Grove's dictionary of music and musicians

'
—
SPOHR SPOHR 643
his famous criticisms on Beethoven and his
interest for Wagner, their sincerity cannot be
doubted for a moment. According to his lights
he ever stood up for the dignity of his art, with
the same unflinching independence of character
with which he claimed, not without personal
risk, the rights of a free citizen. It is true
that he called himself a disciple of Mozart.
But the universality of Mozart's talent was the
very reverse of Spohr's exclusive individualism ;
and except in their great regard for form, and
in a certain similarity of melodic structure, the
two masters have hardly anything in common.
Spohr certainly was a born musician, second
only to the very greatest masters in true musical
instinct ; in power of concentration and of work
hardly inferior to any. But the range of his
talent was not wide ; he never seems to have
been able to step out of a given circle of idesis and
sentiments.
He never left the circle of his own
individuality, but drew everything within it.
At the same time he left much outside of that
circle, and his ignorance of the achievements of
others was often astounding. This is illustrated
by a well-authenticated story. A pupil of his
left him, and went for some time to Leipzig to
study the piano and other branches of music.
On his return to Cassel he called on Spohr, and
was asked to play to him. The pupil played
Beethoven's sonata in E minor, op. 90. Spohr
was much struck, and when the piece was finished
made the singular inquiry, Have ' you composed
?
much more in that style, Herr
He was fond of experiments in composition
such as new combinations of instruments (to wit
the Double Quartets, the Symphony for two
orchestras, the Quartet-Concerto, and others),
or adoption of programmes ( ' Consecration of
Sound' ; Concertino, 'Past and Present,' etc.),
and thus showed his eagerness to strike out new
paths. But after all, what do we find under
these new dresses and fresh-invented titles but
the same dear old Spohr, incapable of putting
on a, really new face, even for a few bars ?
'Napoleon,' says Eobert Schumann' (Apropos
of Spohr's Historical Symphony), ' once went to
a masked ball, but before he had been in the
room a few minutes folded his arms in his wellknown
attitude. "TheEmperor! theEmperor!"
at once ran through the place. Just so, through
disguises of the Symphony, one kept hearing
"Spohr, Spohr" in every corner of the room.'
Hence there is considerable sameness—nay,
monotony, in his works. Be it oratorio or concerto,
opera or string-quartet—he treats them
all very much in the same manner, and it is not
80 much the distinctive styles peculiar to these
several forms of music that we iind, as Spohr's
peculiar individuality impressed upon all of
them. He certainly was not devoid of
originality—in fact his style and manner are
BO entirely his own that no composer is perhaps
J GcsammeUe Schrifttn, iv. 89.
so absolutely unmistakable as he is. That an
originality so strong and so inalienable, unless
supported by creative power of the very first
order and controlled by self-criticism, would
easily lead to mannerism is obvious ; and a
mannerist he must be called. Certain melodious
phrases and cadences, chromatic progressions and
enharmonic modulations, in themselves beautiful
enough, and most effective, occur over and over
again, until they appear to partake more of the
nature of mechanical contrivances than to be the
natural emanations of a living musical organism.
The present lack of interest in Spohr's music is
probably only the natural reaction from an
unbounded and indiscriminating enthusiasm,
which, in England at one time, used to place
Spohr on the same level with Handel and Beethoven.
These temporary fluctuations will,
however, sooner or later subside, and then his
true position as a great master, second in rank
only to the very giants of art, will be again
established.
The technical workmanship in his compositions
is admirable, the thematic treatment his
strong point ; but it would appear that this was
the result rather of a happy musical organisation
than of deep study. He cannot be reckoned
amongst the great masters of counterpoint, and
the fugues in his oratorios, though they run
smoothly enough and are in a sense elleotive,
can hardly be called highly interesting from a
musical point of view.
Symmetry of form is one of the chief
characteristics of his works ; but this love of
symmetry grew eventually into a somewhat
pedantic formalism. A cadenza without its
preceding ' passage and shake he ' is reported
to have held in abhoiTence. His instrumentation
shows themaster-liand throughout, although
his predilection for extreme keys presents much
difficulty to the wind instruments, and sometimes,
especially in his operas, the orchestra
is wanting in perspicuity, and not free from
monotony.
To his violin-concertos—and among them
especially to the 7th, 8th, and 9th—must- be
assigned the first place among his works. They
are only surpassed by those of Beethoven and
Mendelssohn, and are probably destined to live
longer than any other of his works. They are
distinguished as much by noble and elevated
ideas as by masterly thematic treatment ; while
the supreme fitness of every note in the solopart
to the nature of the violin, need hardly
be mentioned. They are not likely to disappear
soon from the repertory of the best violinists.
His duets and concertantes for two violins,
and for violin and viola, are of their kind unsurpassed.
By the frequent employment of
double stops great sonority is produced, and, if
well played, the eftect is charming. The mass
of his chamber-music, a gi'eat number of quartets,
quintets, double quartets, trios, etc., is nowa-