The Concerto and London's Musical Culture in the Late Eighteenth Century 0835714411, 9780835714419

Citation preview

The Concerto and London’s Musical Culture in the Late Eighteenth Century

UMI Research Press Studies in Musicology

THOMASJ. BATA LIBRARY TRENT UNIVERSITY

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/concertolondonsmOOOOmill

The Concerto and London’s Musical Culture in the Late Eighteenth Century

Studies in Musicology, No. 69 George Buelow, Series Editor Professor of Musicology Indiana University

Other Titles in This Series

No. 36

The Early French Parody Noel

No. 57 American Women Composers before 1870 No. 62

Dr. Burney as Critic and Historian of Music

No. 63 The Fertilizing Seed: Wagners Concept of the Poetic Intent No. 64 The Secular Madrigals of Filippo di Monte 1521-1603 No. 65 The Rise of Instrumental Music and Concert Series in Paris, 1828-1871 No. 66 The Crumhorn: Its History, Design, Repertory, and Technique No. 67 A History of Key Characteristics in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries No. 68 The Works of Charles T. Griffes: A Descriptive Catalogue

Adrienne F. Block

Judith Tick Kerry S. Grant

Frank W. Glass

Brian Mann

Jeffrey Cooper

Kenton Terry Meyer

Rita Steblin

Donna K. Anderson

The Concerto and London’s Musical Culture in the Late Eighteenth Century

by

Thomas B. Milligan

UMI RESEARCH PRESS Ann Arbor, Michigan

Copyright © 1983, 1979 Thomas Braden Milligan, Jr. All rights reserved Produced and distributed by UMI Research Press an imprint of University Microfilms International Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Milligan, Thomas B. The concerto and London’s musical culture in the late eighteenth century. (Studies in musicology ; no. 69) Revision of thesis—University of Rochester, 1979. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Concerto. 2. Music-England-London—18th century -History and criticism. I. Title. II. Series. ML1263.M53 1983 ISBN 0-8357-1441-1

785.6’09421

83-5915

Contents List of Tables

ix

1

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century Foreign Musicians Ancient and Modern Styles Types of Concert Music and the Social Structure Music and the Economy

2

London and the Concerto 21 Introduction Instruments and Performers Musical Elements of Concertos Publication of Concertos

'

3

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology 37 Introduction Muzio Clementi Jan Ladislav Dussek Thomas Attwood J. B. Cramer Maria Hester Parke Johann Nepomuk Hummel Other Pianists Active During Haydn’s Visits Daniel Steibelt John Field Other Pianists Active in the Late 1790’s Others Who Published Piano Concertos

4

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis Introductory Remarks

63

vi

Contents The First Movements The Second Movements The Last Movements Orchestration Concertos as Sonatas Summary

5

Violin Concertos—Sources and Chronology The Older Generation Three Virtuosos Pupils of Viotti Women Violinists Child Prodigies Other Violinists

6

Violin Concertos—Musical Analysis Introductory Remarks The First Movements The Second Movements The Third Movements

7

Concertos for Lower Strings Cello Concertos Viola Concertos Double Bass Concertos

8

Harp Concertos 175 Madame Krumpholtz Dussek’s Concertos for Madame Krumpholtz Steibelt’s Concerto for Madame Krumpholtz Sophia Dussek Other Harpists Comparison of Harp and Piano Concertos

9

Organ Concertos Samuel Wesley James Hook William Crotch

145

165

187

10 Concertos for Wind Instruments Flute Concertos Oboe Concertos

201

117

Contents Clarinet Concertos Bassoon Concertos Horn Concertos Trumpet Concertos 11

215

Conclusions

Notes

221

Appendix A

Thematic Catalog

Appendix B

List of Performances

251

A. Alphabetical Listing by Performer B. Chronological Listing 329 C. Alphabetical Listing by Composer Bibliography Index

373

365

295 297 361

List of Tables

1.

Subscription Concerts in London, 1790-1800

7

2.

Concertos on Subscription Concerts, 1790-1800

3.

Comparison of the Number of Concertos on Subscription and Ben¬ efit Concerts 9

4.

Lenten Oratorios in London

5;

Musical Performances and Economic Factors by Index Number 19

6.

Concertos Written and Published in London, 1790-1800

7.

Dussek Concertos Written or Published During His Residence in London 42

8.

Some Paris Music Publications, 1790-91

9.

Dussek Performances on London Concert Series

8

10

45 47

53

10.

Concertos by J. B. Cramer

11.

Length of Sections in Transcribed Concertos

12.

Viotti's London Concertos

13.

New Concertos by Viotti

135

14.

Dates of Viotti Concertos

137

15.

Performances of Organ Concertos

134

188

115

30

1

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

Foreign Musicians London in the 18th century was a gathering place for foreign-born com¬ posers. Throughout the century one composer after another took up res¬ idence there. These included, to name a few of the most prominent, John Christopher Pepusch (who arrived about 1700), George Frideric Handel (1712), Carl Friedrich Abel (1759), Johann Christian Bach (1762), Wilhelm Cramer (1772), Muzio Clementi (1773), Johann Peter Salomon (1781), Jan Ladislav Dussek (1789), G. B. Viotti (1792), and, for two brief periods, Joseph Haydn (1791-92, 1794-95). Financially, London was an attractive place for a capable musician. Handel, while in London, experienced periods both of financial prosperity and sharp reversals of fortune, but when he died in 1759, he left an estate valued at £ 17,50c).1 In a country where extreme poverty and extreme wealth existed side by side, he had succeeded in moving himself into the category of the wealthy. The Italian-born opera impresario Sir John Gallini, who died in 1805, left £150,000,2 approximately two hundred times the annual income of an upper-middle-class businessman of this time.3 When Haydn left Vienna for London in 1790, he was enjoying a com¬ fortable income of 1400 Gulden per year from Prince Esterhazy. During his four concert seasons in London, he is reported to have earned a total of 24,000 Gulden (approximately £2400), or about four times his previous annual income.4 The general state of the English economy, of course, made this pos¬ sible. England was the leader in the Industrial Revolution, and the com¬ bination of manufacturing and foreign trade was bringing wealth to the nation. Industrial laborers were paid extremely low wages, and therefore the fruits of the increased production of goods went primarily to the persons at the top. The presence of individuals with more and more money

2

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

to spend on luxuries made it possible for popular virtuoso musicians to demand increasing fees for their services as performers and teachers and for skillful managers to make the music industry into a well-financed commercial enterprise. A German correspondent writing in 1799 summarized the situation as follows: To a certain degree, it is true, there arises thereby a shortage of native musicians in England; however, this damages the good reputation of the art in this country so little, that one might perhaps even say that its favorable status can itself be ascribed to this shortage. For the Englishman is thereby obliged to make use of the most superior artists of other countries, and since he lacks neither the means to pay them nor the knowledge and correct judgment to select the best, he has thus gathered together in his country all along such a considerable number of the foremost artists of all types as are able to coexist elsewhere. The English national spirit, which in most things is inclined to the great and solid, combined with the almost universal prosperity of that class of persons on which the reception of the arts is particularly dependent, must necessarily in such circumstances make the outward condition of music in England so favorable that it cannot be matched elsewhere, where there is less inclination toward the great and where there are scantier expenditures.5

An additional influx of musicians into England late in the century was caused by the French Revolution. Many musicians in France were closely connected to the royal establishment and consequently were forced to flee the country during the revolutionary period. These included the pianist J. F. Dussek, the violinist G. B. Viotti, and several minor figures. The emigration of refugees from France was spread over several years, from the storming of the Bastille in 1789 through the Reign of Terror in 1793-94. The presence of such a large number of foreign musicians in London, where, of course, many native performers were also working, led to a polarization between the two groups. Nationality was perceived as an important factor in one’s career. Those who patronized music because it was socially fashionable were naturally attracted by reports of a new virtuoso who had just arrived from the Continent, and they were more likely to turn out for one of his performances than for that of a native Londoner. This predilection for the imported is illustrated by a review of one English violinist’s performance: HINDMARSH performed a concerto on the violin in a very capital style, exhibiting great taste and execution. If this performer had been imported from Italy instead of being mere English breed, his talents would have procured him a distinguished reputation.6

There was, as might be expected, a reaction against what was con-

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

3

sidered the exaltation of foreigners. Such an opinion was expressed by Charles Dibdin, who wrote in 1791: ... the private productions of Englishmen, whose labours would do infinite credit to the cause of music, are treated with contempt, and suffered to remain unpublished, while the kingdom is inundated with German compositions, which, I will be bold to pronounce, is the very innovation that has gone so far towards the destruction of musical simplicity.7

William Jackson of Exeter, writing in 1802, also treated foreigners unsympathetically: In 1791 I published Observations on the present state of music in London: which produced from the Monthly Review—what shall I say? the most illiberal criticism? . . . My intention is explained in the pamphlet itself—it was not to depress foreign men, but an endeavour to put our own in its proper station. However the critic con¬ sidered it as levelled against Haydn—no otherwise than against other foreigners, and he at that time engaging most attention*. *Perhaps by the time this is read, Haydn will be put to sleep by the side of Tartini, Martini, Sacchini, and scores of others his predecessors and contemporaries (whose very names I have forgotten) to awake no more!8

Ancient and Modern Styles In addition to the polarization between foreign-born and native musicians, there was a polarization in preference for the Baroque or the Classic style, or, in the terminology of the time, the “ancient” and the “modern.” The repertoire commonly performed in London in the late 18th century reached as far back as Purcell and Corelli. These two, along with Handel and Geminiani, were the most frequently performed Baroque composers, and of the four, it was Handel, of course, who was held in the greatest esteem. The music of J. S. Bach was little known until Samuel Wesley and a group of colleagues began promoting it around 1808. Baroque music, however, was not intermingled with recent compo¬ sitions on the same program. There were concert series devoted to “an¬ cient” music and patronized by subscribers partial to this style. Other concerts included only music of the Classic era, and the audience for these concerts consisted, for the most part, of different persons from those who attended performances of the older style. Performers, on the other hand, frequently participated in both kinds of concert. We may surmise that an orchestral player trying to earn a living would readily play music from any period as long as he were paid for it. In 1792 the violinist Wilhelm Cramer, who had been active in concerts

4

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

of both “ancient” and “modern” music, attempted the following exper¬ imental program: PART I Grand Overture, MS.

Pleyel

Quartetto. Charles Cramer, W. Cramer, F. Cramer, and Lindley

Pleyel

Song. Signor Lazzarini New Concerto, Piano Forte. J- Cramer J. Cramer Song. Mrs. Billington Concertante, MS, two Violins. Pleyel Messrs. Cramer PART II Overture, Esther . Handel Song, “Sweet Bird” . Handel Mrs. Billington, acc. by Mr. Cramer, violin Concerto, Violin, Op. 3, No. 1 .Geminiani Scene, Mad Bess.Purcell Mrs. Billington Overture, Occasional Oratorio.Handel9

The first half of the program was dominated by the works of Ignaz Pleyel, who was in London at the time. The second part provided a sharp contrast with the inclusion of Baroque works exclusively. Cramer’s pro¬ gram, which evidently was designed to attract the patrons of both types of concert, was so unusual for this time that one newspaper critic observed: CRAMER has planned his approaching Benefit Concert with all the sagacity of an experienced veteran—there are many admirers of the immortal HANDEL and GEM¬ INIANI, from whose peaceful retreats all the effors [,v;c] of modern harmonists have been ineffectual to emancipate. On this occasion it would be a fair trial to divide the House, and observe whether PLEYEL or HANDEL had the most votes.10

Among the Baroque compositions still popular in the 1790’s, the or¬ atorios of Handel deserve to be mentioned first. They were performed at the opera houses on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent and in West¬ minister Abbey at grandiose festivals. Single arias from the oratorios held a prominent place on concert programs devoted to the older style. Arias from Handel’s operas and secular choral works were also heard. A minor but notable exception to the division of concerts between ancient and modern may be found within the Lenten oratorio perfor¬ mances. Handel had established the practice of playing concertos be¬ tween the acts of an oratorio; his organ concertos were written for this

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

5

purpose.11 As time went on, the oratorios continued to be Handel’s works almost exclusively, but modern solo concertos were frequently performed between the acts. These did not completely replace Baroque works as entr’acte music, however. Both solo concertos and concerti grossi by Handel and his contemporaries continued to be performed at the Lenten oratorios. An evaluation of the relationship between ancient and modern music in England, as one observer perceived it, is provided by the composer John Marsh, in a treatise written in 1806: , From the great change, which took place in the style of instrumental music about forty years ago [i.e., the 1760’s], so as to produce a perfect contrast to the music before that period, by the mixture of wind and string instruments, introduced in the modern symphony, and from this happening at once, and without any regular grada¬ tion, it has been ever since too much the fashion for musical amateurs to attach themselves to one of the two styles, and to reprobate the other. Elderly people in general prefer, as is natural enough, the style they have been used to, and complain of the inferiority of the present basses to those of the ancient composers, as well as of the want of fugue and labored contrivance in modern pieces; whilst others, admiring the brilliancy of the modern symphony, think that the ancient music is dull, that it is deficient in light and shade, and that what contrivance there is in it is intelligible only to professors, and some few amateur performers. The principal supporters therefore of the ancient style being elderly people, and of course gradually dropping off, it is probable, that, considering the languor, with which the oratorios of Handel were carried on in Lent a little more than twenty years ago, and the little support they then met with, that species of music would soon have dropt altogether, and we should have now heard but little of his grand concertos, or of those of Corelli, Geminiani, and other composers of the same school, had it not been for two circumstances; first the commemoration of Handel in 1784, and the subsequent meetings in Westminister Abbey, when his sublime compositions were performed in a manner greatly beyond any in which the author himself could have ever heard them; and secondly, his Majesty’s uniform patronage to the concert of Ancient Music. But on the other hand, by this revival, or rather exaltation of the ancient, it seems not improbable that the modern style would have also failed in its turn, (as it was about this time degenerating into a light, trivial and uniform character) had not the great Haydn by his wonderful contrivance, by the variety and eccentricity of his modulation, by his judicious dispersion of light and shade, and happy manner of blending simple and intelligible air with abstruse and complicated harmony, greatly improved the latter species of composition; insomuch that, instead of being able, as was before the case, to anticipate in great measure the second part of any movement, from its uniform relation to the foregoing, it is on the contrary, in his works, impossible to conceive what will follow, and a perpetual interest is kept up, in much longer pieces than any of the same kind ever before composed.12

Types of Concert In the late 18th century there were four principal types of concert which involved performance of solo concertos: subscription concerts, benefit

6

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

concerts, oratorio performances during Lent, and summer garden con¬ certs at Vauxhall and Ranelagh Gardens. The first three types took place principally during the months of February, March, April, and May. During the summer, the London performers became involved in the garden con¬ certs and in provincial music festivals, of which that at Bath was one of the most noted. Subscription Concerts By the end of the 18th century public subscription concerts had become a well-established phenomenon in London. The earliest single public con¬ certs dated as far back as the 1670’s.13 Subscription concerts began to appear early in the 18th century, and the famous Bach-Abel concerts, begun in 1765, led the way toward a firm establishment of this type of musical undertaking.14 These concerts were organized by J. C. Bach, the youngest son of J. S. Bach, and C. F. Abel, a noted viola da gamba player and composer. After Bach died in January, 1782, Abel continued the concerts only through the 1782 season. The successor to their undertaking was the Professional Concert, which functioned from 1783 to 1793 under the leadership of violinist Wilhelm Cramer (1746-1799). During the 1783 season, Johann Peter Salomon (1745-1815) was ac¬ tive as a violin soloist, but he discontinued his relationship with the series after this first year. During the remainder of the 1780’s, Salomon involved himself in various musical undertakings. Fie directed a subscription series in the Pantheon in 1785 and attempted a series of his own in 1786. In 1791, having brought Flaydn to London, Salomon set himself up in direct competition with the Professional Concert, which then recruited Haydn’s pupil Pleyel for the 1792 season in an attempt to counter the growing success of Salomon’s series. The Professional Concert, as it turned out, was unable to compete with Salomon and was discontinued after 1793. Both the Salomon and Professional Concerts took place in the Han¬ over Square Rooms, which had been built in 1774-75 for the Bach-Abel concerts.15 In the spring of 1794, a new concert room was constructed in the King’s Theatre in the Haymarket. This hall had an area of 4656 square feet, compared to 2528 square feet at Hanover Square.16 A review of one of the first concerts here mentioned that more than 900 persons were in attendance.17 The next year, 1795, saw the establishment of a new subscription series, the Opera Concerts, in this new hall. Salomon chose not to offer a series in 1795, and both he and Haydn took part in the Opera Concerts. Salomon revived his series in 1796, but only for one more year. The most usual number of concerts in a series was 12. The concerts

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

7

were held weekly beginning in February, with perhaps a break at Easter. Thus, the season was over by May or early June. Table 1 lists the major subscription series from 1790 to 1800. Concerts devoted to ancient music are not included. Data in Table 1 represent all those concerts encountered in the various sources consulted, principally daily newspapers of the period. Table 1.

