Fourth Philharmonic Society Concert
London: King’s Theatre—Time: Evening, Eight o’Clock
Tickets: Subscription Concert: 4 Guineas
Programme
| Part I | ||
| Symphony in C major | Moscheles | |
| From La clemenza di Tito: Aria, ‘Deh, per questo’ | Signora Puzzi | Mozart |
| Clarinet Fantasia | Mr. Willman | Baermann |
| Cantata, ‘David’s Lament’ | Mr. Braham; Violoncello Obbligato: Mr. Lindley | Neukomm |
| Overture, Egmont | Beethoven | |
| Part II | ||
| Symphony No.90 in C major, Letter R | Haydn | |
| From Le nozze di Figaro Aria, ‘Dove sono i bei momenti’ | Mme Stockhausen | Mozart |
| Violin Concerto in D major (Op.61) | Mr. Eliason | Beethoven |
| From Gli Orazi e Curiazi Trio, ‘O dolce e caro istante’ | Mme Stockhausen, Signora Puzzi, Mr. Braham | Cimarosa |
| Overture, Die Zauberflöte | Mozart |
| Principal Vocalists: Mme Stockhausen, Signora Puzzi; Mr. Braham |
| Principal Instrumentalists: Messrs. Eliason, Moscheles, Willman |
| Leader: Mr. Nicola Mori; Conductor: Mr. Ignaz Moscheles |
———————————
Encore: Symphony No.90 in C major, Letter R: Adagio—Haydn
Director Meetings: ‘Resolved that Mr. Moscheles be invited to conduct at the next Concert and that his Symphony be placed where he may prefer it’.
[GB-Lbl RPS MS 280, Meeting April 1, 1832]
Salary: £50
[GB-Lbl RPS MS 341]
Moscheles: ‚Auf den Beifall, den meine neuen Sachen erlangten, bilde ich mir nicht viel ein, da auch das Mittelmässige diesem Publicum gefällt‘.
AML I, 241.
George Hogarth: ‘At the fourth concert Mr. Moscheles acted for the first time as a conductor, and his own symphony in C, No. 1, was performed. It was well received, especially the andante and the minuet and trio, which were much applauded. But the symphony is not a species of composition which Moscheles, has cultivated; this, as far as I am aware, being the only work of its class which he has publicly produced’.
[George Hogarth, The Philharmonic Society of London: From Its Foundation, 1813, to Its Fiftieth Year, 1862. (London: Bradbury&Evans; Addison, Hollier &Lucas, 1862), 57.]
Advertisement
Playbill
UNDER THE IMMEDIATE PATRONAGE OF
Their Majesties.
————————
PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY.
————————
FOURTH CONCERT, MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1832.
ACT I.
| Sinfonia (No. 1) – – – – – | Moscheles. |
| Aria, Madame PUZZI, “Deh per questo” | |
| (La Clemenza di Tito) | Mozart. |
| Fantasia Clarinett, Mr WILLMAN – – – | Baermann. |
| Cantata, Mr BRAHAM, “David’s Lament” – – – | The Chevalier Neukomm |
| Overture, Egmont – – – – – – | Beethoven. |
ACT II.
| Sinfonia, Letter R – – – – – | Haydn. |
| Aria, Madame STOCKHAUSEN, “Dove sono” | |
| (Le nozze di Figaro) | Mozart. |
| Concerto Violin, Mr ELIASON – – – | Beethoven. |
| Terzetto, Madame STOCKHAUSEN, Madame PUZZI, and | |
| Mr. BRAHAM, “O dolce e caro istante” | |
| (Gli Orazzi ed i Curiazi) | Cimarosa. |
| Overture, Die Zauberflöte – – – – – – – | Mozart. |
| Leader, Mr MORI.—Conductor, Mr MOSCHELES. |
Leader, Mr MORI.—Conductor, Mr MOSCHELES.
—————————
*** TO COMMENCE AT EIGHT O’CLOCK PRECISELY.
—————————
The Subscribers are most earnestly entreated to observe, that the Tickets are not transferable,
and that any violation of this rule will incur a total forfeiture of the subscription.
THE NEXT CONCERT WILL BE ON THE 30TH OF APRIL.
Reviews
The Globe and Traveller (April 11, 1832): 4.
The fourth concert of the Philharmonic Society took place on Monday. The gem of the performance was Moschelles’ sinfonia No. 1. Which was very flatteringly received. The concerts this year have been considerably falling off in reports.
