Ritter History of Music Lecture: 1st

Series of five lectures on the “History of Music” by Frederic Louis Ritter; dates and title of each lecture.

“Mr. Ritter’s First Lecture.—The Weekly Review, (New York) gives the following interesting report: At Weber's hall, last Tuesday evening, Mr. F. L. Ritter gave the first of a series of lectures on the history of music. The discourse was characterized by ample and various learning, a skillful treatment of topics, and an earnest, impressive style of delivery. Mr. Ritter throws the force of a sincere nature into all that he undertakes, and embellishes his work with the fruits of abundant culture. His first lecture related to Harmony and the Folksong, from the Christian era to the latter part of the fourteenth century. It must not be mistaken for a mere re-hash of historical works. While Mr. Ritter examines every authority to which he has access, on the subject of which he treats, he always bases his conclusions on his own judgment, after thorough examination of the works whose composers are mentioned. On this occasion he presented several original philosophical speculations on the aesthetics of the art. As the lectures will be published, when the entire series is completed, the public will have an opportunity to judge of their originality and substantial value. The lectures are in no sense a compilation from other writers. Mr. Ritter's audience was not large, though sympathetic, and full of interest in the subject. Mr. Ritter did not expect to attract the general public at once. Interest in these subjects has yet to be created here. As a speaker, Mr. Ritter's manner is pleasing and unembarrassed, his voice is sufficiently powerful, and his foreign accent not so pronounced as to render the meaning of what he says in any way obscure. After introducing his subject, and touching on the condition of music in America, Mr. Ritter said:—‘No one of the other arts is encumbered with so many prejudices as music. Many even consider it an unfit occupation for masculine minds; its right position in the family of arts is in many cases not understood at all; its philosophical and aesthetical meaning is entirely overlooked. While we possess exhaustive works on architecture, sculpture, painting, and poetry, music has yet to struggle to find its true place. This is due, in some cases, to the one-sided education of musicians in general, and to their want of logical power. Thus, the interests of music are either in the hands of philosophers, devoid of the necessary technical education and experience, or in those of amateurs, who write about the art as their mistaken fancy dictates. Though there are everywhere honorable exceptions.’ After treating of the various arts, and their relations to each other, Mr. Ritter ranked their position thus: Architecture as the lowest and most material; then the plastic arts of sculpture and painting; then music, in which “the world, with its emotions, its feelings, is driven back into the heart. The artist's ideal thus rests in his own boson, and it is reproduced in tone forms. Thus, though deeply felt by every man, music's real nature is less understood than that of the more realistic plastic arts. It is intensely subjective, and does not possess the advantage of uniting subjectivity with objectivity in so well balanced a manner as its older sister, poetry.’ Then followed a sketch of the true artist's mission. Mr. Ritter then gave a clear and detailed description of the gradual rise of music as an art, from its cradle among the early Christians, with remarks on the Oriental, Greek, Roman and even the barbarian efforts in a musical direction; a full account of the Gregorian chant, and of the services of St. Ambrose in the cause of sacred music. Many authentic and scarcely known anecdotes were related by the lecturer. “It needed but one step, and the solid foundation of that beautiful art temple, which stands in its wonderful glory today before us, would be laid; and this step was the discovery of harmony, and its general use in the practice of choral music.’  The gradual discoveries and improvements of Huchald, Guido d'Arezzo, Franco of Cologne, and others, were clearly explained. “Thanks to the devotion and industry of these monks in their solitary cells, the remains of the great intellectual life of old Greece and Rome were saved from utter destruction. Through their speculations and experiments, no doubt often crude, pedantic, and, to the superficial mind, seemingly insignificant, they unwittingly sowed the seed of those art forms which delight us to day.’ Mr. Ritter concluded with a sketch of the history of the Folksong, which has existed for so many centuries, and which possesses so much significance in regard to the development of melody. ‘The Folksong is a naturalistic efflux of popular lyric song: the product of innate artistic instinct among gifted individuals of the people, seeking speech for those feelings which are awakened in the soul by the varied events of life.’ The whole of this portion of the lecture, treating of the bearing of the Gregorian chant and the Folksong upon each other, and on the music of the church, with observations on the minnesingers, etc., was especially interesting. ‘The Folksong,’ said Mr. Ritter, ‘long abandoned to itself, transplanted as chance would have it, to all the different climates of social and religious evolution and migration, overtook its more favored companion, the Gregorian chant, towards the beginning of the seventeenth century; and, as I shall prove in my lectures on the musical drama and instrumental music, supplanted it altogether. For, with the perfection of the musical drama and instrumental music, the tonality, which governed the Folksong, gradually became the pivot upon which all modern musical art forms were henceforward to turn.”

Lecture by Professor Fred Louis Ritter. Long review of lecture that was first heard at Vassar. The first lecture took place on November 9. “. . . He then gave an historic account of the musical composers who flourished in the Netherlands and France from Dufoy [sic] to Palestrina. He spoke in the highest terms of Oppecquam [Ockeghem?], Chaucquin [Josquin] des Pres and others who preceded Palestrina, creating smiles from the numerous ladies among the audience as he spoke of their religious compositions, the themes of the masses being generally taken from some popular song of the period, of which it invariably bore the name. Thus some famous masses are known to musical historians as ‘The Knight in Armor,’ ‘Adieu my Loves’ and ‘How Pale His Face.’ But at the time of Palestrina the religious composers from fuller knowledge of their science, richer invention and a better appreciation of religious decorum, invented their own themes and ceased to rely upon the chansons of the street. . . .”