Subscription Concerts in London, 1790-1800 (Number of concerts + extra performances) 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800

Professional Pantheon Salomon

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

6

12+1 12

12 9+2

Opera

10

12

12 12

Raimondi Vocal

8

10

10

10

Salomon’s opening concert in the 1791 season, the first in which Haydn was a participant, may be taken as a typical example of a concert program of this period: PART I. Overture, ROSETTI. Song, Signor TAJANA. Concerto Oboe, Mr. HARRINGTON. Song, Signora STORACE. Concerto Violin, Madame GAUTHEROT. Recitative and Aria, Signor DAVID. PART II. New Grand Overture, HAYDN. Recitativo and Aria, Signora STORACE. Concertante Pedal Harp and Piano Forte, Madame KRUMPHOLTZ and Mr. DUSSECK—composed by Mr. Dusseck. Rondo, Signor DAVID. Full Piece, KOZELUCH.18

An obvious feature of this program is the intermingling of instru¬ mental and vocal compositions in direct alternation. It was not the prac¬ tice at this time to present concerts of instrumental music alone. Later there developed a feeling that inclusion of solo vocal pieces, which were considered to be vehicles for displaying the powers of the singer, did not represent the highest levels of taste. When the Philharmonic Society was

8

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

founded in 1813, vocal solos, as well as concertos, were excluded from the programs.19 The length of the program, quite excessive by 20th-century stan¬ dards, is also striking. Since favorite movements were frequently encored, the concerts were often even longer than the program might indicate; they sometimes lasted three and a half to four hours. The audiences at this time, however, did not all sit in rapt attention throughout the lengthy concert. There was often a good bit of coming and going after the program had begun. The star performers performed usually near the end of the concert, and those in the audience whose attendance was primarily for social reasons sometimes presented themselves merely for the climax of the evening. A complaint by a newspaper reviewer illustrates this practice: By some unexplained and vexatious circumstance, the Violin Concerto of GIORNOVICHI, which was to have been performed in the second act, took place in the first, and consequently a great part of the Audience were not in time to enjoy that exquisite repast. . . . LINDLEY performed in the second act instead of GIORNOVICHI; and though the former possesses great merit, he is not to be considered as a proper substitute for the latter.20

Concertos had an important role in the programs of subscription concerts. The most frequent number of concertos per concert was two, as shown in Table 2. No change in the distribution of concertos per con¬ cert is evident in the course of the period 1790-1800.21 Table 2.

Concertos on Subscription Concerts, 1790-1800 (Number of concerts having the specified number of concertos) NO 1 2 3 CONCERTOS CONCERTO CONCERTOS CONCERTOS 1790-91

3

10

28

1792-93

1

12

25

7

1794-96

1

13

18

11

1797-1800

0

8

19

7

TOTAL

5

43

90

30

5

Benefit Concerts Benefit concerts, which in a typical year might be roughly equal in num¬ ber to the subscription concerts, were a second important type of musical performance. The term “benefit concert” normally referred to a concert sponsored and underwritten by a single musician in the hope of making

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

9

a monetary profit for himself. Occasionally a joint benefit might be under¬ taken by a pair of musicians, particularly if they were members of the same family. These concerts were not solo recitals, however. The sponsor engaged an orchestra and enlisted the assistance of several friends as soloists. Thus the benefit concerts included a mixture of vocal and in¬ strumental music similar to the subscription concerts. The person sponsoring the concert might feature his own perfor¬ mance to a greater extent than that of his colleagues also appearing on the program. Sometimes an instrumentalist played two concertos on his own benefit concert.22 If tickets sold well, a benefit concert could be financially rewarding. Haydn wrote of his concert in 1795: “I made four thousand Gulden [ap¬ proximately £400] this evening. Such things can be done only in Eng¬ land.”23 Opera singers often negotiated in their contracts the privilege of utilizing the house for a benefit. Most benefit concerts took place between Easter and early June, that is, during the second half of the concert season. Benefit concerts also occurred in the modern sense, that is, for the support of a charitable organization or cause. For example, in 1793 a concert was presented for the benefit of the weavers in Spitalfields, who were suffering financial hardship at the time.24 An organization which presented a benefit concert regularly each year was the New Musical Fund, founded in 1786. The funds from its annual concerts were used to aid retired musicians and widows and orphans of musicians.25 A similar society, the Choral Fund, was organized in 1791 to assist needy choral singers.26 Table 3 compares the distribution of concertos on benefit concerts with subscription concerts. Benefit concerts tended to have a greater number of concertos.27 Table 3.

Comparison of the Number of Concertos on Subscription and Benefit Concerts (Number of concerts having the specified number of concertos) 2 1 3 4 OR 5 CONCERTO CONCERTOS CONCERTOS CONCERTOS Subscription

43

90

30

0

Benefit

44

93

46

14

Oratorio Performances On Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent, when no opera performances

10

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

were permitted, oratorios were performed instead. Table 4 indicates the theatres in which the oratorios were performed during each year from 1790 through 1800. Performances took place each year in the Covent Garden Theatre. In the early 1790’s a second series was also in existence each season. The Drury Lane Theatre presented oratorios in 1790, and 1791; then the building, more than one hundred years old, was torn down. Oratorios were performed in the King’s Theatre, Haymarket in 1792 and 1793, and at the newly-constructed Drury Lane Theatre in 1794. In the late 1790’s London supported the single oratorio series at Covent Garden; in 1800 the violinist and composer Frangois-Hippolyte Barthelemon spon¬ sored a series. Table 4.

Lenten Oratorios in London, 1790-1800

1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 Covent Garden

X

X

Drury Lane

X

X

Haymarket Barthelemon

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

The Covent Garden oratorios were for many years under the direction of John Ashley, who was assisted by his four sons: General, a violinist; John James, an organist; Charles, a cellist; and Richard, a violist. Except for Richard, the sons were active in performing concertos between the acts of the oratorio, as well as playing in the orchestra. Baroque concertos were frequently performed by two members of the family: Handel's organ concertos by John James and the violin concertos of Geminiani by General. Often, instead of a regular oratorio performance there was presented a “Grand Miscellaneous Selection’’ consisting of favorite arias and cho¬ ruses from various oratorios. This practice can be viewed as an example of catering to the public taste: ... it is undoubtedly with a view to relieve the languor of the audience, that, for some years past, the managers of our oratorios have, instead of one whole work of our immortal Handel, presented detached parts or selections, with an intermixture of instrumental music, and such novelties as may attract and preserve the attention.28

When such a mixed selection was performed, concertos might be played not only between the acts but also in the main course of the program. Also, secular vocal music from the Baroque period was fre¬ quently introduced. There was some strong criticism from the clergy and others concerning this practice:

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

11

Imagination can scarcely conceive any thing more abominably impious, than the melange which is usually dignified with the appellation of SACRED MUSIC. ... At one time the audience is presented with, “I know that my redeemer liveth,” and at another with the wandering transitions of a female maniac—with “Pious Orgies,” and the “Soldier tir'd"—“Holy, Holy Lord God Almighty,” and “Mirth admit me of thy Crew”—“Lord of Eternity,” and “Hush ye pretty warbling choir”—“Hallelujah,” and the "Prince unable:”—thus are the public alternately amused with a celebration of Omnipotence, and a song of amorous dalliance; the attributes of the Deity, and a Bacchanalian rhapsody; Te Deum and L’Allegro; the sufferings of the MESSIAH, and the ravings of mad Bess.29

Concertos performed at oratorio concerts included contemporary solo concertos, Baroque solo concertos, and Baroque concerti grossi. In 1792 at Covent Garden, only Baroque concertos were played; this practice was not continued, however. Typically each house engaged only a small number of concerto players, who performed repeatedly throughout the season. These performers included renowned virtuosos, such as de¬ menti, who performed five times at Covent Garden in 1790. Less no¬ table performers might also perform repeatedly; the violinist Madame Gautherot played six times at Covent Garden the same year. Garden Concerts Among the London entertainments available in the summer, one of the favorites was an evening at the pleasure gardens of Vauxhall and Ranelagh. The Vauxhall Gardens date back to the Restoration period in the 17th century; they were enlarged and renovated about 1730, after which they enjoyed a continuous popularity throughout the rest of the century.30 The somewhat smaller gardens at Ranelagh were opened in 1742.31 Vis¬ itors to the gardens could stroll among the flowers and hedges, drink tea, and listen to music provided by an orchestra and singers. Sometimes fireworks displays concluded the evening’s entertainment. The price of admission to Vauxhall was for many years one shilling; at Ranelagh it was two shillings sixpence.32 Consequently, an evening in the pleasure gardens, especially Vauxhall, was within the financial means of the middle class as well as the nobility. This mingling of the social classes at Vauxhall did not, of course, extend downward to the unskilled laborers. Even one shilling was far beyond the means of the poor, and this class would not have been welcome in the gardens even if the price of admission had been in hand. Concerts in the gardens took place several evenings each week during the summer months.33 Ranelagh had a rotunda with a diameter of about 150 feet; the orchestra was placed in the center of this building, sur-

12

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

rounded by the audience. At Vauxhall a smaller pavillion housed the orchestra and an organ. The public listened from outdoors.34 The programs consisted of vocal and instrumental music as did the subscription and benefit concerts.35 The opening concert at Vauxhall for the 1791 season included: A GRAND CONCERT of VOCAL and INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC. The Vocal Parts entirely new, composed by, and under the Direction of Mr. HOOK ACT I. Coronation Anthem, Handel. Song, Mr. Darley. Symphony, Haydn. Song, Miss Leary. Concerto Organ, Mr. Hook. Song, Miss Milne (first appearance). Con¬ certo Bassoon, Mr. Parkinson. Song, Mr. Duffey (first appearance). Concerto Violin, Mr. Mountain. Song, Mrs. Addison (first appearance). New Serious Glee and Catch, Hook. ACT II. Song, Mr. Darley. Concerto Oboe, Mr. Parke. Song, Miss Leary. New Grand Finale, Hook.36

James Hook (1746-1827) was organist and director of the Vauxhall Gardens concerts for 46 years and for these occasions he composed hundreds of songs, usually of an amorous, patriotic, or pastoral nature, as well as numerous pieces of instrumental music. The following example of a song text performed by the above-mentioned Mr. Darley at Vauxhall illustrates the character of these performances: Dear Nancy I've sail’d the World all around, And Seven long Years been a Rover, To make for my Charmer each Shilling a Pound, But now my hard perils are over. I've sav'd from my Toils many Hundreds in Gold, The Comforts of Life to beget, Have borne in each Climate the Heat and the Cold, And all for my pretty Brunette. Then say my sweet Girl can you love me.37

Concertos for organ and for wind and string instruments had an important place on these programs. No pianoforte concertos were in¬ cluded, presumably because of the instrument’s unsuitability for outdoor use. The organ concertos of Hook are the only concertos now in exis¬ tence known to have been composed specifically for the garden concerts. These concertos and their relationship to the outdoor type of performance situation will be discussed in Chapter 9 on the organ concerto.

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

13

Music and the Social Structure Newspaper announcements of London concerts often addressed “the Nobility and the Gentry.” England’s social structure played an important role in the development of concert life in this period. The attitudes toward music held by the royalty, by nobles of high rank, and by wealthy busi¬ nessmen shaped the trends in music that took place in the English capital. Like other European countries, England had a class of nobles with inherited titles and income-producing estates. There were also many wealthy commoners, who had acquired riches through manufacturing and trade as a result of the industrialization of the country. Downward from this income level was a substantially-sized middle class, and of course there was a large number of poor. The distinction between one social class and the next immediately below or above it had become smaller by the late 18th century, and it was possible to move up or down as one experienced either prosperity or financial setbacks. One historian has characterized the class structure as follows: The road from the bottom of the stairs to the top was long, but there were many steps to scramble up, and each one was shallow. No one was far above or far below the next man; and this was quite different from earlier times, and from neighbouring states where there were few people between the landlords at the top and the anonymous and featureless peasantry below.38

An accurate estimate of income levels can be made only as far back as 1801, the date of the first census. At this time the population of England was about 9 million, with about 10 per cent living in London and its outlying areas.39 The wealthiest of the titled lords had incomes from £12,000 to £100,000 or more. About 300 families in the country had in¬ comes in excess of £4000. Most of these derived their wealth from incomeproducing lands. The wealthier merchants and bankers had incomes of approximately £2500 to £4000; about 200 families were at this level. Just under 1 per cent of the population was at the £1500 level or higher, and close to 3 per cent earned at least £700 per year. The £700 level constituted what might be called the upper middle class, and many mem¬ bers of this class had moved up from the lower levels by means of their business ability. Shopkeepers, farmers, and minor clergymen, who can be considered the lower middle class, earned about £120 to £150 annually. The poverty line was about £55.40 An unskilled laborer could make about 2s per day, which would amount to about £31 in a full year’s employment.41 Two shillings had very little purchasing power; in 1791 Haydn recorded the price of a chicken as

14

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

7s, a turkey as 9s, and a duck as 5s.42 The recipients of poor relief, who in 1800 comprised about 10 per cent of the population, struggled for sur¬ vival on about £10 per year.43 The presence of such a large concentration of the poor led to a con¬ siderable amount of theft, and the ruling classes responded with the en¬ actment of harsh penalties. Haydn remarked: “If anybody steals £2 he is hanged.”44 In addition to the large number of capital crimes, there were other offenses for which the punishment was imprisonment or transpor¬ tation to Australia. In London at the end of the 18th century the normal price for a single ticket to a subscription or benefit concert was 10s 6d. Usually no discount or only a small discount was given to the purchaser of an entire subscrip¬ tion series. The prices for the oratorio performances varied from 5s or 6s for box seats to Is for the cheapest gallery seats. Admission to the Vauxhall garden concerts was Is until 1792, when it was raised to 2s. There¬ fore, the subscription and benefit concerts were more exclusive than the oratorios and garden performances with respect to the income level of those who could afford to attend. For the great mass of laborers, atten¬ dance at any type of concert was completely out of the question. As mentioned above, John Marsh perceived that elderly people were chief supporters of ancient music. Another comment by Marsh, concern¬ ing “his Majesty’s uniform patronage to the concert of ancient music,” illustrates that the promotion of Baroque compositions also received sup¬ port from the highest level of society. The Concert of Ancient Music was organized in 1776 by the Earl of Sandwich, and in 1785 it was granted the patronage of the King himself.45 As the number of nouveaux riches in¬ creased and the presence of merchants and bankers at concerts became commonplace, the ancient music concerts became a haven for those who took pride in their aristocratic heritage and who considered themselves long-time connoisseurs of an art which was now beginning to appeal to a wider public. The second Earl of Mount Edgcumbe expressed this opinion: I accordingly began these Reminiscences thereby yielding a good deal to my own inclination, as the recollections I have been obliged to call back have afforded me no small gratification, having been passionately fond of music while music was really good, and having lived in what I consider as one of its most flourishing periods, now, I lament to say, at an end. So great a change has taken place within a few years, that I can no longer receive from it any pleasure approaching to that which I used to experience. The remembrance of the past is therefore infinitely more agreeable than the enjoyment of the present, and I derive the highest gratification music can yet afford me from hearing again, or barely recalling to mind what formerly gave me such un¬ qualified delight. This pleasure can no longer be expected from professors, at least the Italian, but many English amateurs retain like myself the love for the good old style, and for the compositions of those excellent masters which modern caprice has

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

15

thrown aside as obsolete, but which must ever be considered by real judges as superior to the fantastical and trifling frippery of the modern school.46

An anonymous letter to a literary magazine shows a similar attitude: The more affected the modern singer is, the more applause he meets with from the unfeeling multitude; and for these reasons you never meet with a man of fine taste and genius, at what is called in London the Professional Concert. But all the forte piano-mongers are there, together with the great tribe of hearers, who receive instru¬ mental music, rather as an amusing noise, than as what makes any true musical impression on the heart.47

Of course, the terms “unfeeling multitude” and “great tribe of hearers” do not refer to the working classes, but rather to the upper-middle-class citizens who patronized modern concerts. The predilection of titled nobles for the music of Handel and Corelli was caused not so much by their personal appreciation of this style as by the fact that the Concert of Ancient Music was in vogue at the highest level of the social structure. Pohl points out that subscriptions to this series increased dramatically as soon as the King gave his support to the undertaking.48 A parallel situation occurred lower on the social ladder. As an en¬ terprising businessman began to prosper, he could affirm his newly ac¬ quired social position by subscribing to a concert of modern music, even though he might have little personal taste for symphonies and concertos. The inclinations of the middle class are illustrated by this list of property of a London soap maker sold at auction in 1800: The genteel HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, Plate, Linen, China, Books, Pictures, Prints, (amongst which is the Death of Wolfe, and some Proofs by Wooler), about 30 dozen of excellent Port, Madeira, and Sherry; a fine-toned Grand Piano Forte, a Mangle, and other effects, of Mr. JAMES WILLIS, Soap-boiler. The furniture consists of four-post and tent bedsteads, with handsome chintz pattern cotton hangings, goose feather beds and good bedding, excellent mahagony cabinet articles in wardrobes, chests of drawers, dining, card, and Pembroke tables, chairs, Wilton carpets, pier glasses, and some good kitchen articles.49

