Re: Gusikow's music from Josh Horowitz

[Marlene Segelstein <cookfidl...>]

>> Contemporary critics wrote that Guzikow earned fame
>> for his appearance, his virtuosity, his stage persona,
>> but more than anything, the novelty of his instrument. Alex

Yeah, the evidence supports that more than anything. Descriptions of Guzikov
and his concerts at the time consistently emphasize the primitive quality of
his instrument, Guzikov's sickly demeanor and the exoticism of his
appearance. The upper classes delighted in the fact that a poor Jew with a
row of wood slabs could entertain the likes of them. Remember that at the
time, the xylophone - then called the "wood and straw instrument" - had not
yet entered the symphony orchestra.

In fact the earliest account I have of the xylophone mentioned as an adjunct
to the modern symphony orchestra is in the xylophone method of the Leipzig
Gewandhaus Orchestra's percussionist, Otto Seele (late 19th century), who
credits Guzikov in his introduction with the popularization of the
instrument and its acceptance into the orchestra. You might recall that
Mendelssohn conducted the Gewandhaus Orchestra and heard and wrote about
Guzikov (as did his sister Fanny, though she was critical of Guzikov's
"flirting with Judaism" in order to secure his fame)

It is also interesting to note that the piece attributed to Guzikov is
liturgical. Yet nowhere in his concert descriptions does there appear any
sort of liturgical music. In fact, there seems to be a conscious lack of it.
It seems suspicious to me that the only surviving notated source of a
musician who built his reputation on society salon music would be a choral
liturgical setting. Its possible that the piece was attributed to Guzikov or
even penned by someone else in a attempt to further emphasize Guzikov's
Jewishness. 

Copycatting was rampant at the time of Guzikov's appearance on the scene.
There were even folks who traversed Europe during his lifetime, masquerading
as Guzikov, who apparently played just as well as he, one of whom
self-ironically called himself "Der Falscher Concertist" (The concertizing
imposter). Unsuccessful attempts were made by the local media to make the
Concertists's concerts seem as if they were by Guzikov.

Some questions which arise in connection to Guzikov are:

1) If he was such a hit among klezmorim, why didn't his instrument become a
staple of klezmer ensembles?

2) What happened then to his repertoire and why didn't students and
disciples notate his works as they did with Pedotser?

3) Where are the dance pieces of Guzikov and why does only one piece of his
survive - one of a choral setting? After all, klezmer music is primarily
made up of dance music, yet not a single example of dance music survives of
Guzikov, nor is any mentioned in reviews of his concerts.

It may be anachronistic and tendentious to assert that Guzikov had more than
a peripheral effect on the klezmer world, if any at all. In light of this,
one should take with a grain of course kosher salt the unquestioning
reiteration of sources by contemporary writers. Josh Horowitz

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+