The Morning Post (April 11, 1832): 3.
MUSICAL.
The Fourth Concert of the Philharmonic Society took place on Monday last.
ACT I.
| Sinfonia (No. 1)………………………………………… | MOSCHELES. |
| Aria, Madame PUZZI, “Deh per questo” (La Clemenza di Tito)…………………………………. | MOZART. |
| Fantasia Clarinet, Mr. WILLMAN…………………….. | BAERMANN. |
| Cantata, Mr. BRAHAM, “David’s Lament” ………….. | The ChevalierNEUKOMM |
| Violoncello Obligato, Mr. LINDLEY. | |
| Overture, EGMONT…………………………………… | BEETHOVEN. |
ACT II.
| Sinfonia, Letter R.……………………………………… | HAYDN. |
| Aria, Madame STOCKHAUSEN, “Dove sono” (Le Nozze di Figaro)…………………………………… | MOZART. |
| Concerto Violin, Mr. ELIASON……………………….. | BEETHOVEN. |
| Terzetto, Madame STOCKHAUSEN, Madame PUZZI, and Mr. BRAHAM, “ O dolce e caro istante” (Gli Orazi ed i Curiazi)…………………………….. | CIMAROSA. |
| Overture, Die Zauberflote……………………………… | MOZART. |
| Leader, Mr. MORI.—Conductor, Mr. MOSCHELES. |
Leader, Mr. MORI.—Conductor, Mr. MOSCHELES.
The press of important political matter obliges us to be brief in our criticism on this Concert. The sinfonia of MOSCHELES was an elaborate display of the powers of a learned contrapointist, united with the skill of an experienced writer for the orchestra. The general opinion is that it was deficient in melody; but we confess that its fault was chiefly in being too long, or rather in not having sufficient repose amidst the incessant workings of its prominent motivi. The author conducted it with the anxious care of a musician interested in its success, and contributed in a great degree to the perfection of its execution by the influence of his presence. WILLMAN’S solo was much applauded. BRAHAM’S singing, LINDLEY’S accompaniment, and NEUKOMM’S composition were worthy of each other. The thema in HAYDN’S sinfonia occurring as a flute solo, was executed by NICHOLSON with genuine taste and feeling. The whole movement was repeated at the call of a few persons. Such easy acquiescence on the part of the leader is blameable. The violin concerto, considered as a composition for the orchestra, is full of beautiful melody, harmony, and instrumental effects, but least of all calculated to display the violin to advantage: at the same time we admire the courage of the young man who played it, yet we confess that he is deficient in power of tone and execution to do it ample justice. The other vocalists and music are known to the public. It is to be hoped that other musicians will be encouraged to bring forth their compositions after the flattering reception of MOSCHELES’ sinfonia. A sinfonia by Mr. LUCAS has been spoken of as a creditable production.
The Tatler. A daily paper of literature, fine arts, & public amusements (April 12, 1832): 38-39.
PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY.
——
FOURTH CONCERT, MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1832.
ACT I.
| Sinfonia, No. 1 . . . . | Moscheles |
| Aria, Madame PUZZI, ‘Deh per questo,’ (La Cle menza di Tito) . . . | Mozart |
| Fantasia, Clarinet, Mr. WILLMAN . . | Baermann |
| Cantata, Mr BRAHAM, ‘David’s Lament’ . Violoncello Obligato, Mr LINDLEY. | Neukomm |
| Overture, Egmont . . . | Beethoven |
ACT II.
| Sinfonia, Letter R . . . . | Haydn |
| Aria, Madame STOCKHAUSEN, ‘Dove sono’ (Le Nozze di Figaro) . . . | Mozart |
| Concerto Violin, Mr ELIASON . . . | Beethoven |
| Terzetto, Madame STOCKHAUSEN, Madame PUZZI, and Mr BRAHAM, ‘O dolce e caro istante,’ (Gli Orazj ed i Curiazi) . . . | Cimarosa |
| Overture, Die Zauberflöte . . . | Mozart |
Leader, Mr MORI.—Conductor, Mr MOSCHELES.
