he aged,
and a brief tour of Italy when young, he
rarely left his native Hamburg. Wagner had
already tried to make his living in Paris,
sneaking across the border of the Germanys
twice to avoid being arrested for his
political ties or his massive debts.
And, reticent individual that he was, Brahms
was not given to expressing himself in pen
or in public, whereas Wagner had an acute
case of verbal diarrhea.
But there was a time when
Brahms had decided to speak out. Before we
give the impression that Brahms lived with
his mother and only went out to church on
Sundays, let us recall that this
impoverished young man had worked in a
bar/brothel as a pianist to support his
family during adolescence. He was from the
rough part of town. He had survived being
run over by a horse-drawn tax-cab in his
youth. And he was given to rather salty
turns of phrase in private and in
letters. He could be tactless, a trait
which caused rifts with nearly every
friendship he ever had at some point. Some
of the things he said about the Wagnerites
were probably every bit as wicked as the
things they were saying about him.
He only ventured once,
however, to do it in public. This was a time
when he and some of his friends decided to
circulate a petition. It decried the
Wagnerites assumption that they alone were
the high priests of music, and called them
on the carpet for doing deplorable and
perverse things to it. In the high-minded
manner of a proclamation it called the
Wagnerites to account.
Or would have, if the
letter had not been intercepted by the enemy
while it bore only a few signatures. Instead
of a grass-roots movement to show by sheer
numbers how Wagner was popularly opposed by
hordes of musicians his party delightfully
assumed were on board with him, Brahms and
his friends suffered a publicity nightmare.
After that, Brahms
decided to speak only in music. His next set
of variations for the piano is a bold,
virtuosic set of variations on the famous
theme by Paganini. On hearing this
demonically gifted violinist light up the
Parisian landscape in 1830, a young Franz
Liszt had retired for three years to see if
he could learn to do the same thing with a
piano. Brahms must have known he was
deep in "enemy territory." It is as if
Brahms is saying "hey, I could out-duel you
with fire and devilry if I wanted to."
In the newspapers, Brahms
kept his lip zipped for the rest of his life
while the Wagnerians and a few loyal allies,
including the critic Wagner made fun of in
his opera, duked it out in words. By this
time there was no placating anyone, and even
when Brahms sent flowers to Wagner's family
upon hearing of his death, the followers of
the unrelenting musical high priest assumed
it must be some kind of insult.
Brahms eventually
fulfilled Schumann's prophecy with his
Symphonic masterpieces, delayed in
production though they were by the weight of
expectation. He achieved the rare
distinction of being considered the greatest
composer of his age throughout Europe even
before his death. He let his music
speak for him. It still does.
|