The inclusion of a pianoforte in this list of household goods is sig¬ nificant: it reflects the fashionability that music had acquired. One writer commented: Upon the whole the present century [18th] may be considered as the age of music in this country. Without possessing a music of our own we have become proficients Lie] in the music of other nations and have induced a universal taste for it. Music is now as regular a branch of, at least female, education, as any other necessary qualification.50

16

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

The pianoforte was an important instrument in amateur music¬ making. The manufacture of pianos on a large scale had brought about a decrease in prices. In the late 1760’s Johann Zumpe’s square pianos had sold for £50. By the 1780’s the price of a square piano had decreased to £21, and in 1815 it was £18 3s.51 The firm of Broadwood produced 8000 pianos between 1782 and 1802, and this was only one manufacturer among several.52 Printed music for the piano appeared in great abundance. This music included much of a trivial nature: programmatic pieces such as the “Battle of Prague” by Frantisek Koczwara, sets of variations on “God Save the King” and other popular tunes, and short pieces such as marches and rondos. Charles Dibdin complained in 1791: Nothing is more certain than that music sellers set their faces against composers of acknowledged talents.—They give immense sums for whatever performances are heard at the theatres, not because of their merit but because they stand a chance of being popular; . . ,53

The tonal capacities of the piano, which at the time was in a state of continuing mechanical and acoustical improvement, were pointed out by one writer of the time: That richness, that dignity of Sound, which a GRAND PIANO FORTE will yield, under the hands of a spirited and judicious Performer, cannot be produced by any one from the feeble SPINET, or the quilly tinkling HARPSICHORD; but as you have at command the best Modern Instrument, improved to a state of excellence, it has all the properties of Tone, and we may say of it, as the Clown did by the Fiddle, “that there is certainly music in it; the difficulty consists in bringing it forth;” . . ,S4

On the other hand, just as some upper-class patrons of music looked down on modern concerts, advocates of the harpsichord sometimes re¬ garded the piano with contempt. The anonymous writer quoted above on the Professional Concert expressed the following opinion about the pianoforte: I find your daughter is a forte piano player, whence I conclude she has been in the hands of some of the idle tasteless masters of the day. These wild fellows teach their scholars upon that instrument because they think if they do but teach them to gabble and chatter they make fine players of them. . . . ... Mr. Handel’s great genius would not allow him to write for that trifling instru¬ ment, and out of ten of his oratorios which I have by me, I scarcely find anything fit for it. . . . I deal so little in modern composition that I know nothing either of the Battle of Prague, or the Siege of Gibraltar; . . ,55

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

17

The concert fervor in London seems to have reached a peak in 1792, the second year of Haydn's first visit to England. It was in this year that the Professional Concerts engaged Ignaz Pleyel as a rival to Haydn, who was associated with the Salomon Concerts. One newspaper assessed the musical situation in this year as follows: There are no fewer than sixteen public Subscription Concerts at this moment going forward in the metropolis, besides the various select parties with which it abounds. Each of those has a distinguished leader and performers of great eminence. This at least will prove to the world our musical rage, we wish it could also shew our musical knowledge and taste.56

The question of why London became such an important musical center at this time involves several different factors. William Weber, in Music and the Middle Class, has pointed out some differences in the development of class structure in London, Paris, and Vienna that affected the progress of public concerts in the three cities. In pre-revolutionary Paris the concert life was closely regulated by the government. Licenses were required for public performances, and these were limited in number. By contrast, concerts in London were allowed to proliferate freely. Weber also contends that the general disharmony between the government and the nobility in France up to the time of the revolution had a detrimental effect on artistic institutions. Weber’s assessment of Vienna is that it had been a major capital only since the middle of the 18th century and had not had time to develop the same level of social life that was to be found in London and Paris. Also, he points out that the middle class in Vienna was not as prosperous as the middle class in the other two cities.57 It should be noted, however, that Weber’s evaluation of the musical situation in London at the end of the 18th century is not completely satisfactory. Weber’s center of attention is the period 1830 to 1848, and in briefly surveying the one hundred years prior to this time, he under¬ values the peak of activity that took place in the first half of the 1790’s. Moreover, Weber does not fully appreciate the role of the middle class at this time. He points out that the middle class was not actually involved in managing the concerts. This may be true, but this group exercised a significant indirect influence in that they bought the tickets! Weber also contends that since professional musicians had as their goal pleasing the nobility and being engaged at their private concerts, the middle class had little influence on musical taste. To this it may be countered that the musicians perpetuated two different styles simultaneously: the “ancient” for those of “fine taste and genius” and the “modern” for the “great tribe of hearers.” In conclusion, the situation in London in the early 1790’s was favor-

18

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

able for an active musical life. The money was there; the tradition was there; and many of the best composers and performers in Europe were there. Probably a large portion of the credit should go to Salomon, who acted at the most favorable moment in exploiting the available resources. Samuel Wesley gave this assessment of Salomon’s role in London’s mus¬ ical development: The Concerts at the Hanover Square Rooms, given by J. P. Salomon, formed a remarkable and memorable Epoch in English musical History. Salomon was a Person of very liberal Sentiments, and a candid Encourager of Merit wherever found. . . . Salomon may justly ranked [r/c] among the most acute dispassionate, and liberal Criticks that we find in the annals of English musical literature. He also engaged some of the most accomplished Artists both instrumental and vocal58

Music and the Economy It seems natural that a musical establishment that was financed by the sale of concert tickets and printed music, items relatively expensive in terms of the cost of living of the day, would prosper when business was good and suffer during periods of economic hardship. The success of musical enterprises, in fact, is clearly correlated with the economic con¬ ditions at this time in London. The beginning of the 1790’s was a time of prosperity. In particular, 1792 was a boom year.59 The situation quickly changed after France declared war on England on February 1, 1793. The war was long and drawn out; with the exception of a period of peace from 1801 to 1803 it lasted until the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. Enthusiasm for music reached its height in 1792 and began to decline thereafter. The Professional Concerts were discontinued after an unsuc¬ cessful season in 1793. Beginning in 1795, oratorios were performed in only one theatre rather than simultaneously in two rival theatres. Salomon cited economic reasons for his failure to produce a subscription series in 1795: In the present situation of affairs on the Continent, Mr. SALOMON finds it impos¬ sible to procure from abroad any Vocal Performers of the first talents, but by the influence of terms which an undertaking like his could by no means authorize him to offer; and it would be a presumption, of which he is incapable, to solicit the patronage of the Nobility and Gentry to an inferior entertainment.60

Salomon resumed his concerts the following year, but offered half¬ subscriptions for six of the twelve concerts as well as the regular subscriptions.

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century

19

A comparison of the total number of performances of concerti grossi, solo concertos, and concertantes with three other economic indicators in given in Table 5. This table is presented, of course, to indicate general trends in the economy and not to imply specific cause-and-effect rela¬ tionships between musical performances and the other items listed. How¬ ever, it is clear that the closest correlation in the table is between the musical performances and the revenues on amusement items, both of which are non-capital, voluntary expenditures, and both of which are likely to be among the first to be dispensed with when funds are low. Different components of the economy react to crises to different degrees and with a different amount of elapsed time. Something which is pursued by a large number of people because they consider it fashionable will naturally suffer a more precipitous decline when the economy is unfa¬ vorable. It has been shown that much of the patronage that music enjoyed at this time resulted merely from the desire to pursue those activities currently in vogue in one’s social class. The comment that 16 subscription concerts “will prove to the world our musical rage, we wish it could also shew our musical knowledge and taste” was a profound analysis of the real state of concert life. The audiences of the time did not develop a deep enough appreciation for the art to continue their support when eco¬ nomic conditions began to grow worse. Table 5.

Musical Performances and Economic Factors by Index Number* (Index number of 100 indicates mean value for the entire period) 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800

Number of solo concertos, con¬ certantes, and concerti grossi

142

126

132

127

114

102

101

58

70

63

63

Production of bricks

109

115

124

140

121

86

97

79

79

65

83

Tax revenue on the sale of dice and playing cards

141

138

126

117

100

98

86

81

89

31

94

76

80

81

167

114

97

96

121

102

68

97

Bankrupties

*Data in the last three rows of the table were derived from T. S. Ashton, Economic Fluctuations in England, 1700-1800 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959), p. 193, and from Ashton, Economic History, p. 254.

The oboist William Parke recognized the effect of the war on music when he wrote in his memoirs:

20

Musical Life in London in the Late 18th Century Music mourned the loss of its warm patron, the Duke of Cumberland [in 1790], after which the art began to decline, and which declension was farther enhanced by the war with the French republic in 1792, whereby the soft breathings of the flute gave place to the shrill clangour of the brazen trumpet, and the feminine and graceful tabor to the terrific roll of the thundering drum. Music continued in a depressed state nearly ten years, when at length the political horizon beginning to clear, the arts were again descried through the mists which had obscured them, and the fascinations of our own popular singer, Mrs. Billington, aided by the powerful talents of Madame Banti, Sig¬ nora Storace, and others, enabled the muse to regain the high pinnacle from which she had descended.61

It should be noted that the recovery which Parke describes is in the area of vocal music. In instrumental music, on the other hand, the down¬ ward trend continued through the first decade of the 19th century, so that in 1813 there was talk of “the almost utter neglect into which instrumental pieces in general have fallen.62

2

London and the Concerto Introduction The term concerto, like several other designations of musical genre, has had different meaning at various periods in history. In England in the 1790’s the word was used in the same sense in which it is generally understood today; that is, a composition for one or more solo instruments and orchestra.1 In ordinary usage the simple term concerto implied a solo concerto. A contemporary concerto for two or more instruments was usually called a concertante. Baroque concerti grossi were referred to by the anglicized term “grand concerto.” This designation was not unam¬ biguous, however, because solo concertos were also sometimes called grand concertos, in this case having the literal meaning of the word grand. A. C. F. Kollmann, a German theorist who settled in London, de¬ fined concerto as follows: A Concerto is a grand Instrumental Piece, chiefly calculated to shew the abilities of a Player on a certain principal Instrument. It consists of Tuttis, in which it resembles a Symphony, and of Solos that are like the principal passages of a grand Sonata; and consequently may be considered as a Compound of Symphony and Sonata.2

A similar, but shorter, definition was given by Thomas Busby: CONCERTO. (Ital.) A composition expressly written for the display of some particular instrument, with accompaniments for the band.3

Exhibiting the abilities of the performer was thus considered so sig¬ nificant a role of the concerto that it was the basis of the definition of the genre. There are at least two important implications resulting from this definition of the concerto. The first is that the concerto’s function as a contrast between two opposing bodies of sound is weakened. In concertos of this period the orchestra became decreasingly important. The tutti sections became shorter in relation to the solo sections. When concertos

22

London and the Concerto

were arranged as sonatas, as in the case of dementi’s only surviving piano concerto, the opening tutti was usually dropped altogether, and the other tuttis, which were already quite short, were shortened even more. Such a manner of arrangement would not have been possible if material found in the tuttis had been essential to the sense of the composition or if the contrast provided by the tutti sections had been a principal focal point of the work. A second natural implication was the overwhelming predominance in public performance of concertos of the performer’s own composition. Less than 10 percent of the concertos performed in London from 1790 through 1800, excluding Baroque concertos, were identified as having a composer different from the performer, and a majority of such cases involved women or youthful performers. If the concerto is indeed “chiefly calculated to shew the abilities of a Player,” it follows that a concerto emphasizing a particular performer’s strong points is to be preferred. Thus a performer capable of writing a concerto consistent with his own technical abilities and musical taste would have been able to present to the audience a personal style, identifiable with himself. The following comment, written in 1825, recognizes this function of the concerto: The legitimate concerto is of all species of composition the best adapted to the display of the abilities of a composer, and of the acquirements of the performer. Its three movements afford scope for dignity, pathos, and brilliancy, and so elevated is its character that it may only be encountered by first-rate talent. All concertos, for what¬ ever instrument they are written, are usually composed for the development of the particular style of the artists' performance; this affords the student the means of comparison, of obtaining a knowledge of the peculiarities of different players, and even of tracing their progress in art and their powers of invention.4

Since that time there has been increased specialization in the field of music, and the number of composer-performers playing their own con¬ certos has declined. Even today, however, concertos are most often writ¬ ten for a specific performer. Gunther Schuller, in discussing the particular sociological significance of the concerto, has pointed out that a composer can write a piece of chamber music, publish it, and put it on the market. But he said, “If you don’t have a violinist to be the protagonist of your violin concerto, you don’t have a concerto.”5 Instruments and Performers Solo Concertos Concertos for the violin, which made up about 40 per cent of the total

London and the Concerto

23

number of concertos performed in London at subscription, benefit, and oratorio concerts from 1790 through 1800, outnumbered two to one those for the next most frequently heard instrument, the pianoforte. Then, in decreasing order of frequency, are concertos for cello, oboe, harp, flute, bassoon, double bass, organ, viola, horn, clarinet, trumpet, and English horn. For the last two instruments there were three concertos and one concerto, respectively. The most significant change in the distribution of concertos during this period was that the ratio of violin concertos to piano concertos decreased. From 1797 through 1800 approximately equal num¬ bers of each were performed. Performers of these concertos ranged from internationally famous virtuosi to local orchestral musicians who performed an occasional con¬ certo, usually at their own benefit concerts. Among the 31 violinists whose performances have been ascertained, the three most eminent, Viotti, Giornovichi, and Janiewicz, account for about one-third of the violin con¬ certos performed. Similarly, performances of the three most noted pi¬ anists, Clementi, Dussek, and Cramer, make up about half of the total number of performances of the 30 pianists. Concertantes The scope of this study does not specifically extend to concertos for more than one solo instrument, or symphonies concertantes. Since the function of these on concerts seemed to be as an alternative to the solo concerto in bringing forward the principal instrumental players,6 a few comments on such works are appropriate here, however. Compositions having the designation symphonie concertante flour¬ ished mainly between 1770 and 1830, with Paris as the most important center of production. In England and Germany after 1790, the term was usually shortened to concertante.1 Thomas Busby provides the following simple definition: CONCERTANTE. (Ital.) A concerto for two or more instruments, with accompan¬ iments for a band.8

Barry Brook views the genre as a fusion of the solo concerto, concerto grosso, divertimento, and symphony. He sees in it a reflection of the taste of the bourgeois audiences that patronized public concerts.9 Brook con¬ siders the fundamental idea of the concertante to be melodic diversity and its basic character to be light, cheerful, and non-dramatic.10 William Jackson’s assessment of the concertante is similar:

24

London and the Concerto The most pleasing of all instrumental compositions is the CONCERTANTE, for three, four, or five principal performers, supported by ripieni. Whether the contrast of the different instruments becomes a sort of substitute for melody, and is named as such; or whether there is really more tune in the Concertante, or whether we are more interested because of the excellency of the performers, I know not; but it seems as if air subsisted more in this, than in any other species of instrumental music.11

In London between 1790 and 1800 the most popular concertantes were those by Pleyel (34 performances), Francois Devienne (15), Haydn (9), J. C. Bach (8), and Adalbert Gyrowetz (7). Haydn composed one concertante while in London (Hob. 1/105). The solo instruments are oboe, bassoon, violin, and cello. The work was first performed on March 9, 1792, with J. P. Salomon as solo violinist.12 Child Prodigies One of the most popular attractions at concerts was the very young per¬ former. Advertisements of concerts drew attention to the inclusion of such prodigies on the program. We find in 1790 an announcement of a violin concerto by “Master Clement, only eight years and a half old, his own composition.”13 As in several other cases, Clement’s age was mis¬ represented here; he was actually a year older.14 Two of the youthful performers appearing in London at this time later achieved considerable fame as composers. Johann Nepomuk Hum¬ mel (1778-1837) of Vienna was in London in 1791 and 1792 as part of a European tour on which he was accompanied by his father. He performed one piano concerto each season in a public concert. The 1792 perfor¬ mance presented one of only two Mozart concertos performed in London between 1790 and 1800. John Field (1782-1837), famous for his nocturnes, came to London from Ireland in 1792. He became a pupil of Clementi, and he first appeared as a concerto performer in 1794. The child prodigy who attracted the most attention was perhaps George Augustus Bridgetower (1778-1860), the half-black Polish violinist who was referred to as “the son of the African prince.” He first appeared in London on February 19, 1790, at the Drury Lane Theatre. Two reviews of his performances illustrate the attitude of the public toward precocious instrumentalists: The chief novelty was little BRIDGETOWER. the African; he performed with much excellence, and he promises more, and so he ranks with premature wonders, more frequent in music than in any other art—the THOMASINO, MOZART, &c &c. The Father led the Son on and off; and there was a decorum and shew of feeling in it, altogether, not a little interesting.15

London and the Concerto

25

Master BRIDGETOWER performed a Concerto on the Violin. To give an idea of this boy's excellence by the most laboured description is impossible.—To conceive it, it must be heard—and to hear it, conveys at once both rapture and astonishment. The ease and brilliancy of his execution—the evident refinement of his taste—and his perfection in the science—all possess the mind by turns with emotions of wonder and delight. The ALL-WISE DISPENSER of human capacity seems to have formed his soul in the completest mould of harmony. Were this young man, in this liberal and musical age to pass unpatronized, it would be a lasting satire upon it;—but merit thus singular, has found a patron in ONE, whose taste and munificence are ornamental to the times—His ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE OF WALES, with that generous warmth and liberality of heart which distinguish all his actions, has taken YOUNG BRIDGETOWER under his immediate protection. Thus fostered, the path is smoothened that leads both to fortune and to fame.16

