The Tragedy of German Music

[ReinerTorheit]

Originally Posted by Felix

Reiter, I was concentrating on a theme entirely different from yours, that of progressive dissciation in all major European cultures from norms that reached their culminating point in Nazism. Picasso, Klee, Kokoscka, Schönberg and others refused the pseudo-realism which was favoured by the Nazis and the Soviets which produced bad art.

I'm not certain that anything valuable results from trying to equate the methodologies and results of state interference in music in the Third Reich with those in the USSR. Fundamentally different processes were at work in these two different states. The USSR in the Stalin era was certainly a most unpleasant place in many respects - but its problems were entirely unrelated to what was going on in the Third Reich.

[haydnguy]

Originally Posted by Zeitblom

Surely you mean "appropriated by" rather than "served"?

Nazism and music is a complicated subject. There is no doubt that Bayreuth in the inter-war years was at the heart of the Nazi cultural machine (although not always happily so - there were plenty in the NSDAP establishment who resented Bayreuth's influence. Brigitte Hamann's biography of Winifred Wagner is essential reading in this respect).

What is becoming very clear is not just the depth of the German musical establishment's involvement with the NSDAP, but the extent to which that establishment survived the de-Nazification process and consolidated its position in German musical life thereafter. This article is useful reading on some of the issues. It certainly suggests that the shame - if not the tragedy - of German music did not end in 1945.

But surely, just because the Nazi's "appropriated" a piece of music doesn't mean that we cannot enjoy it today unless it was an opera where the words would be offensive.

[Zeitblom]

Originally Posted by haydnguy

But surely, just because the Nazi's "appropriated" a piece of music doesn't mean that we cannot enjoy it today unless it was an opera where the words would be offensive.

Agreed. And even where an operatic text is offensive, we're quite good at overlooking it (parts of the text of Die Zauberflote are racist and misogynist, but the work itself is generally regarded as a triumph of civilisation).

There is no apolitical art, and music is no exception. For example it's hard to separate nineteenth century music and nationalism. Opera is in many ways the Triumphlied of bourgeois nationalism. I think we have to understand and acknowledge that, while appreciating the art for what it is.

[some guy]

[I responded to an old post, not noticing that it was posted quite awhile ago, 1873 or something.

Never mind!

(It's not like noticing you're on page 2 of an 8 page thread is terribly difficult or anything....)]

[Liberty]

From my experience, when people aren't on "the same page" in life and relationships then it's absolutely pointless!!

[ReinerTorheit]

Originally Posted by Liberty

From my experience, when people aren't on "the same page" in life and relationships then it's absolutely pointless!!

Even so, we can wave cheerfully to those on other pages, in other books, in other languages, often in other libraries

[Musaeus]

To pick up the thread again - German music is full of glories and triumphs, but I think the word ‘tragedy’ is appropriate because the word is used classically of real greatness which is followed, through some tragic flaw, by a heart-rending catastrophe. That is what happened to German (German/Austrian) music, I think, in the decades after Strauss’s ‘Four Last Songs’ and Mahler’s ‘Das Lied von der Erde’. And you can sense the oncoming disaster in Wagner, who is like an explosion – something monstrous is happening in Wagner’s operas. What comes afterwards is almost unspeakable, almost unplayable. That’s my premise, but many would disagree with it.

Artists are not really their own men very often. They cannot alter the times in which they live, cannot swim against currents of huge force. In other words, it’s not entirely Stockhausen’s fault that his music is so repellent; nor is it only Bach’s personal genius which gives us his wonderful music.

If the 20th century is tragic, where is the tragic flaw? I mean, can you find the seeds earlier? Could the line from Bach (& predecessors) through the great Viennese age to Brahms have gone forward to more greatness. To my mind, Mahler, Bruckner and Strauss are not comparable to their great predecessors. Something has gone. These three are men of genius, but that’s not quite the point. Isn’t Mahler somewhat… neurotic, or strained and grandiose? Can anyone sum up Mahler and Strauss for me? (Sibelius has more self-discipline but he is Russian school rather than German.)

The tragic flaw: it is not in individuals so much as in the culture. In Bach, Mozart and Beethoven there is a miraculous individual strength and power. There are no flaws to speak of (perhaps in Beethoven) - they are a kind of perfection – and so there is in Haydn, and Schubert. But the culture betrays German musicianship. First there is a straining romanticism – you sense it in Schumann in particular; and sometimes in Brahms; but there is still greatness. Then in Wagner there is that explosion into a void and it seems to overwhelm the classical element altogether.

