You are here:   Civilisation >  Critique > The Symphony: A Moral Vision Revealed In Music
 
An earlier challenge to or broadening of German symphonic principles was Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique of 1830. This is programme music, but what a programme! The music is psychedelic, hallucinatory, opium-fuelled even. It is an interesting riposte to those who see the symphony as the pinnacle of absolute abstraction. Composers can be inspired by the strangest things. Here is a weird story of poison, despair, hopeless love, nightmare, witches, devils and public execution — the composer’s own! We also see subjective impulses coming to the fore in the inspiration and explanation of the work, in particular Berlioz’s fascination with the English actress Harriet Smithson.

His work was written only three years after Beethoven’s death and Berlioz must have recognised a similar revolutionary spirit in the work of the master. My boyhood dreams were shaped by Beethoven’s symphonies and in particular his third, the Eroica. The sheer drama and romance of this work is compelling and people talk of its convulsive impact on the history of music. Lockwood reminds us of this and its astonishing effect at its first performances. Those two stabbing E flat major chords at the beginning of the first movement, which grab the listener by the scruff of the neck, are so simple and so bold. But then the melody begins in the cellos, outlining the E flat major triad, immediately veering off to a note that you least expect — C sharp — incredibly distant tonal territory in a musical world and era expecting careful modulations between closely related keys. So right from the first few seconds of the work, Beethoven is presenting us with a so-far unparalleled tension. The opposition in purely musical parameters is taking us into uncharted territory, where resolution and irresolution coexist side by side.

Most people know about the dedication story of the Eroica. Beethoven originally intended to dedicate the score to Napoleon Bonaparte but withdrew this violently, tearing the dedication page off, on hearing of Napoleon’s self-proclamation as Emperor. I have always been heartened by Beethoven’s rejection of a tyrant and his recognition of the true nature of revolutionary fervour as destructive, divisive and corrupt. It is a lesson from history to all artists not to put their trust in politicians and rabble-rousers.

The 20th century saw a procession of artists who were beguiled and seduced by evil men. There was no shortage of poets and writers ready to praise Lenin and Mussolini especially, but also Stalin, Hitler and Mao, even into our own time. In my own country our most prominent poet Hugh McDiarmid, beloved of Scottish nationalists and socialists even today, wrote not one but three hymns to Lenin. He also admired Mussolini, arguing in 1923 for a Scottish version of fascism and in 1929 for the formation of Clann Albain, a fascistic paramilitary organisation to fight for Scottish freedom. As late as June 1940 he wrote a poem expressing his indifference to the impending German bombing of London, which was not published during his lifetime:

Now when London is threatened
With devastation from the air
I realise, horror atrophying me,
That I hardly care.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Gerald Brennan
October 14th, 2015
5:10 PM
Is the name the thing? Is the above-cited "symphony" scored for only five players and an actor to be compared with, say, many works for full orchestra by Iannis Xenakis -- none of them called "symphony?" To most of us, pro and casual listener alike, symphony implies orchestra. Xenakis, for example, made good use of the symphony orchestra in a hugely avant-garde way, his works are (like them or not) still an enormous challenge to the finest ear and perception, but his works are rarely performed because they need monstrous rehearsal time - not cost-effective. (This is one reason why minimalism had such a long run. An orchestra can sight-read most of it.) I have observed that as the remaining orchestras struggle to stay afloat they are much constrained in what they undertake, and many of the ones that seem to be doing well are functioning more as museums (or morgues) of music instead of the exciting arenas of inspiration and creativity that they need to be to ensure their relevance. With such belt-tightening and a minimum of risk-taking in an effort to get more asses in the seats, the rare contemporary pieces selected for performance are too often unworthy (read: boring) works, featuring composers who have the power, though the academy or other connections, to oblige their appearance. Few would argue that the public has not taken kindly to contemporary orchestral music of the last few decades. This is a large part of the reason. It is not a meritocracy out there, less so now I believe than at any time in the orchestra's history.

Mark Shulgasser
September 26th, 2015
11:09 PM
You write: "I have always been heartened by Beethoven’s rejection of a tyrant and his recognition of the true nature of revolutionary fervour as destructive, divisive and corrupt." I wonder if you can corroborate this view. I would have thought that Beethoven considered Napoleon a betrayal of 'the true nature of revolutionary fervour', not the revelation of it.

Alistair Hinton
September 26th, 2015
5:09 PM
An interesting article which I hope you will find another place to expand as it deserves. The fact that the symphony remains alive today has never been a matter of great surprise to me. The notion that "all the best ones have been written already" is the nonsense that it has to be, not least because it could as easily have been alleged just after Haydn's, or Mozart's, or Beethoven's had all been written and would have carried just as little weight and credibility at the time. You mention RVW4, which was written at the same time as Shostakovich 4 (arguably his greatest symphony of all). Perhaps one of the most remarkable examples of symphonic reinvention is Carter, whose neo-classical symphony from the early 1940s was followed more than half a century later by Symphonia: sum fluxæ pretium spei, an ambitious work from the full flowering of his maturity. In Britain, Hoddinott was another composer of ten symphonies; I would be surprised if David Matthews, with eight already behind him, doesn't reach or exceed that tally. Yes, symphonies can be many things today (as your Ustvolskaya example shows); indeed, perhaps one reason why I struggled to come to terms with Shostakovich 14, for all my admiration for him, is that it took me time to accept that the work is really more song-cycle than symphony in the conventional sense. In many (though by no means all) cases, composers of symphonies tend to espouse tonality and explore tonal relationships to some degree and that's probably why some other composers who don't write symphonies tend to regard their work as "conservative", but that, to me, smacks of mere convenient over-simplified pigeon-holing; what some of the more adventurous composers from the early 1900s onwards have done, however, is expand expressive capabilities rather than supplanting particuilar means of expression; acceptance of that goes some way to explain why symphonic composition is as alive now as ever it was. That said, so-called "conservative" composers are by no means all drawn to the symphony; one has only to consider the work of our sadly recently departed compatriot Ronald Stevenson to observe a prime example of that! Anyway, thank you for the article and good luck with your own hopefully "Dah-dah-dah-dum"-free fifth!

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.