MR MOSCHELES occasioned us an aggregable surprise on Monday evening. When we heard that a Symphony of his composition was to be performed, we did not expect much more than an extended fantasia; instead of which we were treated with the whole regular series of movements appointed for the symphony class of writing, legitimately constructed, beautifully scored, and amply charged with good melodies. Those movements with which we were most gratified, were, the first, the adagio, and the trio; the two last of which contained some lovely features for the wind instruments, and were besides charming as well as original melodies. The finale unfortunately was unequal to the others both in construction and treatment. To our feelings it appeared too much broken into parcels, instead of flowing on towards the close in one grand and continuous tide upon a well-worked subject. Let us however repeat, that we were delighted with the composition altogether, and at the same time express a hope, that it may be found to have the least merit of any work of the same class that this clever musician may hereafter bring forward at the Philharmonic society.
At no concert in Europe, we will venture to say, would the audience have tolerated at all such a performance as that of Madame Puzzi in the beautiful aria from ‘La Clemenza di Tito;’ even here it was well hissed. What with her defective intonation, meretricious style, and consummate ignorance of the sentiment of the music (moreover altering whole passages) we have not witnessed a more impertinent and disgraceful exhibition at these concerts,—if we except perhaps the performance of the ‘Recordare’ a fortnight since. The directors are entirely to blame for allowing the performance to proceed after the Saturday’s previous rehearsal. if they do not receive a formal remonstrance from the subscribers, on account of these frequent failures, they will be compelled next year to fill their rooms by other means than that of selling their tickets.
Mr Willman’s playing and tone in Baermann’s fantasia were absolute perfection, and he was greeted according to his deserts. The music however was not attractive; it consisted of a number of variations upon a subject not worth the treatment.
We have before noticed the Chevalier Neukomm’s cantanta, when it was performed at the Oratorios. To our ears it wants relief, and is chiefly meritorious in the instrumental deparmtne.t the composer writes delightfully for a band. Whenever the sentiment of a song makes a powerful appeal to the senses of Mr Braham, he is sure to give to it the utmost effect: and upon the present occasion he did so; yet he was at times too vehement for the actual strength of his tone; he evidently betrayed that he had no corps de reserve—a little more, and tone it would not have been, but a shriek.
The grand overture to Egmont closed the first act. We do not remember to have heard the band play in finer style than throughout the present evening. Haydn’s symphony, the adagio of which was, to our entire satisfaction, encored, was a rich treat. It would at all times be worth the selection, if it were for the sole purpose of witnessing the astonishing powers of Dragonetti in the finale. For the rare combination of fine taste, expression, and execution, he and Paganini make the nearest approach to a miracle that perhaps ever existed in the musical world. Mozart and Beethoven, it is true, possessed a gift over and above their extraordinary power as performers: when speaking of the former two eminent men, we of course had reference only to mechanical accomplishment, and in this we cannot conceive of their [sic] having ever been surpassed.
It would have been well that the vapid artists in the modern Italian school could have heard Madame Stockhausen’s manner of singing the delicious aria, ‘Dove Sono,’ from the Figaro: for purity of tone, correct expression, and chaste ornament, we have not heard its equal from many months. She deservedly received a universal and enthusiastic applause. At the close of this very charming performance we quitted the room.
The Athenæum (April 14, 1832): 244.
FOURTH PHILHARMONIC CONCERT.
MOSCHELES’ Grand Sinfonia in c, was performed here for the first time. The opening adagio, with simple passages and a rich distribution of harmony, is followed by an allegro in common time, the trumpet sustaining in semibreves successively the first and second of the scale, accompanied by fanciful light passages in imitation, for violins and basses, with a short “motif secondaire”; altogether, the original
subject, with its adjuncts, comes to a final cadence; then starts a new common-place model of two bars—unluckily, not the product of a happy inspiration, but of calculating contrivance, expressly written by the author to exhibit the resources of science. With this, Moscheles has spun the remainder of the movement to an objectionable length, without the relief of one single period of captivating simple melody! There is sentiment in the subject of the succeeding adagio, which, together with the rich effects of instrumentation, told well— the minuet in is rather common; but the trio has short phrases of pretty melody, tastefully distributed. The finale is tediously long; evidently much studied, and too laboured in its counterpoint. We have scrutinized this production as minutely as could he expected after a single hearing, and pointed out its faults rather as a caution to young composers, than with a desire to condemn the author. Of the many who possess a knowledge of counterpoint, there are few who have a corresponding genius; for it is not merely sufficient that a subject should work conveniently; —the great masters have selected melodies which are abstractedly full of character and expression, knowing that a primitive musical idea, natural and sentimental, will frequently generate others equally so, when employed with counterpoint. The Andante, in Mozart’s finale to ‘Figaro,’ at the words ‘Deh Signor, nol contrastate,’ is a remarkable illustration, wherein several parts are alike equal in beauty and sentiment. We hope that Moscheles will speedily produce another work of this class, with more simplicity. For the orchestra, nothing could have been better written than the present; and its correct execution, under his special guidance, must have in some measure compensated him for the immense labour bestowed on its composition.