The straining romanticism – it is as if that inwardness in German culture is stretching almost neurotically after something greater and more intense even than that expressed by Bach and Mozart. So we get the strange, fantastic world of The Ring, and the huge symphonies of Mahler. But these colossal works are certainly something to do with the heart of things German. How can it be an accident that Wagner and Brahms (and Lizst, he is a part of all this) coincide with the massive stirrings of German nationalism and search for a new identity in the revolutionary aftermath of the Napoleonic era? And this is what taints Wagner – the emergence of a huge German ambition, a lust for power and wealth. Brahms is different – but which of these two great figures is the man of the future, the prophet, the forerunner: it is Wagner, not Brahms, for Brahms is trying to be the Beethoven of his time, a thoroughly respectable genius. Unlike Wagner, who did not mind shocking people. Wagner is a giant, or possibly an ogre.

It is nationalism perhaps that taints German music in the late 19th century, nationalism which has developed from restless soul-searching romanticism of Schumann-Liszt-Chopin (for Chopin, though free of all the German feeling, is of course a restless arch-romantic, and inspires the others with his purer genius). You cannot find German nationalism in Bach and Mozart, and that is part of their unmatchable greatness. Nor can you find the neurosis or the sense of strain: in fact, one thing these two greatest of all composers (possibly of all artists?) is an astonishing lack of strain – the music seems, so often, to flow effortlessly.

The other flaw is the godlessness. We all know of course that Handel and especially Bach are full of religion. The non-religious Bach is still a very great composer, but that secular composer is founded on the religious – Bach is a man of God as well as the Enlightenment. Mozart is less so obviously, but after all he served an archbishop until he was about 25. His career too is founded on religious service. Even if we did not have the Requiem, I believe you can sense Mozart’s intensely spiritual nature in many of his works, for example his string quartets and quintets, and in The Magic Flute. The apparent godlessness of Wagner and the earlier Liszt is interesting. There is even something alarming in it. That is true of Strauss as well. He is the Siegfried of German music in the twentieth century – the blonde hero with the mighty sword of his nation’s great art. But godless, and then impotent as his country sweeps him to unutterable horror like a knight imprisoned by a dragon so loathsome that he could not even have imagined it.

Forgive the opinionated assertions, but yes there is a great tragedy there, which we can only try to understand. It might help if I were German........

[ReinerTorheit]

Originally Posted by Musaeus

And you can sense the oncoming disaster in Wagner, who is like an explosion – something monstrous is happening in Wagner’s operas. What comes afterwards is almost unspeakable, almost unplayable. That’s my premise, but many would disagree with it.

Of course, there have been many very advanced minds who have argued this case. Busoni, for example, held Wagner personally responsible for the collapse of tonal music exhibited by the Second Viennese School. Busoni was giving lectures in the inter-war years in Berlin, in which his anger with Wagner was so great that he would not even name him! He referred to "that man" or "Herr W".

it’s not entirely Stockhausen’s fault that his music is so repellent

Whether or not his music is repellent, responsibility for it rests with Stockhausen alone.

The tragic flaw: it is not in individuals so much as in the culture. In Bach, Mozart and Beethoven there is a miraculous individual strength and power. There are no flaws to speak of (perhaps in Beethoven) - they are a kind of perfection – and so there is in Haydn, and Schubert. But the culture betrays German musicianship.

Haydn, Mozart, Bruckner and Schubert were Austrian. It's like complaining that Bernstein and Elliott Carter were Canadians.

(and Lizst, he is a part of all this)

Ferencs Liszt was Hungarian.

It is nationalism perhaps that taints German music

So much so that it was all led by Austrians? Really, you can't point the finger at 'German nationalism' and then use Austrians and Hungarians as your examples

nationalism which has developed from restless soul-searching romanticism of Schumann-Liszt-Chopin

Errr, so that's a German-Hungarian-Polish kind of 'nationalism'?

The other flaw is the godlessness. We all know of course that Handel and especially Bach are full of religion.

Do we? Handel consciously avoided writing any music for the church after his student years as an organist. None of his oratorios was ever performed in a church. They were all written for theatres. Many of them are not based on Biblical themes, but on subjects from classical literature (such as Hercules).

His career too is founded on religious service.

No, it wasn't!! Mozart was (a) Austrian, (b) Catholic and (c) a professional musician who consciously avoided any work for the Church.

Even if we did not have the Requiem, I believe you can sense Mozart’s intensely spiritual nature in..... The Magic Flute.

An opera about a clash between the Empires of Night and Day, in which victory goes to a cult of sun-worshippers who worship the deities of Isis and Osiris. Sarastro says so.

It might help if I were German........

Yes, then you wouldn't confuse Germany with Austria and Hungary - something that no German would do.

The whole thrust of German nationalism in the C19th was to break free of Austrian domination and become an independent country with a Protestant agenda. The German legal codex was altered so that no Catholics could hold positions of power. Brahms wrote his GERMAN REQUIEM so that it could replace the Catholic Requiem.

You're entitled to your opinions, and many of them are intriguing and interesting. But you can't just scoop Hungarian and Polish composers and use them to illustrate ideas of "nationalism in the C19th" - especially when nationalist movements were going on in those countries, that were partly motivated by reaction to the swamping influence of a resurgent Germany!

