Philharmonic Society of New York: 3d concert

Event Information

Venue(s):
Academy of Music

Conductor(s):
Carl Bergmann

Event Type:
Orchestral

Record Information

Status:
Published

Last Updated:
16 February 2019

Performance Date(s) and Time(s)

06 Feb 1869, Evening

Program Details

First performance of Mendelssohn’s Reformation Symphony by the New York Philharmonic; United States premiere of Schubert’s Unfinished Symphony.

Performers and/or Works Performed

2)
aka Reformation
Composer(s): Mendelssohn-Bartholdy
3)
aka Unfinished symphony; Symphony, no. 8, B minor
Composer(s): Schubert
4)
aka Leonore overture, no. 3; Leonora overture, no. 3
Composer(s): Beethoven
5)
Composer(s): Bull

Citations

1)
Advertisement: New-York Times, 05 February 1869, 7.
2)
Review: New York Herald, 07 February 1869, 7.

“Despite the blond hair and leg mania and the seductions of opera bouffe, which we are sorry to say, have succeeded to some extent in driving real art from the field of music, the Philharmonic concert at the Academy last night was crowded to the extent of standing room only, with very little of that available.  It is a gratifying sight to a real lover of art to find that there are some yet left to patronize it and that legs and blond hair do not monopolize everything in the way of amusements.  The programme of last night’s concert was as follows. . . .  We hope that the ‘Reformation’ symphony will now be a feature in orchestra concerts every season, for it is a gem of undeniable value.  The choral of the opening andante is a true poem itself.  Tenderness and delicacy of sentiment are breathed in every measure and the loveliest strains of harmony rise and fall on the ear like echoes from dreamland.  A trumpet flourish suddenly breaks the calm, and an allegro con fuoco, boisterous and harsh, with something of the Schumann spirit about it, follows.  The next movement of the symphony is one of those delicious little scherzi which Mendelssohn alone has left us.  It is indescribable as the groupings of the kaleidoscope or the motes in the sunbeam.  A ripple of the wind instruments, a dialogue of the bassoons, a trill of the flutes, a tremolo of the ‘celli, and then a universal ha! ha! from the entire orchestra.  Such are the only tangible ideas of it left on the mind of the hearer.  Puck and Queen Mab take the place of Carl Bergmann for the moment and each instrument in the orchestra becomes a caucan sprite.  Martin Luther’s celebrated hymn, ‘A Safe Stronghold,’ which is one of the features of the ‘Huguenots,’ commences the movement of the ‘Reformation Symphony.’  It is quaintly introduced by a single flute, and again appears with the orchestra en masse.  We do not like Mendelssohn where he attempts massive orchestral effects.  He is a true poet, and tenderness and sentiment best become him.  He is at home in the sun-lighted valley, not in the storm-rent mountain.  The performance of the symphony was faultless in every sense of the word.  Old Bull’s playing was exquisite; but we did not think much of his concerto.  There is too much of the old De Berriot or seesaw school about it to please.  The theme of the second adagio movement is beautiful, and the tones of the violin were almost human in tenderness and feeling in giving expression to the beautiful imaginings of the great virtuoso.  The second piece was a gem and one of the best of Mr. Bull’s works, perhaps because it was one of his earliest.  We have already given a detailed description of Schubert’s posthumous work.  Beethoven’s overture is the best of all the Leonora introductions, and the rendering was such as one might expect from such an orchestra.  To Mr. Carl Bergmann, the conductor, praise is due for the efficiency of his immense corps of instrumentalists.  After the concert Mr. Ole Bull was presented with a very elegant piece of silver plate by the society, which was an artistic affair in its way; also a handsome emerald ring, which was at first sent to him from Moscow after his concerts there, but which he only received last night.  The present season of the Philharmonic Society has been the most successful known for years.  The energy and enterprise of the president, Dr. Doremus, in increasing the orchestra and enlisting the patronage of the public have had a good deal to do with it.  Schumann, Bach and Mendelssohn will figure at the next concert.  We would suggest that those whose business it is to attend these concerts be afforded a chance beyond attempting to enjoy them from the entrance to the auditorium with a score of people standing in front.”

