8/13/2019 Busoni, Ferruccio - On Young Classicism (1920)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/busoni-ferruccio-on-young-classicism-1920 1/2

1

       

 IN THEIR OWN WORDS. . . .

Ferruccio Busoni on “Young Classicism” (1920)

Ferruccio Busoni (1866–1924) was a leading figure in the musical world of his time.

He made his reputation first as a virtuoso pianist and composer, and, after settling inBerlin in 1894, he was much in demand as essayist, teacher, and conductor. In an

open letter to the Frankfurt music critic Paul Bekker that is given here, Busoni

reflects upon the state of modern music in 1920. His ideas about the dawning of an

age of “young classicism” are a remarkably accurate prediction of the direction that

music traveled during the next quarter century. After first thanking Bekker for his

support against attacks coming from the composer Hans Pfitzner—an old nemesis—

Busoni describes a new style in music, “young classicism,” which he senses as immi-

nent. It will merge old and new, he says, dispense with the apparent exaggerations of

the preceding decades, be objective in its expressivity, return to melody without the

intense motivic work of the past, and regain a spirit of serenity. While Busoni is not

talking of musical Neoclassicism per se, his forecast is an uncanny prediction of this

emerging style.

Dear Mr. Paul Bekker,

I read your article “Impotency—or Potency?” [Frankfurter Zeitung , 15–16 January 1920]

with agreement and sympathy. I must thank you for much of what you said there.

Since [Hans] Pfitzner cannot also be accorded my agreement and sympathy—he does

not want these—there is no doubt that misunderstandings will exist between him and

the one whom he attacks. But I believe that all who have good intentions wish the best

for music, for its highest perfection. This common goal must override all partisanship.

I also believe that there are differences in contemporary composition—differences in

talent!—but that these are not chasms. I believe that [contemporary] works are more

alike than we think or convince ourselves of . (Differences of opinion are quite another

matter. . . . )

  In every period there are and must be artists who cling to tradition and others whowant to free themselves from it. This twilight condition seems to me to be a healthy

one. Historians who seek to generalize and reach conclusions prefer the perspective of

the clear light of morning and midday. The appearance of isolated experiments which

flow together into caricature is always found in evolution: bizarre, ape-like leaping ges-

tures of those who stand for something—either defiance or rebellion, satire or foolish-

ness. In the last fifteen years this sort of thing has appeared all the more, and it attracts

our attention all the more strongly after the standstill of the eighties, which remains

quite isolated in the history of art (and which, unfortunately, coincided with my own

youth). But the spread of exaggeration, with which beginners today make their debut,

points to the end of this period. The next step, which will be demanded by dissent, will

move toward a new classicality.

By “young classicism” I mean the mastery, examination, and exploitation of all the

gains of previous experiments and their inclusion in solid and beautiful forms. To letone word serve for many, I mean perfection (as suggested by rightness and a bringing

to conclusion). This art will be old and new at the same time at first. We are steering,

luckily, in that direction, consciously or unconsciously, willingly or unwillingly.

But for this art to arise intact in its newness and to signify to the historian a real

achievement, it will have to be founded on many assumptions which today are not yet

fully accepted. I believe that one of the most important of these still ungrasped truths is

the concept of oneness in music. By this I mean that music is in itself music and noth-

ing more. It cannot be divided into different categories except when words, titles, situ-

ations, and meanings are brought to it from outside and evidently divide it into types.

8/13/2019 Busoni, Ferruccio - On Young Classicism (1920)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/busoni-ferruccio-on-young-classicism-1920 2/2

2

There is no music which is “church music” in itself, but only absolute music to which

sacred words are put or which is performed in church. If you change the text, the music

apparently changes also. If you remove the text altogether, there remains (illusorily) a

symphonic movement. If you add words to a movement from a string quartet, an opera

scene might result. If you play the first movement of the “Eroica” symphony to an

American Indian film, the music might appear so changed that you will not recognize

it. For this reason you should not speak of “instrumental music” and “the true sym-

phonic composer,” as you let slip in your article concerning chamber symphonies. I do

not presume to criticize you, but I am under the impression that by using these terms

you place yourself nearer to Pfitzner than you intend.

By “young classicism” I include a definite departure from the thematic and a return

to melody—not in the sense of a pleasing motive given to an instrument in a comfort-

able register, but melody as ruler of all voices, all motions, all bearers of idea and as the

generator of harmony—in short, the most highly developed polyphony (but not the

most complicated).

A third thing of no less importance is the removal of the “sensual” and the renun-

ciation of subjectivity. (The road to objectivity—the author standing back from his

work—is a purifying road, a hard way, a trial of fire and water.) Also the regaining of

cheerfulness (serenitas). This does not mean Beethoven’s wry smile nor Zarathustra’s“liberating laugh,” but the smile of wisdom, of godliness—of absolute music. Not pro-

fundity, attitude, and metaphysics, but music through and through, distilled, and never

under a mask of figures and ideas which are borrowed from other fields. Human senti-

ments, but not human concerns, and these expressed to the measure of what is artistic.

The measure of what is artistic does not rely only on proportions, on boundaries of

what is beautiful, or on the preservation of taste. Instead, it suggests not giving tasks to

art that lie outside its nature (description in music, for instance).

This is what I think. Can this, to return to what was first said, can this opinion be

contested by honest people? Do I not extend my hand toward a general agreement? Is

it possible that these theories could be deemed harmful, dangerous by some, retrograde

or compromising by others? I entrust these [questions] to you.

Yours truly,

F. Busoni

Source: Ferruccio Busoni, “Junge Klassizität,” Frankfurter Zeitung , 7 February 1920. Reprinted inMusikblätter des Anbruch 3/1-2 (January 1921): 25–27, translated by Bryan R. Simms.