Willman executed an air with variations by Baerman— his tone on the clarionet is still admirable. ‘David’s Lament’ was sung with much consistent feeling by Braham, and well accompanied on the violoncello by Lindley; in this composition, Neukomm has appropriately and beautifully adapted the poetry. Beethoven’s ‘Egmont,’ closed the first act. Haydn’s Sinfonia, letter R, followed. Nicholson’s performance in the andante (encored,) was a delighful [sic] contrast to the prevailing vulgar taste of appoggiaturing a simple melody until its original character is lost.
Mad.Stockhausen, in ‘Dove son,’ was greatly and deservedly applauded. Beethoven’s Grand Concerto for the violin, was played by a Mr. Eliason—nothing short of the vigour, physical, and mental, of a Baillot, or Paganini, could produce effect in this wild, imaginative effusion of Beethoven. Mr. Eliason has a brilliant shake; but his tone is not pleasing; and his execution, although rapid, was weak and ineffective. A trio from ‘Gli Orazi,’ was rather too antiquated for these Concerts. The overture of ‘Der Zauberflöte,’ terminated the performances. Mori led, and Moscheles conducted.
The Literary Gazette; and Journal of Belles Lettres, Arts, Sciences, &c. (April 14, 1833): 236-237.
PHILHARMONIC CONCERTS.
THE chief merits of the fourth of these concerts, on Monday last, consisted in a judicious selection from Mozart, Cimarosa, Beethoven, Haydn, &c. and in two admirable solo performances, Mozart’s “Dove sono,” by Madame Stockhausen, and Baermann’s not equally beautiful fantasia for the clarinet, by Willman. That aria has, perhaps, never been sung more chastely, or with a finer expression, and sweetness of tone, than on this occasion. Mr. Moscheles’ first symphony gained much applause, and, notwithstanding some difference of opinion as to its melodies, must be owned to be a highly elaborate work, replete with excellent materials. Madame Puzzi’s “Deh per questo” of Mozart was, unfortunately for herself and others, a failure. Braham and Lindley did ample justice to Neukomm’s cantata, “David’s Lament;” and Mr. Eliason will, no doubt, do the same, after longer study, to Beethoven’s violin concerto. Haydn’s sinfonia, letter R, as well as the overtures to Egmont and the Zauberflöte, went off beautifully; and, upon the whole, it proved a very good concert.
The Spectator (April 14, 1832): 353.
THE PHILHARMONIC CONCERTS.
FOURTH CONCERT—MONDAY, APRIL 9.
ACT I.
| Sinfonia (No. 1)……………………………….. | Moscheles. |
| Aria, Madame PUZZI, “Deh per questo,” (La Clemenza di Tito)………………………….. | Mozart. |
| Fantasia, Clarinet, Mr. WIILMAN…………….. | Baermann. |
| Cantata, Mr. BRAHAM, “David’s Lament”….. Violoncello Obligato, Mr. LINDLEY. | The Chevalier Neukomm |
| Overture, Egmont………………………………. | Beethoven |
ACT II.
| Sinfonia, Letter R….……………………………. | Haydn. |
| Aria, Madame STOCKHAUSEN, “Dove sono,” (Le Nozze di Figaro)………………………… | Mozart. |
| Concerto, Violin, Mr. ELIASON……………….. | Beethoven. |
| Terzetto, Madame STOCKHAUSEN, Madame PUZZI, and Mr. BRAHAM, “O dolce e caro istante,” (Gli Orazi ed i Curiazi)…………….. | Cimarosa. |
| Overture, Die Zauberflöte……………………… | Mozart. |
Leader, Mr. MORI.—Conductor, Mr. MOSCHELES.
