Hi all
Am opening this one up for general interest, and to seek additional insights. There was a 'concerto explosion' regarding two instruments in the romantic era, the piano and violin. There is no doubt that by the 1840s just about all other musical instruments had been shoved into the shade, with the possible exception of the cello. A few others were kept 'alive' till later in the concert halls (works in concerto form) by individual virtuosos (eg, Bottesini- double bass; Briccialdi - flute). But in general terms, the dominance of the piano and violin became pretty obvious. It is still that way in regard to standard concert fare.
That dominance does not trouble me greatly, because I am keen on both instruments. But it might be worth considering how/why it happened. I won't go on about it too much myself, although I will offer a few possible starters: technological advances (Broadwood pianos etc); the appearance of really outstanding and flamboyant superstars who played to the Walter Scott, Byron and Goethe crazes; an increase in middle class patronage to supplement that of the aristocracy; Beethoven's serious attitude to his art, and his achievements; availability of more teaching pros and more schools of music. Perhaps also the decades of relative peace in Western Europe after 1815.
Will be interested in other views, insights and ideas. Am pretty sure there is a lot more to it than the handful of issues I raised! Also, why did the concerto form develop and retain such wide appeal from way back. Have been thinking about that for years and still have'nt come up with any firm conclusion.
regards
Peter
I am no scholar, but i have always had the impression that the start of the romantic era also saw a change in the prominence of the piano in concertos.
I listen to early concertos and sometimes the piano is just in the background, as we move through the classical era, the balance becomes more even, but as we enter into the world of the romantics, the piano takes over and becomes the greater "partner". I guess this can be attributed to the increased power of the piano as we move through the 19th century and the notion of the piano virtuoso as King.
The likes of Liszt would not want to play a concerto where he did not have a great deal to do, as he would not have so many opportunities to shine. Perhaps during the classical era, musicians were composers first and performers second, but with the romantics this seems to have reversed.
Undoubtedly, Liszt and Paganini had a lot to do with the popularity of the piano and violin and i can think of no better medium for showmanship than the concerto. When you are not actually playing, you can still show your medals to the audience and pose accordingly?
I cannot really comment about the neglect of other instruments, as i have no knowledge. The only other instrument i play is the banjo, which did not play a part in the romantic movement. However, Thalberg was given one on his tour of America and there is some evidence he played it well ;D
Yours concertingly,
Thal
I wonder if it could have something to do with the availability of virtuosos. The piano was the king of the instruments during the romantic era, and virtually all of the great and not so greats wrote for the instrument. And they wrote music of staggering technical demands. A lone pianist could work alone perfecting that skill. So pianists developed and the concertos followed. Same with violin -- there was a school for virtuoso playing. But for the wind instruments, schooling was far behind and real virtuoso playing was scarce, so why bother writing a concerto? There were exceptions, of course. Mozart wrote wind concertos with specific players in mind. While we could all probably name some famous virtuoso pianists and violinists of the 19th century, how many of us could name a famous player of the trumpet, trombone, bassoon or tuba? Training at a high level on those instruments took hold later, and by then the romantic concerto and their composers were in decline, and the rise of the virtuoso conductor was beginning.
There are always exceptions. Ferdinand David's Concertino for trombone and orchestra comes to mind. I wonder who he composed it for? Probably the principal trombonist of the Leipzig Gewandhaus.
David's is especially odd, since he was a virtuoso violinist after all (Mendelssohn wrote the E minor concerto for him).
I always figured that since the violin as an instrument in general was so popular (or at least, you have more people than any other playing it as a whole -- i.e. orchestral violin sections) is why it became so popular as a solo instrument too. As for piano, well it's so popular as an instrument in and of itself - i.e. amatuer musicians played that in the home, etc.
Why the piano? It's the most popular musical instrument to learn. Why the violin? Because there are more violins in an orchestra than anything else, so (again) more people learn the instrument. Or am I missing something more profound????
Quote from: TerraEpon on Sunday 27 September 2009, 21:05
David's is especially odd, since he was a virtuoso violinist after all (Mendelssohn wrote the E minor concerto for him).
Not quite so odd if you consider that he was also the concertmaster of the Gewandhaus orchestra, and a fairly ambitious composer in his own right. I can't wait for some of his violin concertos to start hitting the silicon. And didn't he compose a symphony or two as well?
I think most people can listen to (solo) piano music for hours on end. Maybe to solo violin music as well, although I'm not so sure. I wonder how that is with other instruments. Can you listen for let's say two hours non stop to cello music, or a clarinet? Are there double bass and trumpet sonatas for the solo instrument, just like piano sonatas?
An artist like Von Weber had such long fingers that his hands could span 4 and 5-note chords more than one octave. In the early romantic period the piano developed tremendously to meet the demands of new virtuosos. Maybe for the greater part of the music loving audience the piano (and in lesser extent the violin) was the best instrument to give fanciful and dazzling performances. And the next step for the virtuoso was a piano concerto. A showpiece to establish a name, both as a composer and a superstar. And there was competition too: who was the best of the best? Von Henselt, Rubinstein, Liszt, Thalberg? Or Chopin with his stunning, subtle piano playing with unparalleled depth, reaching all those romantic hearts...
I think piano is the quintessential instrument for classical music for a couple of reasons.
First, it is an orchestra in itself. By which I mean, a proficient musician can play multiple parts, chords and melody, percussion and song, with an amazing variety of contrasting or complementary elements. All other instruments are limited in their range and variety by comparison. Compared to piano, there are very few solo pieces written for cello or violin.
