Philharmonic Society of New York Concert: 3rd

“The programme last night was indeed unsatisfactory, and was coldly received by the audience. First, we had a symphony in D major by Mozart, written for the charming soirées of the Prince and Princess Esterhazy, and as much out of place in the Academy as a Messonier cabinet picture would be in the Boston Coliseum. The score calls only for a small number of instruments, and half the Philharmonic players were not needed during its performance. Then came a recitative and romanza by Bergmann, written for the bass clarionet, an outlandish looking instrument, with which Mr. Boehm did not seem to be on terms of good acquaintance, especially in the important item of taking breath. The work itself is clever enough, and the instrumentation framed out of such meagre materials as two clarionets and two bassoons is, to say the least of it, ingenious. But Mr. Boehm, who has no equal in this city as a clarionet player, must make himself more familiar with the bass arrangement of the same name before he can expect to please musical ears. After Bergmann’s piece came the ‘Sacuntala’ overture of Goldmark. The principal merit of this work is an ingenious development or spinning out of a meagre theme which is repeated ad nauseam. The workmanship is of indubitable merit, but the materials are scanty. The quartet for four violoncelli, by Lachner, seems to have been placed on the programme for the purpose of showing that the conductor was formerly a player on that useful and interesting bass instrument. It is more properly a duet, with accompaniment of two violoncelli, for Bergner and Bergmann had the lion’s share of the subject. It is called a serenade, and would likely be heard with pleasure by one about visiting the land of dreams; but we doubt if there is another orchestra in the world that would ever dream of placing it on their programme. The only appropriate works performed last night was the last on the bill, an overture by Schumann, a real gem, and played to perfection. The Scherzo and finale, which accompanied the overture, are probably the best specimens of Schumann’s usually colorless writing that the New York public have been favored with. The Philharmonic Society did not reflect credit on their antecedents nor inspire confidence in their future by the bill they presented last night. There was nothing to relieve the monotonous character of the works—no vocalist, pianist or even violinst. The bill for the next concert is somewhat better.”

Review: New-York Times, 05 February 1871, 5.

“The third concert of the Philharmonic Society took place in the Academy of Music, yesterday evening, and was, as always, listened to by an exceedingly large audience. The following was the programme in detail [see above].

After patiently listening to three rehearsals of the pieces named above, we see no reason for changing our opinion, already expressed, as to the lack of novelty and of especial merit in any of the selections of the management. The music is not of an inferior kind, for Mr. Bergmann’s presence as leader would prevent such a possibility; nor is it destitute of beauty or uninteresting, for both these qualities are inseparable from really good works. But the Philharmonic Society is our single expositor of the highest order of music, and we have a right to expect from them something new and particularly worthy of note, and of study, at each of their welcome concerts. The field to select from is certainly large enough, even for the most exacting. Take Mozart’s Symphony in D major (No. 5.) The second and third movements are both charming, thoroughly Mozartish, if we may be permitted to use the term, a little melody being taken up and repeated, now by the brass instruments, and now by the stringed, delicately shaded and made thoroughly enjoyable for anyone. But there is nothing in them to attract marked attention. The Sixth Symphony is far more notable. Mr. Bergmann’s own composition is a mere trifle, adapted to display the peculiar powers of the solo instrument—a clarionet of unusual compass, and nothing more. The overture to ‘Sacuntela,’ we are glad to see, was given again ‘by request,’ for certainly some kindred explanation was necessary to account for its appearance on the programme. Lachner’s serenade was faultlessly rendered by the quartet of violoncellists, and was repeated. But Lachner’s compositions do not hold a high rank; the author’s reputation was won as a leader, and not as a composer, and in the latter line it rests almost wholly upon his symphonies. Schumann’s contribution was really the most pleasing feature of the entire performance, and the sweetness which characterizes all the compositions of this maestro, and comes rippling to the surface in every strain, was thoroughly appreciated by the audience. While we cannot say of the concert last night that is likely to prove among the best that the Society has given us, or that anything fresh or striking was presented, we may nevertheless assure all lovers of music that the exalted standard of interpretation to which Mr. Bergmann has raised his orchestra was fully maintained throughout its interpretation.”

Review: New York Herald, 06 February 1871, 2.

“The concert given last Saturday night by the Philharmonic Society was hardly as interesting as usual. The symphony in D, by Mozart, was favorably received, the second movement proving particularly pleasing to the audience. Goldmark’s ‘Sacuntala’ overture and a symphony by Schumann were the other orchestral pieces.

There was no vocalist. Indeed, by orchestral musicians vocalization is only tolerated— never enjoyed; and it may also be said that vocal artists on their part, constantly underrate orchestral music. In the place, then, of the voice on Saturday night there was a solo for bass clarinet, composed by Bergmann and played in an indifferent manner by Mr. Boehm; and a beautiful though rather monotonous quartet for violoncellos by Lachner; this last selection was interpreted with much feeling, and despite the rules of the society to the contrary, received an encore.”

