The Critical Reception of Beethoven's Compositions by His German Contemporaries, Op
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Critical Reception of Beethoven’s Compositions by His German Contemporaries, Op. 125 Translated and edited by Robin Wallace © 2017 by Robin Wallace All rights reserved. ISBN 978-0-692-89412-5 Center for Beethoven Research Boston University Contents Foreword 6 125.1 Friedrich August Kanne. 8 “Performance of Mr. Ludwig van Beethoven.” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den österreichischen Kaiserstaat 8 (5 June, 9 June, 16 June 1824): 149–51, 157–60, and 173–74. 125.2 Gottfried Weber. 21 Excerpt from “Glances at the Most Recent Appearances in Musical Literature.” Caecilia 1 (October 1824): 373. 125.3 Johann Baptist Rousseau. 22 Excerpt from “Rhenish Music Festival in Aachen.” Rheinische Flora, no. 82 (April 1825). 125.4 Rheinische Flora, no. 61. 24 (17 April 1825). 125.5 Excerpt from “News: Frankfurt am Main.” 25 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 27 (27 April 1825), col. 279–80. 125.6 Excerpt from “News: From the Lower Rhine.” 26 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 27 (29 June 1825), col. 444–47. 3 contents 125.7 F. 28 “The Lower Rhine Music Festival, 1825 in Aachen.” Caecilia 4 (1826), 66–67. 125.8 Gottfried Weber. 30 Excerpt from “Germany in the First Quarter of the 19th Century: Views of a Friend of Music.” Caecilia 4 (1826), 109–10. 125.9 Adolf Bernhard Marx. 31 “Symphony with Concluding Chorus on Schiller’s Ode to Joy.” Berliner allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 3 (22 November 1826), 373–78. 125.10 Adolf Bernhard Marx. 40 “Sundries. To the Friends of Art in Berlin. From Someone in Your Midst.” Berliner allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 3 (22 November 1826), 383–84. 125.11 The Musical correspondent from Leipzig and Adolf Bernhard Marx. 43 “Sundries. Several Words on the Understanding of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony,” and “Response.” Berliner allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 3 (29 November 1826), 414–16. 125.12 “News. Leipzig—to 10 December.” 47 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 28 (27 December 1826), col. 853–54. 125.13 “Correspondence. Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, in Stettin 48 (in February).” Berliner allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 4 (14 March 1827), 84–87. 125.14 Adolf Bernhard Marx. 54 “Reviews.” Berliner allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 4 (11 April 1827), 124-25. 4 contents 125.15 Joseph Fröhlich and Christian Grossheim. 58 “Two Reviews.” Caecilia 8 (1828), 231−56 and 256−60. 125.16 “News. Vienna. Musical Diary of the Month of December.” 78 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 30 (13 February 1828), col. 107−8. 125.17 “Another Word about Beethoven.” 79 Allgemeine Musikzeitung zur Beförderung der theoretischen und praktischen Tonkunst für Musiker und für Fruende der Musik überhaupt 1 (1 March 1828), 142−43. 125.18 “News. From Leipzig. From 18 February until April.” 80 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 30 (9 April 1828), col. 245−46. 125.19 “Mixed. A Judgment from London of Beethoven’s Last Symphony.” 81 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 30 (9 April 1828), col. 245−46. 5 contents Foreword his online resource contains work completed after the first two volumes of The Critical TReception of Beethoven’s Compositions by His German Contemporaries were published by the University of Nebraska Press in 1999 and 2001. Those volumes concluded with the re- views of Fidelio, Op. 72. Since then I have received many inquiries, from Beethoven scholars and others, about the reviews of Beethoven’s remaining works: whether and when they would also appear in translation. This publication is offered in response to that broad and continu- ing interest. The 9th symphony is one of Beethoven’s most important and controversial works, and the amount of press coverage it received in the few years after its first performance in 1824 far exceeds that devoted to any of the earlier symphonies. No concert report previously published matches Friedrich August Kanne’s lengthy description, in the Allgemeine musikalische Zei- tung mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den österreichischen Kaiserstaat, of the 9th’s premiere at the Theater Near the Kärnthnerthor in Vienna and the repeat performance a few weeks later at the Grand Redoutensaal. Likewise, no previous review—not even that of the 5th symphony by E. T. A. Hoffmann—can match in length and analytical detail the review of the 9th sym- phony published by Joseph Fröhlich in Caecilia in 1828. The extensive back and forth between Adolf Bernhard Marx, one of the 9th’s earliest champions, and more skeptical writers in the Berliner allgemeine musikalische Zeitung makes fascinating reading. The many shorter con- cert reports show that both at its premiere and at various performances over the next few years, the work was received with a mixture of perplexity, fascination, and