not describe. Graun, on the contrary, had far too delicate a taste to fall into this error; as a result of the reserve with which he treated this subject he rarely or never wrote descriptive music, but as a rule contented himself with an agreeable melody.'"
He is convinced that Graun has indeed a much more refined sense of beauty. But Telemann has a much greater sense of life.
A distinguished critic of this period, Christ-Daniel Ebeling, professor in the Hamburg Johanneum, wrote shortly after Telemann's death:[1]
"… His capital defect—a defect which he acquired from the French—is his passion for musical descriptions. He employed them sometimes in quite a wrong way; adhering to the expression of a word and forgetting the general feeling; … he also attempted to describe things that no music can express. … But no one can paint with a more powerful touch and is better able to delight the imagination when these beauties are in their proper place. …"
It must not be forgotten that Händel, in his time, encountered the same criticism from the Germans. Peter Schulz wrote in 1772:
"I cannot understand how a man of Händel's talents could so far lower himself and his art as to endeavour to depict, by means of musical notes, in an oratorio on the Plagues of Egypt, the locusts hopping, the swarming of the lice and other equally disgusting things. One could not imagine a more absurd abuse of art."
The worthy Peter Schulz is a delightful musician, and he may be right, in theory, but of what use are theories? All the aestheticians in the world may
- ↑ Hamburge Unterhaltungen, 1770.