IT will be seen that the concert of Monday night presented us with some Instrumental novelty—the first of the season. MOSCHELES appeared as the Conductor of the evening; and, we presume, in compliment to him, his Sinfonia was played. It is the aim, the laudable aim of a musician, to achieve the composition of a Sinfonia; and in such an attempt, it were impossible for MOSCHELES absolutely to fail. His mind is well stored by study; he is a man of great industry and application; and in most of the technical requirements of such a composition he succeeds. But here we are compelled to measure him against HAYDN, MOZART, and BEETHOVEN for there is nothing second-rate to which he can be likened. A mediocre Sinfonia perishes with its birth: it breathes and expires—“it vanisheth and is no more seen.” We have heard many such compositions,—varying, of course, in merit, but all wanting that unity of design which marks the real Sinfonia: they are worked out bit by bit—a little at a time—a thought started and run down, then another doomed to the same fate; the composer evidently not knowing at the beginning of a movement how it was to end. You might cut away a portion here and another there, without injury; and although some pleasure is imparted by the performance, nothing is carried away. To a certain degree, this is the character of the Sinfonia of MOSCHELES: it is the work of a man of musical erudition, but scarcely of genius. It was right not to damp the exertion and industry which produced it, by positive rejection, but it will not rank among the favourites of the Society.
HAYDN’S Sinfonia, Letter R, is not one of his proudest trophies; and is a work of less effort and pretence than that of MOSCHELES; but its symmetry is beautiful. Every movement seems as if it existed entire in the imagination of its author, before a bar was committed to paper. It needs no addition, it admits of no curtailment. GRATTAN COOKE’S execution of the Trio was admirable: the Oboe is rising, in his hands, to its proper level in the orchestra. The delightful Adagio won an encore from its auditors.
ELIASON played BEETHOVEN’S only Violin Concerto. As a composition merely, and considered without reference to its primary object, that of exhibiting a single performer, it is worthy its great author’s fame. The player evinced equal good taste in the selection, and brilliant execution in its performance. WILLMAN’S Concerto was the embodying all that tone, expression, and execution have achieved on his instrument. Of the Overtures or their performance, it is unnecessary to speak: they are repeated every year, and the period of satiety is yet a far distant one.
Again we turn to the irksome task of commenting on the Vocal music. We had STOCKHAUSEN—good: BRAHAM—good: PUZZI—bad. Of Madame PUZZI’S singing, we do but echo the public voice in calling it bad; and, in truth, it has not one good ingredient. Her voice is disagreeable and reedy, her taste impure, her intonation miserable. “Why,” asks every auditor of his neigh hour, “is Puzzi engaged ?” And it is a question more easily asked than answered. We can only imagine that the same interest which succeeded in forcing her upon the Lessee of the Opera-house, has been as successfully at work here. But our business is not to seek for the causes of such engagements as these; it is sufficient that we describe their results. Were they to entail upon us merely the hearing a wretched song miserably sung,—or, as in the present instance, the still greater infliction of an air of MOZART, with the addenda of bad taste and worse tune,—we should have sufficient grounds for our censure; but the mischief does not end here: the insufficiency of the performer stands confessed by the selection which the engagement of such a singer implies. Concerted vocal music, which ought to form a prominent feature in these concerts, is almost excluded, because of the constant admixture of singers whose presence is fatal to its well-going. The only piece of the present concert was the hacknied Terzetto “O dolce e care istante;” and, owing to the reason we have assigned, it was spoiled. We have now arrived half way through the season, without hearing a single concerted piece even respectably sung. If, as some suspect, the vocal music is intended to be a foil to the instrumental, the design is fully accomplished. How long or how well such a system will work, remains to be seen.
Our opinion of BRAHAM’S song is on record. We heard its first performance at Derby, and our admiration of it increases-by a second hearing. It is an effort demonstrative of the unrivalled greatness of his powers.
Madame STOCKHAUSEN’S “Dove sono” has frequently been the subject of our warmest commendations. She never sung it—probably it never was sung and played—more perfectly.
The Atlas (April 22, 1832): 268.
Philharmonic Society.—Monday, April 9.
ACT I.—Sinfonia (NO. I.)—MOSCHELES. Aria, Madame PUZZI, “Deh per questo” (La Clemenza di Tito)—MOZART. Fantasia Clarinett, Mr. WILLMAN—BAERMANN. Cantata, Mr. BRAHAM, “David’s Lament”—The Chevalier NEUKOMM, Violoncello Obligato, Mr. LINDLEY. Overture, Egmont—BEETHOVEN.
