Vienna, 1800: signs of the coming distinction between classical and popular music

The polarization of the musical public into classical music and popular music during the opening decades of the nineteenth century has been a recurring theme of this blog. As early as 1800, an article in the influential musical journal Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (col. 41-50, 65-68) shows many of the elements that would contribute to the division. The journal was published in Leipzig, but a correspondent from Vienna provided a detailed description of conditions there.

In 1800, Mozart had been dead for nine years. Haydn was an old man close to retirement from composing. The young Beethoven had made a strong start in establishing his reputation. Schubert was only three years old. Plenty of other composers, unknown today, enjoyed good local reputations.

Regarding the Italian opera theater, the correspondent noted that while the orchestra had several excellent musicians, they had poor leadership and did not play well together. They also did not hesitate to send substitutes to rehearsals or concerts if they had a chance to make more money elsewhere. He complained that well known older operas were neglected in favor of new ones from Italy that could not please a connoisseur.

Soon enough, that same complaint would be lodged frequently (and all over Europe) against new operas by Rossini, Meyerbeer and others. Berlioz vehemently protested considering Rossini the leader of the "school of melody" while he required a full brass section in almost every scene. What, he fumed, did ascribing melody to Rossini mean to his own music, or Beethoven's or Weber's? Were they the school of noise? Schumann likewise pointed to his disapproval of Rossini's ascendancy in theaters as a reason to take up music criticism.

The correspondent noted that the German opera theater orchestra likewise fell short of his expectations, largely because it was smaller and poorly paid. Having a better director, it occasionally performed Haydn symphonies and Mozart operas, and played them better than the Italian orchestra  played anything.

Except for four annual concerts sponsored by the Fund for Musicians' Widows, Vienna had no regular concert life in 1800. It also had no place devoted to orchestral concerts. Instead, composers and performers had to rent the theaters at a high cost. For that reason, traveling artists rarely presented concerts in Vienna. The correspondent singled out two concerts of excellent music,  including one in which Beethoven presented a piano concerto, a symphony, and his Septet. The utter incompetence of the orchestra kept the music from making its best effect.

Regardless of the personality conflicts and orchestral politics cited by the correspondent, the situation was hardly better elsewhere. The aftermath of the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon would keep Europe in such an uproar to make it impossible to sustain excellence in artistic institutions for another decade and a half. When the conflict ended, orchestras had much more trouble playing Beethoven's music (and other classicists') than the accompaniments for  most Italian operas and the works of most traveling virtuosos, which were much less complicated.

Amateur musicians therefore played an outsized role in musical performances, not only in Vienna, but in other major capitals as well. The correspondent pointed out that in Vienna, everyone took music lessons and performed, and that therefore the city boasted many proficient amateur musicians, although fewer than earlier. Some indeed, were genuine connoisseurs of music, but apparently in the minority. The correspondent noted that they preferred to pursue their interests in good music unobtrusively rather than try to promote themselves.

If there were no public concerts, the number of private concerts made up for it. Nearly every aristocratic or upper-middle-class family opened their homes to invited musical guests all winter long. Amateurs of all levels of proficiency took turns entertaining, usually choosing uncomplicated, unsophisticated music such as favorite arias from the latest Italian operas or whatever piano pieces were making the rounds. The correspondent drew a careful distinction between the entertainment value of these concerts (high) and their artistic value (negligible).

Traveling virtuosos, shut out of the public theaters by their high costs, made the circuit of the private concerts. Of necessity, they appeared everywhere they could and praised the talent of all the amateurs they heard. Those who were good at flattery and public relations made a big hit in Vienna. Eventually the amateur community divided into parties of those who preferred this or that virtuoso above others. The correspondent noted that the ardor of their partisanship often made up for a lack of true artistic discernment. When Beethoven bested Steibelt in their infamous contest in 1800, the substance of a classical master trounced the gimmicks of a man who had been a popular favorite everywhere else. 

Again, the conditions described in Vienna in 1800 matched those in the other major capitals, and continued almost until mid-century. By the time Schumann decided to become a music critic, traveling virtuosos like Henri Herz specialized in flashy dance pieces, sets of variations, and all manner of gimmicks.

William Weber (in Music in the Middle Class, among other writings)  has identified Herz and other virtuosos on the salon circuit as representative of "high-status popular music." Like all other popular music, it was more business than art. It relied on a combination of easy familiarity and novelty to keep up a steady stream of new sales. These were the Philistines that Schumann devoted his critical career to attacking.

Meanwhile, Beethoven had no immediate followers among composers. From his death until the generation of Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Berlioz started to make their mark, those who preferred music as an art to music as entertainment had little to listen to by living composers.

A French critic in the 1830 proclaimed that there were only two kinds of musicians: classicists and Rossinists. The journalistic war of words between lovers of the artistic ideals of dead composers and the novelty offered by popular living composers began an argument that still continues today.