So there I was, at the meeting, when the discussion turned to our patronage categories. How we do what we do is all because we are supported by a couple of hundred very generous people who donate money every year. There are various categories. The lowest one, and kind of a loss-leader just to get you involved, is called "Mendelssohn" and is for donations of $100 to $499 USD. The next category is "Debussy" for amounts from $500 to $999, the next is "Mozart" from $1000 to $2499 and the current highest category is "Bach" from $2500 to $4999. Someone was mentioning that there is a problem with the Mendelssohn category as it is too much of a loss-leader. We offer them too much for what they contribute so we should re-think that one.
So I suggested changing the name of the category from "Mendelssohn" to "Hindemith".
A silence ensued.
Then a couple of people started to chuckle, then several more.
This is, of course, exactly the kind of humour I like! I love that English dry humour where someone insults you and it takes about twenty-four hours for you to even realize it was an insult.
So, let's have a look at Paul Hindemith and see why I was tempted to make that joke at the poor fellow's expense.
As we learn from Wikipedia, Paul Hindemith (1895 - 1963) was a German composer born just at a time when the whole of European music was in a ferment. He was from the next generation after Arnold Schoenberg (1874 - 1951), closer to the generation of Schoenberg's students Anton Webern (1883 - 1945) and Alban Berg (1885 - 1935). Hindemith had more career as a performer than most composers in the first half of the century. He was an accomplished violinist and violist and toured extensively with string quartets. From the 1920s he became well-known as a composer and teacher of composition. He had a huge influence on a lot of young composers, especially in the US where he lived from 1940 to 1953. He wrote a notoriously difficult book for training musicians after discovering that few college students in the US had sufficient basic skills. The book contains exercises requiring you to, among other things, beat out one rhythm with your left hand while conducting with your right hand and singing the melody at sight! The book is called Elementary Training for Musicians and is still in print.
Hindemith rejected the atonal system of Schoenberg, choosing instead to develop his own theoretical system that still allowed the concepts of consonance and dissonance. His system is sometimes described as being tonal, but not diatonic, meaning that there is a tonal center, but all notes, chromatic and diatonic, have a relationship to that center. A very powerful influence was the contrapuntal structure of the music of Bach.
Some might criticize Hindemith for simply being out of step with the avant-garde movement. Plainly progress demanded a movement away from tonality and traditional counterpoint (or did it?). After the Second World War, the European avant-garde very plainly set out where music should be going and atonal, serial music, particularly that of Anton Webern, was to be the model.
However, things are rarely that simple, especially in the history of aesthetics. There were lots of competing paths. The most challenging one for the young avant-garde was that of Igor Stravinsky (1882 - 1971) who, except for a few very late pieces, never fell under the spell of serialism. He was one of the main creators of the style known as "neo-classical" in which strong reference was made to the tonal styles of the past. There were also some other composers who seemed to just ignore "systems" of composition entirely, figures like Dmitri Shostakovich and Sergei Prokofiev in Russia.
Even though Wikipedia describes Hindemith as "among the most significant German composers of his time," his fortunes seem to have fallen considerably in recent decades. We often read articles that purport to "discover" or "re-discover" this or that obscure composer and it is true that composers' fortunes in terms of recognition and performances do often rise after their death. Shostakovich is an excellent example of this. At his death he was regarded in most Western circles as being a hack. When I was an undergraduate in the 1970s, the only time he was ever mentioned was in connection with Bartók's satire of him in the Concerto for Orchestra. Now, he is recognized as being one of the great symphonic composers.
This is a case of a composer who simply did not fit into the ideological framework of the aesthetics of his day, (at least in the West) so he was ignored. But now we, with more objective eyes, see the quality of his work. I'm sure there are other composers for whom that is a reasonably accurate account. But it doesn't seem to fit Hindemith. His fortunes are declining instead of mounting. The idea of music based on some kind of extended tonality with counterpoint and the use of folksong is going to fit pretty well with what our current ideology of aesthetics is, after all. So what is the problem with Hindemith? Let's listen to some music. One of his most successful pieces is the symphony based on themes from the opera Mathis der Maler. Here is the San Francisco Symphony conducted by Herbert Blomstedt:
Now there is no denying that is a pretty good piece. But what it is not is spectacularly innovative. You might hate the music of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern, but you can't deny the impact of the novelty of it. And Stravinsky produced many pieces that make a remarkable impression on first hearing: take the Rite of Spring for example. This piece, while solid and workmanlike, seems to lack fizz. If you listen to it next to a symphonic work by Shostakovich, it does not seem to have the same emotional depth. Here, listen to Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony, written within three years of Mathis der Mahler:
You might also take note of how very long the Wikipedia article on the Shostakovich symphony is, compared to the brevity of the one on Mathis der Maler. Both articles are linked above.
