The music of Schubert, Weber and Mendelssohn prompted few critical battles (whether with the public or between writers of opposing persuasions) of the kinds which characterised the journal's Beethoven reception. With the exception of Botte's criticisms of Schubert, their music was perceived as neither threatening nor excessively complex (RGM XXV/50: 12 Dec. 1858, 410). Given the Gazette's natural orientation towards German music, detailed reviews of Schubert and Weber are surprisingly rare: in the former case, this largely reflects the limited Parisian familiarity with his output; the reasons for Weber's relative neglect are more difficult to define. The importance of the Gazette's reviews of all three composers lies in their contribution to major debates which involved other composers, past and contemporary: the problem of a composer the perception of whose style was based on an unrepresentative selection of works; the problem of authenticity versus adaptation; the ideal nature of sacred music; and finally, the appropriate balance between technique and inspiration in composition. This chapter develops modes of reception familiar from earlier discussions, but also, particularly with regard to Mendelssohn, points to a crucial issue in both contemporary instrumental music and its criticism – the problem of dealing with Beethoven's legacy.

Weber and authenticity

For once, the finest repository of thought on one of Berlioz's idols is not Berlioz's own criticism. Given his lifelong admiration for Weber's music, weighty contributions might have been expected, but, preoccupied with Beethoven and Gluck in his Conservatoire reviews, he gives Weber scant treatment.