Page 79 - 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. 79
music of progress and the future. on the roots of a fierce press feud ...
his programmatic opening article in 1850, he was convinced of the “devel-
opment of the life of nations” and the “progress associated with it” as well as
of the vitality of beauty, which was “so intimately connected with the noble
moral nature of man.” He could not agree with “the gloomy prophets who
predict the complete decline of art, the downfall of the beautiful in the oppres-
sive world domination of the useful.” It is above all music that has “already
anticipated the movement of the present, [...] the struggle for the birth of a re-
juvenated world,” “ever since Beethoven opened the gates of the future.” Bis-
choff opposes the “idolatry” of “the tonal formations of the South and virtu-
osity” as well as “the prejudice that art has its home only in the higher regions
of society.” Bischoff argues vehemently for an art that is not limited to the
educated in a circumscribed temple, but serves the whole people, whether
it is at home in the church, the concert hall or the theatre (it is remarkable
that he does not exclude the church, but calls it equal).11 He opposes a dis-
dain for Joseph Haydn, “what has been preached and pre-philosophised to us
ad nauseam by many musical judges of art and sound, of ‘progress and over-
come point of view’.”12 Rather, he is of the opinion that “the heretical thought
could not be rejected that art mocks the law of progress, that its course of de-
velopment is a very peculiar one.” 13
At first, the Rheinische Musik-Zeitung expressed a benevolent, wait-
and-see attitude towards Richard Wagner. In 1850, under “kleinere Götter”
(smaller gods), one can read: “What Richard Wagner, the composer of the
future, will become, is still to be expected, the best to be hoped for.”14 But the
scepticism manifested itself a short time later:
For Richard Wagner arises [...] in some musical circles, as a result of
the bellicose allarm raised by the Leipziger musikalische Zeitung, a cu-
rious interest is arising; and I think it quite possible that his treatises,
rich in ingenious and incisively true thoughts, will also turn the heads
of many here in Berlin, despite the confused and one-sided attitude in
which they appear so far; the great masses are, as a rule, only capable of
extremes and intemperance; nor may it do any harm that the exclusive-
2; Ludwig Bischof, “Aus London,” Niederrheinische Musik Zeitung für Kunstfreunde
und Künstler 3, no. 21 (1855): 166.
11 Bischoff, “Was wir wollen,” 1–5.
12 Ludwig Bischoff, “Joseph Haydn’s Musik,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 1, no. 21 (1850):
161.
13 Ludwig Bischoff, “Plastische Musik,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 1, no. 46 (1850/51):
363.
14 August Hitzschold, “Die deutschen Opern-Componisten und Dichter,” Rheinische
Musik-Zeitung 2, no. 92 (1851/52): 731–3, here 733.
79
his programmatic opening article in 1850, he was convinced of the “devel-
opment of the life of nations” and the “progress associated with it” as well as
of the vitality of beauty, which was “so intimately connected with the noble
moral nature of man.” He could not agree with “the gloomy prophets who
predict the complete decline of art, the downfall of the beautiful in the oppres-
sive world domination of the useful.” It is above all music that has “already
anticipated the movement of the present, [...] the struggle for the birth of a re-
juvenated world,” “ever since Beethoven opened the gates of the future.” Bis-
choff opposes the “idolatry” of “the tonal formations of the South and virtu-
osity” as well as “the prejudice that art has its home only in the higher regions
of society.” Bischoff argues vehemently for an art that is not limited to the
educated in a circumscribed temple, but serves the whole people, whether
it is at home in the church, the concert hall or the theatre (it is remarkable
that he does not exclude the church, but calls it equal).11 He opposes a dis-
dain for Joseph Haydn, “what has been preached and pre-philosophised to us
ad nauseam by many musical judges of art and sound, of ‘progress and over-
come point of view’.”12 Rather, he is of the opinion that “the heretical thought
could not be rejected that art mocks the law of progress, that its course of de-
velopment is a very peculiar one.” 13
At first, the Rheinische Musik-Zeitung expressed a benevolent, wait-
and-see attitude towards Richard Wagner. In 1850, under “kleinere Götter”
(smaller gods), one can read: “What Richard Wagner, the composer of the
future, will become, is still to be expected, the best to be hoped for.”14 But the
scepticism manifested itself a short time later:
For Richard Wagner arises [...] in some musical circles, as a result of
the bellicose allarm raised by the Leipziger musikalische Zeitung, a cu-
rious interest is arising; and I think it quite possible that his treatises,
rich in ingenious and incisively true thoughts, will also turn the heads
of many here in Berlin, despite the confused and one-sided attitude in
which they appear so far; the great masses are, as a rule, only capable of
extremes and intemperance; nor may it do any harm that the exclusive-
2; Ludwig Bischof, “Aus London,” Niederrheinische Musik Zeitung für Kunstfreunde
und Künstler 3, no. 21 (1855): 166.
11 Bischoff, “Was wir wollen,” 1–5.
12 Ludwig Bischoff, “Joseph Haydn’s Musik,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 1, no. 21 (1850):
161.
13 Ludwig Bischoff, “Plastische Musik,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 1, no. 46 (1850/51):
363.
14 August Hitzschold, “Die deutschen Opern-Componisten und Dichter,” Rheinische
Musik-Zeitung 2, no. 92 (1851/52): 731–3, here 733.
79
