Society

[Kitsune]

when we talk about the great Beethoven, we say his name in awe. While I myself love his music, Not many people know exactly how he as a man changed society. Maybe one of you can help me on this one. Its hard to explain and Im new at this stuff.

[chopithoven]

I can say that he changed the role of the artist in the society. Before him, artists worked for the aristocracy and for the fees they received. After him, the artist became independent, and started working for his own Muse, and not for a supporting patron. An example of this is when Ludwig van left angrily Count Lichnowsky's residence, leaving a note: "There are many Count Lichnowskys... There is only one Beethoven"
He created the concept of the artist as an idol, something that has survived until today (although the "artists" of our days are not so remarkable as Beethoven, of course).

[musicalmooses]

For many , B changed the way people listen to music. His music was the first that made truly great demands on the listener - almost challenging them to hear the hidden secrets that lay within. Also, his work initiated the concept that this music might be about something - "programme" music as it became known. The movie "Immortal Beloved" nicely highlights this thought with the Kreutzer scene. It might be worth seeing this movie incidently - it supports the prevailing opinion that B exerted his will over all aspects of his compositions. They were his and his alone , written with only himself in mind whether as a performer or for his own experimental purposes. He was after all the first truly avant garde experimental composer. The very concept of such an animal was unknown before him. He was the first autonomous "artist" , accountable only to his own measures of success. To this day, I believe that the state of mind that B wrote his late music in, was the purest form of imagination that has ever existed - uncluttered by the need to please, to appeal, or to earn an income. It was only to satisfy the almost pathological need to explore the purely experimental aspects of musical composition. I believe that it is this aspect of his work that has made him such an interesting study in human acheivement.

[Peter]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
I can say that he changed the role of the artist in the society. Before him, artists worked for the aristocracy and for the fees they received. After him, the artist became independent, and started working for his own Muse, and not for a supporting patron.

I would say it was Mozart's row and subsequent break with his patron Archbishop Colloredo in June 1781 that set a precedent - from then on Mozart was on his own much to his father's consternation. Don't forget that even as late as 1823, Beethoven applied to become Imperial Royal Chamber music composer and that even Wagner was relying on the patronage of the mad King Ludwig ll well into the 1860's. I think the real reasons artists became freer from patronage were the French Revolutions (leading particularly to the European Revolutions of 1848) and the rise of the middle classes rather than Beethoven himself being single-handedly responsible - he was a product of the age, not the cause.

------------------
'Man know thyself'



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 04-10-2002).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
I can say that he changed the role of the artist in the society. Before him, artists worked for the aristocracy and for the fees they received. After him, the artist became independent, and started working for his own Muse, and not for a supporting patron. An example of this is when Ludwig van left angrily Count Lichnowsky's residence, leaving a note: "There are many Count Lichnowskys... There is only one Beethoven"
He created the concept of the artist as an idol, something that has survived until today (although the "artists" of our days are not so remarkable as Beethoven, of course).

Though I understand your point, I don't think Beethoven himself created the concept of himself being an idol. This was a romantic invention after his death - the notion of the suffering giant surviving through his art must have had great appeal to later artistes of all kinds. I accept however he had a unusually strong view for that time of his music with regard to posterity.

I would also say that technically Handel was self-sufficient long before Beethoven, though as the owner of his own opera/oratorio production company H was perhaps a different classification of composer to B.



------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by Peter:
I would say it was Mozart's row and subsequent break with his patron Archbishop Colloredo in June 1781 that set a precedent - from then on Mozart was on his own much to his father's consternation. Don't forget that even as late as 1823, Beethoven applied to become Imperial Royal Chamber music composer and that even Wagner was relying on the patronage of the mad King Ludwig ll well into the 1860's. I think the real reasons artists became freer from patronage were the French Revolutions (leading particularly to the European Revolutions of 1848) and the rise of the middle classes rather than Beethoven himself being single-handedly responsible - he was a product of the age, not the cause.

