Philharmonic Society of New York Concert: 4th

Byron’s poem “Sardanapalus,” on which Ritter’s symphony is based.

“The programme for the fourth concert of the Philharmonic Society during the present season (the thirtieth), which took place on Saturday evening at the Academy of Music, contained the following works [see above]. 

Of course the principal feature of interest was the new work by Mr. F. L. Ritter, a musician of high standing in this city. This gentleman was conductor of the New York Harmonic Society for many years, and he has been a valuable contributor to musical art by his lectures, literary and musical works, and especially by his songs, which are worthy to be placed beside those of Schumann and Schubert. His first symphony, which, if we mistake not, was played here at one of Thomas’ concerts, displayed talent of a high order; therefore high expectations were formed of his second symphony, which expectations, we regret to say, were not fulfilled. It is probably too much to expect entire originality nowadays from orchestral composers; but we expect, at least, cleverness in plagiarising or appropriating the ideas of others. It is not everybody who can steal judiciously and make good use of the ‘loot.’ Mr. Ritter’s work is a curious and illy put together patchwork of Schumann, Schubert, Spohr, Mendelssohn and Liszt. We might refer to others from whom the main ideas in this work were borrowed, but those whom we have mentioned will suffice. The scherzo, which, oddly enough, is joined to the first movement, is the best movement in the symphony, and yet Schumann wrote a work, called ‘Overture, Scherzo and Finale,’ which is very like it. The andante is very commonplace and entirely different from movements under the same name in standard symphonic works. If the composer had left the ideas which he borrowed from Schubert’s Symphony in C in their original form it would have been better for this movement. A weak imitation of the boisterous effects of Liszt is introduced in the finale, but the master mind is wanting. It may be that Mr. Ritter suffered in the interpretation of his work, for the Philharmonic orchestra has become very careless and slovenly of late in the rendering of even the best known works, but the composition itself will never command the attention or admiration of a true musician. The orchestra gave the magnificent orchestra of Beethoven a fair but not vigorous nor finished rendering, and in ‘Les Preludes’ (the best work ever written by Liszt) the brasses neutralized the excellence of the strings and reeds. We do not mean to disparage the liberal use made by the composer of the brass instruments in this work (and when did Liszt ever write without an abundance of trumpets, horns and trombones?), but we object to the harsh unmusical tone produced by the gentlemen in charge of this department in the Philharmonic orchestra. Miss Mehlig played a work which is of the most interesting character, and in which the orchestra plays even a more prominent part than the piano. It is written in Schumann’s best style, and when first introduced here, was received with delight and satisfaction by the musical public. Miss Mehlig on Saturday night played with her accustomed neatness, finish and expression, but not with her customary fire. We listened in vain for that electric power which so often thrilled the audience at Steinway Hall and presented Chopin, Beethoven and Liszt in glowing colors. With the exception of the beautiful cadenza, in which a half dozen motives are ingeniously and artistically combined, and which Miss Mehlig rendered with spirit and expression, the fair pianist was tame to a degree in her interpretation of the work. She was considerably interfered with by the boisterous orchestra, which drowned some of her best passages. The reeds, such as the flute, clarionet, oboe and bassoon, played at times as if they were taking part in a symphonic work and not in a piano concerto. Mr. Remmertz was the only vocalist on the occasion and he gave Agamemnon’s song, which commences the opera of ‘Gluck,’ with an artistic finish and dramatic expression that the aria was scarcely deserving of. Why the Philharmonic Society does not try to secure for their concerts the very best vocal talent in this city can only be accounted for by the fact that they are not willing to pay for good artists. Parepa, Nilsson and other great prime donne are beyond the financial reach of the society. The audience on Saturday night was smaller than usual and exceedingly apathetic. Twenty vacant boxes and over one hundred vacant seats in the orchestra and parquet testified to the waning popularity of these concerts. We trust that a vigorous effort will be made by the members next season to bring the society back to the high standard which is attached to the name Philharmonic.”

 “To a rather slim audience the Philharmonic Society last night gave its fourth concert. The feature of the programme was a long descriptive symphony entitled, ‘Sardanapalus,’ by F. L. Ritter. It is in many points an interesting and masterly work, in the modern German school. Miss Mehlig played a Schumann symphony [sic] with her usual finish and superb accuracy of execution, and Mr. Remmertz, the baritone, sang an air by Gluck. The concert concluded with Liszt’s ‘Preludes.’”

“The fourth Philharmonic concert of the present season was given at the Academy of Music on Saturday evening. A symphony in E minor by Mr. F. L. Ritter was the most conspicuous instrumental composition recited, and Miss Anna Mehlig’s piano contribution was the most notable solo performance of the night. Mr. Ritter’s symphony in E minor is an exceedingly credible specimen of symphonic writing. [Illegible] be praised, in its four movements, for [illegible], if not passing beauty or eloquence of ideas, and for the sustained fullness and smoothness of the treatment of the orchestra. We are not very favorably impressed by portions of the last movement, which is respectable melodramatic music, rather than a grand tone-picture of the scene hinted at by an explanatory bill. As an offset to this, the scherzo allegretto, by the facility of the theme and the [illegible] of the handling, is to be warmly admired, and may be pronounced deserving of recitation, detached, in any concert. We should be glad, indeed, of an early repetition of the whole score. The orchestra of the Philharmonic is never at its best when first dealing with important works. In respect of interpretation, Miss Mehlig’s share of the labors of the entertainment were the most satisfying. More vigor would have been looked for in passages of Schumann’s excessively difficult A minor concerto but for the knowledge that a long spell of acute suffering had made, for a moment, the lady’s appearance problematical. In thoughtfulness and sympathy, and in delicacy and fluency of touch, Miss Mehlig’s execution was perfection. The qualities of a magnificent Steinway, whereof the tones, in brilliancy and lingering sweetness, coped successfully with that most potent of rivals of the piano, a full orchestra, could not have had an exposition more befitting their rank. The remaining incidents of the concert were two vocal efforts by Mr. Remmertz, and Beethoven’s ‘Coriolanus overture,’ and Liszt’s ‘Préludes’ played by the band. We should like to say that Mr. Remmertz was equal to his tasks, on preparation for which he had evidently bestowed much time. In the case of the air from Gluck’s ‘Iphigénie en Aulide’ it was, however, impossible to accept the correct but colorless delivery secured by mechanical study, in place of the pathos and dignity with which a skilled artist would have given voice to the impressive piece; while in the aria from Boieldieu’s ‘Jean de Paris,’ it was clearly proven that the gentleman had erred in selecting a number which only a singer who has been trained in accordance with the French methods ought to choose. Mr. Remmertz must also be cautioned against the somber accent of his French and against the rolling of his r’s. The overture and the symphonic poem were rendered capitally; ‘Les Préludes,’ a mosaic of all styles of instrumentation, was given with especial finish.”