Other young performers included Franz Clement (1780-1842), for whom Beethoven wrote his violin concerto; George Frederick Pinto (1785-1806), who produced some rather remarkable compositions before his death at the age of 20; Julian Baux (b. ca. 1789), who performed a Viotti violin concerto at the age of 5; Benoit-Auguste Bertini (b. 1780), who in 1795 published a set of brilliant piano sonatas dedicated to Haydn; and Miss Hoffman (b. ca. 1786), who appeared as a concerto performer at the age of 6. These youthful performers sometimes appeared on a large number of concerts in close succession. Bridgetower played nine concertos during the 1790 season; Clement appeared fifteen times as a concerto performer the following year. Child prodigies also demonstrated pianos in music shops, and they were hired out as entertainment at private parties. An advertisement in 1790 announced to the public that Mr. Appleton, “4% years old,” could he heard daily at the Warwickshire Apollo.17 In short, some of these children were grossly exploited. It was to some extent recognized that every wonder child might not become a famous musician as an adult. A reviewer wrote of Clement in 1791: Master Clement played a Concerto on the Violin, and the performance had much merit.—He is one of those Musical Prodigies which should be seen when young, as their Value Generally decreases when their talents may be expected to ripen.18

Musical Elements of Concertos Virtuosity One of the things which most frequently brought forth the applause of the audiences and favorable reviews in the newspapers was the status of

26

London and the Concerto

the performer with respect to “rapidity of execution.” A review from 1790 exclaimed: But the performance beyond all others to astonish was CLEMENTI’S Concerto on the Piano Forte:—what brilliancy of finger, and wonderful execution!—The powers of the instrument, were never called forth with superior skill, perhaps not equal;—for however we venerate the expression of the late SCHROETER, he scarcely equalled CLEMENTES rapidity.19

Muzio Clementi (1752-1832) was brought to England from Rome at the age of 14 by a wealthy gentleman. He settled in London in 1774, made two lengthy continental tours in 1780-83 and 1784-85, and until 1790 per¬ formed regularly in London, establishing himself as the outstanding piano virtuoso of the time. After 1790 his public performances were sharply curtailed, and he devoted himself to composition, teaching, and business activity. An article published in 1796, with the notation that it had been written in 1790-91 and 1792, evaluates the powers of an unnamed pianist, who can hardly be anyone other than Clementi: High on the scale of eminence ranks the much-admired and much-extolled CELERIO, LE DIEU DE CLAVECIN—the idol of all the Piano-Forte Volante’s of the age, and on whose appearance "the many rend the skies with loud applause.” In the brilliant stile of play CELERIO is recherche in the extreme, and, as a slight-of-hand performer, aufait to a degree of luxuriance which none have yet attained, and wherein no one can exceed him. From the very lowest to the uppermost key, and back again, he is quicker than the eye can follow him, or the ear catch the sounds produced in this flight des les doigts. “Faster than swift CAMILLA scours the plain, “Flies o’er th'unbending corn, and skims along the main." Next we have shake upon shake; double shake with the hands across, the bass keys first fingered with the left hand, the treble with the right, then, quick as lightning, the hands overcrossed, and the bass tickled with the right; now, prestissimo, each hand restored to its place, and, in a twinkling, again crossed under; and thus is the whole figure of 8 repeatedly manoeuvred by CELERIO with a dexterity and rapidity aston¬ ishing to behold; his velocity of flight over the whole finger-board from right to left, from left to right, far exceeding that of a weaver’s shuttle when darted through the loom with the utmost expertness. Now, all this hocus-pocus, this ambi dexter work, is constantly exercised by CELERIO in every lesson before him: whatever its subject, or, however the text may vary, still the same appendages, the same embellishments, the same circumvolutions of flourish and wiredrawn cadenzas, are invariably intro¬ duced by him to excite wonder and extort applause. In my very humble opinion, there is in CELERIO a great sameness of manner. The lessons which he delivers in public are very few in number, whence I conjecture his studies have not been very extensive, and that he is not profound as a scientific Musician. I regard him, therefore, but as a practical adept in the manual part of his profession, so far as relates to Rapidity of Finger, and wherein his right hand far excels his left. His Stile of Play, calculated

London and the Concerto

27

wholly for momentary effect, and which can make no impression, is, however, cer¬ tainly the most elegant of that species of performance. CELERIO is perfect in a shake, open, clear, and continued; his adornments are light and airy, and his Cadences highly wrought with well-fancied ornament, and well-sustained, though, in general, to a length that sates the Ear. But then, in whatever is executed by CELERIO, this Art-manual, this Legerdemain, this Finger alacrity, is ever predominant, and is the sole object of his attention; and this is evinced by those who frequently hear him, from the same Traverses, the same Shakes, the same Closes, and the same tricks of every kind; in short, the Ditto ever repeated. . . . . . . Yet while thus we are freely censuring the stile of CELERIO, some allowance should be made; let us then to the vitiated Taste of the Age in which CELERIO flourishes, attribute, in a great degree, the Inducements he has to adopt that mode which promises success [s/c]. The object with CELERIO is eclat', that admired as a Performer, he may be sought after as a Teacher.20

This writer once again relates the taste of the audiences and the inclinations of the performer. The public wanted a sensational display of technical feats. To provide this sort of thing brought the performer not only applause but also money. His success as a performer assured his success in attracting pupils as well. Quite a few complaints about the tendency toward mere virtuosity occur in musical writings of the time. Richard Stevens, who was the lecturer on music in a series known as the Gresham Lectures, delivered the following comments in his lecture of May 12, 1802: Suffer me to lament the revolution which of late years has taken place in the musical taste of the public: and to regret the seemingly predominant ambition in our Instru¬ mental performers, to excite astonishment, by violent rapidity on Keyed and other instruments; and in our singers, to surprize, by the difficult divisions of Bravura Songs; I must fear, that from these propensities in the public, and in public performers, we shall in time lose the elegance and Expression, which have so often charmed us, in a cantabile song; and that the exquisite delight which the adagio movement of an Abel, or a Barthelemon has inspired will be unknown to us.21

The composer Thomas Wright wrote this in the preface to a keyboard concerto: AGREEABLE to the motto, some prelude to the following pages is necessary; especially in musical days like the present, when the Eye has by a lamentable kind of fatality usurped the place of the Ear, and the admiration which Subject and Harmony ought to attract, is lost in attending to the dexterous manoeuvring, or as it is called Execution of the Performer—and Execution it too often is, only place the poor in¬ nocent Subject in the same light as one of a different nature, at Tyburn—therefore the composer begs leave to premise, that they are not calculated to please those (of which poor Apollo knows to his sorrow, there are but too many among his worship¬ pers) who cursorily cast their eye over publications of the kind, and if they discern no difficult or awkward passages, throw them aside, with “Pho! it’s nothing at all— it’s very easy . . .”22

28

London and the Concerto

Another composer maintained the following opinion: This fault, in the length of the strains in modern music, occurs the most frequently in solo concertos, in which the body of the composition may be considered as a mere vehicle for conveying particular passages that one intended to exhibit the execution and dexterity of the performer. In these solos, many pauses are introduced to give him an opportunity of showing off in an ad libitum cadence, which (though generally unconnected with the subject of the piece) is frequently the only part attended to by the audience. These cadences are also constantly introduced by a very full noisy passage, seeming to announce to the audience what is to follow, and induce them to resume their attention to the music.23

Although virtuoso performance was identified with concertos for all instruments, concertos for the pianoforte seem to have been most readily labelled as merely that. A review of a Dussek concerto, typical of many Dussek reviews, stated: DUSSEK, at the second part, played a Concerto on the Piano Forte, and proved himself at least a good execution monger. Why will he not try to make people feel as well as to excite surprise.24

The conservative William Jackson assessed the piano concerto as follows: The QUARTETT and TRIO are in a much more respectable style [than the sym¬ phony]; as are the CONCERTOS for particular instruments, those for the piano-forte excepted; these seem to have abandoned that style of melody, so peculiarly the prop¬ erty of this instrument, and to have exchanged the easy flow of execution, which it cost so many years to establish, for staggering octaves. The cadences are invariably the same; and the worst that could be invented by an imagination perverted in the extreme. The performer no doubt, ought to be able to run from the bottom to the top of the keys, in semitones; but let him be satisfied with having the power, without exerting it on all occasions, for, generally speaking, the effect of the passage is to the last degree detestable.25

The question arises as to why critics considered piano concertos, more than concertos for other instruments, to be shallow display pieces. First, the piano, as a relatively new instrument, did not have an estab¬ lished repertoire acceptable to the conservative critics. Mozart’s piano concertos, unfortunately, were not well known in London; only two per¬ formances of Mozart concertos were recorded from 1790 through 1800. The piano concertos heard in London at this time were the compositions of a rather young group of pianists. Clementi was only 38 in 1790, the year of his last concerto performances, and the other leading pianists, Dussek, J. B. Cramer, Steibelt, and Field, were even younger. Also the developments in the manufacture of the instruments at this time undoubtedly had an effect on the style. Great progress in tone quality

London and the Concerto

29

and mechanical action of the pianoforte was being made by the firm of Broadwood, the most important of the London piano manufacturers. One newspaper critic recognized the quality of their instruments in writing: dementi's Sonata on the piano forte was a most masterly display of brilliant exe¬ cution on one of the finest toned instruments we ever heard.—It was the manufacture of Broadwood.26

Expression Besides the display of technical feats, the element that evoked the ad¬ miration of concert audiences was the ability to arouse the emotions through expressive playing. Violinists seemed to have had the greatest success of all instrumentalists in this facet of performance. The following reviews of violin concertos demonstrate the reputation of the leading violinists in the area of expression: The performance of GIARDINI, allowing for the effects of time (almost seventy) was in all respects worthy of his great reputation. He did not aim at the surprizes of execution, but at a better quality—expression. His taste and tone were exquisite; and there were some occasional touches of execution that well attested his former excellence.27 . . . the incomparable Viotti, now spared to us by the ruin of the French Court pre¬ sented it to our mind. It is impossible to speak of this man's performance in common terms, and therefore we may be pardoned the rhapsody. His execution is not more astonishing by its difficulty, than it is delightful by its passion. He not only strikes the senses with wonders, but he touches the heart with emotion.28 The instrumental excellence was a fine Concerto on the Violin, by GIORNOVICHI, who displayed great power of execution, but directed his chief attack at the heart. . . .29

The slow movements provided the opportunity for a demonstration of expressive playing, and it is noteworthy that two of the leading violin¬ ists of the time, Viotti and Janiewicz, were particularly remembered for their adagios.30 The anonymous writer quoted above on the manner of “Celerio” made these comments about adagio movements: The Adagio movement is the grand object of regard with the Composer—equally so with the Performer; it is the ultimatum in study and in practice; it is, in either, the summit of perfection, and therefore attained by few. . . . And here it is that those true graces, tone, expression, and taste, are best brought forward to notice; and what execution truly is, in its strictest sense, becomes manifest; for I do not conceive the common phrase, execution, belongs alone to those passages wherein divisions and subdivisions abound, wherein is much sound without any meaning, and wherein much celerity of finger is exerted to delight an admiring multitude with a much-ado about nothing.31

30

London and the Concerto

Publication of Concertos Factors Influencing Publication The great number of concerto performances in London near the end of the 18th century is not matched by a similar abundance of publications of concertos. Many of the frequently heard concerto players published no concertos at all, although they in some cases had a considerable num¬ ber of publications of other genres. Table 6 lists concertos published in London from 1790 through 1800, which, as far as can be ascertained, were also composed in London during this same period.32 This list, of course, does not include all concertos available for sale at the time. Many concertos written before 1790 remained in print, and concertos from abroad, published with or without the consent of the composer, were also available in English editions. There were also several published concertos by English composers outside of London, such as Thomas Wright and James Brooks. Table 6.

Concertos Written and Published in London, 1790-1800

Composer

Original concertos Instrument

Baumgarten

Number

J.

B.

Pianoforte

2

Dussek

Pianoforte Harp

4 3

Giornovichi

Violin

2

Hook

Organ

6

Pianoforte

1 1

Janiewicz Nicolai

Transcribed as

Piano sonata

la

Acc. piano sonata Piano concerto

6 2

Acc.

piano sonata

2

piano sonata

1

Parke,

Maria

Pianoforte

Parke,

William

Oboe

1

Pianoforte

1

Acc.

Violin

lb

Piano concerto

Steibelt Viotti

Number

1

Oboe

Clementi Cramer,

Transcriptions

5

Acc. = accompanied aOne such transcription can be definitely verified. Other sonatas by Clementi have been identified by some scholars as possible concerto transcriptions.

'’The London edition of this concerto is not extant, however.

London and the Concerto

31

It was around 1790 that the publication of concertos began to decline in London, a fact that is ironic when one considers the popularity of the concerto in the 1790's. Publishers’ catalogs provide a convenient means of assessing the status of concerto publication during this period. A cat¬ alog of Longman and Broderip from 1785 lists 22 single concertos for harpsichord or pianoforte as well as 17 sets of concertos (several con¬ certos published under one opus number). Twenty-six composers are rep¬ resented.33 A catalog of J. Dale, dating from about 1794, includes 22 concertos or sets of concertos for pianoforte or harpsichord by the fol¬ lowing composers: Haydn, Kozeluh, Mozart, Vion, Sterkel, Schroeter, [J. C.] Bach, [Wilhelm] Cramer, Dussek, Dale, Fischer, Handel, Paisiello, and Avison.34 Older concertos, not newly written works, predominate in this catalog. Also from about 1794 is a catalog of Corri, Dussek and Company, a relatively new firm which would not have had plates on hand of concertos published 15 years previously and whose publications there¬ fore closely reflect the immediate situation. This catalog lists nine con¬ certos by Kozeluh, Schetky, Cogan, Vogler, Giornovichi (transcribed), Herman, Corelli, and Dussek. Only one concerto, by Dussek, appears in the section of the catalog entitled “New Music.”35 A catalog of Robert Birchall, with a watermark date of 1808, includes concertos by J. B. Cra¬ mer, Crotch, Corelli, Dussek (a concerto written in 1789), Handel, Haigh, Kozeluh, Rush, Schobert, and Viotti.36 Thus, publication of concertos in the 1790’s did not reflect the most recent performances at the theatres and concert rooms, as was the case with vocal music. Concertos by foreign composers such as Kozeluh and Vogler and older concertos by Haydn, Corelli, Schroeter, Handel, and others were just as prominent as the latest London compositions. An important question, therefore, pertaining to the published con¬ certos included in Table 6, is why these particular works, among the large number written during the period, were the ones to be published. There seem to be different determining factors in many of the cases; some con¬ certos succeeded in being published for one reason and some for another. The printing of some concertos came about because their composers were the most prominent performers of the time. This seems to be the case with Dussek, J. B. Cramer, and Steibelt, the three leading piano concerto performers after dementi withdrew from the scene.37 By 1800 there had been published in London nine Dussek concertos, including two written before 1790; two by J. B. Cramer; and one by Steibelt. Sev¬ eral of these publications mentioned prior performance at public concerts on the title page. Even though these composers were able to have their concertos pub¬ lished at a time when most concertos heard at the public concerts re-

32

London and the Concerto

mained in manuscript, in many cases the publication took place long after the work was composed. For instance, Dussek’s Grand Military Concerto was first performed on February 23, 1798; its date of publication (estab¬ lished only by the opus number) was 1799. A similar one-year lag appears to have existed in the case of the other Dussek concertos and those of J. B. Cramer.38 Steibelt’s “Storm” Concerto, on the other hand, was published within two months of its first performance in 1798. The publi¬ cation of a concerto, it appears, sometimes had to wait until the work became popular through the public performances of its composer. Title pages frequently included such remarks as: “Performed at Mr. Salomon’s and at the Professional Concerts” or even “Performed with the utmost applause.” Additional performances might have been given at private con¬ certs, but almost no information about these is available. Other reasons for publication must be found in the case of the two composers publishing concertos who did not appear in public as perform¬ ers. These were Carl Friedrich Baumgarten (ca. 1740-1824) and Valentin Nicolai (d. ca. 1800). Baumgarten, a native of Liibeck, had been in Lon¬ don since 1758.39 His oboe concerto, published in 1792, was presumably composed for William Parke; the title page indicates that Parke performed the work at the Professional Concerts. Parke had been associated with Baumgarten through participation in the concerts sponsored by the Duke of Cumberland, Baumgarten’s patron.40 Although Baumgarten was little known on the Continent, he had by the 1790’s established a reputation as a composer in London. Burney wrote of Baumgarten that “he deserves notice as an instrumental composer of the German nation.”41 Several of his works were published in the 1780's, and his Concertante was per¬ formed three times at the Professional Concerts during 1790. Clearly Baumgarten was prominent enough that a London publisher would be favorably inclined toward accepting his concerto for publication. The concertos of Nicolai, characterized by a lack of technical diffi¬ culties, were obviously written for amateurs. No concerto by him was performed at public concerts, but his Concerto No. 1, first published in Paris in 1788,42 was reissued in London in the late 1790’s, and his Con¬ certo, Op. 14, presumably written in London, was published by Broderip and Wilkinson in 1800.43 Another class of published concertos consists of the works of the ordinary London professional musicians, who composed and performed their own concertos routinely at the public concerts and who might oc¬ casionally get one of their more outstanding examples published. How¬ ever, since concerto publication was generally sparse, the number of concertos in this category is quite small. William Parke, who played con¬ certos on at least 25 occasions during the period from 1790 to 1800, pub-