Of course the financial aspect was always necessary. No artist can survive with no money.
However it was the spirit of this freeing what had a repercussion. Beethoven's feeling of being an independant creator is very different than, for example, Haydn's. Probably, if Joseph had no requests from his patrons he didn't compose. Beethoven -I think- thought of his musical creation as an artistic task for posterity rather than for a patron (although he applied to get a higher place in the court). The age was obviously significant - The outburst of the Revolution was clearly important in Beethoven's work and, therefore, so it was in his mind.

[Peter]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
However it was the spirit of this freeing what had a repercussion. Beethoven's feeling of being an independant creator is very different than, for example, Haydn's. Probably, if Joseph had no requests from his patrons he didn't compose. Beethoven -I think- thought of his musical creation as an artistic task for posterity rather than for a patron (although he applied to get a higher place in the court). The age was obviously significant - The outburst of the Revolution was clearly important in Beethoven's work and, therefore, so it was in his mind.

Probably no musician before Beethoven had such confidence in his place in posterity. It is inconceivable that Haydn would have replied to criticism of his music that it was for another age. But in pre-revolutionary Salzburg, Mozart was already complaining of being treated as a mere servant. Do you not think that as Beethoven originally went to Vienna whilst employed by the court at Bonn to study with Mozart, that he would have been inspired by Mozart's independence from patronage? I really think that Mozart was the first to break the mould with works such as the Marriage of Figaro directly challenging the master-servant relationship before the revolution. He was the first to really go it alone despite Rod's reference to Handel who was still under royal patronage - (Queen Anne had conferred a pension of £200 a year, with a further £200 from Princess Caroline which was continued for life).

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
He was the first to really go it alone despite Rod's reference to Handel who was still under royal patronage - (Queen Anne had conferred a pension of £200 a year, with a further £200 from Princess Caroline which was continued for life).

H got this allowance, but this sum was insignificant compared to the huge earnings he amassed from some of his concert series - especially from his most successful oratorios such as Judas Maccabaeus. H also invested a lot of cash in stocks and shares and fine art.

And of course did not Beethoven himself receive an allowance from the Aristocracy upon which he was more dependant than H?


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 04-11-2002).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
H got this allowance, but this sum was insignificant compared to the huge earnings he amassed from some of his concert series - especially from his most successful oratorios such as Judas Maccabaeus. H also invested a lot of cash in stocks and shares and fine art.

And of course did not Beethoven himself receive an allowance from the Aristocracy upon which he was more dependant than H?

Well £200 a year was hardly insignificant in 1714! This allowance was actually increased to £600 under George I (taking into account Princess Caroline's £200) - an enormous sum in those days. For Handel in his early days in England this money must have provided the security for him to do as he pleased. Judas maccebeus comes towards the end of his career so of course by then he would be financially independent - Haydn was also after his 2 England tours.

Of course Beethoven also depended on patronage far more than is realised, both in his early days in Vienna when the aristocracy were essential to him for commissions and pupils, and with the contract of 1809 lasting to the end of his life.

All this is why I say Mozart was the first to break properly, he resigned from court duties, with no financial backing in the full belief that he could make his way entirely by his own efforts - unfortunately he died just before that dreamed was properly realised with the success of the Magic Flute.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Well £200 a year was hardly insignificant in 1714! This allowance was actually increased to £600 under George I (taking into account Princess Caroline's £200) - an enormous sum in those days. For Handel in his early days in England this money must have provided the security for him to do as he pleased. Judas maccebeus comes towards the end of his career so of course by then he would be financially independent - Haydn was also after his 2 England tours.

This is true, but for a long time he made money on subscriptions to his opera season, albeit from the gentry (who subsequently abandoned him when the competing Opera of the Nobility was set up). The failure of his later operas almost sent H to an early grave, so he must have been relying on subscriptions (ie not hand-outs) to some significant degree. Handel had £1000's at the time of his death and a lot of fine art, which other classical composer do you know amassed such wealth? He left £1000 to the old composers home in his Will. Do you think he made all this from hand-outs? Even if this self sufficiency was late in Handel, it was still well before Beethoven and Mozart.