awe. Some of the initial critical reaction to the 9th symphony is not included here because it appeared in articles that also give substantial attention to other late works by Beethoven. These include Ignaz Xaver Seyfried’s 1828 review in Caecilia, which covered the 9th symphony, the Missa Solemnis, and the string quartet Op. 131. They also include the lengthy denunciation of Beethoven’s late work by Ernst Woldemar, also in Caecilia, and the responses it provoked. These will appear later as this online resource is expanded to include the full reception of Beethoven’s work from Op. 73 on. As with the earlier Critical Reception material, I have stopped at 1830 (the latest text in- cluded here is from 1828), so as to limit the sources covered to those that originated during 6 foreword Beethoven’s lifetime and the few years that immediately followed his death. This means that later controversies and trends in Beethoven reception are not reflected here; these sources are truly contemporary and reflect the musical thought of Beethoven’s own time. I would like to thank Wayne Senner and William Meredith for their central role in ini- tiating this project. Baylor University graciously granted me a summer sabbatical to work on this material. I also acknowledge the Retrospective Index to Music Periodicals (RIPM) for permission to copy the music examples as they appeared in the original sources. This is intended to be the first installment in a series of online publications that will finally make the remainder of the entire body of German-language Beethoven reception prior to 1830 easily accessible to English-speaking readers. Robin Wallace Baylor University 7 foreword Op. 125. Symphony no. 9 in D minor 125.1. Friedrich August Kanne.1 “Performance of Mr. Ludwig van Beethoven.” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den österreichischen Kaiserstaat 8 (5 June, 9 June, 16 June 1824): 149–51, 157–60, and 173–74.2 (With Op. 123, Missa Solemnis, and Op. 124, Consecration of the House Overture; mentioned: Op. 116, Trio for soprano, tenor, and bass, “Tremate, empi, tremate”) fter waiting for the second performance of the most recent creations of this celebrated Amaster, and having examined their intensive beauties, which on first hearing it was impossible to observe precisely—somewhat more closely, we want to try to give our readers a description of them, which, however, should be judged completely according to the standard of the short time that was allowed for the inspection of such gigantic works. Beethoven’s creative genius shows itself in these, his most recent works, in two ways. His earlier works, especially the keyboard and instrumental compositions, all already more or less indicate his serious striving for an inner necessity, going along with freedom of imagination, and often develop this direction in such a powerful and original manner that one notices here as well how he always kept firmly in view the words spoken over him in his cradle by the genius of art. If his richly blooming imagination in the realm of notes often shakes the die of the moment of inspiration with a mood bordering on the peculiar, and seems to surrender to an unbounded outward striving in the most adventurous forms, his sublime presence of mind3 still always reawakens over the subject that he has mastered, and joins together those spiritual links of necessity and organic interweaving in such a way that that dualism advanced as an 1Friedrich August Kanne (1778–1824) was a Viennese writer and composer, and is considered one of the most important figures in the reception of Beethoven’s late works. For a commentary on this article as it pertains to the 9th symphony, see Robin Wallace, Beethoven’s Critics: Aesthetic Dilemmas and Resolutions during the Composer’s Lifetime (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 74–77. 2This report describes two separate concerts, with slightly different programs, on 7 May and 23 May 1824. The first performance of the 9th symphony took place on 7 May at the Theater Near the Kärnthnerthor, on a program that also included the Consecration of the House overture, Op. 124, and the Kyrie, Credo, and Agnus Dei from the Missa Solemnis. The second took place on 23 May at the Grand Redoutensaal, and the Credo and Agnus Dei were replaced by the trio and Rossini’s “Da tanti palpiti” from Tancredi. By far the most extensive account of the circumstances surrounding these two performances is to be found in David Benjamin Levy, Early Performances of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony: A Documentary Study of Five Major Cities (Ph.D. diss.: Eastman School of Music, University of Rochester, 1979), 43–107. 3Kanne uses the word Besonnenheit, which E. T. A. Hoffmann also used extensively in his Beethoven criticism. 8 125.1 essential postulate by the philosophers of art of the past thirty years appears in its most origi- nal form. Beethoven’s genius has become great precisely through the organic interlinking of all his musical ideas, in which the variety reduced to unity is reflected in such a peculiar manner.