“The concept of nationality - in music as in other fields - is not an
invariable constant but something which alters in response to historical
factors... one of the factors in the nineteenth century which influenced
the expression of nationality in music was the idea [that] nationalism...
not merely created a concept out of existing elements... but that it also
intervened in the existing situation and changed it.”
The epoch from the French Revolution to World War I comprises what is known
as the Romantic Era, and music this includes the years from approximately
1825 to 1900. During that span of time, political instability and turmoil
turned Europe into the world’s goriest amphitheater of utter chaos and disruption,
finally culminating in the ‘war to end all wars”. The Congress of Vienna,
held during 1814-15 at the end of the Napoleonic wars, was an event in which
the cruel redistribution of European boundaries was decided with disregard
for the people it affected. Patriots who saw their political and cultural
borders violated staged a series of rebellions and insurrections, some of
which were triumphant. This kind of political feeling came to be known as
Nationalism. Nationalism dominated feeling and thought to such a great extent
in the nineteenth century that it became a decisive power in the Romantic
movement. The tensions between subjugated nations grappling for democracy
and their proud conquerors gave way to sentiment that could be express in
the arts and music.
“Nationalism” constitutes a “belief which, in the course of the nineteenth
century... became the governing idea without always being held by those in
government... the belief that it was to his nation - and not to a creed,
a dynasty, or a class - that a citizen owed the first duty in a clash of
loyalties.” This political claim, fused with the idea that it was “the spirit
of the people” (der Volksgeist) which provided inspiration in the
arts and life, was the dominant attitude of the bourgeois nationalism
of the nineteenth century.
Nationalism itself underwent a transformation in the nineteenth century,
in that during the first half of the century, a “nationalist” was also a
“citizen of the world”, but by the latter half of the century nationalism
had turned much more aggressive, with the oppressing nations initiating this
change. Unfortunately, the attitude of the oppressed was equally affected
by this. As nationalism matured, in music the change is apparent in works
written primarily after 1860. It is for this reason that serious consideration
must be given to the fact that various types of political evolution were
achieved in each country that in turn affected musical nationalism.
At this time in Europe, new nations such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway,
Finland and Hungary had been formed by the unification of old empires. In
England and France, power had gone from the monarchy to democracy, while
in Russia, the revolution had failed, leaving the Tsarist regime as strong
as ever. It is interesting to observe that in politically strong nations
such as Germany, France and Austria, composers took little interest in political
themes and subject matter.
Nationalism in music usually refers to the various national schools that
consciously tried to separate themselves from the standards set in the Classical
period by the French, Italian and especially the German traditionalists.
This formation of a national school, conceived to differentiate itself from
the pan-European tradition, was itself a pan-European tradition, as was the
entire bourgeois nationalist movement of the nineteenth century. Although
distinct national styles are discernible in music from the Renaissance onwards,
it was not until the nineteenth century that Nationalism came to dominate
Europe as a mode of thought.
During the nineteenth century the popular view was taken that folk music
“is always and above all the music of a nation.” However, what makes this
ambiguous and ill-founded is the fact that when one discusses folk music
with references to “the people”, the expression “the people” usually refers
to the lower strata of the population known universally as peasants, and
also to the concept of “the nation” as a whole. However, nineteenth century
nationalism was a phenomena of the bourgeois, not an expression of the peasant’s
self-awareness. This use of folk music by the bourgeois was more to reassure
themselves of the authenticity of their own patriotism as well as an appeal
across the social barriers of the time. (For the nobility, it was not the
national loyalties that counted, but dynastic ones.) For the bourgeois, national
character was the “primary and essential quality of folk music... and that
folk music expresses the spirit of a people.”
In the nineteenth century, composers not only expressed themselves but chose
the style in which to do it. In general, the Romantic composer was slow in
discovering and using folk songs in their music. At first they were used
in brief works, such as a peasant dance like a mazurka, but gradually became
to be used in symphonic works, although the lush vivid orchestrations tended
to mask their simplistic character. Because folk music is basically monodic,
it resisted assimilation into the well-established formulas of major-minor
tonality, and for that very reason it challenged composers to experiment
with unusual harmonies. This in turn affected harmonies in music unconnected
with folk-oriented music, and thus manifested itself into the mainstream
of developments. This experimentation was itself a consequence of a specific,
well-defined problem that was encountered by Romantic composers of the era,
and was not the result of random factors.
Occasionally composers, attracted by another country’s national idioms,
would for specific reasons use those idiom in their music for an effect.
This practice is known as Exoticism and was a strong trend in the nineteenth
century. Exoticism is “a search for new effects from the folk music of other
lands and peoples, generally those considered to be less spoiled by civilization;
this even led to the phenomenon of Russian nationalists who proclaimed their
musical independence from western European models by exploiting the exotica
of the peoples of central Asia who had recently been conquered by the Tsarist
imperium.”
Another way nationalism made an impact in the music of the nineteenth century
is from an aesthetic standpoint. The dominant principle was one of novelty
and originality. The tradition of imitation was now condemned, and unfamiliar
music was now considered by be authentic. However, with art music being confronted
with the dillemma of having to abandon aristocratic and esoteric goals to
become democratic and popular, the ideal of popularity came into direct conflict
with the ideal of novelty and originality, which required a great deal of
intellectual understanding and was not appreciated by the general public.
Musical nationalism provided the “appearance of familiarity” so the composer
could be original and artistic while the listener could identify with the
music on a patriotic level.
Paradoxically, folk music is not always local or regional in its coloring
or character; some stylistic traits felt to be specific to a particular country
are actually common to “national” music in general, as the study of folk
music at the time was considered in each country only at a national, and
not on a comparative level. As much as composers exploited peasant music
for their nationalistic music, “the ‘spirit of the people’ that was thought
to speak in the music of the ‘national schools’ was heard only by the educated,
not the ‘people’ themselves.”
Sources:
Longyear, Rey M. Nineteenth-Century Romanticism in Music.
Poultney, David. Studying Music History.
Ulrich, Homer. Music - A Design for Listening, 3rd ed.
Machlis, Joseph. The Enjoyment of Music.
Ammer, Christine. Harper’s Dictionary of Music.
Westrup and Harrison. The New College Encyclopedia of Music.
Culshaw, John. A Century of Music.
Dahlhaus, Carl. Between Romanticism and Modernism.