| |
| Paris of 1830: Direction in Music and Influence of the Press |
by Carla Harris
Ralph Locke suggests that in France music faced the same question as was posed during the French Revolution "by whom and for whose benefit should society be ruled?" [1] There were two opposing views in music in Paris—one that was built on the musical tradition of refinement and beauty and another that was coming from those who were paying attention to the social reforms of the time, expanding into program music and the search for reality. In this paper I will look at the political environment in Paris leading up to the 1830's and how those conditions fostered musical growth. In particular I will be focusing on the influence of the musical press and the personal clout of Francois-Joseph Fétis and his Journal "Le Revue Musicale".
The new emerging social consciousness that had sparked the revolution was both reflected and fuelled by propagandist music of the time. Songs on social themes were composed using simple harmonic language, in reaction to the excessive ornamentation of the Catholic liturgy, thus making them more accessible to the masses. Many revolutionary pieces that were circulated used already-existing dance tunes. Music publishers who issued repeated cheap copies of revolutionary songs could effectively carry a political message to a very large audience. These new 'civic hymn' tunes were composed with a vocal line that was as flexible as it was memorable. Often hymn tunes were reissued with different texts reflecting a new political issue or event. Music became a powerful propaganda tool that could just as easily be used to attack the government as to support it.
The power of the revolutionary hymn was recognised by major composers of the day. Many either incorporated existing popular tunes into their own works, or applied the same bare-textures style to hymn themes of their own composition: two such examples being Wellingtons Sieg oder Die Schlacht bei Vittoria by Beethoven, and the prayer from Auber's La muette de Portici.
Past regimes had often tried to control and censor the public forms of media including music. According to Jacques Barzun, "Fifteen years under Bonaparte and fifteen under the Bourbons had built up great pressure, and on July 28 1830, a fresh set of censorship laws set off the explosion." [2] The July Revolution resulted in a 'King of the French' (Louis-Philippe) rather than a 'King of France', who's power was limited by the will of two elected Chambers. Only a select group of landholding aristocrats and upper class men were allowed to vote, but this new constitutional limit of power was a progressive political compromise. Among his reforms, Louis-Philippe decided to remove some of the royal control over the arts. This was not only politically profitable, but had financial advantages as well. Louis-Philippe cancelled state-funded music schools, royal bands and the Musique du Roi. He also leased the French Opera to private investors and administrators. With this move Louis-Philippe handed over the control of a very influential popular establishment to market forces. This was a big risk because while all plots and librettos still had to be cleared with a government commission before they could be produced, it gave more freedom to the composers and librettists than ever before.
The withdrawal of royal monies, combined with the collapse of the Church and nobility meant that musicians had to find a new means of employment. Government funding for musical endeavours could still be obtained by sending in an application for the king's patronage, much like out current system of government grants. A new trend of 'benefit concerts' occasionally raised money for a social cause, but more often served as a fundraiser for the performing artist. The public dance hall flourished during this era, which caused instrumentalists to flock to Paris for the opportunity to perform. Compositions were no longer being created for one-time performances as had been the case in the past. Interest in music of the past provided opportunities for instrumentalists to make a career of playing music they had not written. The public created a market for these types of concerts by attending repeat performances of the same works. The industries of music publishing and instrument manufacture flourished in Paris, and a new era of music journalism (discussed in greater detail later in this paper) took on the task of educating the masses to appreciate the more refined works of 'serious composers' of the past and present.
Under the reign of Louis-Philippe, musical life in Paris flourished. Historians such as Locke have deemed Paris the "musical capital of Europe" for that time period. [3] In the late 1700's musicians in France had been optimistic. In a preface to Salieri's opera Tarare, Beaumarchais spoke of an air of expectations and a commitment to progress in music. He challenged "Let us, if possible, see of we can improve a great type of entertainment" [4] Louis-Philippe's decision to release form of the royal control over the arts had indeed created the perfect environment for new developments in musical invention to proceed.
