An Interesting Theory

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Raptured;35999] That Ellis person is quite irresponsible (and his/her editor too). Think of the many people who have no idea of the absurds he/she is saying and believe it as truth! But the problem is interesting -- how art is influenced by subsidies: is it good, bad or makes no difference at the long run? Or it depends of the conditions? I think we´ll never get to a definite answer... So, even the article being so bad, it was a good idea to post it here.

Subsidies have to be a good thing - freeing an artist from financial worry so they can concentrate on creativity is obviously to the good. A few examples that come to mind are Beethoven, Wagner and Tchaikovsky.



Something I quite don´t understand is, if LvB considered aristocracy so mediocre, and being so keen of liberty, democracy, self-made noblesse etc., how did he accept to receive annuities from them?

Beethoven wasn't against the aristocracy - indeed he felt his rightful place was amongst them. He had many aristocratic friends and felt the financial patronage was his due.

[Raptured]

Subsidies have to be a good thing - freeing an artist from financial worry so they can concentrate on creativity is obviously to the good. A few examples that come to mind are Beethoven, Wagner and Tchaikovsky.

I agree, I doubt these guys would have done what they did without patronage. But we also know that it may also force the artists into their patrons´ aesthetic point of view. Well, I suppose it´s as any other thing, it may be good or bad... depends on situation.

Beethoven wasn't against the aristocracy - indeed he felt his rightful place was amongst them. He had many aristocratic friends and felt the financial patronage was his due.

Yeah, one reads a bit and that´s what you´re explaining, but sometimes he seems to despise them so much. Or maybe he considered they weren´t more worth than the ordinary man just because of blood. Maybe he considered he should be amongst them because he was a genius (an had quite an ego!) but at the same time he saw (he was no way stupid) that many were just parasites. I don´t know, sometimes he seems to me he was a bit contradictory! Or, maybe I didn´t get it right.

[Chaszz]

I agree, I doubt these guys (Beethoven, Wagner, Tchaikowsky) would have done what they did without patronage. But we also know that it may also force the artists into their patrons´ aesthetic point of view. Well, I suppose it´s as any other thing, it may be good or bad... depends on situation.

I can't speak about Tchaikowsky. But Beethoven and Wagner had each survived big setbacks and pressures to conform. Each had instead forged ahead to realize their startlingly original ideas and personalities in their music. I don't think any patron could have caused either of them to change course in any important way.

[Raptured]

I can't speak about Tchaikowsky. But Beethoven and Wagner had each survived big setbacks and pressures to conform. Each had instead forged ahead to realize their startlingly original ideas and personalities in their music. I don't think any patron could have caused either of them to change course in any important way.

Right. They were "untamable"!! But I don´t know if it is possible for all artists...

[Peter]

Right. They were "untamable"!! But I don´t know if it is possible for all artists...

No they were not 'untamable' - they were living in a different political climate and they were being supported for the right reasons - artisitic freedom. Pre French revolution Haydn was employed as a servant and as such had to comply with his masters wishes - of course he was able to exercise more independence as his fame grew.

[David1770]

I think your theory falls apart on the Haydn side of things and thus, possibly on all levels.

Haydn's music is hardly derivative or un-inspired...it is generally accepted that Haydn was extremely inventive and his music was quite quirky for its time.

Maybe it can be said simply like this: Beethoven was the most genius, then Mozart, then Haydn. Maybe it is all down to musical ability and in the case of Beethoven, the length and time and amount of effort he actually put into composition.

Maybe it has nothing to do with how they saw the establishment. I think in B's case, a lot of his inventiveness had to do with his deafness. He could no longer take musical influence externally and so had to look inward.

I also disagree with the claim that Hadyn was largely uninventive and sterile with regards to his creativity and musical ability. I think this is more a question of individual interpretation and taste. I value Hadyns music just as highly as that of Mozart or Beethoven. Music is something that cannot be contained, it can be as brash or reserved as the interpretor chooses, with regards to his piano works may I suggest recordings by Gavrilov, Gould or Friedrich Gulda? Mozart had a much more prodigious ability to churn out musical works than any other composer of his time, it is wrong however to make the claim that Beethovens work had more intrinsic value based solely upon longevity of the compositional process. Beethoven lived in an age where history had a great effect upon his compositional thought. A change in cultural ideology and philosophical thought, Hegel, Kant etc, would naturally lead to great changes in music and literature. Mozarts later works had symbolism and increasingly revolutionary themes which slowly moved the exisitng boundaries. I need only make reference to the Mariage of Figaro or some of his piano sonatas or fantasie K475 or the piano sonata K310for example.It was clear that Mozart was both terryfied and fascinated by the revolutionary movement but died before its conclusion, had he not perished so early in his career he may too have taken up the revolutionary banner. You simply cannot compare one composers value to another, I do believe that collectively Mozart and Hadyn championed the classical style and were both absolutely vital in the progression of the style of the age. Beethoven himself in his later years retracted his negative initial claims in his youth concerning Hadyn, and instead declared that Hadyn was as much an influence upon him as an individual as Mozart himself.

[Peter]

I also disagree with the claim that Hadyn was largely uninventive and sterile with regards to his creativity and musical ability. I think this is more a question of individual interpretation and taste. I value Hadyns music just as highly as that of Mozart or Beethoven. Music is something that cannot be contained, it can be as brash or reserved as the interpretor chooses, with regards to his piano works may I suggest recordings by Gavrilov, Gould or Friedrich Gulda? Mozart had a much more prodigious ability to churn out musical works than any other composer of his time, it is wrong however to make the claim that Beethovens work had more intrinsic value based solely upon longevity of the compositional process. Beethoven lived in an age where history had a great effect upon his compositional thought. A change in cultural ideology and philosophical thought, Hegel, Kant etc, would naturally lead to great changes in music and literature. Mozarts later works had symbolism and increasingly revolutionary themes which slowly moved the exisitng boundaries. I need only make reference to the Mariage of Figaro or some of his piano sonatas or fantasie K475 or the piano sonata K310for example.It was clear that Mozart was both terryfied and fascinated by the revolutionary movement but died before its conclusion, had he not perished so early in his career he may too have taken up the revolutionary banner. You simply cannot compare one composers value to another, I do believe that collectively Mozart and Hadyn championed the classical style and were both absolutely vital in the progression of the style of the age. Beethoven himself in his later years retracted his negative initial claims in his youth concerning Hadyn, and instead declared that Hadyn was as much an influence upon him as an individual as Mozart himself.

I agree entirely with your excellent post.