THE DEVELOPMENT OF - SYMPHONY

By EDGAR HOWARD

I was frequently asked, "Why don't you include more modern music in these recitals ?" But much more frequently and certainly more insistently, "Why must you play this wretched modern stuff? I can hear nothing in it save an endless succession of noisy discords."

These latter remarks caused me to think, "Why is modern music so difficult for the average listener to appreciate ? Why was it that a music lover who could listen with rapture to, say the Beethoven Eroica, could derive no enjoyment from say, a symphony by Arnold Bax? What were the essential differences between these two composers Had this gulf between composer and listener always existed ; or had modern music actually less to offer the listener ? " In this article an attempt will be made to answer these questions.

To do so, it will be necessary to consider briefly the history of the symphony. The seed of the symphony was sown in the suites of Bach and his contemporaries, which consisted of independent movements of varying moods and tempi.

Haydn, truly called the father of the symphony, developed this form, and established for all time what we know as the classical symphony. Without being too technical, let us consider the form of the symphony at this time. There are four movements, the first, being an allegro; usually preceded by a slow introduction. Thu allegro section consists of two contrasted themes, known respectively as the first and second subjects, the second subject being given out in a different, but closely related key to the first. This constitutes the exposition section which was usually directed to be repeated. Following this comes the development section, wherein the matter of the exposition is treated and developed with great ingenuity and skill. Recapitulation follows, in which the first and second subjects are repeated, more or less in the form of their first appearance, but this time in the same key. The movement is then rounded off by a coda.

The andante, as the second movement is often called, allows the composer a freer rein. (The key is usually the nearest "flat" key to the first movement e.g. First movement in G, second will be in Q. The tempo is Andante or Adagio, but regarding the form there were no hard and fast rules. Indeed, quite often we find slow movements in "first movement" form. Again, ternary form, an " A.B.A." plan, is often found.

The third movement is a minuet, after which comes a contrasting section, the trio, with a repetition of the minuet to conclude.

The finale is again allegro, and in the same key as the first and third movements. Though lighter in style it is generally in "first movement" form. Such, briefly is the classical symphony.

Mozart produced forty-one examples in this form, in the last three of which, achieving a state of impeccable perfection which has never, in the classical form, been surpassed. Particularly, the Jupiter symphony will remain, for as long as men love things beautiful, a truly great example of the classical symphony.

Beethoven, in his superhuman Eroica symphony struck Out against the fetters of classical form, and heralded the dawn of the "Romantic" period. The length of the symphony was extended from the half-hour of the average Mozartian work to fully fifty minutes. And although the choice of keys between the movements of the Eroica shows no more adventure than any of the works of earlier symphonists, long sections of the former are written in very remote keys. A personal note is discernible, and dramatic expression is introduced. In such a symphony Beethoven could find no place for the minuet, and we find in its place the scherzo. The fifth symphony represents another great step forward. For the first time trombones are employed in the orchestra, and thematic material from the first movement is used in the third. The beginning of cyclic form ! Lack of space prohibits further allusion to the works of Beethoven, except to say that his nine stupendous symphonies carried music to heights of which previous composers had never dreamed.

After this, it was manifestly impossible to, return to the classical form, or for composers of lesser calibre to attempt to emulate the style of Beethoven.

Schubert, had he lived, may have ranked with Beethoven ; the ' C Major" is a truly great work, worthy to stand with any symphony ever written, and the "Unfinished" so beautiful that we can Only bow our heads in homage to a great genius. But alas, Schubert died before he could consolidate the position he had so deservedly gained.

Schumann contributed four symphonies of pictorial interest, but he side-stepped the main - issue and did nothing towards the development of the form. Much the same may be said of Mendelssohn and Dvofák, for, despite the brilliant orchestration of the former, his sentiment tends to pail after a time, while ljvofák's lyrical melody, though very beautiful, is not the best of symphonic material. His symphonies too, lack the real development of the greater masters of the art.

Tchaikovsky used the form as a vehicle for morbid" programme" music. The pretentious programme with which he saddles his fourth symphony is many times removed from true symphonic art. His fifth symphony, in E minor, is somewhat better, but hot-blooded themes, intriguing rhythms, and superb orchestration, no matter how fascinating in themselves, cannot be adequate substitute for real development. For above all a symphony must grow. Each theme must be the logical development of a preceding theme, each movement the inevitable continuation of the movement before. The work must be a united whole; not a series of disconnected tunes. By his very popularity Tchaikovsky has been a bad, rather than good, influence on those who would come to love music. For in our days of indiscretion we are apt to regard his works as criteria with which to judge other symphonies.