London and the Concerto

33

lished a single concerto during his lifetime. J. Fentum, a minor publisher, issued the work in 1794, and the copy presented to the dedicatee, the Prince of Wales, is the only one that seems to have survived.44 James Hook published a set of six concertos about 1790; these were undoubtedly works that had been written for his performances in Vauxhall Gardens. Prior to this set, Hook had published ten concertos, but he published no more thereafter, even though he continued to compose new concertos for Vauxhall. This demonstrates once again that in London the age of prolific concerto publication had ended. William Parke's niece, Maria Hester Parke, published a piano con¬ certo in the mid-1790’s. Miss Parke was primarily known as a singer, although she sometimes appeared as a pianoforte soloist, especially in her earlier years. She was a great favorite of the ladies of the nobility; a review of one of her benefit concerts stated: “It was the most brilliant assemblage of female fashion which any public rooms have displayed through the season; an elegant tribute to highly cultivated talents, so decorously blended with private worth.’’45 At this time in London the ladies began to assert their independence: The titled ladies are putting their names upon their doors in conjunction with their husbands, wisely judging that it is of as much consequence to the world to know that Lady A. or B. resides at such an house, as it is of Lord A. or B.46 The ladies . . . begin to murmur sedition against the ancient usage of full dress, which they term an usurpation of the Rights of Women.*1

The publication of Miss Parke’s concerto seems to have been a proj¬ ect of this group. The work was published “for the author” and sold by advance subscription. As Owain Edwards has pointed out, more than half of the subscribers were titled ladies.48 Violin concertos were published even less frequently than those for keyboard. Viotti, the most outstanding violinist of the time, composed 10 violin concertos after moving to London. Of these only one was published in London in its original form as a violin concerto; most of them first appeared in Paris, and in many cases there existed a 10-year lag between composition and publication. Although Viotti was a popular performer, there was not a good market for violin concertos. Publications as Transcriptions A concerto, when performed in its original form, requires a considerable number of players. It is therefore self-evident that a rearrangement of the work for more modest forces would have increased its practicality for the

34

London and the Concerto

amateur market. As Table 6 indicates, many of the concertos published in London in the 1790’s appeared only in transcription. Keyboard and harp concertos, when published as a set of parts for the soloist and accompanying instruments, provided the player with a ready-made transcription for the solo instrument alone because of the fact that reductions of the orchestral tuttis were included in the solo part. In print, the distinction between the soloist’s parts and these orchestral reductions was indicated by the words “solo” and “tutti” at the begin¬ nings of the respective sections. This type of layout had replaced the earlier method of providing a figured bass during the orchestral tuttis. There is a footnote included in a Dussek harp concerto which states: “This Concerto when played without Accompaniments, the Tutti may be omitted.”49 That this was a common practice is confirmed by the fact that when concertos were transcribed as sonatas, the opening tutti was usually omitted. Thus a performance of a concerto without orchestra would consist of the player’s beginning at the first solo entrance and then proceeding, later tuttis included, straight through to the end. No piano concertos were published in transcriptions as sonatas after having appeared in print in their original form as concertos—it would have been easy enough for the player himself to make the conversion, dementi’s only extant concerto, preserved as a concerto only in manu¬ script, was published as a solo piano sonata, without any indication on the title page that it was originally a concerto. The sonata version omits the opening tutti, and the other tuttis are shortened. The solo sections of the concerto are taken over practically note for note, and the exposition is repeated, as would have been customary for a sonata. Violin concertos, as mentioned previously, were much more often published as transcriptions than in their original form. When these con¬ certos were arranged for violin and piano, the most common arrange¬ ment, they were not for violin solo with piano accompaniment, but rather for piano solo with violin accompaniment. The piano took over practically all the solo material from the concerto, while the violin was given a simple accompanying role (see Example 1). Violin concertos might also be transcribed as piano concertos. Bee¬ thoven’s Violin Concerto, in fact, was published simultaneously in an arrangement by the composer for piano and orchestra.50 Most of Viotti’s violin concertos from his London period were published as piano con¬ certos before being published in their original form. At one time it was thought that some of these were original piano concertos, but later re¬ search has established that all of Viotti’s concertos were originally written for his own instrument, the violin.51 Harp concertos were also frequently published in alternative versions

London and the Concerto Example 1.

35

Janiewicz, Concerto in G Major, arr. J. B. Cramer, mm. 61-68.

for piano. Very little rearrangement was needed to make the conversion from one instrument to the other. In some cases both the harp and the piano versions were incorporated into the same print, with alternate staves at points where the music had to be rewritten for the piano. In other cases separate plates were engraved for each version.

3

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology Introduction

The sources for London piano concertos of the late 18th century consist mostly of printed parts; at this time in London no concertos were pub¬ lished in score. In some cases the complete set of parts has not been preserved. Manuscript sources, either autographs or copies, are rare. There are some concertos preserved only in transcriptions as sonatas; however, this occurs more frequently with the violin than with the piano concerto. Among the problems in source evaluation, one of the most significant is that of dating. Printed music did not include the date on the title page, in contrast to printed books in general, which were usually dated. The most desirable source for dating, whenever it exists, is the entry at Sta¬ tioners Hall.1 But although practically all printed music contained the notation: “Entered at Stationers Hall,” there is an actual entry only in a small minority of cases.2 Advertisements of newly published music are the next most valuable source of dates. These advertisements appeared primarily in the daily newspapers; among the monthly periodicals, only the Monthly Magazine and British Register regularly announced or re¬ viewed new music. In case no Stationers Hall entry or publication an¬ nouncement can be found, which is frequently the situation with minor publishers, the date must be based on evidence such as a change in the name or address of the publisher, opus number sequence, or inclusion of the work in a publisher’s catalog within another musical publication. At this time in London, plate numbers were not used with much regularity by publishers and so are of little help in the dating of concertos. Watermarks, which date the paper on which a particular copy of a musical publication was printed, have been frequently used in dating printed music of this period. Watermarks have had a limited usefulness

38

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

in the present study, however, principally because other more accurate methods have been possible. The use of watermark dating for printed music, as opposed to manuscripts, is subject to the possibility that the copy thus dated might have been printed several years after the original publication date, since engraved plates were retained by the publishers.3 Authenticity is not a significant problem in the repertory under con¬ sideration. We possess no evidence to indicate that any of the published concertos were written by anyone other than the composer given on the title page. When a composer was living in London, a publisher in the same city could hardly have published either a work falsely attributed to him or a work of his attributed to someone else without causing a protest. In the case of concertos published only in some city other than the com¬ poser’s residence, published posthumously, or preserved only in non¬ autograph manuscript sources, careful scholarship requires, however, a consideration of the evidence for authenticity, and therefore such a con¬ sideration will be undertaken in these cases. Muzio Clementi As concert life in London became more active and concerto performance proliferated around 1790, the pianist whose reputation as a virtuoso was already established was Muzio Clementi. Clementi, however, presents a paradoxical situation in the history of the concerto. He was regarded in England as the foremost piano virtuoso of the day, and yet he was in¬ volved only to a very limited extent with the concerto, the chief vehicle for demonstrating virtuosic accomplishments. As a performer, dementi's activities in this area were limited to a single year, 1790. Before this time his public performances as a pianist had consisted of solo sonatas, ac¬ companied sonatas, piano duets, and concertantes. After 1790 he ceased to appear in public as a solo pianist. Likewise, with respect to surviving compositions, there exists a single authenticated Clementi concerto. The Clementi concerto has been preserved in a manuscript score in the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna. This copy is in the hand of Johann Schenk and is dated 1796.4 The existence of the manuscript was noted by Hans Engel in 1927;5 however, the concerto attracted little at¬ tention at that time and was not published until 1966.6 A transcription of the concerto as a piano sonata was published in 1794 as Op. 33, No. 3.7 Since the oldest preserved copy is in the form of a sonata, and since the title page of the sonata gives no indication that the work was transcribed from a concerto, the question arises as to which version was first. On the basis of analysis, scholars have agreed that the concerto version was the original.8

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

39

dementi’s 10 known appearances as a concerto player took place within a three-month period in 1790. Five of these performances were at the Covent Garden oratorios. None of the newspaper announcements or reviews of concerts specify that Clementi played a concerto of his own composition. However, a review of his March 5 performance at Covent Garden indicates that he played a new concerto and therefore implies that he was the composer also.9 The title page of a transcription for piano of a J. B. Krumpholtz harp concerto indicates that it was played by Clementi at Covent Garden.10 None of the Covent Garden announcements mention this Krumpholtz concerto, however. The lack of concerto performances by Clementi, aside from this very brief excursion into the field, implies that he basically had little interest in this genre. Perhaps the 1790 performances can be explained by the fact that half of them were at the Covent Garden oratorios. Sonatas, de¬ menti’s usual performing medium, were acceptable at subscription and benefit concerts; however, the concerto had been the customary entr’acte music for an oratorio since the time of Handel. If Clementi had, for whatever reasons, signed a contract with Covent Garden for the 1790 season, long-standing custom may have compelled him to provide con¬ certos on these occasions. Beginning with Engel, the concerto preserved in the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde has been tacitly identified with the performance of 1790.11 No evidence has been uncovered that would contradict this assumption, and the publication date of 1794 reinforces this identification. The absence of any indication on the title page that the work was a transcribed con¬ certo “performed with the utmost applause” may be accounted for by the four-year lapse. Were there any other Clementi concertos that were published only as sonatas? A copy of the Oeuvres complettes edition of Op. 34 includes a handwritten statement, attributed to dementi’s pupil Ludwig Berger, that the first of the sonatas was originally a concerto, and the second, a symphony.12 An attempt to reconstruct the first of these sonatas as a concerto has in fact been made.13 However, since Op. 34, No. 1, like Op. 33, No. 3, is in C major, Berger might possibly have confused the two.14 Plantinga maintains that this sonata is less concerto-like than sev¬ eral other Clementi sonatas.15 Aside from Op. 34, No. 1, there are no other sonatas for which any external evidence indicates they were origi¬ nally concertos. Whether there are any that can be so identified on the basis of internal stylistic features will be discussed in Chapter 4. Jan Ladislav Dussek The most prolific composer of piano concertos in London in the 1790's

40

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

was Jan Ladislav Dussek (1760-1812), a native of Caslav, Bohemia. Dussek left his homeland in 1778 and during the next decade established his reputation as a pianist in the Netherlands, Germany, Russia, and finally, in Paris. Dussek’s connections with the royal court forced him to flee Paris in 1789, and he then settled in London, where he remained for 11 years. Five of the known piano concertos by Dussek were written before his arrival in London in 1789. The first is an unpublished concerto dated 1779 (C. I).16 A set of three concertos (C. 2-4) was published by Hummel as Op. 1, advertised January 15, 1783.17 In Paris Dussek published a con¬ certo as Op. 3 (C. 33), advertised May 18, 1787. This concerto was the only one of the five to be reissued in London during Dussek’s residence there, and it was advertised by Longman and Broderip on April 24, 1790.18 At Dussek’s first recorded London performance. Signor Marchesi’s benefit concert on June 1, 1789, and at most of his 1790 performances, he played sonatas. Dussek’s first publicly advertised concerto perfor¬ mance was at the Drury Lane oratorio on March 3, 1790. There was one very brief, but complimentary, newspaper review of this performance: A Mr. Dussack performed a concerto on the piano forte in a very superior style. He may certainly be ranked next to Clementi.19

Dussek is recorded as having performed a concerto on one additional occasion in 1790, the benefit concert of Giornovichi on March 19. And in 1791 Dussek began to appear regularly as a concerto player; there are six performances recorded for this season. Thereafter he performed con¬ certos every year through 1799. The journal of Mrs. Charlotte Papendieck provides an interesting account of Dussek as a concerto player: A bright luminary in the musical line had been expected to make his debut at the Musical Fund concert, but he arrived only in time to be introduced on the oratorio nights, which were held at the theatre on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent. Be¬ tween the acts a modern piece was performed, and the new star, Dussek, was to make his first public appearance on a Friday. . . . Handel was the only master whose oratorios were than performed, and the orchestra was on the stage as at this day. A pianoforte of Broadwood’s was then brought in with as much ease as a chair, and immediately after Dussek followed, supported by John Cramer, whose father stood forward as leader, Salomon and other great men of the day being grouped around him. The applause was loud as a welcome. Dussek, now seated, tried his instrument in prelude, which caused a second burst of applause. This so surprised the stranger, that his friends were obliged to desire him to rise and bow, which he did somewhat reluc¬ tantly. He then, after re-seating himself, spread a silk handkerchief over his knees, rubbed his hands in his coat pockets, which were filled with bran, and then began his concerto.

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

41

. . . Near the end of the first movement there was always a “cadenza,” which gave the performer an opportunity of displaying his powers in bravura, or to show off any peculiar merit that he possessed. In this instance Dussek finished his cadence with a long shake and a turn that led in the “Tutti” to finish the movement, and he was rapturously applauded.

His music was full of melody, was elegantly pathetic, and even sublime. He was a handsome man, good dispositioned, mild and pleasing in his demeanour, courteous and agreeable.20

This account, notwithstanding the appeal of its personal glimpses, cannot be taken as an accurate historical record of Dussek’s London debut.21 Ten concertos, of which nine are extant as concertos,22 can be dated during Dussek's 11 years in London. Both harp and piano concertos are included in this number, and some were published for either instrument. It may be assumed that those published for either harp or pianoforte were originally conceived for harp, since all of them share certain idiomatic features, such as an Alberti bass at a high pitch level and extensive use of broken octaves. Examples 2 and 3, from Dussek’s Op. 30, in which alternate readings for harp and piano were provided at certain places, illustrate the difference in Dussek’s style of writing for these two instru¬ ments. Dussek’s concertos from the London period are summarized in Table 7.

Dussek, Concerto, Op. 30, iii, mm. 94-95.

mid oEa nnjflV t UrW^rf'T--

m

fflr

. ± f f T-$ , f f

4

/

A

Example 2.

42

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

Example 3.

Ibid., iii, m. 103.

Table 7.

Designation

Dussek Concertos Written or Published During His Residence in London Key

Op. No.

Craw No.

Date of Publication

Publisher

Pianoforte Second

F

14

77

1790

Lobry

First Grand

Bb

22

97

1793

Corri & Co.

Second Grand

F

27

104

1794

Corri, Dussek & Co.

Third Grand

C

29

125

1795

Longman & Broderip

Grand Military

Bb

40

153

1799

Corri, Dussek & Co.

53

1791

Sieber

78 (or 266)

1791

Sieber

1795

Corri, Dussek & Co. ?

Harp Troisieme

Eb

Quatrieme

F

17

Grand

C

30

129

Favorite

F

none

158

Much-admired

Bb

none

264

15 (or 26)

ca.