[Musaeus]

Originally Posted by ReinerTorheit

Of course, there have been many very advanced minds who have argued this case. Busoni, for example, held Wagner personally responsible for the collapse of tonal music exhibited by the Second Viennese School.

Whether or not his music is repellent, responsibility for it rests with Stockhausen alone.

Haydn, Mozart, Bruckner and Schubert were Austrian.

Ferencs Liszt was Hungarian.

The Busoni reference is interesting and not entirely surprising.
I can't agree with your view of Stockhausen or the artist in general - a community, a culture, creates taste, not an individual artist on his or her own. This is true of all arts.
(I don't seem to be able to do these multiple quotes)
Surely there is more of a shared culture between Austria and the German states than between Austria and Hungary or anywhere else - think of the way Mozart travelled to Mannheim and so on, and Beethoven to Vienna. This is not to overlook the huge political differences.

Re nationalism - I wasn't clear enough: of course it was a phenomenon everywhere in Europe: but although the political feelings were very different, some of the same impulses surely made their way into varied music. So Chopin's Polish feeling was evident. And so on. And this influence might well spread from composer to composer across the political and cultural boundaries (Chopin is a great influence on Liszt and Wagner surely). But perhaps nowhere in the 19th century is one as conscious of a forceful national spirit as in Wagner - I don't mean the character of the music so much as the entire intellectual and emotional movement of the work in every way. It is vastly different from the Polish patriotism of Chopin. Its legacy likewise.

Re religion and Handel - consider his remarks about the Messiah and his vision of the heavens. I don't think it matters where his works were performed, the inspiration of much is religious - and the creation of religious alongside classical works is a feature of European art from the Renaissance until the 19th century, when both dwindle in importance and other influences become stronger (eg folk, regional and national culture). Yes Mozart was not a religious composer but that is not the point - he was raised in the service of the Archbishop to write church music etc, was a maestro, and the religious spirit [I]in the general sense of a sensitive and disciplined soul[I] was strong in him. So his precise beliefs are not the point, nor is the Isis thing in the Flute. Consider the difference between the power of the church over Handel, Bach and even Mozart for some of his career - and the total unimportance of the church in the career of Wagner. And consider the influence of the virulently anti-Christian friend of Wagner, Nietzsche.

So - religion fades, nationalism grows, rampant romanticism and wilful irrationalism flourish: an explosively German recipe for disaster.

[Felix]

First of all, all this talk about Tragedy, Glory and Triumph has, forgive me, something cheap about it, like generalisations without content.

I have already made my tentative views plain in earlier letters on this thread, but I would like just to add a few points to those that ReinerTorheit has intelligently made. The mixture of nationalities both historical and in their music.

Chopin may have added Polish colours and dances to his music – hardly the real folklore – but he belongs entirely in the German bracket, largely due to the influence of Bach on his music..

As I think most musicians know, there was not a choice between Wagner and Brahms for the future. The Schönbergers derived equally from the chromaticism of Wagner and the form of Brahms, and not only; Schönberg made his students study the traditional composers down to their last details. This has nothing to do with Nationalism. It was the Nationalists, to be more precise the Nazis, who rejected the atonal composers in much the same way is you do, banned and exiled them as un-Germanic. You have chosen the wrong allies, precisely the barbaric German nationalists.

It would be sheer madness to equate the atonalists with German nationalism.

THERE WAS NO DECLINE IN CENTRAL EUROPEAN MODERNISM. On the contrary there was an advance insofar as they liberated music from the by then ideological trap of classical tonality and produced new incomparable treasures to the repertory.

I can really understand people who find the music of the atonalists repulsive; you have to grow into it as I was fortunately able to do, to my eternal gratitude. The more they seem like the enemies of your middle class culture, the more they are your real friends..

As for this talk about neurosis, it is like all the other emotions, a medium of unfettered expression. Do you really think that Schubert’s late chamber music or Beethoven’s last quartets are free of neurotic elements? Or the sometimes frenetic excitability of Haydn’s first movements.? I’m thinking at the moment of his earlier Symphonies.

There is no such thing as a great composer without religion or faith even if they don’t follow religious dogma or appear to deny it.

As for the ‘straining romanticism’ of Schumann, one of the greatest miracles that occurred in our history. Brahms wasonly to passionately aware of this. Well, if this is decadence and tragedy, give it to me anytime. And my personal view of Mahler is that he was one of the greatest musical giants, comparable perhaps only to Beethoven.

Wilful irrationalism is more a gift of yours than of the composers you are talking about. They worked very hard at the structure of their work which is why they couldn't curn out dozens of Symphoinies based on pre- established forms.

Muaeus, this is sheer argument and polemics. No personal hostility is intended.

Best wishes