Ravinia 2025 Issue 5

The overture synopsizes the drama, molding forthcoming thematic material into a sonata movement with slow introduction. The solemn horn theme, nestled within a woodwind sex- tet, is that of the pilgrim’s chorus, given in its characteristic key of E major. Cellos and violins contribute their own rich responses, followed by another woodwind idea. Finally, trombones in- tone a majestic unison hymn. Gradually, whole choirs within the orchestra fade away, leaving only the original sextet. Tempo increases to Al- legro for the frivolous, sensual Venusberg music. Tannhäuser’s laudatory hymn to Venus follows as a contrasting theme. Wagner composed two endings to the overture. The original contained a lengthy coda with a noble return of the pilgrim’s chorus. In 1875, he removed the coda and spliced the Bacchanale onto the end of the overture. MAX BRUCH (1838–1920) Violin Concerto No. 1 in G minor, op. 26 Scored for two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, four horns, two trumpets, timpani, strings, and solo violin The enormous popularity of the Violin Concerto No. 1 overshadowed all of Bruch’s other composi- tions, greatly frustrating its creator. As his 50th birthday approached, the concerto was per- formed innumerable times while other worthy pieces remained virtually unplayed. An endless stream of violinists assailed the composer for ad- vice. Bruch wrote to his publisher, Fritz Simrock, “Every fortnight another one comes to me want- ing to play the First Concerto: I have now become rude, and have told them: ‘I cannot listen to this concerto any more—did I perhaps write just this one? Go away and once and for all play the other concertos, which are just as good, if not better.’” Yet the abundant melodic beauty, naturalness of form, and unaffected Romantic expression en- sured the continued popularity of the Concerto No. 1, a bridge between the monumental violin concertos of Mendelssohn and Brahms. Later, Bruch’s concerto suffered from comparisons with the work by Brahms. Bruch acknowledged the eminence of his German colleague but found him personally offensive: “If I meet with Brahms in Heaven, I shall have myself transferred to Max Bruch and Joseph Joachim Hell!”This first essay for violin proved a daunting task. Bruch admired the instrument (“the violin can sing a melody better than the piano can, and melody is the soul of music”), though he lacked a true understanding of its technical capabilities. Detailed advice from Joseph Joachim—the vir- tuoso who also collaborated with Brahms on his Violin Concerto—lessened his insecurities. Out of gratitude, Bruch dedicated the Violin Concer- to No. 1 to Joachim. The composer conducted the world premiere in Koblenz on April 24, 1866, with violinist Otto von Königslöw. Novelties of construction and musical substance caused Bruch to consider the title “fantasy” in- stead of “concerto.” The first movement is styled as a Vorspiel (Prelude) with orchestral statements interrupted by rhapsodic violin interludes. A single pitch connects this movement with the lyrical Adagio . Bruch instills a Hungarian flair in the finale, a tribute to the style for which Joachim was justifiably renowned. After a thorough anal- ysis of the work, Joachim wrote to Bruch, “As to your ‘doubts,’ I am happy to say, in conclusion, that I find the title ‘concerto’ fully justified; for the name ‘fantasy’ the last two movements are actually too completely and symmetrically de- veloped; the different parts are brought together in a beautiful relationship, and yet there is suffi- cient contrast, which is the main point.” CLAUDE DEBUSSY (1862–1918) La mer Scored for two flutes and piccolo, two oboes and English horn, three bassoons and contrabassoon, four horns, three trumpets, two cornets, three trombones, tuba, timpani, bass drum, cymbals, tam-tam, glockenspiel (or celesta), two harps, and strings The sea beckoned to Debussy with irresistible force. “You’re unaware, maybe, that I was in- tended for the noble career of a sailor,” he wrote to composer and conductor André Messager, “and have only deviated from that path thanks to the quirks of fate.” Even when separated from its roaring waves and balletic play of color and light, the sea occupied Debussy’s soul and kin- dled his imagination. Ironically, this would-be mariner found proximity to the sea stifling: he could compose only at a distance from this mighty source of inspiration, accompanied by abstract memories of its sights and sounds. As his “three symphonic sketches” collectively titled La mer (1903–5) demonstrated, oceanic bodies elicited a complex set of associations in Debussy: power, rage, beauty, light, tranquility, and wonder. Many contemporaneous visual art- ists shared his fascination with the sea. Debussy enjoyed the stylistically diverse influences of Claude Monet (French Impressionism), Joseph Mallord William Turner (English Romanti- cism), and Katsushika Hokusai (Japanese Uki- yo-e prints), whose The Great Wave at Kanaga- wa —its foaming blue-and-white swell poised to engulf two helpless watercraft, with the eternal Mount Fuji in the background—graced the title page of Debussy’s orchestral score. French writers, some from the Symbolist camp, further shaped his conception of the sea. Debussy specifically cited the impact of Charles Pierre Baudelaire’s sea poems, but he also read ocean pieces by Camille Mauclair (one of her short stories provided the original title— Mer belle aus Îles Sanguinaires , or The Beautiful Sea at the Sanguinary Islands [i.e., Corsica and Sardin- ia]—of his first orchestral sketch), Pierre Louÿs, and possibly even Jules Michelet’s book La mer . Some reviewers of the first performance, an in- adequately prepared rendering under Camille Chevillard, emphasized what they perceived as formal weaknesses. Jean Chantovoine, a critic for the Courrier musical (1908), faulted the com- poser for “choosing themes and harmonies, and excluding rhythm, so that they are as lifeless as dried plants in an herbarium.” Others, reared on literalist renderings of the sea (Wagner’s Over- ture to The Flying Dutchman , to name one famil- iar example), could not comprehend Debussy’s abstract portrayal. One former supporter— Pierre Lalo, son of composer Eduard Lalo—com- plained, “I neither hear, nor see, nor feel the sea.” Though wounded by these assaults, Debussy zealously defended his aesthetic position. He responded to Lalo’s charges on October 25, 1905: “The heart of the matter is that you love and guard traditions which, for me, no longer exist or, at least, exist only as representative of an ep- och in which they were not all as fine and valu- able as people make them out; the dust of the past is not always respectable.”Those individuals bent on appraising La mer according to Classical traditions face infinite frustration for the simple reason that its thematic ideas are derived from “all manner of variations of color and light,” a quality that Debussy believed made music supe- rior to painting. Furthermore, the formal struc- tures appear “illogical” because he interchanged these coloristic episodes freely without engaging in time-honored developmental procedures. Claude Debussy RAVINIA.ORG  • RAVINIAMAGAZINE 67