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 04-11-2002).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Even if this self sufficiency was late in Handel, it was still well before Beethoven and Mozart.

One could argue the same for Haydn but I wouldn't as it misses the point - Handel was financially secure because the patronage in his early years enabled him to pursue his career without the difficulties Mozart later faced as a result of having severed all ties with his court employers. I am not denying the fact that Handel was financially successful by his own merits - Haydn was also in later life and Mozart would have been had he lived just a few more years. My point is that Mozart went out on a limb at the beginning of his career in a way Handel, Haydn and even Beethoven never did.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
One could argue the same for Haydn but I wouldn't as it misses the point - Handel was financially secure because the patronage in his early years enabled him to pursue his career without the difficulties Mozart later faced as a result of having severed all ties with his court employers. I am not denying the fact that Handel was financially successful by his own merits - Haydn was also in later life and Mozart would have been had he lived just a few more years. My point is that Mozart went out on a limb at the beginning of his career in a way Handel, Haydn and even Beethoven never did.

How is it you regard Mozart's opera productions as being 'out on a limb', whereas this is not the case with Handel? - even though Handel was not only liable for all the music but every other element of the production for every opera long before the oratorios. Did Mozart have any plans to start his own opera company?



------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[SR]

Mozart did "go out on a limb" quite early and is often regarded as the first freelance musician. I do not know enough about Handel to comment on him.

Mozart did not exactly plan on the independance he achieved. He did break with the Archbishop of Salzburg due to what he felt was shabby treatment, just as Peter indicated. However, his first move was a road trip with his mother through Munich, Mannheim and Paris looking for another court appointment. He only got one offer and refused it, which was probably a major mistake. He was offered position as organist at Versailles for 200 gulden a year, with 6 months off,travel privlidges, and constant access to French aristocracy for lessons and other commisions.

If Mozart had been given an offer in Germany
he would not have stayed an independent.

Mozart was not exactly a pauper at his end but he was having serious financial problems, including a lawsuit by Count Lichnowsky for 1300 gulden, one month before Mozarts death. This suit seemingly involved a gambling debt. Right at the end of his life it seemed he would finally start reaping the finacial rewards for his talent. He had the great success of Magic Flute and the promise of a tour to England. Mozart had been offered this tour and turned it down due to commitment to Magic Flute, The Requiem, and the birth of a new son. Hayden went in Mozarts place and made thousands of pounds. Mozart was set to follow in Haydnns footsteps the following summer, but died before Hayden even returned. It is sad that when Haydn departed, Mozart (his close friend) had said "goodbye old friend I fear we shall not meet again" He of course was afraid of losing the much older Haydn on a strenous journey, when it was Mozart who died at 35 before they met again.

Steve

[Peter]

Originally posted by SR:
He did break with the Archbishop of Salzburg due to what he felt was shabby treatment, just as Peter indicated. However, his first move was a road trip with his mother through Munich, Mannheim and Paris looking for another court appointment.

This isn't so - the break with Archbishop Colloredo actually came in Vienna in 1781, 3 years after the Paris trip during which his mother died. Mozart's first move was to take on private pupils and find lodgings in the Graben.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
How is it you regard Mozart's opera productions as being 'out on a limb', whereas this is not the case with Handel? - even though Handel was not only liable for all the music but every other element of the production for every opera long before the oratorios. Did Mozart have any plans to start his own opera company?

I didn't say the opera productions were out on a limb - I said that by resigning and going it alone Mozart was out on a limb - he simply had no financial backing, save what his pupils and concerts produced. By referring to the Marriage of Figaro I was talking about the subject matter - the controversial Beaumarchais play that had already been banned in Vienna.

------------------
'Man know thyself'