Another contributing factor to the growth of musical activity during these years was the musical press. Articles published by knowledgeable music critics could educate the masses to appreciate the complexities of the music that was being written and performed. Performers and composers soon began to recognise how important the musical press would be to their careers, when they found that critical acclaim of this type could bring a musician considerable fame and fortune!
Over the course of the nineteenth century France enjoyed a remarkable increase in public literacy, growing from approximately 30% to 90% of the country's population. [5] Paris newspapers and journals such as Le Temps and Le National (which in December of 1830 are documented as having 5,151 and 2321 subscribers respectively) [6] published regular music columns written by leading composers and critics of the time. Also, Paris's first weekly journal dedicated entirely to music, Le Revue Musicale, began publication in 1827.
According to music historian Peter Bloom, the presence of the Revue Musicale played a large part in making Paris the centre of the music world in the 1830's. [7] He suggests that famous composers such as Liszt, Chopin, Meyerbeer, Bellini, Donizetti, Verdi, and Wagner, as well as virtuosos like Paganini, Thalberg, Kalkbrenner and Hertz flocked to Paris because of the opportunities for success that the city's active musical press provided.
The Revue Musicale was founded by Francois-Joseph Fétis, a very influential musicologist, theorist, teacher and composer of the nineteenth century. Among his many accomplishments, Fétis won the competition that would later be named the Prix de Rome, acted as mâitre de chapelle for Leopold I of Belgium, and wrote countless articles, treaties and books on music theory and history. Fétis had originally intended to have a society of musicians, composers, artists and theorists make up the editors and contributors of the journal, but Bloom suggests that this "society" never existed. [8] Articles by outside contributors were included, but only very rarely, and while Fétis was assisted by his son Edouard in running the journal, Francois-Joseph wrote nearly all of the articles for the weekly publication by himself.
Fétis had very strong ideas on the directions that music should take, and his writing reflected his personal tastes, prejudices and philosophies. While Fétis created his journal out of aesthetic motives, he felt that it's greater purpose was to educate the people so that he could direct them away from trends in music that he believed were wrong. Fétis claimed that music through history was not something that was continually 'improving', but simply varying in style and convention according to time period and ethnic background: "music does not develop but only reforms its devices". [9] For this reason, he saw it as imperative that the modern listener be educated and exposed to music of the past. Fétis believed in the "aesthetic value of the earlier music and in the progress not of the substance of the material, but of the audience's capacity to appreciate it." [10] Fétis hoped to educate the audience to his tasted for old and new music, but was often very suspicious of composers of the day who were making innovations. He rejected the works of young romantic composers such as Berlioz, giving a cool review of the composer's 1830 masterpiece, Symphonie Fantastique.
In his attempts to 'guide the people' Fétis was able to influence the success of a performance or musician with Parisian audiences. Bloom claims that
For Paganini, Fétis paved the way for the successful series of concerts that the Italian virtuoso gave in Paris in the spring of 1831 by reporting fully on the concerts he gave elsewhere in Europe, and on the books that were elsewhere written about him… reader of the Revue Musicale were fed a regular diet of Paganiniana... [11]
Fétis had been a long-time supporter of Paganini, possibly because of the high value the critic placed on perfection of performance. Fétis is often accused of being more concerned with the execution of a work than of the composition's content.
Bloom gives another example of slanted journalism appearing in the Revue. Meyerbeer wrote a letter to Fétis describing the performance of this own opera Robert le diable. Fétis, who greatly admired Meyerbeer's work, made a few slight alterations to the letter and then published it as an article in the Revue. [12] A musician is unlikely to present a very objective review of one of their own compositions!