ACT II—Sinfonia, Letter R—HAYDN. Aria, Madame STOCKHAUSEN, “Dove sono” (Le Nozze di Figaro)—MOZART. Concerto Violin, Mr. ELIASON—BEETHOVEN. Terzetto, Madame STOCKHAUSEN, Madame PUZZI, and Mr. BRAHAM, “O dolce e caro istante”—Gli Orazi ed I Curiazi)—CIMAROSA. Overture, Die Zauberflöte—MOZART.
Leader, Mr. MORI—Conductor, Mr. MOSCHELES.
The symphony of Mr. MOSCHELES is one in C, and was first produced in this country at the benefit concert of the author, about two years since, when it had to contend with the disadvantages of an orchestra neither very numerous nor well rehearsed. Justice has at length been done to this composition, which promises delightful things from the future exertions of the author as an orchestral writer. The first allegro, the andante in F, the minuet and trio in A minor and F, are excellent in the respective character of their movements; they are ideal and original. In the finale the author’s fancy appears somewhat to have deserted him; it is written a little invitâ Minervâ. The balance of length between the first and second parts of the allegro and the finale might, perhaps, be more judicious. The first part of the former appears to us too long (though the writing is so excellent that it would be difficult to say what might be omitted); the last part of the latter, on the contrary, is too short, and the effect of the conclusion is abrupt. This impression is, perhaps, not participated by others who heard the symphony; we mention it (though perhaps trifling) that Mr. MOSCHELES may, at least, not doubt the sincerity of our part, such as it is, in the general applause. We hail the addition of a new name to the list of good symphonists with unfeigned satisfaction. The aria by Madame PUZZI was a piece of refined torment. As in the inquisition they nearly starve people and then hold a roasted fowl under their noses—as when to the dying of thirst, they mock the tongue with a damp cloth—anguishing between pleasure and pain—so the directors, by putting one of the divinest of MOZART’S airs into the mouth of a hideous singer, keep the hearer in a state of distraction exactly parallel. Of Madame PUZZI we have nothing to say—poor lady, we pity her; but as for the directors, they deserve ———.
WILLMAN’S performance of an air, with variations, by BAERMANN, displayed the finished artist, and possessed all that could be desired of rapidity, delicacy, distinctness of execution. But he should always play an adagio, and show the singers how they ought to sing; the little bit of minor was to us the most delightful part of the composition, though it was throughout very German and good. “David’s Lament,” as given by Mr. BRAHAM, is a good specimen of plethoric pathos and if DAVID had been an alderman, would be perfect. The Chevalier NEUKOMM has imitated HANDEL discreetly in this cantata, which, beyond the merit of putting it together, contains little that may be called the composer’s own. Notwithstanding this, the composition has many delightful parts, and is well adapted for festivals, particularly when LINDLEY’S most beautiful tones are in request, and we should like to know where they are not? NEUKOMM has consulted at once the singer, the player, and the prevailing taste of the English public, in this cantata, and we think in the general character of his productions shows as much knowledge of mankind as of his art. The overture to Egmont is always welcome; it is true BEETHOVEN, and never to be mistaken for BURGHERSH or SHILLIBEER.
In HAYDN’S music there is certainly one quality of the finest poetry; nothing can be added, altered, or diminished without detriment to the effect. What is written is just what ought to be written, as MOZART said of his own operas upon an occasion when it became him to speak boldly of himself and his art. The progress of instrumental knowledge has not abated in the slightest degree the charm of HAYDN’S earlier symphonies, many of which at this day produce a stronger sensation in the Philharmonic room than more modern works. The andante of this symphony (an air, with variations) was encored for the sake of NICHOLSON’S flute solo, and the fine effects of LINDLEY’S violoncello. The finale is the fittest movement in the whole range of instrumental music to display the miraculous execution of DRAGONETTI: his is marvellous; let the passage be a mile-and-a-half long, you hear every note, crisp, round, and distinct; the more difficult the music the better he seems to play it. Madam STOCKHAUSEN gained extraordinary applause in “Dove sono;” the contrast of her extremely pure intonation and beautiful voice, with the vinegar tones and vulgar style of the lady who sang in the preceding act, quite overcame the audience, who set no bounds to their enthusiasm. In the slow part of the aria all that was wanting was the omission of a few notes, and of a few redundant turns; the bravura part was best executed. BEETHOVEN’S violin concerto in D major, bore, in our apprehension, but few marks of the style of that master; the solos are long, fatiguing to the player, and not proportionally effective. The last movement is positively vulgar. Mr. ELIASON has a bad shrieking tone, a mechanical, unfeeling style, and a coarse and inelegant execution. His performance was very long, tiresome, and dry as dust—not a single “green spot”—not a refreshing passage in it The Terzetto was not worth hearing: the music of Gli Orazi is, to our mind, quite unworthy CIMAROSA. The performance of the last overture struck with surprise the oldest subscribers of this society: so strong an enthusiasm pervaded the band, that each department seemed to contend which should most forcibly express the ideas of the author. HARPER, towards the conclusion, blew as if he would have made MOZART a present of his lungs, and prodigious was the effect he produced. The only way to give good music is to plunge into it body and soul.
