Re: Gusikow's music from Alex Jacobowitz

[Alex Jacobowitz <alexbjacobowitz...>]

B"H Munich

> >> 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.

Josh, that may be. But when Liszt calls him a
genius, don´t you think you could cut Yechiel-Michl
a bit of slack here? Don´t you think that despite
the relatively low level of music criticism of
the day (1836), that his musical effect was hugely
successful, and that´s what counts?
Perhaps his biography and repertoire don´t fit into
neat musicological klezmer slots; but for crying out
loud Josh, when Hanslick (HANSLICK!) says that, at the
time, half of Europe was in a furor over Guzikow,
doncha think he was doing something right?

> Remember that at the
> time, the xylophone - then called the "wood and
> straw instrument" - had not
> yet entered the symphony orchestra.
So what? That´s because it wasn´t a "xylophone" yet.
The first xylophone came into being in 1866, long
before your Seelische percussionist.

> 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.

Let´s clear this up once and for all. The first
use of the modern xylophone was 1866 in Paris.
The Wood-and-Straw instrument wasn´t a xylophone,
but we group it that way now. There was also a
Tryophone, but that doesn´t help the main discussion.

> You might recall that
> Mendelssohn conducted the Gewandhaus Orchestra and
> heard and wrote about
> Guzikov 
yes, but that has nothing to with Seele´s treatise.

(as did his sister Fanny, though she was
> critical of Guzikov's
> "flirting with Judaism" in order to secure his fame)

And did you know that further in the same citation,
she makes an anti-Semitic comment that was excised
from the original text?

Thanks, Josh, but all this has nothing do with our
discussion at the moment.

1) Seele´s book was written at least fifty years after
Guzikow´s Leipzig gig. Yes, Guzikow´s fame lingered,
but his instrument didn´t. 

2)If you read Seele carefully, you´ll see two forms of
the "xylophone" - Guzikow´s, and the modern form. 

 > It is also interesting to note that the piece
> attributed to Guzikov is
> liturgical. 

Rückprojektion. He wouldn´t have understood
the word or the concept.

Yet nowhere in his concert descriptions
> does there appear any
> sort of liturgical music. 

Nah, und? Even if he DID (and he DID),
no music critic would have known what to say
about it. So they stifled.

In fact, there seems to be
> a conscious lack of it.
CORRECTIMUNDO!

> 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. 
Choral liturgical setting? Josh! Relax!
It´s a NIGUN!

Its possible that the piece was
> attributed to Guzikov or
> even penned by someone else in a attempt to further
> emphasize Guzikov's
> Jewishness. 

Yes, in all likelihood "penned" by someone else,
since Yechiel-Michl couldn´t read music. But do you
have evidence that the Guzikow tune (note the
correct spelling, please) was falsified?

> Copycatting was rampant at the time of Guzikov's
> appearance on the scene.

Depends on how you define it. Did Liszt "copy"
Thalberg in 1837? Did Lipinski "copy" Paganini?
No. They were all artists in their own right,
and peons insisted on forcing the two into
arenas to battle it out.

> 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). 

Josh, we´ve had this discussion. There were precisely
two others touring. One was Guzikow´s teacher,
and the other was his student. Since they were
all East European Orthodox Jews, and only Guzikow
had a portrait, no one else knew the difference.
Same instrument, same payes, same getup. Get it?

Unsuccessful attempts were made by the
> local media to make the
> Concertists's concerts seem as if they were by
> Guzikov.
Local? Meaning what, Vienna? So what?
 
> 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?

Answer: no one could play it as well as he could.
Comparisons were drawn at the time, and it was
agreed that Guzikow was the best. Period.
 
> 2) What happened then to his repertoire and why
> didn't students and
> disciples notate his works as they did with
> Pedotser?

Answer: because his one student couldn´t read music
either.
 
> 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.

Rückprojektion again. If he played Jewish
wedding music at a Jewish wedding, well and good.
Maybe he had different tastes than you do, and
played what he thought his audience wanted to hear,
which included Jewish dance tunes and a pile of
other things as well. Perhaps he was more eclectic
than you choose to believe?

> It may be anachronistic and tendentious to assert
> that Guzikov had more than
> a peripheral effect on the klezmer world, if any at
> all. 
It may be a bit over-the-top to speak of a klezmer
"world" in 1836, don´t you think?

In light of this,
> one should take with a grain of course kosher salt
> the unquestioning
> reiteration of sources by contemporary writers. 

Especially if you want bloodless stories.

Josh
> Horowitz
 
Alex Jacobowitz

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

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