We have now traced the history of our modern art of orchestration through five great stages of evolution. (1) Under the head of "The Cradle of Instrumental Music," musical development among primitive men was attributed to two impelling forces: emotional expression and pagan religious rites. The nature of these early attempts at musical utterance can only be conjectured, but although we have no knowledge of its tonal aspect, extant relics and representations of primitive instruments among such races as the Egyptians, the Assyrians and the Jews correspond to the leading types of sound-producing apparatus belonging to civilized nations. Authentic history discloses the development of artistic music in India, in Greece and in early Rome. These efforts were essentially melodic. Rhythm was dependent upon poetic instinct, whereas the harmony of simultaneous sounds, though scientifically expounded, was put to but small practical use. Systems of harmony, notation and measure were eventually established, though circuitously devolved from the tedious experiments of the scholastic monks to the more tangible results of the troubadours and of the masters of the Netherland School. Lasso and Palestrina eventually pointed the way toward a settled tonality determined by harmonic considerations. (2) "The Dawn of Independent Instrumentation" treats of the further development of consistent tonality, of greater rhythmic freedom, of artistic structural form, and of the gradual ascendency of a secular style in connection with solo-singing and independent instrumental music. Independent instrumental music found its origin in the attempts at embellished organ accompaniment; solo singing devolved from the Miracle Plays, from the lyrics of the troubadours, and from the Florentine monody as developed by Peri and Cavalieri, whose theories contained the germ of opera and oratorio, for which instrumental accompaniment is a requisite. (3) The chapter entitled "Beginnings of Orchestration" marks the actual starting point for the nuclear thought of this book. Here the central figure is Monteverde, father of modern instrumentation. His methods were propagated by Carissimi in Italy, SchÜtz in Germany, Cavalli and Lulli in France. The greatest orchestral writer after Monteverde was Scarlatti. (4) The way was now prepared for the comprehensive "Classic Era," of which the central figures, as regards orchestral evolution, are Haydn, the father of modern orchestration, and Beethoven,—magnificently supported by Mozart, and to a lesser degree by Bach, HÄndel and Gluck. In the earlier part of this era, France owed the high standard of her indigenous music primarily to Rameau and GrÉtry. The former stands as an exponent of serious opera, whereas the latter established opÉra comique upon a permanent basis. Rameau found a worthy successor in the great orchestrator, MÉhul. GrÉtry was succeeded by Boieldieu, Auber, HÉrold, HalÉvy. Meanwhile the orchestration of Italy did not keep pace with that of Germany or France. The Italians were primarily engaged in composing church music and in writing operas that should satisfy the existing demands for vocal virtuosity. Pergolesi was a notable exception. Even though the art of instrumentation had originated in Italy, no important evolutionist of orchestration can be mentioned between Scarlatti (1659) and Cherubini (1760); the latter is moreover identified with France rather than with Italy. Spontini, Rossini, and the German, Meyerbeer, likewise won their laurels in Paris. Cherubini and Spontini stand as the chief Italian exponents of orchestration during the classic era, the one for the church, the other for the drama. (5) The classic era overlaps the rise and growth of the "Romantic Movement," for the highest attainments of Beethoven, Auber and Rossini were not reached until after Spohr and Weber had already entered the lists. These two early romanticists were shortly succeeded by Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, by the classical-romanticists, headed by Raff and Brahms, and by the originators of the New Movement, Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner. Recent development of differentiated types of orchestration discloses the unique fact that almost every country of musical prominence is represented by a single orchestral writer of unusual ability whose success was dependent upon the initiatory work of one single predecessor. Italy is represented by Spontini and Verdi, France by Berlioz and Saint-SaËns, Bohemia by Smetana and DvorÁk, Scandinavia by Gade and Grieg, Russia by Glinka and Tschaikowsky, Germany by Wagner and Richard Strauss.