The Bell’s New Weekly Messenger (April 22, 1832): 67.
Philharmonic Society, Monday, April 9.
The symphony of Mr. MOSCHELES, in C, was first produced in this country at the benefit concert of the author, about two years since, when it had to contend with the disadvantages of an orchestra neither very numerous nor well rehearsed. Justice has at length been done to this composition, which promises delightful things from the future exertions of the author as an orchestral writer. The first allegro, the andante in F, the minuet and trio in A minor and F, are excellent in the respective character of their movements; they are ideal and original. In the finale the author’s fancy appears somewhat to have deserted him; it is written a little invitâ Minervâ. The balance of length between the first and second parts of the allegro and the finale might, perhaps, be more judicious. The first part of the former appears to us too long (though the writing is so excellent that it would be difficult to say what might be omitted); the last part of the latter, on the contrary, is too short, and the effect of the conclusion is abrupt. This impression is, perhaps, not participated by others who heard the symphony; we mention it (though perhaps trifling) that Mr. MOSCHELES may, at least, not doubt the sincerity of our part, such it is, in the general applause. We hail the addition of a new name to the list of good symphonists with unfeigned satisfaction. The aria, Deh per questo by Madame PUZZI was a piece of refined torment. As in the inquisition they nearly starve people and then hold roasted bowl under their noses—as when to the dying of (thirst, they mock the tongue with damp cloth—anguishing between pleasure and pain—so the directors, by putting one of the divinest of MOZART’S airs into the mouth of a hideous singer, keep the hearer in a state of distraction exactly parallel. Of Madame PUZZI we have nothing to say—poor lady, pity her; but as for the directors, they deserve——.
“David’s Lament,” as given by Mr. BRAHAM, is a good specimen of plethoric pathos, and if DAVID had been Alderman, would be perfect.—Chevalier NEUKOMM has imitated HANDEL discreetly in this cantata, which, beyond the merit of putting it together, contains little that maybe called the composer’s own. The overture to Egmont is always welcome; it is true BEETHOVEN, and never to be mistaken for BURGHERSH or SHILLIBEER.
HAYDN’S SINFONIA, LETTER B.—In HAYDN’S music there is certainly one quality of the finest poetry; nothing can added, altered, or diminished without detriment to the effect. What is written is just what ought to be written, as MOZART said of his own operas upon an occasion when it became him to speak boldly of himself and his art. The andante of this symphony (an air with variations) was encored for the sake of NICHOLSON’S flute solo, and the fine effects of LINDLEY’S violoncello. The finale is the fittest movement in the whole range of instrumental music display the miraculous execution of DRAGONETTI: his aplomb is marvellous; let the passage be a mile-and-a-half long, you hear every note, crisp, round, and distinct; the more difficult the music the better he seems to play it. Madame STOCKHAUSEN gained extraordinary applause in “Dove sono;” BEETHOVEN’S violin concerto in D major, bore, in our apprehension, but few marks of the style of that master; the solos are long, fatiguing to the player, and not proportionally effective. The last movement is positively vulgar. Mr. ELIASON has a bad shrieking tone, a mechanical unfeeling style, and a coarse and inelegant execution. His performance was very long, tiresome, and dry as dust—not a single “green spot”—not a refreshing passage in it. The Terzetto was not worth hearing: the music of Gli Oraziis, to our mind, quite unworthy CIMAROSA. The performance of the last overture struck with surprise the oldest subscribers of this society: so strong an enthusiasm pervaded the band, that each department seemed to contend which should be forcibly express the ideas of the author. HARPER, towards the conclusion, blew as if he would have made MOZART a present of his lungs, and prodigious was the effect he produced. The only way to give good music is to plunge into it body and soul.
