Page 78 - Weiss, Jernej, ur./ed. 2024. Glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes ▪︎ Music Criticism – Yesterday and Today. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 7
P. 78
glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today
later, Liszt demonstratively placed himself in the Christian tradition, while
Wagner embraced the Germanic myth.4
The Germanic myth of origin and superiority, like the enthusiasm for
Greek antiquity, formed an aggressive social antithesis to the Judeo-Chris-
tian tradition. The Enlightenment had promoted the search for alternative
models of society that could be adapted to the idea of progress and evolu-
tion. The resulting modernity in its various forms was united by its opposi-
tion to orthodox Judaism and above all Christianity. According to Thomas
Nipperdey, the “struggle for Christianity and modernity”5 formed a funda-
mental root of the socio-political division in the 19th century. Art, with its
claim to represent the “true, the good, the beautiful,” was not unaffected by
this, and music in particular, with its processual, quasi-ritual appearance,
partially developed into the art religion of modernity. It was not least this
inherent moral claim that was responsible for the fierce press feuds,6 which,
in contradiction to the world-unifying myth of music, led to hostile camp
formations. The music of the future functioned as an exponent of progress.
Richard Wagner held Ludwig Bischoff (1794–1867)7 responsible for the
introduction of the fighting term “future music.”8 In fact, Bischoff took a
decidedly conservative standpoint in the Rheinische (1850–1859) and Nied-
errheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künstler (1853–1867), both
of which he founded and for which he was editorially responsible (until the
third volume), and criticised above all the religiously influenced idealisa-
tion of artists.9 Bischoff often speaks of “idols” and of “self-deification.”10 In
4 Sibylle Ehringhaus, Germanenmythos und deutsche Identität [Germanic Myth and
German Identity], Die Frühmittelalter-Rezeption in Deutschland 1842–1933 (Wei-
mar: Verlag und Datenbank für Geisteswiss, 1996).
5 Thomas Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1800–1866, Bürgerwelt und starker Staat
(Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1983, special edition 1998), 403.
6 Beverly Jerold, “Zukunftsmusik/Music of the future. A moral question,” The journal
of musicological research 36, no. 4 (2017): 311–35.
7 Robert Lee Curtis, Ludwig Bischoff. A mid-nineteenth-century music critic [Contri-
butions to Rhenish Music History, vol. 123] (Cologne: A. Volk, 1979).
8 Richard Wagner, Sämtliche Schriften und Dichtungen, vol. 8 (Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Härtel, s. a.), 242f.
9 Cf. Helmut Loos, “Das etwas andere Beethoven-Bild des Ludwig Bischoff und sei-
ner Rheinischen und Niederrheinischen Musik-Zeitung,” in Beethoven 9. Studies and
Interpretations, ed. Magdalena Chrenkoff (Krakow: Akademia Muzyczna), forthco-
ming.
10 Ludwig Bischoff, “Was wir wollen,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und
Künstler 1, no. 1 (1850/51): 2; Ludwig Bischoff, “Noch Einmal: Was wir wollen,” Ni-
ederrheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künstler 1, no. 1 (2 July 1853):
78
later, Liszt demonstratively placed himself in the Christian tradition, while
Wagner embraced the Germanic myth.4
The Germanic myth of origin and superiority, like the enthusiasm for
Greek antiquity, formed an aggressive social antithesis to the Judeo-Chris-
tian tradition. The Enlightenment had promoted the search for alternative
models of society that could be adapted to the idea of progress and evolu-
tion. The resulting modernity in its various forms was united by its opposi-
tion to orthodox Judaism and above all Christianity. According to Thomas
Nipperdey, the “struggle for Christianity and modernity”5 formed a funda-
mental root of the socio-political division in the 19th century. Art, with its
claim to represent the “true, the good, the beautiful,” was not unaffected by
this, and music in particular, with its processual, quasi-ritual appearance,
partially developed into the art religion of modernity. It was not least this
inherent moral claim that was responsible for the fierce press feuds,6 which,
in contradiction to the world-unifying myth of music, led to hostile camp
formations. The music of the future functioned as an exponent of progress.
Richard Wagner held Ludwig Bischoff (1794–1867)7 responsible for the
introduction of the fighting term “future music.”8 In fact, Bischoff took a
decidedly conservative standpoint in the Rheinische (1850–1859) and Nied-
errheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künstler (1853–1867), both
of which he founded and for which he was editorially responsible (until the
third volume), and criticised above all the religiously influenced idealisa-
tion of artists.9 Bischoff often speaks of “idols” and of “self-deification.”10 In
4 Sibylle Ehringhaus, Germanenmythos und deutsche Identität [Germanic Myth and
German Identity], Die Frühmittelalter-Rezeption in Deutschland 1842–1933 (Wei-
mar: Verlag und Datenbank für Geisteswiss, 1996).
5 Thomas Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1800–1866, Bürgerwelt und starker Staat
(Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1983, special edition 1998), 403.
6 Beverly Jerold, “Zukunftsmusik/Music of the future. A moral question,” The journal
of musicological research 36, no. 4 (2017): 311–35.
7 Robert Lee Curtis, Ludwig Bischoff. A mid-nineteenth-century music critic [Contri-
butions to Rhenish Music History, vol. 123] (Cologne: A. Volk, 1979).
8 Richard Wagner, Sämtliche Schriften und Dichtungen, vol. 8 (Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Härtel, s. a.), 242f.
9 Cf. Helmut Loos, “Das etwas andere Beethoven-Bild des Ludwig Bischoff und sei-
ner Rheinischen und Niederrheinischen Musik-Zeitung,” in Beethoven 9. Studies and
Interpretations, ed. Magdalena Chrenkoff (Krakow: Akademia Muzyczna), forthco-
ming.
10 Ludwig Bischoff, “Was wir wollen,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und
Künstler 1, no. 1 (1850/51): 2; Ludwig Bischoff, “Noch Einmal: Was wir wollen,” Ni-
ederrheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künstler 1, no. 1 (2 July 1853):
78
