We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Domestic musical arrangements of opera provide a unique window on the world of nineteenth-century amateur music-making. These arrangements flourished in especially rich variety in early nineteenth-century Vienna. This study reveals ways in which the Viennese culture of musical arrangements opened up opportunities, especially for women, for connoisseurship, education, and sociability in the home, and extended the meanings and reach of public concert life. It takes a novel stance for musicology, prioritising musical arrangements over original compositions, and female amateurs' perspectives over those of composers, and asks: what cultural, musical, and social functions did opera arrangements serve in Vienna c.1790–1830? Multivalent musical analyses explore ways Viennese arrangers tailored large-scale operatic works to the demands and values of domestic consumers. Documentary analysis, using little-studied evidence of private and semi-private music-making, investigates the agency of musical amateurs and reinstates the central importance of women's roles.
We need to step away from the foregone value judgements associated with the term Biedermeier, domestic music, and mass production – all encapsulated in the pejorative use of the term Hausmusik during the nineteenth century. This book uncovers the varieties music-making connected with the domestic music of this era – which are invariably left behind by modern musicologists in favour of a focus on individual, canonic, and original compositions. To understand opera in the Viennese home, it is helpful to consider the values that became attached to Biedermeier domesticity, especially social formation, domestic stability, and wholistic education. In revaluing Viennese opera arrangements of this era, it is also worth considering how they inspired public-sphere agency extending beyond domesticity. This chapter discusses quantitative aspects of piano-opera arrangement culture in Czerny’s Vienna and reasons for the boom in pianos, pianists, and associated publications. It then turns to qualitative considerations, looking at the ways in which these piano-opera arrangements promoted the agency of listeners, arrangers, performers, and women in particular.
The period c.1780–c.1830, covered by this book, was a high point in the ‘fruitful age of musical translations’ (Beethoven). This trend was driven partly by the social and political circumstances, which made private and semi-private music-making particularly feasible and appealing, creating a demand for chamber music that was within the reach of the enthusiastic amateur. But the vogue for arrangements was also a function of the music publishing trade and its governance (or lack of it) around 1800. This chapter explores the vogue for opera in Vienna from the perspectives of composers, then through the lens of publishers’ catalogues, considering which types of opera and which composers were most liked, and how opera (in various ‘musical translations’) infiltrated into Viennese homes around 1800.
This chapter investigates various strands of influence, seeking to understand the role of musical ‘domestication’ in canon formation in the early nineteenth-century Viennese home. Answers are sought to fundamental questions: how the performance of music in the home influenced the creation of an authoritative list of musical ‘works’ to be championed in public; which genres were thus canonised, and how opera, which dominated ‘domesticated’ music, fared in the developing canon; and who were the ‘authorities’ and ‘publics’ in Vienna around the time of the Congress (1814–15 and just afterwards). The chapter focuses on middle-class circles, especially the salons that Leopold von Sonnleithner held and attended. Thanks to middle-class agency, repertoires were perpetuated and recreated, rethought and re-evaluated through musical arrangement and domestic performance. So in early-to-mid-nineteenth-century Vienna, concert life would develop in significant areas – repertoire, performance practices, and listeners’ behaviour, tastes, and values – all of which developed largely in the middle-class home.
This chapter explores the people at the centre of the vogue for opera arrangements in Vienna around 1800, the amateurs who bought, organised, and performed operas in their homes. It considers the profiles of Viennese amateurs, including class and gender, and the meaning of ‘amateur’ (Liebhaber, or ‘dilettante’) in Viennese music-making around this time. It first considers how we trace the musical amateurs in question. Sources regarding private-sphere activities, including published accounts of amateur musicians and music, are considered in this chapter. One-off published lists, which group amateurs or ‘dilettantes’ active in Vienna with their instruments and voices, and reviews of arrangements destined for amateurs, help understand the Viennese amateur in terms of skill level and gender. These accounts have to be read with care, though, as they tend to emphasise the excellence of the Viennese; and they were compiled from sources such as word of mouth, personal knowledge, and newspaper advertisements – certainly not random sampling of the population of musical Vienna. The music itself is analysed in several ways for what it says about amateurs’ identities and skills.