3)
Review: New York Post, 08 February 1869.

“The third Philharmonic Concert at the Academy of Music last Saturday night, of course, attracted an overcrowded house; but there was considerable dissatisfaction manifested at the discovery that numbers of favored mortals had been admitted by the Fourteenth street door, and allowed to choose the best seats while the general public was kept waiting outside [See Letter to the Editor, 02/05/69, for one disgruntled listener’s opinion].  The orchestral performances under Mr. Bergmann’s conducting were in every way admirable.  Schumann and Beethoven, could they have been there, must have been satisfied.  The Leonora overture, with which the programme closed, received as excellent an interpretation as could have been desired, and the Prestissimo passage for violins, leading to the finale, was taken up with splendid vigor and effect.  Ole Bull was the solo performer, playing two long pieces, both of his own composition.  This was hardly in good taste, for though one might allow a single selection to the vanity of the composer, in the second selection at least the artist should have been predominant.  Mr. Bull played well, however, was liberally applauded, and after the concert was presented with some silver.”

4)
Review: New-York Times, 08 February 1869, 5.

“The one hundred and eighteenth concert of the Philharmonic Society took place at the Academy of Music on Saturday evening.  There was, of course, the usual full attendance, and the same flutter of beauty and fashion as of old.  The programme did not present any novelty.  Two of the pieces, to be sure, were on the bill of the Society for the first time, but they have already been made familiar by Mr. Theodore Thomas, who is very apt to be ahead in these matters.  We refer to the ‘Reformation’ Symphony by Mendelssohn and the two movements from the unfinished Symphony of Schubert.  Both are posthumous, and in these days of unproductiveness both are valuable additions to the limited repertoire of symphonic music.  Mendelssohn’s work contains many reminiscences of the ‘Hymn of Praise,’ but they are always tender and beautiful.  The composer reverenced music, and saw in it the means of every passional and every mental expression.  In a calm, collected, eclectic way he said a great deal, but lacking spontaneity and variety of emotion he has said the same things over and over again, with intellectual differences perhaps, but with no new essential human outburst.  The training, timidity and nature of the man preserved him even from the effort of being different to what he was.  His first ideas are his last, and best.  There was no unknown depth to him.  He knew the measure of his capacity to the fraction of an inch, and never exceeded it.  But he studied and elaborated and worked, and occupied the attention of the world.  In oritorio [sic] music he reached almost dramatic intensity.  It is here, we think that his claims to future consideration will be most rankly recognized.  Even now his claim to any other kind of fame is disputed.  The ‘Reformation’ Symphony is interesting and bright.  The third movement is graceful and quaint, and will always please with the public.  The slow movements are remarkable more for treatment than inspiration.  The composer is felicitous in the use of the wood and brass instruments, and in this way threads a rather uninteresting subject with many brilliant hues.  In the last movement there is a fair approach to largeness in the treatment of a popular theme.  And indeed it may be conceded that the work is interesting from the evident care with which it has been prepared; but that it illustrates one of the most important events in the history of the world, may be doubted.  The work was played with great clearness by the orchestra, and enjoyed its best interpretation, on this occasion.  The two movements from the Schubert symphony possess an exuberance of fancy, melody and episodical interest strangely at variance with the trimness of Mendelssohn.  There was, indeed, a difference between the men which is now only being fully recognized.  Schubert threw off in the intervals of dissipation masses of manuscript which are yet unbrought together.  It has recently been demonstrated that there are five or six complete symphonies in existence of which the public know nothing.  Let us trust that they may quickly find their way to the concert-room.  If they possess the saliency of the two movements from the unfinished symphony they will indeed be welcome.  Last but not least on the programme was Beethoven’s glorious ‘Leonore’ overture No. 3—a work that exhales a ceaseless aroma of genius.  It was played superbly by the band, as indeed was the Schubert Symphony.  We have rarely heard the orchestra of the Philharmonic to such advantage as on Saturday.  The only soloist was Mr. Ole Bull, a host in himself to be sure.  The morceaux played by the favorite and extraordinary artist, were, the concerto in A major and the ‘Polacca Guerria,’ both by himself.  The pieces are known to all frequenters of Old Bull’s concert, and it is only necessary to say that they were played with that exquisite taste, delicacy and style for which this artist is famous.  Both pieces were warmly applauded, and on the termination of the concert Mr. Ole Bull was the recipient of a well-merited compliment.  He was presented with a piece of plate by the members of the Society, and in addition received a handsome emerald ring from Mr. Edwin Booth, who unfortunately could not be present.  There is, we believe, a history connected with the ring which makes its restoration to Mr. Bull a matter of great pleasure.  Both incidents occurred gracefully, and gave much satisfaction to all parties concerned.”