After the Mathis der Maler symphony, there is not a long list of highly popular individual pieces by Hindemith. He rarely made a "splash". Let's see what YouTube pulls up. Here is the fugue from the Piano Sonata No. 3 played by Glenn Gould:
Again, solid, workmanlike but not terribly interesting. Let's compare it to a fugue by Shostakovich who did a large set in all the keys. Here is one of the shortest, in A major:
Half as long as the Hindemith and, to my mind, twice as charming. This is one of the slightest fugues from the set by Shostakovich. I could have made the point more strongly if I had picked one of the big ones. One very famous piece by Hindemith is his Trauermusik. In 1936, Hindemith was in London when George V passed away. He wrote the Trauermusik in one day and it was performed the next day at the state funeral:
It is a fine and deeply-felt piece. Perhaps we could look again to a piece by Shostakovich for comparison. His String Quartet No. 8 was written in Dresden in 1960 in three days under tremendous emotional stress. Here is a performance of the first part:
Again, I think we can see that Hindemith does not quite measure up to the competition. That may seem a callous judgement, but I think I could go on all day digging up comparisons and it wouldn't change much. Hindemith was a solid, workmanlike, rather dull composer. He is well worth knowing for a few pieces, but equally for what we learn from comparing well-written, though dull, pieces of music to those that are great works of inspiration. What is great music? We can only know that if we are able to compare it to non-great music.
So, any fervent admirers of Hindemith out there who would like to take me to task? The comments are open for your thoughts...
12 comments:
you just fail to understand the charm of hindemith and his fluctuating tonal language. There is a reason why Gould chose that piece over ALL of the pieces by Shostakovich. (the longer version of that Gould video features Gould telling the listener why fugues are still relevant nowadays. Then he proceeded to pick this out of the lot. This says lots.) Have you tried to listen to the entirety of sonata no.3, of which the fugue is the last movement? (hint: baffling!!) Comparing Hindemith's pieces to Shostakovich like that is ridiculous. First of all, It is like comparing ancient Chinese poetry to ancient Arabic poetry. Absolute nonsense! Not that you can't, but before you understand both languages (and their underlying feeling i.e. aesthetics), you shouldn't attempt to compare the literature in both. Anyway, objectively your choice for comparisons are improper. The A major fugue is famous for its simple subtle charm and simple tonal harmonic genius. The Hindemith is strict and serves as a finale/ climax of sort, but with a restraint characteristic to fugues. Just what to you want to get out of that? If I do it your way, I might just as well compare the a major with Brahms' fugue in handel variations and call Brahms significantly inferior. It just doesn't work that way.
I suggest this video that I just found (after my previous comment) for the exact fugue (with no Gould eccentricities) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nq5YVbaWE0 This is the second half of the sonata though. There is a timestamp for the fugue in the description.
Hindemith's universe is like no others, although it has the same appeal as Bach to me in that is is both sort of rigid and constrained but still carries a lot of musical depth (as different as they are in other respects of course). It simply appeals a lot to me, and I often find it refreshing to come back to Hindemith's universe after listening to other classical music with all its "charm" and "fizz", however much I like that too. (I like a lot of Shostakovichs works as well)
Sorry. I fail to see why Hindemith would be in any way inferior to Shostakovitch. I quite like both although I listen more to Hindemith. What I can say about this it, that all of H. works have significant counterpoint and polyphony in it. If I would compare eg. the Sinfonia Serena of H. with already starts with a fugato with your example of S. 7th, I prefer the first. The opening movement of the 7th seems in fact boring and uninspired to me because it is basically a set of variations on the same few harmonies over and over again.
Anyhow. Hindemith was a great composer and he always will be, no matter what people say...
My invitation to Hindemith lovers to comment on this, I admit, somewhat provocative post has finally borne fruit. Five years later, mind you!