France has produced no outstanding symphonists. Berlioz, for all his theories and knowledge of orchestration, succeeded only in composing music, which, whatever we may choose to call it, is certainly not symphonic. Franck's single essay in D minor, though perhaps through the weakness of the finale, failing the right to rank with the finest models has the sincerity of a true work of art. The individual harmonies, and grave beauty of this work have many admirers.

Again, lack of space forbids mention of all the symphonists of this prolific period. Liszt, Mahler, Bruckner, and many others will have to be ignored. While much of their work is interesting, time has shown that their symphonies have not earned the right to immor tality. In all it seemed in the mid-i9th century that absolute music was to perish. The various influences mentioned above had struck at the heart of the symphony and drained the blood from its veins.

And, but for the great genius and artistic courage of Brahms, the last chapter in the history of the symphony may well have been written a hundred years ago. For it was he, who in times of swollen orchestras, atonality, and all the fantastic rigmarole of the romantic period, proved to the world that absolute music was not dead. With an orchestra of modest size he produced his first symphony, the C Minor. His inspiration was of the highest order, his knowledge of form profound, his symphony a masterpiece. Three more masterpieces were to follow. His fourth symphony in E Minor is one of the noblest conceptions of art. There is not a redundant phrase; no passages of" notespinning" when inspiration fails. Every note, every phrase, is an indispensable part of the whole. The amazing finale, a passacaglia containing thirty-one variations on a theme eight bars long, is perhaps the most profound symphonic movement ever to be written.

Sibelius' seven symphonies stand, like mountain peaks, aloof and apart. Of all musicians, this composer owes least to his predecessors. Many people find some difficulty in appreciating his works. This is due, I believe, to the fact that he reverses the classic form, in that he gives us first fragments of themes which are built up, later in the movement, into wonderful tunes, finally splitting them up again. His harmonies, though original, are logical, and his symphonies possess the unity so essential to symphonic art.

In England, Elgar has written two symphonies which have proved him to be a master of the art. The second of these, in E flat, is a most profound and moving work, with a wealth of typically English melody.

Vaughan-Williams has given us five symphonies. The first, A &a Symphony, with words by Walt Whitman, portrays the true spirit of the sea. The Pastoral and London symphonies followed: then the F Minor, a stark, austere, and forbidding work. From the brutal magnificence of this work we turn to the serene contemplative beauty of the fifth. Full of lyrical charm, it is to the F Minor, as a calm dawn to a storm-shattered night. We may well be proud of this great musician.

Arnold Bast has, to date, composed seven symphonies. His scores are extremely complex, though never "muddy," and several hearings are needed for the average listener to be able to appreciate fully the many subtleties in his works. The harmonies of his music are rich, and the melodies so characteristic as to be unmistakable. So far as England is concerned, there is little need to fear for the future of the symphony. For while men such as these have changed many aspects of the form, they have retained the essential nobility and unity.

Present-day Russian composers are producing an enormous quantity of music. Most of their symphonies are partly or wholly programmatic. It is the job of a symphony to portray musical ideas ; not political idealisms. Again, the demand by the Soviet that composers shall write for the masses (in return for guaranteed security) has resulted in the composers "writing down" to the public, and history has shown the disastrous results of this Time, of course, must be the ultimate judge of all music ; but will an audience of 2047 think music a suitable medium to portray the battle of Stalingrad ?

In Europe some fantastic music is being written, and, what is worse, played. One composer even asserts that the established law of harmony must be reversed. The interval of the semi-tone is to be halved. No longer is music to be written in an established key, there is to be no emotion. One may well ask, "What then is there to be ?" These composers will provide the answer! There is, however, one reassuring thought; no music can survive which is unworthy of survival. True genius works according to established laws, making new rules only when the existing ones are inadequate to express his meaning. It is the sensationalist who throws overboard the established laws before there is need.

The modern composer has many advantages the experience of generations of great musicians, higher standards of orchestral playing, the gramophone and wireless to reach wider audiences. Surely our great heritage of music is not to perish

To those prejudiced against modern music I would say, "Give it a fair trial ; listen with an open mind ; don't compare it with the classics. Much of it will not survive the day it was written ; but that is of no account; ' It was ever thus'