5)
Review: New-York Daily Tribune, 08 February 1869, 5.

“The third concert of the Philharmonic Society’s twenty-seventh season was given at the Academy of Music on Saturday evening, before an audience even larger than usual.  The programme was one of peculiar interest, the orchestral selections embracing one composition which stands in the very foremost rank of the works of genius, and two symphonies, which beside being productions of acknowledged excellence, were little known to the audience and had never before been played by this society; while the solo performer was an artist who exerts a more powerful sway over the popular heart than any other musician in America. The following was the order of the entertainment. . . . Mendelssohn, Schubert, Beethoven—a noble trio for a single evening! The Reformation Symphony has probably never been played so well in the United States as it was on this occasion. It was first produced in America at the Boston festival last May. It was next given by Theodore Thomas at the Steinway Hall festival a few weeks later, and very recently it has been played in Philadelphia. The scherzo has been rendered familiar to New Yorkers by means of Theodore Thomas’s concerts, at which it often finds a place on the programme. Unlike many other great symphonies, it was written to illustrate a distinct idea, capable, to a certain extent, of verbal expression; and the inquiry. What the music means, which, when applied, as it so often is, to music that is incapable of interpretation in words, Mendelssohn himself in one of his letters severely ridicules, is here entirely appropriate. The work was composed for an intended celebration of the ter-centenary of the Augsburg Confession, and its purpose was to represent the struggle between the old and the new faith, each symbolized by its characteristic hymns, and the final triumph of the Reformation. The celebration, owing to the hard feeling excited by the plan between the Catholics and Protestants of Germany, never took place. The symphony performed, however, two years afterward, and was then laid away, and never heard again until in the course of the rummaging which has lately gone on among Mendelssohn’s manuscript remains, it was brought to light about two years ago, and played in England, where it has since been very popular. Mendelssohn himself regarded it as a failure. Writing some years afterward to Julius Rietz, the composer, he says, ‘I perceive a certain spirit in your overture which I myself know only too well, for in my opinion it caused any Reformation Symphony to fail. Just as the French, by conjuring tricks and overwrought sentiment, endeavor to make their style harrowing and exciting, so I believe it possible, through  natural repugnance to this style to fall into the other extreme and so greatly to dread all that is piquant and sensuous that at last the musical idea does not remain sufficiently bold or interesting that instead of a tremor there is a wasting away; it is the contrast between the Jesuit churches and their thousand glittering objects and the Calvinists with their four white walls; true piety may exist in both, but still the fight path lies between the two . . . The fundamental thoughts both in your overture and in the Reformation Symphony (both having, in my opinion, similar qualities) are more interesting from what they indicate than actually interesting in themselves.’ This last sentence, we believe, describes exactly the defect of the Symphony. It is a noble work, but after several hearings the impression grows stronger and stronger that it falls short of the capabilities of the subject. This is especially the case with the first and third movements. The second (allegro con fuoco, or scherzo) is a perfectly lovely and irresistible little pastoral, thrown into the midst of the symphony as if Mendelssohn had grown tired of his sober theme and could not keep the beautiful sunshine of his genius from breaking for a moment through the clouds. The last, with its fine mingling of the old Gregorian hymn and Luther’s ‘Ein feste Burg,’ and its grand climax, is really worthy of the composer.