The Harmonicon, vol. 10 (May 1832): 117.
FOURTH CONCERT, Monday, April 9, 1832.
ACT I.
| Sinfonia, No. 1 . . . . . . . . | MOSCHELES. |
| Aria, (Madame Puzzi,) ‘Deh per questo,’ (La Clemenza di Tito) . . . . . . . . | MOZART. |
| Fantasia, Clarinet, (Mr. Willman) . . . . | BAERMANN. |
| Cantata, (Mr. Braham,) ‘David’s Lament’ . CHEVALIER NEUKOMM. Violoncello Obligato, (Mr. Lindley.) | |
| Overture, Egmont . . . . . . . | BEETHOVEN. |
ACT II.
| Sinfonia, Letter R . . . . . . | HAYDN. |
| Aria, (Madame Stockhausen,) ‘Dove sono’ (Le Nozze di Figaro) . . . . . . | MOZART. |
| Concerto Violin (Mr. Eliason) | BEETHOVEN. |
| Terzetto, (Madame Stockhausen, Madame Puzzi, and Mr. Braham,) ‘O dolce e caro istante,’ (Gl’ Orazj ed i Curiazj) . . . . . . . | CIMAROSA. |
| Overture, Zauberflöte . . . . . . . | MOZART. |
| Leader, Mr. Mori.—Conductor, Mr. Moscheles. |
Leader, Mr. Mori.—Conductor, Mr. Moscheles.
This evening, Mr. Moscheles appeared for the first time as a conductor of these concerts, on which occasion, a very proper compliment was paid him, by performing his symphony, the only one he has yet publicly produced, and which now had the advantage of being executed by the best band, take it ‘for all in all,’ in Europe. It was first brought forward at the benefit concert of the author, in 1829, but not heard under the advantages secured to it now, for the orchestra was not composed of the same elements, was neither so strong nor so select, and probably the composer subsequently improved his work by a few touches. The first movement is in c, a not very interesting allegro, though it is what is understood by the phrase ‘cleverly written,’—i. e., the characters of the various instruments are properly considered, and the parts are put well together. An andante in F follows; then the minuet, and trio, in A minor. This portion is by far the most imaginative and effective of the whole work; it is original and pleasing, and was received with a unanimous encore. The finale appears to have been a labour; it does not flow easily and connectedly, and bears no comparison with the immediately preceding movement.
The symphony of Haydn, No. 13 of Cianchettini’s scores, is one of his earlier works, and though by no means so powerful and racy as those of his later years, has all the verdure and blossom of spring. The most fascinating part of this is the andante, in F, one of those lovely melodies which Haydn was so happy in creating and so skillful [sic] in adorning. It was encored, and to Nicholson’s flute this compliment must be in some measure ascribed; his solo part was executed with a propriety, a taste, and in a tone, that we really believe are not to be equaled [sic], numerous as first-rate flute players are become. The finale is hardly less charming. How simple the subject, yet how much is wrought out of it! Haydn turned into gold whatever he touched.
The dramatic and splendid overture to Egmont, and the wonder of the musical world, that to the Zauberflöte, were performed à merveille.
The fantasia for the clarinet was charmingly played, though we have heard this admirable performer to more advantage. The music he now chose is not of the highest order; and rapid variations, though they show his execution, therefore one or two would be received courteously, do not display the fine qualities of the instrument, or his expressive masterly style.
Beethoven has put forth no strength in his violin concerto; it is a fiddling affair, and might have been written by any third or fourth rate composer. We cannot say that the performance of this concealed any of its weakness, or rendered it at all more palatable. In fact, the having two concertos on the same night is not only a violation of one of the fundamental laws of the Society,—a sensible regulation, founded on experience,—but tiresome to the audience and injurious to the performers.
‘David’s Lament’ was sung in a manner worthy the composition. The Chevalier NEUKOMM and Mr. BRAHAM divided the applause. And Lindley, whose violoncello accompaniment adds so much to the effect of this most pathetic and masterly composition, ought not to be forgotten. Madame Stockhausen’s ‘Dove sono’ was pure and delicious: nothing but a considerate feeling for the singer prevented its being asked for a second time. Of the other two vocal pieces we will say nothing.
Ignaz Moscheles' Concert Life 