While a good word from Fétis could effectively forward the career of a struggling musician, a musician whom he did not approve of could be severely damaged by his haughty and scathing remarks. In many of his later articles he disclaimed the composers of the New German School, claiming that the works that they considered to be progressive were "...in fact the manifestations of decay. Decay and decadence are brought about by the maniacal pursuit of this 'loudly roared development', which makes music formless and bizarre.". [13]
Liszt in his young career as a performer clashed with Fétis on more than one occasion, the most notable of these being the two men's ongoing debate concerning the popular pianist of the day, Thalberg. Fétis had long admired the perfection of Thalberg's compositions, and in an article published in La Revue et Gazette Musicale pronounced them "not only pretentiously empty, mediocre, monotonous and cant in musical invention, but also boring." [14] In response, Fétis published a glowing revue of Thalberg's work and accused Liszt of jealousy. He claimed that pianists should not give opinions on another pianist's work because they lack professional objectivity. In a biting satirical style imitating the condescending and patronising writing style of Fétis, Liszt asked why the critic who had not studied the music should have any authority. [15] This bitter exchange was ended in a short article where Fétis announced that he did not wish to debate the issue any further.
Years later Liszt was living in Weimar and concentrating on composition. While it had been possible for him to earn favour with audiences as a young performer despite the lack of support from his critics, Liszt saw that to succeed as a composer, he would need positive reviews from the musical press. Therefore, in the beginning of the 1840s Liszt wrote Fétis a private letter suggesting that their differences be put aside. He continued by asking informed questions about some of Fétis's treaties and books, perhaps in an attempt to prove his respect for the scholarly critic. Fétis was a man of vast expertise and intellectual understanding. He had been trained in the eighteenth century harmonic theories of Rameau. Fétis went on to develop a new theory of music that contradicted Rameau's ideas of harmony derived from "natural laws". In a series of treaties and lectures of 1830 entitled Philosophy and History of Music, Fétis explained his theory on the influence of historical, geographical and social factors on harmony.
Nature furnished as the elements of music only a multitude of sounds that differ from one another in intonation, duration and intensity… the mind arranges them into differing series, each one of which corresponds to a particular order of emotions, feelings and ideas. These series then become types of tonalités and rhythms that entail necessary consequences, under the influence of which imagination enters into play, to create the beautiful. [16]
Fétis theorized that when sounds from nature are arranged into scales, the arrangement will be different and will hold different meanings and tendencies from one culture and time period to another. As music progressed though these changing arrangements, it was becoming more complex, but not in any way superior to the music that preceded it. He maintained that music from earlier periods was just as capable of expressing beauty as the music of his contemporaries.
Fétis broke the history of harmony into four periods. The unitonique dates back to early polyphony and Gregorian use of modality. It is centred around one tonality without defined characteristics of cadences or leading tones. The transitonique, which fits in with the classical treatment of tonality added the dominant seventh chord and allowed for simple modulation. The pluritonique category added the devices of substitution and alteration, which allowed music more radical and frequent key changes. Fétis went on to develop the idea of an omnitonique system in which the musicians of the future would exploit tonal ambiguities until they reached a point of total dissolution of tonality. He predicted the development of a twelve-tone system, showing great insight into the direction in which music was moving, almost a whole century before the emergence of atonal music!
In the history books Fétis is consistently accused of being progressive in theory but conservative in practise. Historian Klára Móricz describes the critic as a "highly progressive theorist and an almost reactionary critic". [17] She suggests that "the consistent application of his harmonic theory contradicts his own conservative aesthetic judgement…" [18] While Fétis the theoretician had bold new insights on the direction in which music was moving, Fétis the critic "required music to be simple and 'pure' so that the art of music should not become a form of artistic expression that drastically effects the senses." [19] The program music of his time he angrily disclaimed as formless and bizarre because the composers were attempting to depict reality. In his view, "music should present not the real, but the beautiful". [20] An interesting note is that many of the musicians that Fétis gave rave reviews to in his journals are ones that history has passed over. Some of the musicians who received his harshest criticism have endured among the most celebrated composers of the nineteenth century.