“The unfinished Schubert Symphony (B minor) is another recent discovery, having been first performed, if we are not mistaken, in the Spring of 1867, at the Crystal Palace in London. It was first produced in America at one of Theodore Thomas’s symphony soirées, about a year ago, and has since been played in Boston and Philadelphia, and several times repeated by Mr. Thomas in New York. It is the eighth of Schubert’s nine symphonies, and was written in 1822, six years before his death. The first and second movements only (allegro moderato, and andante con moto) were finished. They are distinguished by an exquisite grace, which grows more and more charming with every repetition, a distinctness of thought, and a really Beethoven flavor in the melody. To this fascinating fragment, as well as to the grand overture which closed the concert, the orchestra did full justice. Ole Bull played with his usual perfection of touch and tone, and produced a deep impression. Being loudly recalled after the concerto, he gave a remarkable exhibition of his skill, both in playing three and four-part harmonies, and in sustaining a pizzicato accompaniment to the air which he plays with the bow.

“There has been complaint, recently, that at the Philharmonic Concerts, where the first comers are supposed to have the choice of seats, a great many favored individuals are introduced by a side entrance before the general public are admitted. We are unwilling to believe that so respectable a society as the Philharmonic would sanction such an unfair—not to say dishonest—proceeding, and on Saturday we took pains to ascertain whether the complaint was well founded. We regret to say that it was. When ladies and gentlemen who had gone early and waited in the cold for the doors to be opened were let in, they found the best seats already occupied by persons who had been surreptitiously introduced. We think the officers of the society owe an explanation to the public.”

6)
Review: Dwight's Journal of Music, 13 February 1869, 400.

“The Reformation Symphony [we were fortunately spared the infliction of a descriptive analysis on the back of the programme]  would have made a reputation for a man of less note than Mendelssohn, but it adds nothing to his fame and is indeed, in many respects, inferior to either the Scotch or the Italian.  The best movement—not even exception the fresh and piquant Scherzo—is (to my taste) the short Andante, in G minor, which immediately precedes the vigorous Finale.  It is simply an orchestral Lied ohne Worte, of which the theme is sung by the violins.

 “The Schubert fragments have now become quite familiar to us and grow in favor upon each hearing.  If any criticism were to be made, it would simply be with regard to the prolixity of the composer.  Yet Schumann (speaking of the C major) called it a ‘heavenly length,’ and I am not disposed to rebel against his opinion.

“Ole Bull played his two selections in his own disjointed, incoherent, and peculiarly exasperating style.  It is useless to criticize his compositions, for they are scarcely entitled to the name.  In the Concert, for instance, which is supposedly in A, the finale opens squarely in E major, continues in that key for a very long time, and then suddenly, without warning or reason, winds up with about 16 bars in A.  To paraphrase a famous bon mot of a certain celebrated wit, I might say that his compositions will be played and admired when those of Mendelssohn and Beethoven shall be forgotten’—and not until then.  Herr Bull was encored—in a somewhat labored way—at the close of the concerto, and responded to the compliment by devoted about ten minutes of valuable time to a sort of musical nightmare, in which he exhibited his mechanical dexterity and the beauties of the chromatic scale in a most ingenious manner.”

7)
Review: Dwight's Journal of Music, 27 February 1869, 408.