This chapter explores Viennese salons, where arrangements were performed in early nineteenth-century Vienna, and the purposes they fulfilled, such as fostering sociability and advancing social and aesthetic understanding. It examines how various types of opera arrangements extended the meaning and experience of public concert-going. They could allow domestic performers and listeners to engage with ideas about political freedom, class, and nationalism that were being raised in the Viennese salons more generally. Audiences for opera in Viennese salons could listen to works with revolutionary themes and potentially politically inflamatory plots that would not be tolerated in other art forms or more public venues. The chapter considers three prominent female ‘arrangers’ who were significant agents in rearranging the social order in early nineteenth-century Vienna: Fanny von Arnstein; Caroline Pichler; and Maria Theresia von Paradis. It discusses the musical and literary activities they organised, and the degree to which class and gender mixing persisted in their more or less private music-making, especially through the vehicle of musical arrangements.
This chapter explores why, in an era so strongly associated with Beethoven and Schubert, Rossini’s music was such a hit in Vienna, looking at the contribution of opera in the home to this popularity. Opera arrangements spread Rossini’s music around a wide public even before public performances were staged. Hit numbers such as ‘Di tanti palpiti’ from Tancredi were performed over and over in Vienna, in various venues and with various combinations of instruments and voices. The ‘judges of German art’ decried his work in newspaper reviews; but this did little or nothing to dampen the market’s enthusiasm. Sales of Rossini’s operas rocketed, as publishing catalogues from the era demonstrate. The popularity of Rossini, fuelled via opera arrangements, is linked to those aspects of Rossini’s music that the critics decried, especially repetition, noise, genre blurring, and theatricality. The thirst for arrangements that promoted and exacerbated these aspects is linked, in turn, to the context of surveillance and censorship in which the contemporary Viennese found themselves, and related to Habsburg politics and the Metternich System.
This study takes a novel approach, privileging opera arrangements over original operatic compositions, and the perspectives of amateur performers over those of composers. Several studies of opera arrangements from the era in question have already been published, which focus on particular composers or particular arrangement forms; and the emphasis lies on arrangements’ function as reception documents. This study differs in considering arrangements’ multiple functions, and ‘end users.
This Element considers the art and culture of arranging music in Europe in the period 1780–1830, using Haydn's London symphonies and Mozart's operas as its principal examples. The degree to which musical arrangements shaped the social, musical, and ideological landscape in this era deserves further attention. This Element focuses on Vienna, and an important era in the culture of arrangements in which they were widely and variously cultivated, and in which canon formation and the conception of musical works underwent crucial development. Piano transcriptions (for two hands, four hands, and two pianos) became ever more prominent, completely taking over the field after 1850. For various reasons, principal composers of the era under consideration, including Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, participated directly in the practice of arrangement. Motivations to produce arrangements included learning the art of composition, getting one's name known more widely, financial gain, and pedagogical aims.
Arrangements for string instruments were highly popular in the first part of the nineteenth century, but they had served a purpose and market different to that for the piano transcriptions that now took centre stage. The former were played by men, the latter by women; the focus during string quartet parties was on developing the performer, the latter on displaying the performer to best advantage. Piano performances, whether solo or in ensemble combinations, tended to be demonstrations to the audience of feeling, taste, and a moderate level of technical accomplishment—suitable attributes for a woman. Public performance and publication now took over the main role in canon formation, while chamber music’s meaning and function was redefined and split off from the dazzling Salonmusik and the still performance-based but decorous Hausmusik. The public quartet concerts of the 1820s and ’30s (especially those of Schuppanzigh’s quartet), along with reviewers’ endorsements of silent listening, and Beethoven’s increasingly difficult conceptions, changed the status of that genre.