Since you mentioned Mathis der Maler. Many people only know this particular piece of H. I don't think this does H. justice. H. is so much more than Mathis der Maler. And since you compared it to S. 7th - I propose that you compare it with H.'s Symphony in E-flat. It's a much more suitable comparison, since both symphonies were created during the second World War and capture about the same spirit.
Thanks, Steffen. I will indeed check out the Symphony in E-flat. I don't think I have ever heard it.
I ... actually ... can't stand Gould's interpretations of Hindemith. i'd lean more toward Earl Wild.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdcJHmEhVuU
As composers of fugues go I think Hindemith did it better than Shostakovich, though both are among my favorite 20th century composers. Shostakovich seemed apt to add one extra voice than strictly necessary to any given polyphonic texture.
The Amar-Hindemith quartet managed to perform works by the quarter-tone experimentalist Alois Haba. The Amar-Hindemith quartet also performed Bartok (one of the first quartets to ever record Bartok's 2nd), and Berg, as well as quartets by Webern, Wellesz, and others. Hindemith was right in the middle of the expressionist scene--he started off pretty radical and became more conservative as he consolidated his conviction that music, no matter how dissonant, should derive in some way from the overtone series. I never bought his series 1 and 2 as such but my dream string quartet concert would be Hindemith's Op. 22 followed by Bartok's 3rd followed by Shostakovich 3rd.
The great crankypants Adorno once declared Hindemith a reactionary but, compared to so many other composers whose music Adorno disliked, he granted Hindemith was, at least, a COMPETENT and talented reactionary.
Hindemith was willing to advocate for music that, during the 1920s through 1930s, was considered way off the beaten path. That he was able and willing to play music that in his younger years was considered the lunatic fringe of concert music meant that even people who disliked his music or disliked him as a person felt obliged to consult him. I think I read somewhere that Stravinsky at one point consulted Hindemith about a violin issue despite having brutally dismissed Hindemith via letter as a "German Prokofiev".
I actually like a fairly big chunk of Hindemith's music myself, though he's never going to displace Haydn among my all-time favorites. I think Angelo Gilardino is an admirer of Hindemith's work, if memory serves, so it may be that Hindemith fell out of favor for taking a stance against Schoenberg's method among the musical mainstream but I've met a number of fellow guitarists who admire Hindemith's work. He seems to be a respected if rarely loved niche composer. :)
I would recommend Kim Kashkashian's recordings of Hindemith's solo viola music. One of the things he was legendary for was that after about 1933 there was not a single part in any of his orchestral scores he couldn't play himself. He taught himself to play French horn in a few weeks.
Hindemith was at the forefront of the avant garde in the 1920s but as he diverged on the issue of twelve-tone he was regarded as something of a pariah by those who believed twelve-tone and serialism were the future of music.
Actually, you should check out Hindemith's Rondo for three guitars. William Anderson did a charming version of it on a CD years ago with two other guitarists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6JnsRdWmFc
Technically the rondo can be played by just two guitars but it can be spritelier as a trio. When I consider the earlier Shostakovich piano literature I actually kind of hear an influence from Hindemith sometimes.
Stravinsky claimed to have invented neoclassicism, didn't he? He granted that Hindemith was one of the exponents of the new style but Hindemith hasn't been considered an inventor so much as one of the more capable exponents of neoclassicism. What that largely seemed to mean was bailing on the expressionism and primitivism of the 1910s in favor of a more detached style that was also not veering into nascent atonality.
a couple of his string quartets that I have liked over the years
Op. 22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHo8igW6qb8&t=47s
Op. 32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92tVdEKd6hg&t=17s
fourth movement of his Op. 25,1 sonata for solo viola provides a clear example of why string players in general but violists in particular either love or dread his work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oc_J-OY9Rg
Hindemith's woodwind quintet is one of the staples of the woodwind quintet literature. I think it's adorable, personally ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9NFFCuAGA4
one of the comments for this video comments that this work by Hindemith is so appraochable it almost resembles Poulenc.
When I write a post like this one, pretty much daring people to disagree with me, I actually hope that I will get spirited and detailed responses like yours Wenatchee! Thanks so much. Now I have some Hindemith I need to explore.
First movement of the second organ sonata has lots of fizz!
Post a Comment