The timeless radicalness of Reicha
Magne Hegdal’s work Stort sett is performed in Gamle Logen Monday 13th September at 19h. Read his essay on Anton Reicha. h3. Style and development
Music history is generally perceived as a kind of naturally given development stylewise, where the new growing form the old becomes an artistic criterion. And what is, in one way or another, breaching with a historical continuity like this, is easily dismissed as worthless.
For Schönberg, this idea was more or less like a dogma – and it was not all about development, but improvement: A music becoming more and more advanced, “educating” the audience, making the music that seems impossible to comprehend today is an everyday whistling tune tomorrow. When he himself breached this holy principle (like in the “post modern” recomposings of Händel and Monn from the early 1930s, or in his later tonal works), it may seem that he, regretfully, has to recognize that the artistic drive not quite matched the ideal.
Regarding Stravinsky, we find that the attitude towards this kind of matters is even more complicated. He – who Schönberg accused of precisely this breach of historical continuity – complains (in Poetics of Music) about the worshipping of the “individual whim” and lack of fellowship and continuity among his contemporaries. Even if he does not have any illusions or beliefs that the development inevitably will lead to an improvement, still a historical connection is of fundamental importance. He considers Berlioz “an erratic block” that, in his view, is outside the historical continuity (his “origin is unknown”) and to whom he typically does not assign any great artistic value.
I dare not think about how Stravinsky would characterize Berlioz’ teacher Anton Reicha (1770-1836) – if said man had been well enough known to be granted a reference!
Upheaval
The thought of continuous stylistic development is by no means eternally valid. One will encouter breaches in both the works of Stravinsky and Schönberg, and a more or less distanced use of historical stylistic means. And this is actually an omporten tendency in 20th century music – like in the radical contempt towards modernism by Rued Langaard (“Now the music is discovered and cannot be discovered again”), the “desertion” from the Darmstadt school by Bo Nilsson or the many “renarrations” of the classics in recent years (from Bach to Schönberg at Ultima 2009 or Ligeti on the 2010 festival).
This is nothing new. In a historical perspective; probably it is rather the idea of perpetual development that represents something new – and passing. Especially in times of transition, between epochs characterized by conformity, stylewise, we find the erratic blocks of Stravinsky. Still this is a misleading term; we are here considering artists that undeniably belong in their own time – that relate to the material available to them and them reshape it into a personal expression. But if the “development” does not appreciate and carry on this effort, it will remain as a historical slip. Consequently it is also often considered uninteresting artistically, even when it is about achievements at a level of absolute excellence.
In our attitude to music history, we like simplifying. The last part of the 18th century and a bit into the next one – the Classical period, where classical logic of form gradually become more dynamic and through a personal expression lead towards Romanticism. But this period, with war and revolution, between Baroque and Romantic, is very complex musically. Vienna is the centre, but many other important things happen elsewhere – and a lot of it is not particularly “classical”. Carl Phillipp Emanuel Bach certainly formed the basis for different types of classical form, but important parts of his production was hardly understood and appreciated until the 20th century. And in Spain, Boccherini created chamber music that might not have the motivic stringency of Haydn (and neither sought it), but a radical expansion of sound and texture, and an expression of emotions that only in the “authentic” performance practice of our times has come into life.
And then there is Reicha – harder to categorize than anyone else: In the midst of his days, professor at the Paris conservatory, an intellectueal with a great interest in philosophy and mathematics (Academy member and holder of the Legion of Honour – a remarkable path for the poor boy from Prague that ran away from his home as a ten-year-old!). With his history conscious and theoretical attitude he was in certain ways more conservative than his peer Beethoven. But at the same time, he found musical solutions that in their incredible radicalness can enter straight into our own time.
The capsule of time
The train of thought leads to Bernd Alois Zimmermann and his idea of die Kugelgestalt der Zeit: A unity of present, past and future. When he ended his own life in 1970, Zimmermann hadde continued the principle of a more and more advanced style to a complex extreme with no further roads to travel. For me, this marks the end of a development that at the same time opened up for a new attitude towards artistic renewal His own collage technique also leads the way ahead – and at the same time, it also is close to being a resume of the European history of music.
This historical “presentness”, it is striking how this is reflected in Reicha. Because of the distance in time, we can see the future part of the “capsule” as specific profecies about music of later times – often it is not a matter of direct influence, as his efforts hardly were known for those who at a later time picked up similar ideas.
Many ideas were indeed continued. He was one of the most influential teachers of his time, and many of the most important Romantic composers were either his students or were familiar with his theoretical works, which had a wide distribution. Some of the most radical ideas of Berlioz come straight from Reicha (like the timpani chords in Requiem), and his influence is found in musical drama by his students, like Gounoud and – Waldemar Thrane! In his later years, Liszt adapted a lot of radical features from his master, and the polyphone chromatics of Franck can also be regarded as a distant after-effect of his studies with Reicha.
