Posted by Ken on April 28, 1998 at 12:48:53:
In response to Wealthy patrons, written by Emelye on April 28, 1998 at 08:14:04
] Didn't Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Handel, Haydn, etc. make a living because of wealthy men who wanted them to compose not only operas and masses, but also chamber music that they themselves could play? Someone has a theory that there were so many great German and Austrian composers because the aristocracy of those countries has such a deep appreciation for music! And in most european countries, the wealthy would be patrons for starving musicians. You wouldn't do that unless you liked music and enjoyed playing it.
Ie, Haydn had his own private orchestra to play with, courtesy of the Esterhazy house, but Mozart published a lot of stuff for the bourgeoisie to play in their own homes. I always disclaim by reminding one and all this is a little out of my period, musically, but it's my impression that the middle classes increasingly took over the support of music in the late 18th and 19th centuries--that's when you get a lot of symphony orchestras formed. But even this is misleading; many towns in northern Europe, especially northern Germany, had their own town musicians in the late 16th, 17th centuries. This, too, would constitute support by the middle class as opposed to the aristocracy. On the third hand, the dapper man about town in London in the Restoration, ie, gentry class or better, would walk around with a recorder in his pocket, ready for instant musicmaking. (Sadly, a generation or two later, the equivalent fellow would have a flute & not a recorder--*sigh* (-; ) It's a pretty convoluted subject, and what is true for one country isn't necessarily true for another. . . .
Snarkhunter & Earlymusicman
- Mozart P. Bingham 17:22:32 4/28/98 (2)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.