Review: New York Sun, 06 February 1871, 2.

“The third Philharmonic concert of the present season took place on Saturday evening.

It was much better in the selection of the pieces played than in the manner in which they were given. In the Overture, Scherzo and Finale, by Schumann, there was some unusually crude and slovenly playing. There were times when belated instruments were heard coming in after the others at a pause, and there was also a general lack of finish in much that was done.

This was the more noticeable by contrast with the recent concerts given by Theodore Thomas’s orchestra, which were in every respect superior to those of the Philharmonic Society. There are disadvantages as well as advantages in a large orchestra. The Mozart symphony, for instance, which was played on Saturday evening, was written for an orchestra half the size of this one. It delicacy and grace were rather over powered by the number of instruments. Mr. Bergmann appeared in the triple character of conductor, composer and performer. A romanza for bass clarionet, with accompaniment for two clarionets and two bassoons, composed by him, was given. It was a most melodious and admirably constructed composition, and served to display the qualities of an instrument so rich, warm, and powerful in tone, so extended in scale, and so beautifully voiced, that it is an exceeding pity that it should not have found its place among orchestral instruments. It was admirably played by Mr. Boehm; and when we consider that to play an ordinary clarionet well is the work of a lifetime, he deserves double credit for the skill with which he managed this exceptional instrument. The effect of these five bass reeds played together was very peculiar.

The color of the tone was somber, deep, warm, and rich. There is always a soft languor in the sound of combined reeds moving

‘To the Dorian mood

Of flutes and soft recorders;’

and this composition was full of that subtle and soothing beauty.

Much alike in spirit was the serenade for four violoncellos by Lachner, in which Bergmann played second ‘cello, Bergner playing the first. Mr. Bergmann has a strong and manly way of playing this instrument, somewhat in contrast with that of Mr. Bergner, who, though indisputably a consummate musician, resorts too constantly to the tremolo. It is a trick that catches the popular ear; but when too often used, it demoralizes and weakens the general style. It is like that fatal vibrating quality of the voice that many of our singers think so fine and pathetic, and cultivate in that unhappy delusion.” [reprinted DJM 02/11/71, p. 399-400]

Review: New-York Daily Tribune, 06 February 1871, 8.

“The programme offered by the Philharmonic Society last Saturday evening for their third concert reminded us of a grand dinner composed entirely of entrees. The various items of the bill of fare were delicate and toothsome, but one hungered for a little stronger meat with them [programme: see above]. The Mozart symphony was the little No. 5—very short, very graceful and happy--a symphony in miniature, so to speak, charming for its neat and well- rounded phrases, its distinct theme, and its tender feeling, but not conceived in one of the master’s great moods. As the principal work on a Philharmonic programme it was hardly sufficient. Supplemented, however, with the popular Goldmark overture, and the rich composition of Schumann’s, which falls only a little short of being a symphony, it answered pretty well, and at any rate was thoroughly enjoyable. The first movement, allegro con spirito, was not rendered with quite as much neatness as the Society have taught us to expect of them. The strings are usually [continuous?] all through the work and in this portion they were not perfectly in rapport with one another, so that the movement was slightly blurred, as a Summer landscape is obscured by a think vail of mist. The defect is trifling, and would not be worth notice had not this orchestra so often set up higher standards to be judged by. The trio in the minuet was admirably played, and the final presto was given with all due spirit and precision. Goldmark’s overture and the Schumann selection were presented in Mr. Bergmann’s very best style, the scherzo of the latter calling for especial commendation. The two solo performances, if not specimens of the highest art, were curious and decidedly interesting. Mr. Carl Bergmann has written for that strange and little used instrument, the bass-clarinet, a recitative and romanza, of a rather plaintive and pleasantly melodious character, with a charming accompaniment of two clarinets and two bassoons. The combination is wonderfully soft and rich, and the execution of the work on Saturday—the solo by Mr. Boehm, Vice-President of the Society, the quartette by Messrs. Drewes, Goepel, Sohst, and Friedrich—was excellent. The Lachner quartette introduced Mr. Bergmann as a performer—but the Serenade is virtually a solo for Mr. Frederick Bergner, with a sustained accompaniment. We all know how Mr. Bergner plays; his touch in this tender little bit of musical revery is beautiful beyond praise. The piece was encored.”

Review: Dwight's Journal of Music, 25 February 1871, 407.

“The programme was the most unsatisfactory that the society has given this season. The orchestral pieces were admirably performed. Mr. Boehm played fairly, though the instrument is one that should never be heard except in an orchestra. The accompaniment is arranged for two clarionets and two bassoons. The quartet for four violoncellos was played finely and was encored by the audience, which was the smallest that has attended a Philharmonic concert for many seasons.”