1800

1813

Mad. Dussek-Moralt

The harp concertos will be dealt with in Chapter 8. Among the piano concertos, the Concerto in F major, Op. 14, stands apart from the

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

43

others in that it is written for the small pianoforte with/3 as the highest note. The others have a more extended range. A striking observation pertaining to the Concerto, Op. 14, is that it was not published in London, but only in Paris and later in Germany. Furthermore, it was the only Dussek work published by the Paris publisher Lobry.23 In order to attempt to assess the circumstances of the writing and publication of this work, one must consider the state of affairs pertaining to Dussek’s publications at this time in his career. After Dussek fled from France to England in 1789, new works of his continued to appear for a time in Paris. His set of sonatas, Op. 7, which was advertised on March 16, 1789, is possibly the last work published in Paris before his departure. Three more sets of sonatas, Op. 8, Op. 9, and Op. 10, appeared in Paris later in 1789.24 The first composition for which there is any evidence of English origin is the Duo for Harp and Piano, Op. 11 (C. 63). Dussek had pub¬ lished nothing for the harp in France. Shortly after his arrival in England he wrote the Concerto in Eb Major (C. 53) for the harpist Julie Krumpholtz,25 with whom he later performed a Concertante for Harp and Piano at various subscription concerts.26 It is possible that Dussek wrote this Duo for himself and Madame Krumpholtz. The earliest extant copy of this work was issued in Paris by Sieber, plate number 1105.27 There is some evidence to indicate an English edition, now lost, which served as a direct source for the Sieber edition. An edition published by J. Dale, with a date of about 1795,28 has a text almost identical to the Sieber edition, except that one pitch error is corrected and some missing accidentals are added.29 These corrections, however, have been made on pre-existing plates. The new accidentals are squeezed in or placed above the notes; the pitch correction is made by hammering out the previous engraving. Thus we may hypothesize an earlier English edition, printed from the uncorrected plates, and closely corresponding to the Sieber edition. Peculiarities in vertical alignment of the notes seem to indicate that the English edition came first and that the French edition was engraved from it. There exists, however, no external evidence, such as advertisements or catalogs, to establish the existence of an English first edition. The set of accompanied sonatas, Op. 12, is another work which ap¬ peared in both English and French editions. Although these sonatas were published for piano with an accompaniment of a violin, the first two were originally solo sonatas for piano and harp, respectively, as indicated in the English edition by footnotes that read: “This Sonata was performed with the utmost Applause by Mr. Dussek at the Professional Concert” and “This Sonata was performed with the utmost applause by Madme. Krumpholtz.” The French edition by Sieber, plate number 1078, was ad-

44

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

vertised on April 29, 1790.30 The English edition, by Preston, did not have a Stationers Hall entry or newspaper advertisement; its reference to the Dussek performance means that it could not have been published earlier than March of 1790. In the Preston edition there is a dedication to “Mrs. Cosway’’; in the Sieber edition it is to “Monsieur Cosway.’’ The most plausible explanation for this discrepancy is that the English edition came first, and the French engraver translating the title page did not know the English abbreviation “Mrs.” Three more Sonatas, Op. 13, were published in London by J. Dale, entered at Stationers Hall on June 15, 1790. In Paris the same work was published by M. Boyer et Mme. Le Menu sometime before August 22, 1790.31 Evidence as to which of these publications is the first is provided by another composition, dementi’s three Sonatas, Op. 25. This set was published by J. Dale, entered at Stationers Hall on June 8, 17 90.32 They were advertised by Boyer et Le Menu on August 10, 1790, in the last advertisement of this partnership.33 It seems that Boyer et Le Menu, shortly before going out of business, acquired and published some new music of J. Dale, and on this basis the English edition of Dussek’s Op. 13 may be dated earlier. Thus, by the time Dussek had been in London for a year, he was having his works published by English publishers. However, French edi¬ tions of these works appeared within a few weeks of their publication in London. At this point in the chronology, late 1790, we come to the pub¬ lication of the Concertos, Op. 14, Op. 15, and Op. 17. As an aid in dating these, a comparison of Dussek’s Paris editions with those of several other composers has been made. This information has been assembled in Table 8.34 Interpolation between the known dates in the table gives approximate dates for the remaining items. Dussek’s Op. 14 may be given a probable publication date of late 1790; Op. 15, January or February of 1791; and Op. 17, March or April of 1791. As mentioned above, the Concerto, Op. 14, was not published in London; this opus number was used there for a different work, a set of sonatas. The Harp Concertos, Op. 15 and Op. 17, were published in London, but later than the Paris publication date.35 Thus, Dussek, even though he was publishing sonatas in London by this time, turned once again to the Parisian publishers for the publication of his concertos. This is not surprising, since it was difficult to have con¬ certos published in London. Matching published concertos with specific performances is problem¬ atic, since concert announcements did not include identifying infor¬ mation such as opus numbers or keys. In this case, however, it seems likely that the Op. 14 concerto was played at Dussek’s only two concerto

g

o

•G

Table 8.

Some Paris Music Publications, 1790-91

G

O o OS OS Os oo o(■". X r—1 i-H >> G O G O G G S Os a Q 00 X CM OS G G : G G G G G G O G X 4JX G X X G G G X O0

X Os

O os o 0- os —i rX G G o G G X Q

o os

i—i os

x gx g

i—i

uO 1—1

CO 00 CM G G G G O X X X G tfl

G

G

G C G X

l

z

1

i

P-t 1-1 G a 4-J

o

G

G

O X

G

G O X

o OS r"> i—i 0) 4-J G p

£ O •H 4J G O •G X G P. CO •G G G P

G O •rH 4-J •H CO O

P

g O O

G Cu

o os X OO

G


G o

O X

kJ

o Os OiX

CM CM

O iX

1 CM CM

G G O X G X

G G O X G X

G G O X G X

G G O X G X

G CO c— o i—i

G 2 G X

1

1

G G G c G O G Sh2 X G X G X X

1

G ctf a

1

co i—i 1—1 i—i tX X 1—1 =£= =s=

G > bO £ O G G !2 < X sO i—i 04 04 CO CM i G G G G G G O O X X X X G G G X X G £ £ G •G >

X G £

G

G £

G X

X 1

i—1 OS oI—1 a G P

SO

os

CM CM

G G O X G X

G G O X G X

G G O X G X

G G O X G X

LO UO rX i—1 =S=

rH OS 1—1 1—1 rU-.

00 CM i—1 rX =ft=

1

UO Mf i—1 rX

i—1 cn i o UO i—1 rX

G £ £ G •G >

T—4 CS

i—i

00

G


iX OS

i—i Os c1—1

i—i

Os CM

G

PG G < G < G G a o s o CM CM CO in i G G G G G G G O G O X X X X X G X G G X G X j< G £ £ G •rH >

o Os

00 G


o

£

CS Os i—1 i—1

08 G G X G •H CO

CM i—1 Cu

o .. X G CO CO o

Q

G G O X

i—1 CO Cu O

G G G G X >% G O X cq an

UO CM CO N O

>S G

X O k-i

X cu o o

e

G G G G X •rH •G X CO CO CO CO

G •G CO

G G X G •G CO

CO CO

LO sO s-' 1

L/o x orX i—1 rX P P CU

z

o o o

G

G G co co co CO

G G Q Q

rX G >N O

G G

G

X

X

G •G CO

G •G CO

G CO CO G

^ M G G C0 CO CO CO

G G Q P Q

G G X G •G CO

O X CO sO SO

Cu O

cu

Cu O

cu

o CU ••

o

G rX G >N O

G X

-

G G iX CJ

G G

X

CM CO

X G

G G G G G G G G

G X X X

sD

Cu O

«

X G

G >•> G G >>X O O c0 ,-J

G P

>•> a: N X •G

£

G G

o CU

-

G

rX G >tM O

o

-

c

X >s G pH

"O

a

A pre-publication reduced price was

£ O •H X G O •G i—1 xi 3 P

46

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

performances of 1790, which took place on March 3 and March 19. In fact, the March 3 advertisement specifies that he played a “New Con¬ certo,” and this is his only concerto which dates from approximately this time.36 The reason that this concerto was not published in London is pos¬ sibly connected with a development in the instrument that took place about this time. The normal range of the piano keyboard had been five octaves, FF to/3. In the records of the piano manufacturing firm of Broadwood, the most important of the London piano builders, there is this entry concerning the expansion of the range: 13 November, 1793. We have made some 5Vi octave Grands these three years past, the first to please Dussek, which being liked, Cramer Junior had one.37

Dussek’s first concerto performance for the 1791 season was at Sal¬ omon’s third concert on March 25. The account books of the Broadwood firm indicate a transaction with Dussek the next day, March 26.38 Thus, the introduction of the new S^-octave piano probably took place at this performance. It seems obvious that if Dussek had just acquired a spe¬ cially-built instrument with an extended keyboard, he would have im¬ mediately written a concerto making use of the additional keys. The advertisement of the March 25 performance confirms the fact that Dussek was playing a new concerto.39 Of course, Dussek would not necessarily have had to drop the Op. 14 concerto from his repertoire after the range of the keyboard was ex¬ panded, but the fact that this work was not published in London indicates that he probably did. In contrast to modern practice, concerto performers at this time frequently played the same work at several consecutive con¬ certs. One concerto for a particular year’s concert season was considered sufficient. Evidence that this was Dussek’s practice is found in the form of a complaint about his performances: There was nothing to object to DUSSEK's Concerto, but that it has been rather too much heard to create much interest, notwithstanding the brilliancy of his execution.40

So we may conclude that Op. 14 possibly was performed only on the two concerts in 1790; after Dussek had written the next concerto, it was the one which he performed thereafter. The next three Dussek concertos will be considered together. The Grand Concerto, Op. 22 (C. 97) was published by Corri and Company and advertised on December 13, 1793.41 The Second Grand Concerto, Op. 27 (C. 104), was published by the same firm, which had meanwhile become Corri, Dussek and Company; it was advertised on December 16,

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

47

jhg jhird Grand Concerto, Op. 29 (C. 125), was published by Longman and Broderip and entered at Stationers Hall on May 27, 1795. Each of these concertos has a compass of 5Vi octaves, from FF to c4. However, in all passages which go beyond /•', there is an alternative version for the five-octave instrument. The provision of a version for the smaller piano is less surprising, especially for the first of these concertos, than the inclusion of the original text itself. Until 1794 only grand pianos were built with a 514-octave range. On October 18 of that year, William Southwell patented a type of sounding-board construction which elimi¬ nated the problems of tone quality that had prevented the addition of the extra keys to the square pianoforte.43 The title page of each concerto of the concert series indicates where the composition had been performed. For example, Op. 22 was played “at Mr. Salomon’s and at the Professional Concerts, &c.” Table 9 cor¬ relates the performance indications for these three works with Dussek’s actual performances at the different concert series as listed in Appendix B. 1794 42

Table 9.

Concert Series Professional

Dussek Performances on London Concert Series Data from Title Pages Op.

22 X

Covent Garden Salomon Haymarket Opera

Op.

27

Op.

29

Dates of Performances 1791 1792 1793

X

X

X X

X

1794 1795

X X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

If the information on the title pages is correct, Op. 22 must have been composed no later than 1792; Op. 27, no later than 1793; and Op. 29, no later than 1794. Further evidence toward establishing dates of composi¬ tion is provided by newspaper advertisements of concerts, which some¬ times specified that a performer was playing a “new concerto.” During the five-year period under consideration, three new concertos by Dussek were announced; these were introduced in the years 1791, 1792, and 1794.44 A combination of this evidence with the information from the title pages enables us to construct a chronology for these three concertos. For the 1791 season, Dussek composed the first of the concertos, which was later to be published as Op. 22; the second concerto was written for Dussek’s 1792 performances. In 1793 Dussek did not compose a new concerto, but continued to perform these two, both of which were as yet

48

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

unpublished. Late in 1793 the first of the concertos was published, ap¬ proximately 32 months after its first performance. In 1794 the third con¬ certo was written, and the second was published as Op. 27. The third concerto, after having been performed once again in the 1795 season, was published as Op. 29. The foregoing hypothesis, although consistent with the evidence at hand, is nevertheless subject to question on the grounds of plausibility. A delay of over two years occurred between first performance and pub¬ lication of Op. 22 and Op. 27, with the result that one concerto was not published until the next had already been composed and played in public. In a market where sales were dependent on popularity, it seems more logical that Dussek, whenever he published a concerto, would choose his most recent work. If we assume, however, that these three concertos represent all those that Dussek composed in the five-year period from 1791 through 1795, such a delay in publication must be accepted. An alternate hypothesis that would reduce the time span between composi¬ tion and publication must assume the existence of one or more lost con¬ certos. If we assume that the new concerto written in 1791 is one which is no longer extant, we may revise the dates of composition for the three concertos in question to 1792, 1793, and 1794. This may be done without contradicting any of the available evidence: the performance indications on the title pages are still valid, and the requirements for a “new con¬ certo” in 1792 and 1794 are still satisfied, although the 1792 concerto is now assumed to be Op. 22 rather than Op. 27. But even though the gap is thereby narrowed between the date of composition and the date of publication, the more crucial issue pertaining to the publication of one concerto only after the composition of the next remains unresolved. Let us assume that there were two lost concertos, one written in 1791 and the other in 1792. Under this hypothesis each of the three extant concertos would have been published in the summer or fall of the year in which it was introduced at the public concerts. However, such an assumption necessitates a rejection of the validity of the title-page performance indications in all three cases (see Table 9). A title-page ref¬ erence is indeed a questionable historic source, since even the composer himself might not remember which concerto had been played on a specific concert 18 months earlier. However, to reject the information on all three title pages as erroneous seems to be an untenable position in this case. The Op. 27 concerto, published by Corri, Dussek and Company in De¬ cember, 1794, refers to the Professional Concerts, which went out of existence after the 1793 season. The person responsible for the publica¬ tion, presumably Dussek himself or his father-in-law Domenico Corri, must surely have been cognizant of the fact that the Professional Concerts

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

49

had been defunct for over a year. To state that the concerto had been performed there was to imply quite definitely that it was not a new work of 1794. This last hypothesis therefore seems to be the weakest of the three. The other two, on the basis of evidence presently available, appear to be equally probable. The decisive issue is whether there existed one lost concerto, something which is quite possible but not substantiated. Con¬ sequently, the most valid estimate of dates of composition seems to be 1791 or 1792 for Op. 22, 1792 or 1793 for Op. 27, and 1794 for Op. 29. Dussek’s next piano concerto, the “Grand Military,” Op. 40 (C. 156), presents us with an unusual situation: the dates of the performances can be established with greater precision than the date of publication. No Stationers Hall entry or newspaper announcement pertaining to this work could be located. A publication date of 1799 may be inferred from the opus number; the work presumably was published between Op. 39, en¬ tered at Stationers Hall March 1, 1799, and Op. 42, advertised October 28, 1799. The concerto was published by Corri, Dussek and Company, a firm which was to become bankrupt by the end of the year. Since this concerto had a programmatic title that was often included in newspaper advertisements of concerts, several performance dates can be ascertained. The first of these was the Covent Garden oratorio on February 23, 1798.45 Dussek performed the concerto at least six more times during 1798 and twice in 1799. There were six other concerto per¬ formances by Dussek during these two years, which may or may not have been performances of the same concerto. Dussek’s last concerto perfor¬ mance for 1797 was listed as a new concerto, “for the only time this season.”46 This might also have been the Grand Military; however, no additional evidence to support such an identification has been located. In 1800 the Grand Military Concerto was played by two other per¬ formers: Madame Dussek on March 21 and Dussek’s sister, Signora Cianchettini, on June 6.47 The idea of a military concerto also stimulated imitation by other composers. Paul Alday performed a military concerto on the violin on January 28, 1799, and just over a week later, on Febru¬ ary 7, a new military concerto for oboe was performed by William Ling.48 The Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung reviewed Dussek’s Grand Mil¬ itary Concerto in 1800. The critic did not think that the music was really military,49 but had he been present at a performance, he would have understood the reason for this designation: DUSSEK’s new Concerto was received with the highest marks of approbation by the Orchestra and the whole House: his introduction of Military Cymbols, Drum &c &c in the Rondo, drew several Officers of distinction; we may soon expect to have the charming Air adapted as a Quick-step.S0

50

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

Presumably a member of the orchestra played these percussion instru¬ ments. When Madame Dussek performed the concerto in 1800, though, she used a newly patented pianoforte with a tambourine and triangle attachment.51 The question remains as to whether Dussek composed any piano concertos during the four-year interval between Op. 29 and the Grand Military Concerto. The only indication that he did is the advertisement of a new concerto for his last performance of 1797. As mentioned pre¬ viously, however, this may have been the Grand Military Concerto. In addition, the number of Dussek’s public performances declined for the years 1795 to 1797, a fact that supports the assumption that he did not compose any new concertos during this time. After he left London, Dussek’s next concerto was the Concerto in G Minor, Op. 49 (C. 187), dating from 1801. Dussek’s continuing popu¬ larity in London is shown by the fact that this composition was performed and also published in this city. Charles Neate (1784-1877) gave the first London performance at the Covent Garden oratorio on February 22, 1804.52 The publication of the work was announced by dementi and Company in May of the same year.53 Thomas Attwood Thomas Attwood (1765-1838) was an important figure in London’s musi¬ cal life; however, he did not turn his attention to the piano concerto as a main portion of either his composing or his performing activity. In 1790 he performed a new concerto at Drury Lane.54 Two years later, on a concert of the Anacreontic Society, Attwood played a concerto incor¬ porating an air from the opera The Haunted Tower, written in 1787 by Stephen Storace.55 Attwood is of special interest because of his study with Mozart from August, 1785, to February, 1787, from which Attwood’s notebooks have been preserved. Since Attwood’s stay in Vienna coincides with the peak of Mozart’s concerto composition, it may be assumed that Attwood would have been influenced by the concertos of his teacher. In other genres, in fact, Attwood’s attempts to imitate Mozart have been traced. Erich Hertzmann states: Shortly after his return to England in March 1787 Attwood published two sets of piano trios which show thematic resemblance to the idiom of his master. Here Attwood tried to emulate the novel feature of Mozart’s great piano trios K. 496 and 502, and especially K. 498, in which the interplay of musical ideas creates a balance of the three instruments.56

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

51

Regrettably Attwood’s concertos have not been preserved; they would have been of great interest to scholars. J. B. Cramer Johann Baptist Cramer (1771-1858), the German-born son of violinist Wilhelm Cramer, was brought to London at the age of three, and he remained there for the rest of his life except for occasional Continental tours. Cramer’s career as a performer of concertos began in the mid-1780’s, although he published no concertos until the 1790’s. In particular, 1788 was an active year for Cramer as a performer; he played concertos on at least five occasions during this season.57 None of the advertisements of Cramer’s concerto performances in the 1780’s specifically state that the concerto was of his own composition; however, since it is known that he was composing other genres at this time, it is likely that he was writing his own concertos, also. After returning from an extensive journey abroad in 1790, Cramer once again began making regular appearances on public concerts. Even at the age of 21 his ability as a composer was recognized: From a multiplicity of musical engagements, young CRAMER has been prevented from playing in public this season:—this evening, however, he laudably steps for¬ ward—and the fashionable world will then feel the difference between correct taste and elegant composition, and the rattling unmeaning jargon which has lately too fre¬ quently laid seige to the auricular faculties of the musical cognoscenti.58