“The storm on Saturday night had little effect upon the attendance at the Philharmonic Concert. The programme was as follows [see above]. 

Prof. Ritter’s symphony is a new work, and this was its first performance. It is a musical illustration of Byron’s ‘Sardanapalus;’ or to speak more correctly it is supposed to have been suggested by the reading of the tragedy, and the spirit of its different movements corresponds with the frame of mind inspired by the poem. It is in no sense what is called ‘programme music,’ and Prof. Ritter remembers the great truth which so many lose sight of, that the function of music is not to imitate but to suggest, and that a composition which must be interpreted by an elaborate verbal description is music of a base and imperfect order. Without expecting us, therefore, to follow in his symphony the action of the drama, he has taken certain passages as texts, so to speak, and built upon them an allegretto moderato corresponding to the picture of the great king as he lolls ‘crowned with roses,’ a scherzo, symbolical of the royal revels, an andante suggested by Myrrha’s soliloquy, and an allegro con spirito, in which we catch the furious spirit of the final catastrophe. The orchestra under Mr. Bergmann gave a careful and refined interpretation of this work, and the impression produced by it was highly pleasing. If we say that it shows Prof. Ritter to have been a reverent and intelligent student of Beethoven, we do not mean to imply that he has borrowed anything from the great master except a method of treating his own ideas; and of course he could not have looked to a better model. The style of the first movement seems to us particularly good. It is simple, fluent, and forcible. With a single long-drawn note (the poet’s ‘woe—woe to the unrivaled city!’) it passes at once into the charming scherzo allegretto. The andante is plaintiff [sic] and sombre. In the final allegretto the composer has given a somewhat freer rein to his fancy, and made a little approach toward the exuberance of the modern school, but he never becomes either coarse or fantastic. The whole symphony is characterized by a sort of composure which indicates a writer sure of his resources and master of all his instruments. The scoring is solid and rich, without being showy, and abounds in beautiful touches. We doubt whether such a work would captivate the multitude, but it will earn the respect of connoisseurs and increase the reputation which Prof. Ritter already enjoys as one of the most accomplished and scholarly of our resident composers.

The orchestral pieces in the second part were well played—the Overture better than the Symphonic Poem; and for once we can give hearty praise to all the solos. We never heard Mr. Remmertz sing so well before; while Miss Mehlig’s performance of the lovely Schumann concerto was simply delicious.” [reprint, DJM 03/23/72, p. 207-08] 

 “New York, March 9.—The week just ending is one of unusual interest to music lovers, and the numerous matters which deserve mention are hardly to be justly treated within the limit of a single letter. Therefore I can only send a few musical notes upon subjects many of which deserve exhaustive analysis and criticism.

Beginning with the fourth Philharmonic Concert on Saturday evening, March 2, I send the programme, which was as follows [see above].

The performance of a symphony the composer of which is still living, and which (still worse) was written in America, has spread consternation into the ranks of our conservative critics, and most of the papers (the Tribune notably excepted) have adopted indiscriminate condemnation as the safest course. With the indistinct impression left by a single hearing, it seems to me that the work is worthy of the occasion on which it was produced, and that further acquaintance with the score would reveal much that is not at first apparent. The work, without being vulgarly ‘descriptive,’ is supposed to be the musical embodiment of Byron’s ‘Sardanapalus,’ each movement being illustrative of some portion of that poem. It opens with an Allegro (E minor), graceful and sensuous at first, but ending in a long wailing note which leads to the Scherzo Allegretto (E major), a charming movement somewhat Mendelssohnian in character. Then a pause, the only break in the Symphony, followed by a beautiful Andante (Myrrha’s soliloquy), in which the influence of Beethoven is perceptible. From this we are led by an ingenious modulation to the final Allegro (E minor) denoting the catastrophe of the poem. The work seems to be written in an earnest and scholarly spirit, with a conscientious disregard for those tricks which please the fancy of superficial listeners, and, if the work does not awaken enthusiasm, it must at least add to the high reputation the composer has already earned by his Symphony, no. 1.

Schumann’s A minor Concerto was rendered by Miss Mehlig in the best manner, and was received with much applause. The Orchestra, both in the Symphony and the Overture to Coriolanus, was almost unexceptionable. At no time during the season have they played so well. In Liszt’s ‘Preludes,’ however, the performance was rather unsatisfactory.” –A. A. C. [Reprints of reviews of Ritter’s symphony from the Weekly Review and the Orpheonist and Philharmonic Review, DJM 03/23/72, p. 208]