The Paris of 1830 provided musicians with a unique environment. The Church, which in past centuries had dominated music in France, had been severely damaged by the Revolution, leaving them little money to spend. At the same time the government disbanded several of its traditional music programs, opening them up to private investment. This decision diminished some of the government's control over music, which was no small risk considering its capacity for propaganda power displayed by the success of the revolutionary hymn. These changes forced musicians to find new sources of employment in the public market. The media, which was enjoying a more relaxed set of censorship laws and an increase in public literacy, stepped forward as the new leading authority on musical activity.
Through his position in the musical press Francois-Joseph Fétis wielded a lot of influence over music in Paris. Fétis focused much of his life on educating the masses to appreciate and understand music, while also introducing some very progressive theories about the direction in which music was moving. Strangely enough however, the personal preferences expressed in his journal critiques favoured the music of the past while giving scathing reviews to some of the more progressive musicians of the day. Looking back it is interesting to note what a profound effect Fétis had on Parisian musical life, especially when we consider that many of the composers who received his harshest criticism are the ones that are now considered to be the masters of their time.
1. The Early Romantic Era, ed. A Ringer (New Jersey, 1991), 32.
[2] Music in Paris in the Eighteen-Thirties, ed. P. Bloom, (Stuyvesant, NY, 1987), 4
[3] The Early Romantic Era, 44.
[4] Ibid, 1.
[5] Music in Paris in the Eighteen-Thirties, 78.
[6] P. Bloom, Periodica Musica, 1988/vol. V. 14.
[7] Music in Paris in the Eighteen-Thirties, 78.
[8] Ibid, 57.
[9] K. Móricz, Studia Musicologica: Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae,
1993-94/vol. 35. 417
[10] Music in Paris in the Eighteen-Thirties, 64.
[11] Ibid, 66.
[12] Ibid, 70.
[13] Studia Musicologica: Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae, 417.
[14] Ibid, 402.
[15] Ibid, 402.
[16] Music Theory in the Age of Romanticism, ed. Ian Bent, (Cambridge: 1996), 39
[17] Studia Musicologica: Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae, 399.
[18] Ibid, 410.
[19] Ibid, 410.
[20] Ibid, 417.
Works Cited:
Attali, Jacques. Noise: The political Economy of Music. (Brian Massumi, Trans.).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press. 1989.
Barzun, Jacques. Berlioz and the Romantic Century. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company. vol. 1-2. 1950.
Barzun, Jacques. "Introductory Essay: Paris in 1830" In Peter Bloom, (Ed.). Music in
Paris in the Eighteen-Thirties. (pp. 55-80). Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press. 1987.
Bloom, Peter. "Fétis's Revue Musicale" In Peter Bloom, (Ed.). Music in Paris in the
Eighteen-Thirties. (pp. 1-22). Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press. 1987.
Bloom, Peter. " 'Politics' and the Musical Press in 1830." Periodica Musica. vol. V.
9 - 16. 1988.
Cairns, David (Ed.). The Memoirs of Hector Berlioz. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd.
1969.
Christensen, Thomas. "Fétis and emerging tonal consciousness" In Ian Bent, (Ed.).
Music Theory in the Age of Romanticism. (pp. 37-56). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 1996.
Kirby, F. E.. Music in the Romantic Period: An Anthology With Commentary. New
York: Schirmer Books. 1996.
Locke, Ralph P.. "Paris: Centre of the Intellectual Ferment". In Alexander Ringer, (Ed.).
The Early Romantic Era: Between the Revolutions: 1789 and 1848. (pp. 32-83). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.. 1991.
Móricz, Klára. "The Ambivlent Connection between Theory and Practice in the
Relationship if F. Liszt and F.-J. Fétis". Studia Musicologica: Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae. vol. 35. 399-420. 1993-94.
Ringer, Alexander. "The Rise of Urban Musical Life between the Revolutions, 1789-
1849". In Alexander Ringer, (Ed.). The Early Romantic Era: Between the
Revolutions: 1789 and 1848. (pp. 1-31). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.. 1991.