Important news in the 20th century – via composers like the two latter – might have an indirect connection with Reicha, as modulating chromatics without a defined key and key signatures (Schönberg 1908). When Reicha in a piece for piano hides the theme in the middel of a row of chords, so you can only hear if certain notes are played with more power than the others – well, then it is hard to find anything similar before Messiaen. And also between these to, an indirect connection is imaginable: Sound modulation and texture levels are typical features for Reicha, and he regarded traditional tonality as far too limited. He could use dissonances more like a colour, a character, than a tension that had to be released, and his tonality was often more modal than functional. These are features we know from later French music, and that in consequence lead on to Messiaen. But specific contact points probably has as much to do with personality (system constructors!) as with indirect influence. Radical features in Reicha’s music and theory were not met with great understanding and was almost regarded as useless speculations. Some wheels simply had to be invented all over again.
Conceptual music
Reicha related to tradition in a way that was remarkably open-minded and free of prejudice. Where his friend Beethoven “expanded the classical heritage as it were … from the inside”, he was more distant – indeed, in some cases it seems that he “completely stepped out of his time”, as the Swedish Reicha expert Henrik Löwenmark claims. He saw possibilities and drew consequences that “were in the cards”, but that the mainstream of history did not reach until a century later.
Löwenmark has shown how his visions on new tonal possibilities and the limitations of the major-minor system is found again almost literally in Busoni’s history-making “Sketch of a new Esthetic of Music” (1907). Through new uses of established principles he could present, among other things, dissonances who could have found their way straight into Ives’ most daring works (“passing chords”). And the budding interest in folk music at this time (where Beethoven contributed with his many wonderful adaptations) manifested itself in Reicha’s work in “Balkan rhythmics” like we know it fram Bartok! He wrote advanced canon in rhythmics (Messiaen) – and a wind quintet theme where the point is that the tones in a chord vanishes, one by one; the chord is watered out, and simultaneously the sound character in the whole is changed (better late than never, Stockhausen!).
His radical ideas have on many occasions lead to memorable music (some of the pieces are in my opinion among the most beautiful there is!). But from time to time it seems like the idea is what is most fundamental, and the music only an example of possible usage (cf. the title Practische Beispiele). And some ideas we do not know whether he realised at all. Like the thought of writing two quartets, in respectively G major and E minor, that could be played separately or together (double quartet). In the light of his “new system of harmony”, this is actually not impossible to imagine.
Another kind of qualilty
Important parts of Reicha’s works are still not available. A lack of knowledge also tend to make the editions abundant with errors, and many recordings are poor (tempo too slow, shortened form). His music often have very high technical standards, and many performers give up half way (if you expect a second rate composer, that is what you get. Anner Bylsma is among those who have shown us how Reicha can sound when taken seriously).
For those who know some of his music, my portrayal probably will astound many of them. Because is this not simple and at best charming music? Reicha has a wide span, and some of the more well known music comes from the simple, not always interesting part of his production. But it is correct that the popular, easy-going and non-pretentious is part of his distinctive character. Sometimes the musical simplicity can become a challenging openness reminiscent of later Liszt. Contrarily, “low art” material be combined with intellectual complexity in a way that anticipatse another great central European, Mahler.
To do him justice, it is important to realize that we deal with an unusual type of artist; he is not like a composer “should be” at the dawn of the Romantic era. His music can admittely be lyrical and expressive in a typically romantic manner. But here is no battle and victory, no subjective confessions. Here he was on a collision course with Berlioz: Where Reicha refers to the disciplining significance of mathematics for art, Berlioz demanded an expression based on personal emotion. Reicha was a revolutionary in his ability to come up with new ideas, but first and foremost he represents the humanism from Enlightenment. His artistic project was a project of education (the subtitle of one of his theoretical-practical works is “ein Beitrag zur Geisteskultur des Tonsetzers” – a contribution to the cultural spirit of the composer), and it had a strong element of research (a quartet is called Quatuor scientifique). We have to value as a quality that he was experimental and willing to test new things, and that he took risks – even if it did not always produce very successful results. His “memorial symphony” for three piccoloes, six oboes, six clarinets, six bassoons, six trumpets, three double basses, six military drums and four small field canons is honestly more of a curiosity than an artistic highlight.
At the conservatory in Paris, he stood for the modern in a way that some students misinterpreted as anarchy (“anything goes”). He was himself aware that “the present” has no meaning (Zimmermann: it is “ice bursting”) without a past and a future. He composed significant pieces over themes by earlier composers (Frescobaldi, Bach, Händel and several others), and the work La Chercheuse d’esprit is a “recomposition” of French songs from the 16th century (”Accompagnées d’un Harmonie moderne”). At the same time, his “new combinations” are consciously directed at the posterity; in the comments to a piece with experimental tonality, he says that he will only give this example – in addition, he will only refer to the future.
Reicha represents an artistic seriousness – without taking himself too seriously; an exploratory openness and a belief in renewal and growing insight. He represents a knowledge based independency – against every form of conformism. As I regard it, his attitudes has inspiring actuality in the situation of today, and they are evident in a music that still is exeptionally vital, fresh and expressive – and challenging!
Essay: Magne Hegdal
Composer portrait: Rune Kongsro