Like Dussek, Cramer played sonatas as well as concertos during the 1790 and 1791 seasons. In the years that followed, his public performances consisted of concertos almost exclusively. Cramer’s first published concerto was Op. 10, published by Preston and Son and advertised on February 25, 1795.59 The date of composition of the work is a matter of speculation. The title page indicates that it was performed at the Opera Concerts and the Professional Concerts. Cramer’s performance at the Opera Concerts must have been in 1795, the first year of its existence. Actually no record of Cramer’s having performed there has been located; however, several of the programs for the 1795 season were not advertised, and he may have performed on one of these. Cramer appeared on the Professional Concerts during its final season in 1793. The only advertisement of a “new concerto” by Cramer prior to 1795 pertains to a performance on April 27, 1792.60 During the early 1790’s Cramer was performing approximately twice per season at the public concerts. Con¬ sequently a single concerto would probably have sufficed for the years 1792 through 1795. A motive for Cramer’s composing a concerto in 1792

52

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

could have been his acquisition of a S^-octave piano. The Op. 10 con¬ certo has this range. The Broadwood memorandum quoted above implies that Cramer was the second person for whom a piano with the expanded range was built. This would probably have been in 1791 or 1792. In 1796 there was a marked increase in the number of concerto per¬ formances by Cramer; he played seven times during this season. At the first and twelfth Salomon Concerts he was listed as performing a new concerto;61 the same work is probably alluded to in each case. It may also have been the same concerto which was played on Salomon’s sixth concert, occasioning a reviewer's comment: ‘‘Young CRAMER’s Piano¬ forte concerto, though somewhat long, was so good in composition and so well played, that nobody could wish it shorter.”62 For the Janiewicz Benefit on June 1, the announcement specifies a ‘‘New Concerto, com¬ posed for the occasion.”63 The same concerto was repeated five days later at the Ashe Benefit.64 So in 1796 Cramer evidently wrote two piano concertos. Cramer’s Second Grand Concerto, Op. 16, published by Robert Birchall, was advertised on July 4, 1797.65 The title page indicates a perfor¬ mance at the Salomon Concerts, and if this information has validity, the work is thus identified as the first of the concertos composed in 1796. After 1796 Cramer’s performances of concertos greatly decreased. From 1797 into the early years of the 19th century, Cramer usually per¬ formed only at his own benefit concerts, which he gave jointly with his father or his brother. There were announcements of a ‘‘new concerto” on the Cramer Benefit in 1797, the Cimador Benefit in 1801, and the Cramer Benefit in 1802.66 The advertisement of the 1801 performance specifically stated that the work was ‘‘played for the first time on this occasion.” In addition, the announcements specified a manuscript con¬ certo for the Cramer Benefits in 1801, 1804, and 1807.67 The next three published concertos by Cramer were No. 3—circa 1801, No. 4—circa 1806, and No. 5—circa 1812. By assuming that a “new” concerto in two consecutive years possibly refers to the same work, one can hypothesize that the second concerto of 1796 was later published as No. 3, that of 1801 as No. 4, and that of 1807 as No. 5. Such a correlation, of course, cannot be proven on the basis of available evi¬ dence; for example, some of the ‘‘new concertos” performed by Cramer may have been discarded and never published. A definite clue to Cramer’s composing habits emerges from these data, however. Shortly after the appearance of each new published concerto, there began to appear an¬ nouncements of ‘‘manuscript concertos” to be performed by Cramer. This indicates that he did not wish to play the familiar works already in print but preferred to move on to a new composition after his previous concerto became available to the public.

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

53

In all, J. B. Cramer published nine concertos. They are scattered in date except for the appearance of four during approximately 1812 to 1815. This period, of course, coincides with the founding of the Philharmonic Society and the renewal of interest in instrumental music in London. The published concertos of Cramer are listed in Table 10. Table 10. No.

Concertos by J. B. Cramer

Opus

Key

Date of Publication

1

10

Eb

2

16

d

3

26

d

ca.

1801

4

38

C

ca.

1806

ca.

1812

1795 1797

5

48

c

:k

--

Bb

6

51

Eb

ca.

1813

7

56

E

ca.

1815

8

70

d

ca.

1822

1813

^Concerto da camera—no number.

Maria Hester Parke The date of the concerto by Miss Parke is one of the most difficult to determine among the London concertos. It was published for the author and was neither entered at Stationers Hall nor advertised in the news¬ papers. The opus number sequence is of some help in dating. The con¬ certo appeared as Op. 6. Miss Parke's Op. 7 was published by L. Lavenu, 23 Duke Street. Lavenu was in business at this address from 1796 to 1798.68 The year 1798 becomes therefore a terminus post quem for the concerto. Although Op. 5 of this composer could not be located, her Op. 4, a set of two sonatas, is extant. These sonatas, published for the author by Longman and Broderip, were undoubtedly the ones advertised by this firm on March 24, 1790, as compositions of “Mrs. Park.”69 Fur¬ ther help in dating is provided by the list of subscribers to the concerto. The subscribers included Philip Hayes of Oxford, who died in March, 1797. The title page of the concerto gives Miss Parke’s address as “No. 33 Piccadily opposite the Green Park.” A comparison of this address with those given in the newspaper advertisements of Miss Parke’s benefit con¬ certs reveals no other instance of this same address. From 1793 on, Miss Parke lived with her father at 84 St. Martin’s Lane, an address confirmed by Doane’s Musical Directory of 1794.70 Miss Parke’s address on the title

54

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

page of Op. 4, “No. 4 Margaret Street, Westminister,” likewise cannot be found in any other source. The publication of the concerto occurs therefore between 1790 and, 1797, and is probably not at the extreme limits of this period. The date given in the British Union-Catalogue, circa 1795, is consistent with the available evidence, although the date cannot be narrowed down to a single year.71 Possible performances of this concerto are even more elusive than the date of publication. Miss Parke’s only public concerto performance during the 1790’s took place at her father’s benefit concert in 1790. On this occasion she played not her own concerto but one by J. B. Krumpholtz.72 Because of Miss Parke’s strong ties with the ladies of the nobility, as discussed in Chapter 2, she undoubtedly performed at many private concerts. It is likely that she wrote her piano concerto for such an occasion. Unfortunately there are no records of the private concerts taking place in London at this time, and therefore such performances of Miss Parke’s concerto are impossible to trace. Johann Nepomuk Hummel During the 1791 and 1792 seasons, Johann Nepomuk Hummel (1778-1837) was brought to London by his father as a part of a concert tour. The child’s first scheduled concerto performance was on a concert in the Haymarket Theatre on May 19, 1791, but as the date of the concert ap¬ proached, he substituted a set of variations for the concertos.73 A few weeks later a piano concerto by “Master Hummell” was advertised for the “Master Clement and Master Hummell” benefit concert on June 13.74 The appearance on the same program of a “Quartetto French Horn, Master Hummell” creates a problem of identification of the performer. H. C. Robbins Landon identifies “Master Hummell” not as J. N. Hum¬ mel but as a little-known horn player, L. C. Hummell.75 However, the account books of the Broadwood piano firm show a transaction with J. N. Hummel on June 13, 1791.76 There is a high probability that this trans¬ action is connected with that day’s concert and that the performer was indeed Johann Nepomuk Hummel. At his own benefit concert the next year, which took place on May 5, Hummel played a Mozart concerto.77 Concertos by Mozart were heard very seldom in London at this time. There is one manuscript concerto by Hummel that possibly dates from this period in London, although the evidence supporting a London origin remains inconclusive. The concerto appears in two manuscripts in the British Library; one contains the piano solo, and the other, the or-

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

55

chestral parts.78 The slow movement in the solo differs from that in the other parts, indicating a revision of the work at some time. In the piano part, this movement is a set of variations; in the orchestral parts it is a romance. The variations seem compositionally to be less mature and hence the original version. The title page to the first violin part reads as follows: “Concerto in / pour le / Piano Forte / avec Accompagnement de / 2 Violons /2 Hautbois / 2 Cors / Alto et Basso. / compose par / Jean Hummel jun:”. It would not have been unusual for an English title page to have been written in French, the international language of the music trade. It would have been rather remarkable for a title page written somewhere other than England to have used the English abbreviation “jun.’’ rather than “le jeune.” Therefore the work should be considered as a possible Lon¬ don composition. Other Pianists Active During Haydn’s Visits Haydn’s first year in London, 1791, saw the appearance of Eliza Abrams (ca. 1772-ca. 1830), a sister of the singer Harriet Abrams, who played an Attwood concerto on the benefit concert given by the two sisters.79 On the Abrams’ sisters’ benefit concert in 1792 Eliza performed a Janiewicz concerto.80 This is the only instance in the 1790’s of a public performance of a violin concerto transcribed for piano.81 Publications of such tran¬ scriptions were quite frequent, but the use of these arrangements was usually limited to home entertainment. The concerto performed on this occasion was undoubtedly Janiewicz’s Concerto No. 1, which was pub¬ lished by Imbault in Paris no later than 1790 in an arrangement by Dussek. This is the only Janiewicz concerto that had appeared in a published piano transcription up to this time. It is of interest that Haydn presided at the harpsichord at this concert. Only one other new pianist appeared in London in 1791. This was Mrs. Park, formerly Miss Reynolds, who played a piano concerto on her own benefit concert on May 10.82 In 1792 there were three concerto performances by Johann Wilhelm Haessler (1747-1822). Haessler, a native of Erfurt, was active as a travel¬ ling virtuoso during the 1780’s. He came to London in 1790 on the invitation of Lord Ancram and stayed for two years. After the 1792 con¬ cert season, he went to Russia, where he remained for the rest of his life.83 The first of Haessler’s 1792 performances, on the fifth Salomon Concert, was reviewed in the Morning Herald as follows: Mr. HAESSLER, in a Concerto on the Piano Forte, evinced extraordinary execu¬ tion and finished taste.84

56

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

By contrast, another Haessler performance during this season received the following review in The Times: Salomon led the band with his usual spirit and accuracy, but we would advise him to banish Mr. Haesler’s concertos: his performance on the harpsichord was the most wretched attempt we ever heard. There might be skill, but harmony was totally forgotten.8S

Haessler performed again on his own benefit concert on May 30 and distinguished himself by playing a Mozart concerto, one of only two such performances during the 1790’s.86 Haessler’s only published concerto, his Op. 50, appeared in Moscow late in his life. All his manuscript compositions, which included several piano concertos, have disappeared.87 Other compositions by Haessler from the 1790’s emphasize technical display. Hoffmann-Erbrecht states: “Virtuoso traits predominate in his Sonatas Op. 3-5 [1795-96] and Op. 16 [1803], above all in the fantasy-like developments, and the creativity re¬ mains weak.”88 Besides Miss Abrams, three other female pianists performed con¬ certos in 1792. Sophia Corri (1775-ca. 1830),89 who later that year married J. L. Dussek, played a concerto by her future husband on her own benefit concert in 1792.90 Her next appearance as a piano concerto performer did not take place until 1800, although in the intervening years she was active both as a singer and as a harpist.91 Elizabeth Weichsell Billington (ca. 1767-1818), whom Barclay Squire called “the greatest singer England has ever produced,”92 played an unidentified concerto on her own benefit concert on May 22.93 Mrs. Billington was reputedly an accomplished pi¬ anist as well as a singer, although the remark in Sainsbury’s Dictionary that “few persons have attained the perfection that Miss Weichsell reached upon this instrument” is probably exaggerated.94 Miss Hoffmann, whose age was given as six years, performed on the Choral Fund Benefit on May 23 and played again a year later on a benefit concert for herself and her younger brother.95 During the year between Haydn’s two visits, 1793, one new pianist began his London performing career. Benoit-Auguste Bertini (b. 1780) was a pupil of Clementi from 1793 to 1799.96 He played on the second Salomon Concert—not a concerto—and then made his first appearance as a concerto performer on the New Musical Fund concert on April 12.97 Thereafter he performed once or twice during each season through 1796. His performance on Salomon’s 12th concert in 1794 was reviewed as follows: A young boy, the son of an Italian named BERTINI, played a concerto of his own composing that evinced a very uncommon maturity of genius. It had indeed been

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

57

corrected by the famous CLEMENTI, whose scholar young BERTINI is; but both the music and the playing were, for so young a student, far beyond expectation. In addition to a brilliant finger, and good taste, he began and finished his sentences with the accuracy and decision of a master.98

No concertos by Bertini have been preserved; however, a set of three sonatas published by Bertini in 1795 with a dedication to Haydn shows that he had a very brilliant style. Later, Bertini experimented with at¬ tachments to the pianoforte and also developed a very bizarre notational system." The New Musical Fund concert for 1794 introduced another young performer, George Smart (1776-1867). Smart, a pupil of J. B. Cramer, played a Dussek concerto on his debut performance.100 He became one of the leading English musical figures of the early 19th century and is particularly known for his association with Beethoven and for promotion of Beethoven’s music. Although Smart left a record of his career in his journals, few details about his early concerto performances, other than merely the dates, are included. It should be noted that Smart lists two erroneous dates of performances: his debut was on March 6, 1794, and not March 6, 1790; his appearance on the Freemason Benefit took place on April 12, 1799, rather than April 12, 1800.101 Two other youthful pianists gave their first London concerto perfor¬ mances in 1794. John Field (1782-1837), played a Dussek concerto on the Lee Benefit on May 23.102 His subsequent career and his activity as a concerto composer will be discussed later in this chapter. Maria Poole (ca. 1770-1833), later Mrs. Dickons, played a concerto by J. B. Krumpholtz on her own benefit on April 25.103 This was probably the Harp Concerto, Op. 6, which had been published in London in piano transcrip¬ tions by Storace and Dussek. The year 1795 introduced only two rather insignificant pianists. Mr. (Joseph?) Major played on a program of readings and music on March 20.104 Miss MacArthur made her debut playing a Cramer concerto on a similar readings and music program on June 18.105 During the fol¬ lowing two seasons, she appeared several times at Covent Garden. A review of one performance stated: “A Miss McARTHUR, who came from the East Indes, played a Concerto on the Piano Forte, in a manner highly creditable to her talents.”106 Daniel Steibelt In comparison with the first half of the 1790’s, the years following Haydn’s final departure from London became much less favorable for the per¬ forming musician. As the economic situation caused by the long war with

58

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

France worsened, concerts diminished in number, and the enthusiasm for music that had been present five years earlier disappeared. Therefore, when Daniel Steibelt (1765-1823) arrived in London near the end of 1796, his opportunities were much more limited than those open to Dussek seven years earlier. Like several other musicians of this period, Steibelt, a native of Ber¬ lin, had lived in Paris immediately before settling in London. He was in Paris from about 1790 to 1796, following approximately six years of travel among various German cities, and during this time in Paris he composed his first two piano concertos.107 His first public performance in London was at the Opera Concert on February 13, 1797, at which he played one of his own concertos.108 Stei¬ belt performed four more times in 1797.109 It has previously been assumed that Steibelt’s concerto performances during the 1797 season consisted of his two concertos written in Paris, rather than a new work, since the first performance of his Concerto No. 3 can be dated 1798. However, an accompanied piano sonata, Op. 30, which was published by J. Dale and entered at Stationers Hall on May 31, 1797, states on the title page that it was “Performed at THE OPERA CONCERT & at Mr. SALOMON'S BENEFIT.” Steibelt’s performance on the Salomon Benefit on May 1, 1797, and on the Opera Concerts earlier in the season were announced in the newspapers as concertos.110 The identification of the sonata as a transcribed concerto is reinforced by the great length of the first move¬ ment, 290 measures, as well as the general concerto-like musical style of the work. In 1797 Steibelt also composed a harp concerto that was per¬ formed by Madame Krumpholtz on the third Opera Concert.111 The first of Steibelt’s performances in 1798, which incidentally took place quite by accident,112 was reviewed as follows: STEIBELT, a German, played a Concerto on the Piano Forte, in a very masterly and original style. His music also was marked by an original, romantic, and impressive character.113

At the second of his 1798 performances, the Salomon Benefit on March 19, Steibelt played a new concerto in which the rondo movement included an imitation of a storm.114 The concerto was published soon thereafter by Longman and Broderip and entered at Stationers Hall on May 18, 1798. The title page indicates that the concerto had been per¬ formed at the Opera Concerts. Since advertisements of the programs for some of the Opera Concerts in 1798 could not be located, the date of such a performance has not been ascertained. This concerto became very popular, undoubtedly because of the nov-