[Quoted from the New York Sun] “The concert itself was not an interesting one.  The simple truth is that Ole Bull spoilt it.  This gentleman has won the universal esteem by his very noble qualities of head and heart, but it is impossible for his most ardent admirers to claim for him any special merit as a composer.  Being invited by a Society that has for its object the production of music of the great composers to play for them, one would naturally suppose that a man having the artistic reputation that Ole Bull has gained would have risen to the occasion.  He has played inferior composition before general audiences from one end of the country to the other, and from one end of the year to the other, and the excuse has been, not that the himself did not aspire to greater things, but that the general concert-going public did not care to hear any better.  But as last the occasion seemed to have arrived when, if there was in him any true reverence for art, it should have been displayed.  An audience thoroughly accustomed to classical music was before him.  A noble orchestra, capable of interpreting any work, was there to assist him.  The repertoire of the Society contained all the splendid concertos for violin and orchestra that have been given to the world by the great masters.  Here was an opportunity when Ole Bull might have emerged from that atmosphere of charlatanism that has so unfortunately surrounded him, and proclaimed himself a true son of art.  ‘The house and the man’ were come.  What use did the latter make of the former?  To play too long concertos, each in three movements, by Ole Bull.  Neither of them contained an idea of sufficient dignity to entitle it to a position in one of Offenbach’s scores.  Both were vapid to an almost incredible extent—mere feeble wanderings through the realms of sound in vain search for ideas that were never found.  Of the two hours and a half that the concert occupied, nearly one hour was given up to Ole Bull’s elf-illustrations.  It was a splendid instance of artist egotism.  Mr. Bull does know one good piece—a larghetto by Mozart. For we have heard him play it.  Why not have given that?  Being encored he played a piece feebler even in ideas, if that were possible than the concert.  We do not know its name.  If called upon to conjecture, we should say it was ‘High diddle, diddle, the cat and the fiddle.’  The fiddle was there palpably, and we could almost swear to the cat, for it is the custom of great violinists to imitate the calls of all the wild and domestic animals upon their instruments.  It is the modern school of violin playing.  Though no ‘little dog’ was there ‘to see the sport,’ there was the Doctor’s orchestra of 100, who knew perfectly well how unworthy it all was, who smiled grimly at the exhibition.  It is but proper to add that these pieces did what they were written to do.  They illustrated Ole Bull’s immense technical skill, and that splendid breadth and nobility of phrasing in which he has no superior.  From that bit of wood and string he certainly can draw tones that glow and tremble with emotion, and that state forever in the memory.  More is the pity that such great ability should not have been turned to some good end, and that on this occasion, of all others in his life, the player should not have cast aside all thought of self-display, and brought all the results of his life or labor and of his great natural gifts to the interpretations and illustration of some work of acknowledged inspiration.  Which does he lack, a reverence for his art, or capacity to execute the higher works?

“Mendelssohn’s ‘Reformation’ symphony two movements from an unfinished symphony by Schubert and Beethoven’s third ‘Leonora’ overture completed the programme.  Mendelssohn’s symphony does not add to his reputation.  Compared with the ‘Scotch’ and ‘Italian’ symphonies, it is of very inferior merit.  The first movement is especially labored and forced.  The allegro vivace is a peasants’ dance that seems to have no relation to the rest of the work, though charming in itself.  The interest centers in the final movement, where Luther’s hymn ‘Ein feste Burg’ is nobly worked out in simple counterpoint and fugue.  The subject, it seems to us, was one rather foreign to Mendelssohn’s peaceful and almost effeminate genius.  The warring elements of the branches of the Christian Church found no profound sympathy in a mind colored by, even though not assenting to, the traditions of Judaism.  The atmosphere of conflict was alien to all his tastes and sympathies, and as a natural result he failed to reproduce in music what was not in his own nature.

“Beethoven’s well-known overture requires no comment, and Schubert’s work was full of that spontaneous melody that is manifest in everything he ever composed.”

8)
Review: New York Musical Gazette, March 1869, 36.

“The third Philharmonic concert passed off with the usual éclat.  The Reformation symphony was well interpreted and the sympathies of the audience thoroughly aroused by the performance of parts of two of Schubert’s unfinished symphonies.  These are very characteristic compositions, imbued with all the tenderness and pathos of this remarkable composer.  Some of the strains seem like an earnest appeal of his own better nature, as perhaps they were.  At all events they never fail to touch a chord in the heart of the listener.  We doubt whether any compositions are so thoroughly filled with the personality of the writer as the works of Schubert.  The soloist on this occasion was Herr Ole Bull.  There is such a generosity and large-heartedness about this man that they would be sure to carry the sympathies of his audience even if he were less of an artist than he is.  We cannot see that age has touched him in any way, either in his power of execution or by chilling the ardor of his nature.  Long may old Time continue to treat him with the same consideration as heretofore!”