New German School
Although the term has frequently been used in essays and books about music history of the 19th and early 20th centuries, a clear definition is complex.
It is generally agreed that Franz Liszt and Richard Wagner were among the most prominent representatives of the "New German School".
[3][4] It is no cause for surprise that Liszt himself was the most frequently performed contemporary composer at the event, and that members of his circle at Weimar were well represented.
Brendel recalled Robert Schumann, who had founded the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik to open the way for a new kind of art, derived from Beethoven's works.
[7] In contrast to this, the Symphonies of Schubert, Mendelssohn and Schumann, however magnificent and beautiful they were, could only be regarded as the works of epigones [disciples, i.e. after Beethoven].
According to Brendel, it was common usage to call the period of J. S. Bach and Händel "alt deutsche Schule" ("Old German School").
Beethoven had redirected interest to the German North (Saxony and Thuringia) again and with this had opened the "Neudeutsche Schule".
On the other hand, there had been a universal line, combining German, Italian and French influences, and represented by Händel, Gluck, Mozart and others.
According to a document of 1858, written by Brendel and signed by Liszt, the 1,000 thaler stipend should be spent in part on "enlightening public opinion", for example with the help of the daily press, with regard to "modern tasks of musical art",[13] i.e. for the purpose of permanent propaganda in favour of Liszt and his friends.
Richard Pohl reviewed the Tonkünstler-Versammlung in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, extensively praising Liszt and his works.
In spite of Pohl's review, the question whether the musical part of the Tonkünstler-Versammlung was a victory or at least a success for Liszt remains open.
An example is the letter to Weitzmann of 4 February 1860, stating that Liszt had advised several conductors not to perform his Symphonic Poems.
Throughout the 1850s, in a manner until then unparalleled in music history, Liszt himself and his friends had, in more than half a dozen journals, bombarded the contemporary public with huge quantities of articles, many of them in aggressive polemical style, in favour of their intended transformation of art.
[16] In addition there were books, such as Hans von Bronsart's Musikalische Pflichten ("Musical Duties"), (Leipzig 1858), where adversaries of Liszt and his circle were accused of ill-will, unfairness and slander.
If the "New German School" was to be imagined as a group of artists with similar aims, joining Liszt with Wagner was already problematic; but there was still a further problem, regarding Berlioz.
In his essay F. Liszt's symphonische Dichtungen and his speech Zur Anbahnung einer Verständigung, Brendel had explained that there was a difference between the beautiful and the characteristic.
Berlioz characterised this as saying that the composer had in principle to offend against the rules, had to avoid consonant harmonies as well as natural modulations, and had to take care that his music was by no means pleasing.
Further development of the traditions of the New German School in the period following 1859 is covered in the article Allgemeine Deutsche Musikverein (q.v.)