The above epitome presents the historical aspect of orchestral development. Due credit has been given to those men who particularly helped to forge the connecting links in the evolutionary chain, irrespective of the intrinsic value of their own instrumentation. In antithesis to the above historical aspect, the following synopsis presents the purely practical aspect of orchestration proper as developed by thirteen men whose contributions thereto would appear to be of chief importance. They are named in chronological order without regard to evolutionary sequence or nationality. It is from their works that the specimens of orchestral scoring in the appendix to this book have been chosen. These thirteen representatives are: Monteverde, Scarlatti, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Weber, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Saint-SaËns, Tschaikowsky, DvorÁk, Richard Strauss. Monteverde aimed to obtain expressive and dramatic effects, established the orchestra on a permanent basis of stringed instruments played with a bow, and realized the necessity for an individualistic and differentiated style of writing for voices and instruments. Scarlatti divided his strings into four parts, properly dispersed and balanced, readjusted the relation of the wind instruments to the rest of the orchestra by employing them in pairs, strengthened and extended the structure of his opera-symphonies. Haydn established a perfectly balanced orchestra as a whole, realized the value of the wood-wind in their capacity of lending warmth and color to the orchestral canvas, employed them systematically in pairs, and regulated the proportion of the brass to the strings and wood. Mozart infused into the orchestra vitality and warmth, exploited the proper functions of the wood-wind with especial attention to those of the clarinet, and was the first to consistently mix the tonal colors of the orchestra. The evolution of the classic orchestra culminated in the symphonic writings of Beethoven. His scoring not only embodies the ideals of his predecessors, but treats each instrument also with characteristic individuality, subordinated, however, as a means for faithfully depicting the details of the composition proper. He pointed the way for the subsequent romanticists, and his descriptive music proves that even with comparatively simple means gorgeous tone-painting can be attained. Weber initiated a novel style of dramatic orchestration and contributed substantially to the independence of the wood-wind. Berlioz was the first of the great modern symphonists and represents the ultra-realistic school of orchestral program-music. He combined both dramatic and symphonic principles but also applied tone-color in its own right. His unique genius disclosed itself in the discovery of new combinations, new effects, new treatment, and in his power of musical description. The orchestration of Mendelssohn is invaluable for its finish of detail. It is buoyant, transparent, delicate, and perfectly balanced. Wagner brought the art of dramatic orchestration to its highest point of evolution. His orchestration does not deviate from well-established and approved principles, but the grouping and treatment of instruments are entirely new. He emphasized solidity, made the orchestra firm and supple, increased its melodic as well as harmonic force, and used it for two definite purposes: to render emotion and to portray action and situations. Saint-SaËns' methods emphasize the prevailing custom of his countrymen to combine French traditions and advanced German principles. Clear and compact form, comparative simplicity of thematic treatment, elaborate, rich, varied and above all scintillating orchestration constitute the cardinal features of his conspicuous attainments. The ideal representative of Greater Russia is Tschaikowsky. He secured a gloomy eloquence of instrumentation by drawing upon the lower accents of the orchestra, but was also a master of magnificent and stirring effects. DvorÁk evolved his music from the Bohemian folk-song and was a master of vivacious and refined orchestration. His scoring is appropriate, consistent, varied, warm and brilliant. It abounds in beautiful combinations. It is rich but never overburdened. Richard Strauss is proving himself a worthy successor to Wagner as a result of his marvellous insight into the specific characteristics of each individual instrument and of his genius for combining them in a bewildering network of contrapuntally interwoven melodic themes. He possesses an hitherto unheard of orchestral technique, and taxes both the executive ability and the artistic attributes of the instrumentalists to the utmost. He makes use of elaborately conceived programs necessitating vast orchestral resources, is an extremist in the realm of realism, and secures powerful dramatic effects by means of vivid orchestration.