Second, because of this, it is the instrument of choice when composing. Sure, some composers played violin or cello or guitar. But they were a tiny minority compared to the number who composed at/with piano.
Third, although attaining great proficiency at piano is extremely difficult, the basics of piano and actually playing music with piano is relatively easily learned. In comparison, just sitting around the living room, singing songs accompanied by solo cello or trumpet is not exactly common. Those who play other instruments typically must play in groups with others. The end is that piano is such a familiar and comparatively common instrument, often found in homes.
That the violin is the second most common instrument for classical solo work is probably linked to piano. As a singing instrument, violin is an instrumental substitute for voice accompanying piano. It is light and portable, so can go wherever there is a piano or group to join with. It can be played loud enough to be heard with piano. And audiences can easily appreciate the voice of the violin.
Cello was a more recent addition to the classical instrument family. Even into the mid-1700s, the bass violin was the instrument of choice in this voice range. So there is less history of writing for it as a soloist instrument. But since the 1700s, there have been quite a few concertos and other works for cello and orchestra originating with pieces by Vivaldi and Boccherini, I suppose. And actually, there have been quite a few modern works for cello and orchestra.
Although there are not many works for solo cello, there are a few substantial contributions. Other than the ubiquitous Bach cycle, there are modern works by Kodaly, Britten, Ligeti, Carter, etc.
I doubt the cello will ever have the same appeal as violin, though. A lot of people do not really like its dark, sinister side, and it can sound lead-footed and unmusical as a singing instrument in all but the most expert hands.
Personally, though, I love cello in chamber music, which it where it can have a prominent role with solo segments that complement piano and violin beautifully. I personally enjoy cello sonatas (accompanied by piano) more than I do violin sonatas.
Not sure this is really responsive to the original post, but .....
I can certainly listen to any amount of solo piano music - but would quickly get very restless with music for any other solo instrument. I get particularly frustrated with the doodlings of nineteenth-century composer-violinists: although I am no great expert in the music of J. S. Bach, I'd rather listen to great music for solo instrument of an earlier era than the trivia of later virtuosos. In my view it takes a great composer to write a significant piece for solo instrument (non-piano): hence Bach (or Bartok, for that matter) for the solo violin.
To return to concertos, it's the ability of the violin to sing and soar which really attracts me. And the frustration is that the unsung violin concerto repertoire of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century is so unrepresented on CD. Fortunately, there have been recent recordings of VCs by Stojowski and Weingartner; add to them recent radio broadcasts/live recordings of VCs by Cliffe, Klughardt and Draeseke - and, for me, the acquisition of recordings of unknown provenance of VCs by Marteau and Bortkiewicz - and the situation may be changing (the Herzogenberg VC is also due out soon). Let's hope that Gernsheim, Brüll, Becker (Reinhold), Hiller, Litolff, Rietz, Damrosch, Dubois, Thieriot, Krug, Scharwenka (P.), Huber, Sinding, Moór, Sinigaglia, etc. will follow...
AND Bazzini...
Quote from: thalbergmad on Sunday 27 September 2009, 15:01i have always had the impression that the start of the romantic era also saw a change in the prominence of the piano in concertos
About this time, the pianoforte evolved out of the fortepiano. Among other changes, pedals replaced knee levers.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 28 September 2009, 22:30the frustration is that the unsung violin concerto repertoire of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century is so unrepresented on CD
Danacord appear to have just reissued a series of 26 Danish violin concertos:
http://www.danacord.dk/collections/violin.html (http://www.danacord.dk/collections/violin.html)
I have the Danacord set - it's very interesting, but limited by its own terms of reference, of course. The fact remains that many concertos by excellent composers remain unrecorded.
As for Bazzini's VCs, I'm not holding my breath as to their quality...
I try to keep an eye out for Danacord releases. The Danish Piano Concertos series provided me with many hours of listening bliss.
I cannot recall many concerti more impressive than the Schytte and Oleg Marshev's playing is spectacular. However, i do feel the recording quality is a notch or 2 down from that of Hyperion.
Concertingly,
Thal
Quote from: thalbergmad on Tuesday 29 September 2009, 18:04
I try to keep an eye out for Danacord releases.
However, i do feel the recording quality is a notch or 2 down from that of Hyperion.
Some of their recordings are ancient. Their range includes a set of romantic symphonies recorded in 1954, 1956, and 1957. The violin concertos are apparently from "studio recordings during the 1960s and 70s ... many of the recordings are Stereo".
The recordings are mainly acceptable in quality - no more. The violin-playing is very good, however.
Hi all
Many thanks for the much desired and thought provoking posts. I think Amphissa's comments about the qualities of the piano and the violin hit the nail on the head. They help explain the dominance of concerto-form works for those instruments very nicely. More later.
But the piano...what a hey-day it had in the 19th century. It seems to have been an essential article in vast numbers of households, and not just those of the upper classes.
I can't resist telling a couple of funny and touching (and true) anecdotes about the piano in the early history of my State. Some settlers were landed on a sandy, wind-swept beach in 1830, with a vast pile of luggage and furniture. It was a while before help arrived. The first article dragged out, unpacked and assembled? A piano, a priority before food and shelter.... And it seems one of the first successful businesses established was that of piano tuner - Charles Gillingham (whoever he was) did quite well tuning pianofortes for six pounds and six shillings per annum. A young lawyer and poet named George Moore helped his social life along because of his ability to assemble upright Stodart pianos for desperate recent arrivals. He was also frantic to use them - his own arrived months too late.
regards
Peter