The premiere of Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique was certainly one to be remembered. Its premiere resulted in critics remaining quite unsure as to whether to recognize the work as a masterful work of art, or a downright vulgar violation of the principles of music. It was undoubtable that Berlioz could tell a story; that much was very clear. However, the question of “Should he?” became one that stood in the way of critics embracing the piece with open arms.
This brings us to our question. In thinking about this world premiere, one thing I chose to ponder was the question of how this piece was perceived in other countries. Could it be that, perhaps outside of France, Berlioz’s piece showed greater initial success? To answer this question, I returned to the search bars of digital archives, this time looking for a newspaper article from the London Times Digital Archives.
After a quick search, I discovered an article published in The Times on Thursday, May 5, 1881 titled “Mr. Ganz’s Orchestral Concert”. This article discussed the premiere of Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique in London, conducted by, I assume, Mr. Ganz.
The article began by announcing Berlioz’s premiere in the country, noting that this was a bold but important choice, as the first of Berlioz’s pieces to be played in the country. It also noted that this piece was Berlioz’s attempt at programme (programatic) music, describing how the piece is structured in different sections to tell a distinct story to its audience. After this, the article provides a brief synopsis of the piece and the “plot” behind each movement.
Following this, the author of the article begins to reflect on the piece itself. They stated that while there was no comparison to the work than perhaps another of Berlioz’s own pieces, it actually very successfully achieved its vision through Berlioz’s decisions regading the “harmonic and instrumental effects” of the piece.
The article then points to two reviewers who provided contrasting opinions on the work, an approval from other famed composer Schumann, and a strongly worded disapproval from someone named W. A. Barrett. The article ends its discussion on the work by acknowledging that because of the outlandishness of several of the movements, this piece requires listeners to hear it more than once in order to fully appreciate its artistry.
After reading this article, I am left with a few answers, but also a few more questions. It is clear to see that from this article, Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique is generally regarded more warmly than by those who witnessed the original premiere. The article recognizes the nuance of the piece, but focuses mainly on the successfulness of Berlioz’s vision. However, this also brings up quite a few questions. From this article, we only hear one opinion on the piece and its premiere. How did the rest of the attendees react? Did they too acknowledge its greatness despite the controversy, or rather turn their noses in shock like many of the attendees of the original premiere did? These are some questions that I might never find the answers to, but it is nevertheless interesting to think about.