Orchestration in its present development would seem to have reached its highest possible attainment of effectiveness and virtuosity. The problem of the future, therefore, deals not so much with material increase of orchestral resource, as with what manner of thought and music the orchestra is destined to portray. What are to be the musical ethics of the twentieth century composers? The most subtle thinkers of the world have generally taken an idealistic view of the social mission of musical art. Eminent psychologists of Germany, France and England, who otherwise represent distinctive and frequently antagonistic schools of philosophy, all agree on this point, as illustrated by a few quotations selected from the writings of Hegel, Schopenhauer, Emile Montegut and Herbert Spencer. Music, according to Hegel, should "fill the heart and bring to consciousness everything developed and undeveloped which human feeling can carry, experience and bring forth, in its innermost and most secret parts; whatever the human heart in its manifold possibilities and moods desires to express or excite; and especially whatever the spirit has in its idea of the Most Essential and High; the glory of the Honored, the Eternal and the True." Schopenhauer declared that music "never expresses phenomena, but solely the inner being, the essence of phenomena, the will itself. It expresses, therefore, not this or that single and particular joy, this or that sorrow, or pain, or horror, or exultation, or hilarity, or repose of mind itself; but, as it were in abstracto, the essentials of these without their concomitants, therefore without their motives. Nevertheless, in such quintessence we understand it perfectly. Hence our fancy is so easily excited by it and tries to clothe this invisible spirit world, that speaks to us so immediately and eloquently, with flesh and blood, i.e. to embody it in an analogous example." Emile Montegut expresses himself to the effect that this magic sound of what is called music "pierces the material barriers which limit human words; it gives to hearts the means of communicating among themselves; it creates a language of which the most ignorant and the poorest perceive all the power and all the sweetness. Music speaks, and suddenly the hearts which were chilled with consciousness of their own isolation are thrilled with tenderness and radiant with happiness." Herbert Spencer believed that "music ought to take rank at the head of the fine arts because it is the one which adds most to human happiness. Not content with exciting powerfully our better instincts, it awakens sentiments lying dormant in us, of which we had not conceived the possibility, of which we do not understand the sense. This obscure presentment of an unknown happiness, which music awakens in us, this confused dream of an ideal and new life, all this is but a prophecy of something which music itself ought assuredly to accomplish." In contrast to the above enthusiastic utterances, how material and unsatisfying are the dreary speculations of such men as Leibniz! The latter looked upon music as being but the "exercitium arithmeticae occultum nescientis se numerare animi"! The ideal mission of music, therefore, ever has been and surely should continue to be that of uplifting. It should present a moral synonymous for the Æsthetic, the pure, the spiritual. It should reveal the highest ideals of the living soul. It should, according to Browning, express truth, not of the mind—knowledge, which is absolute, but of the soul—shifting. Music above all other arts interprets the innermost thoughts of the soul. It is being constantly re-created, whereas all other arts are but the images of what is already created. The imitative arts—sculpture and painting, can no longer be all-satisfying to the self-consciousness of an age influenced by the subjective thought of such men as Goethe and Schiller. Why, therefore, should modern music be reared solely upon a similar realistic basis of imitation instead of upon an idealistic one of representation? The fundamentals of music rest upon an acoustic element dependent upon absolute pitch. Since, however, an isolated tone cannot suggest a definite idea or image, it is necessary, in order that music should mean something, to connect a series of tones so as to produce melody, to combine several tones so as to form chords, and to group these chords so as to obtain contrasts of tonality and modes. This accomplished, there must be added rhythmic life, variety of tone-color, and dynamic contrast. Finally, the whole fabrication must be fitted into a framework of structural form based upon the science of logic. But all this is not enough. There exists an underlying psychological principle that cannot be disregarded. Appreciation for acoustic effects and the realizations of intellectual reflection are but the stepping stones to something higher. The first requirement of a composer is intuition or the spontaneous expression of musical instinct—an element more essential to musical creation than to any other branch of art. Further requisites are imagination, emotion, inspiration, and above all spirituality. There is a tendency among recent exponents of the most advanced school to declare that the possibilities of purely Æsthetic music have been exhausted. Morbidness and pessimism dominate the creative conceptions of these recent experimentalists. They are leaning more and more toward the expression of concrete ideas concealing vague abstractions. The present writer is heartily in sympathy with the most catholic application of all legitimate resources so long as the primary object of musical utterance be not lost sight of. It goes without saying that descriptive, imitative, realistic and even morbid music has its proper place in the poetic conceptions of our contemporary tone-masters. Exception only is made to music that is primarily intellectual or pessimistic. On the other hand, it need not be primarily pleasure-giving. In a word, all such objectives should be made subjective to a purer motive. The portrayal of lesser sentiments and passions is legitimate only in so far as to form a background for the nobler, which are thereby thrown into relief. The ideal mission of music is to reflect the loftiest sentiments of the composer's soul, and to awaken similar experiences in the mind of the auditor so as to inspire and uplift him. Such were the ideals of Beethoven. May his example continue to be emulated!