ROYAL MUSICAL FESTIVAL.
WE must resume this subject, although there is little of official or trustworthy information to state: but whether the puffing para- graphs which appear in some of the Daily Papers are authorized by any of the Committee, and issued as feelers of public opinion, or whether they are simply to be taken as indications of their writers ignorance, the effect is the same—to mislead their readers. Hence the absurd and extravagant notions which are current in the Metropolis and elsewhere on the subject, height- ened by the vague and indistinct conceptions of our journalists; a festival being a new thing to London reporters and London readers. In the true spirit of Cockneyism, the former proclaim and the latter believe that this performance is to exceed in magni- tude and magnificence any former musical display in the history of the world. The announcement of eight organists is, by many, under- stood to imply the erection of eight organs; and there is scarcely a professor or amateur in any country town in the kingdom who has not directly or indirectly applied for an engagement, literally believing that " the approaching Festival will combine all the principal vocal and instrumental talent in the kingdom." It is necessary, therefore, to descend from romance and fiction to common sense, and, first of all, to state, that the Metropolis alone will furnish three times the number of competent instrumentalists
capable of being contained in the orchestra. No official announce- ment has been made of this fact; but it is not on that account the less true. A considerable number of chorus-singers must, or ought to be, engaged from the country ; for London contains no choral school. Birmingham, Norwich, Liverpool, and other towns, have . their choral societies in full training and constant practice. In London, no such associations exist ; and they are not capable of instantaneous creation : therefore, to be tylicient, a large propor- tion of the chorus must be drawn from the country.
On the strength of the band and the number of the audi- tory, we are prepared to furnish a few additional facts, from which the public will draw their own conclusions. These points will be best ascertained by reference to the size of the Abbey, as compared with other large buildings in which similar exhibitions have taken place. Of these, the most spacious are the Minster at York and St. Andrew's Hall at Norwich ; and the respective admeasurements of these buildings are as follows.
The Nave of York Minster, 95 fret wide, 220 feet long.
The Nave of Westminster Abbey, 72 feet wide, 150 feet long.
St. Andrew's Hall, Norwich, 70 feet wide, 130 feet long.
At York and at Norwich, the orchestras stretched very nearly from wall to wall ; the former contained 615, and the latter 375 performers. At York, the largest number of auditors was (at the Festival of 1828) 6123 persons; at Norwich, the largest number was (at- the Festival of 1829) 2066 persons; each building being well filled. The accommodation which the Abbey is capable of
affording to the public may be increased somewhat by the erection of successive galleries, like those of a theatre; but it is unneces- sary to say that such an arrangement is impracticable with regard to the orchestra. In every well-constructed orchestra, a similar, or nearly a similar angle must be farmed; the base can neither be contracted nor extended without injury to the object always to be kept in view—that every performer should be seen in order to his being heard. If, in the construction of the orchestra at the Abbey, the proper proportions and due arrangement are preserved,. we think it manifest that it must be inferior in extent to that of York; and for the same reason that a quart of liquor can- not be poured into a pint-bottle. These facts, which it would have been unnecessary to detail, but for the reasons above-stated, will place the afillir in a correct and obvious point of view. Again, let us say, that in a work of such magnitude, and which comes recommended with so many claims to public attention, there is no need of puff or exaggeration. Any endeavour to pluck the laurels from GEORGE Rom sis's brow were needless as vain. It is not a Covent Garden Oratorio, but a Me- tropolitan Festival, with which the managers have to do: and all the petty and paltry devices which are resorted to in order to at- tract an ignorant crowd, should be discouraged and put down.
The schemes, as far as they are announced, certainly have rather a commonplace and Covent Garden look. Justice will be done to lInvirr, and, we hope, to HANDEL ; but not to MOZART or SPOIIR. If the greatest works of the former are performed, so ought those of the latter ; for they are as great. MOZART'S name is twice thrust in among a motley crowd (e. g. PURCELL and CIMAROSA)—too palpable an indication that his Requiem, the work,. of all that he ever wrote, best suited for such a band, will be omitted. Too much space in the selections is covered by one name, even though that name lie HANDEL. The Queen, we are told, has commanded the performance of the Messiah—Fudge r The most probable conjecture is, that the Queen was requested to allow such a use to be made of her name, in order to afford a plausible pretext for its performance. If not, the Queen ought to have been told that she was requested to patronize, not to direct the Festival. It is no honour to the works of HANDEL, served up as the top and bottom dishes of the feast, thus to chop them into mince-meat for the side-covers. Good taste would have dictated the selection of a certain number of composers, ranking the highest as sacred writers, and fixing upon such entire works as are ac- knowledged to be the finest models of their art, having especial regard to those which are distinguished by fine choral writing. And these, unquestionably, are the Israel in Egypt and the Det- liven Te Deem of HANDEL ; the Creation of IlAyes; tho Requiem of Mozaar ; the Last Judgment of SPOI3R. These im- mortal works, each essentially differing from the other in con- struction, character, and style, should have been the main features of the Festival. This would have been the fittest employment of the band; this the most honourable tribute to the genius of each writer. And has it never occurrent to the Directors of the Eng,lash. Festival, that we have had English composers? Ought they not to have associated (not PURCELL and CIMAROSA !! but) Pinicses, GIBBONS, and CROFT? As choral harmonists, each of these may assuredly challenge comparison with PERGOLESI and LEO ; and it
ought to have been the care of those who have assumed the management of this affair, to exhibit both to their own country- men and to foreigners such evidences of genius and learning as their sacred compositions abundantly afford. Perhaps the King may be allowed to interpose a word for England, as the Queen has thought fit to patronize Germany.
Previous page