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

59

elty of the “storm” rondo. One 19th-century writer assessed the work as follows: “It is not too much to say that it was played in every drawing¬ room in England; indeed the notorious 'Battle of Prague’ alone could compete with it in popular favor.”115 A treatise published in London in 1812 points out this work as one of the few characteristic (i.e., program¬ matic) concertos that had been written.116 The popularity of Steibelt’s Third Concerto seems to have been achieved independently of his own public performances of it, since Steibelt left England the next year for three years on the Continent and consequently may have performed the work only twice in public in London during his first visit. Steibelt returned to London and performed his new concerto with a “Rondo a la Chasse” and a slow movement based on “The Banks O’Doon” on Salomon’s benefit concert on April 23, 1804.117 The rondo featured prominent solo parts for the horns in imitation of the hunt. The concerto was published as Op. 64 by Joseph Dale & Son. John Field John Lield, born in Dublin in 1782, was brought by his father in 1792 to London, where he became a pupil of Clementi. He had already appeared as a concerto player in Dublin in 1792;118 his first concerto performance in London in 1794 was followed by appearances on benefit concerts in 1795 and 1798.119 Lield evidently had an opportunity to perform in Haydn’s presence during the time Haydn was in London: Haydn made the notation in one of his notebooks: “Lield a young boy, which plays the pianoforte Extremely well.”120 Lield performed a concerto of his own composition for the first time on Lebruary 7, 1799. Two reviews of this performance have been located. The Morning Herald stated briefly: Master FIELD, a very promising youth, played a solo on the piano forte with much deserved applause.121

A longer review appeared in the Morning Post: On Thursday evening at the King’s Theatre in the Hay-Market . . . the chief source of admiration in the course of the evening was a concerto on the grand Piano-Forte by Master Field a pupil of dementi’s. This young Gentleman though only fifteen years of age, has been esteemed by the best judges one of the finest performers in this kingdom, and his astonishing display of ability on this occasion proved how justly he was entitled to the distinction. The concerto was, we understand, wholly of his own composition; and more calculated to display rapidity of execution, attended with char¬ acteristic musical expression, we never heard. Clementi might be proud to exclaim with Quin on our Monarch’s first display of English reading, “I tought [s/c] the boy to play.”122

60

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

No Field concerto was published until much later, however. A letter from Field to the publisher Breitkopf und Hartel, written in St. Petersburg and dated October 30, 1815, indicates that his first four piano concertos had already been published there.123 Breitkopf und Hartel published Field’s Concerto No. 1 in 1815; an advertisement for it appeared in October of this year.124 Field scholars beginning with Heinrich Dessauer in 1912 have iden¬ tified the Concerto No. 1 with the performance of February 7, 1799.125 The basis for this association has been the fact that the second movement is a set of variations on the Scottish-type song “Within a mile of Edin¬ burgh town” by James Hook. The use of this tune definitely implies an English origin of the concerto and also indicates a date no later than 1802, the year of Field’s departure from England, to which he did not return prior to the publication of the concerto. Whether the Concerto No. 1 is actually the work played in 1799 hinges on whether Field composed only one concerto or more than one before leaving England. Besides the performance already mentioned, Field played concertos twice more in 1799. The announcement of one of these concerts specifies Field as the composer also.126 For the other, the composer’s name is not listed.127 In 1800 there were eight concerto performances by Field. The fourth of these, at the Raimondi series on April 25, was advertised as a new concerto.128 Some doubt is cast on the accuracy of this advertise¬ ment by a concert announcement in February of 1801 stating that Field’s concerto was to be “the celebrated one composed by himself.”129 This implies that Field had in his repertoire only one of his own concertos. But again in 1801, at Salomon’s second and fourth concerts, there are announcements of a new concerto by Field.130 It is therefore possible that Field wrote more than one concerto in London during the period 1799 through 1801, and if this is true, the Concerto No. 1 may or may not have been the one performed in February, 1799. In any case, one concerto from Field’s early years in London has survived; the musical features of this work will be considered in the next chapter. It is possible, of course, that some revision took place between the composition of the concerto and its publication, since the elapsed time is so great.131 Other Pianists Active in the Late 1790’s Three performers played piano concertos for the first time in London in 1796. Signor Mari made his first appearance in public on the Signora Salvini benefit on May 4, the same occasion as the young George Pinto’s debut as a violinist.13- Madame Delaval, who had appeared frequently as

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

61

a harpist since 1791, played a piano concerto as well as a harp concerto on her own benefit on May 20.133 Mademoiselle Diot appeared five times in 1796 and once in 1797, playing concertos by Dussek and Cramer. One of these performances was reviewed as follows: It is with a true satisfaction we do justice to the great talents of a Pupil of the eminent Composer Mr. CRAMER, Mademoiselle DIOT, who performed last Monday, with an infinite exactness, a Concerto upon the Piano Forte, at the Concert of the Opera.134

The year 1797 saw the appearance of only one new pianist, Master Purkis, who played a Dussek concerto on a benefit concert for widows of soliders on December 6.135 Two more pianists played concertos in 1798. Mr. Mast performed his own concerto on the fifth Opera Concert and appeared again on a benefit concert a few weeks later.136 Charles Cramer (ca. 1784-1799), a son of Wilhelm Cramer, was primarily a violin¬ ist, but he played a Dussek piano concerto and one by his brother J. B. Cramer in 1798 and 1799, respectively. A review of the first of these two performances stated: CRAMER’s son, a little boy, quite in infancy, who has displayed great skill on the violin, last night executed one of DUSSEK’s most difficult Concertos on the Piano Forte with wonderful ability.137

In 1799, Veronika Dussek Cianchettini (1779-1833) presented a ben¬ efit concert on which she played a concerto by her brother, J. L. Dus¬ sek.138 She continued to be active as a performer during the early part of the nineteenth century and eventually began composing her own concertos. Four additional pianists appeared for the first time in 1800. Mr. Masi played on a benefit concert on March 27.139 Miss Henry, a pupil of Mr. Krussen, performed for the first time on Raimondi’s fourth subscription concert on March 14, and then appeared twice more during the same season.140 A more important pianist was Charles Neate (1784-1877), who was known for his association with Beethoven. A pupil of Field and later Woelfl, Neate first played a concerto on the Covent Garden oratorio in 1800. Sainsbury’s Dictionary describes the occasion as follows: His first public performance was at the oratorios under the Ashleys, who had invited him the previous season to hear Dussek, and also granted him the privilege of turning over the leaves for him. The great performances of this celebrated master animated Neate, then a boy, with an increased zeal for his art, and with the ambition of occu¬ pying a similar post of honour before the public, when Dussek should quit England. Just at that period Neate was indeed selected to supply the vacancy, and continued to fill that department for several successive years.141

62

Piano Concertos—Sources and Chronology

Finally, there was one performance in 1800 by T. LaTour (ca. 1766-1837), a ubiquitous figure in early 19th-century music, who published two piano concertos in London around 1810.142

Others Who Published Piano Concertos Valentin Nicolai is an elusive character about whom we know very little, in spite of the fact that he had a large number of publications, including some American publications. He seems to have lived in London in the mid-1780’s and again in the 1790’s.143 His return to London was probably the cause of the re-issue of several earlier works. Among these was his Concerto No. 1, Op. 12, which was first published in Paris in 1788,144 and in London by Longman and Broderip. Nicolai’s Concerto, Op. 14, presumably written in London, was published by Broderip and Wilkinson and advertised on February 17, 1800.145 Nicolai’s concertos cannot be connected with any specific London performances, either by himself or others. Geroge Eugene Griffin (1781-1863), a pupil of J. B. Cramer, published as his Op. 1, a piano concerto with variations on the “Blue Bells of Scot¬ land” as the slow movement. William Husk, in the first edition of Grove’s Dictionary, asserts that Griffin wrote the concerto at the age of 16, thus giving it a date of 1797.146 However, the concerto was published by de¬ menti and Company, and hence the publication date can be no earlier than this firm’s founding in 1801. Moreover, no trace of Griffin can be found in the newspaper sources before 1801. On February 4, 1801, there was announced a performance of a Viotti concerto by Master Cutler, “pupil of Mr. Griffin, jun.”147 Husk’s dating of the concerto must there¬ fore be assessed as erroneous.148 Augustus Frederic Christopher Kollmann (1756-1829), a German-born theorist whose concept of concerto form will be discussed in the next chapter, lived in London from 1782 until his death. He composed a piano concerto for the debut of his son, George Augustus Kollmann (1789-1845), on the New Musical Fund concert on March 15, 1804.149 The solo part was published for the author as Op. 8, with a notice on the title page that the orchestral parts were available in manuscript.

4

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis Introductory Remarks A member of a London concert audience listening to the performance of a new concerto by Dussek or one of the other pianists would, because of generally accepted conventions of musical composition, have expected certain things. He would have anticipated, for example, a long orchestral passage prior to the entrance of the soloist, a pianistic style rich in passagework, and a rondo for the final movement. On a more advanced level of musical comprehension, he would count on certain tonal schemes, period structures, and melodic types. On the other hand, the concerto was still developing and changing during the period under consideration, as it was throughout its history. In successive concertos by a particular composer, one can find examples of experimentation leading to a modi¬ fication of procedure. A stylistic evaluation of these concertos should therefore define the conventional framework of the genre, trace the de¬ velopmental aspects during the period, and point out the unique features of each particular work. The First Movements General Structure From the mid-18th century to the mid-19th century, theoretical descrip¬ tions of concerto first movements gradually changed from emphasis on textural contrast (solo versus tutti) to emphasis on the harmonic plan and then to emphasis on themes.1 In these descriptions the concerto was often compared with other genres, and the genre chosen by theorists for com¬ parison likewise changed from the aria (Scheibe, 1739)2 to the sonata (Marx, 1847).3 The question of the relationship between theory and prac¬ tice, including such considerations as the time lag between a new devel¬ opment and its codification, has been much debated. It is evident, though,

64

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

that these changes in theoretical discussions parallel, over the long run, changes in actual concerto composition. That is. Baroque concertos had as their main structural determinant contrast in texture; Classic concertos achieved formal coherence from an underlying plan of tonality; and Ro¬ mantic concertos emphasized thematic treatment. As a point of reference for discussing the form of the concertos, some theoretical writings dealing with practical composition from approximately the same time as the con¬ certos under consideration will be examined, and the extent to which the concertos correspond to or depart from the theoretical ideals will be determined. Heinrich Koch, in the third volume of his Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition (the only volume pertinent to the present topic), pub¬ lished in 1793, discusses the concerto in considerable detail.4 He divides the first movement into three principal sections—the solo sections. These three solo sections are enclosed within four secondary sections—the ritornellos. The three solo sections, Koch maintains, have basically the same form as the three main sections of a symphony (i.e., exposition, development, and recapitulation, to use modern terminology). Koch goes on to describe the harmony and to a limited extent the melodic plan of the movement. The following diagram briefly summarizes the procedures which Koch presents in paragraph form: Ritor.

Section: Melody:

A B

Tonality:

I

I or V

Solo

Ritor.

Solo

(A or B)

A

B

A

New

I

I

V

V

V

!vi,ii • or iii

Ritor.

Solo

Ritor. (with cadenza)

vi

I

I

The concertos of C. P. E. Bach are recommended by Koch as models for study, implying that his descriptions are based on this composer’s works.5 However, Koch did admit the possibility of alternate procedures in some of the discussion, making reference to what is happening in the “newest” concertos.6 In view of the fact that Koch was writing a com¬ position treatise, his purpose seems to have been to summarize for stu¬ dents what he considered the exemplary models of existing practice. Among the features described by Koch, the third ritornello seems to be the one that was most often dispensed with by composers.7 In fact, Koch dropped this section in the discussion of the concerto that appeared in his Lexikon in 1802.8 Two earlier theorists, in fact, had already de¬ scribed concerto form without the third tutti: Vogler in 1779 and Galeazzi in 1796.9 A. F. C. Kollmann, a German living in London, published An Essay

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

65

on Practical Musical Composition in 1799. Unlike Koch, who considers the three solo sections as parallel to the sections of a symphony and the tuttis as interpolations, Kollmann explains the tuttis not as interpolations, but as components of a single binary scheme.10 He describes the move¬ ment as having two main sections, each of which is divided into two subsections. The following diagram illustrates Kollmann’s conception of the form of the first movement of a concerto:11 Section 1 Tutti I

Solo

Section 2 Tutti

Solo

Solo

V

modulates I

Tutti

A noteworthy feature of Kollmann's description is the merging of the first solo and the second tutti into a single subsection.12 In the London concertos of the 1790’s, contrast between opposing bodies of sound is not the primary determinant of form. The tuttis are too short in relation to the solos for this to be the case. Instead, the largescale harmonic plan is the major form-building force.13 Especially toward the end of the movement the correlation of solo versus tutti with the harmonic plan varies from one concerto to the other. For example, the return to the tonic may take place (1) at the beginning of a tutti, (2) at the beginning of a solo, (3) in the middle of a tutti, or (4) in the middle of a solo.14 In Dussek’s earliest London concerto, Op. 14, the form of the movement is in accordance with the procedure described by Kollmann; the end of the second tutti corresponds to the double-bar in a two-reprise form, and the division of the movement into a binary structure takes place here (Example 4). Within the two large parts thus formed, the further dividing points are the entrance of the solo and the beginning of the recapitulation. The return to the tonic coincides with a restatement of the opening thematic material, a procedure not always found in Dussek’s later concertos. Example 4.

Dussek, Concerto, Op. 14, mm. 229-31.

66

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

In Dussek’s next four piano concertos, those he called the Grand Concertos, there is a shift of emphasis on the means of articulating the formal divisions. In these works there are three dramatic entrances of the soloist with full chords at a fortissimo dynamic level. A rather stereotyped pattern for these solo entrances is to be found, among other composers as well as Dussek (Examples 5, 6, and 7). In some cases in the Dussek concertos the logic of the orchestral passage which precedes these solo entries is sacrificed in order to play up the entrance of the piano. For example, the orchestra may decrease in volume and end the tutti softly in order to contrast with the fortissimo of the soloist (Example 8). There may be a shift to the minor mode near the end of the tutti in order to set up a sudden outburst of the major once again at the solo entrance (Op. 27). Or, a half cadence may be employed at the end of either the first (Op. 29) or the second tutti (Op. 40). A comparison of Example 8 with Example 4 illustrates how the end of the tutti is weakened in order to emphasize the solo which follows. Example 5.

Dussek, Concerto, Op. 40, mm. 79-80.

Example 6.

Field, Concerto No. 1, mm. 160-61.

Solo

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis Example 7.

Steibelt, Concerto No. 3, mm. 129-30.

Example 8.

Dussek, Concerto, Op. 27, mm. 210-12.

67

In a sense, the preceding represents a return to the Koch principle of three main sections (the solos) within the movement. This emphasis carries to its furthest extent in Cramer’s Op. 10, in which the second solo exactly parallels the first solo in form. The second solo begins with the typical dramatic chordal entry in V. After a section in this key with clear periodic structure, there is a transition to iii, in which key the secondary theme from the first tutti is restated with slight variation. The mediant, with a brief excursion into its major, remains as a stable key area for the rest of the second solo. The section closes with a trill, such as one almost always finds at the end of the first solo. Dussek’s second solos, although they may begin like the first solos, do not continue with such stability of key and regular period structure. Cramer’s next concerto, Op. 16, lies somewhere between his Op. 10 and Dussek’s concertos in this respect. The concertos of the other composers show, on the largest structural level, various of the current practices that have been described by the contemporary theorists. In some cases, the second tutti concludes with a strong cadence in the dominant key and becomes a major point of articulation in the movement (Hummel, Field, Clementi). Alternately, the

68

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

second tutti may serve as a modulating transition to the second solo sec¬ tion (Miss Parke). The handling of the beginning of the recapitulation shows the same variety of practice that was found in Dussek. Procedures range from a modulating third tutti just as described by Koch (Hummel) to a complete omission of any tutti passage at this point (Field). On the most superficial level of inspection, the concertos of this period appear to follow a set pattern in overall form. The solo and tutti sections appear just at the places where they are expected. Such striking departures as the entrance of the soloist near the beginning of the move¬ ment, as in Mozart’s K. 271, are not to be found in the London concertos. However, a deeper analysis of the basic form-building harmonic and articulative procedures reveals a quite varied approach to the overall struc¬ ture among the different composers, and in successive concertos of the same composer. Two different lines of explanation need to be considered in analyzing these differences in form. First, it must be acknowledged that there was a variety of practice prior to this time. As mentioned already, the theorists of the period recognized some of these differences. Concertos of the youthful composers, such as Hummel and Miss Parke, show great regu¬ larity in form on both the large and small scale, and whatever differences may be ascertained between one of these concertos and others written in London can be most satisfactorily accounted for by assuming that a va¬ riety of models was available to the young composer. On the other hand, changes in the form of the Dussek concertos during the course of his career imply something other than the successive imitations of differing models. Dussek was obviously developing his own approach. The same is true with the concertos of J. B. Cramer, although conclusions regarding his chronological development are limited by the fact that during the pe¬ riod when the concerto was undergoing the greatest change, Cramer was producing fewer concertos than Dussek. The concertos of the various composers show their most obvious points of divergence in the treatment of the tutti sections, bringing to mind the statement of Charles Rosen: “The most important fact about concerto form is that the audience waits for the soloist to enter, and when he stops playing they wait for him to begin again. In so far as the concerto may be said to have a form after 1775, that is the basis of it.”15 In Dussek’s concertos written during this period, the tutti portions became both shorter and more trivial in musical content. In his 1790 concerto, the tuttis made up 36 per cent of the total length of the first movement; in the four Grand Concertos this had decreased to an average of 30 percent. Most of the reduction took place in the opening tutti, which became about two-thirds as long. The tuttis were not only brief, but they included some of the

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

69

least interesting passages in the composition, notwithstanding the com¬ mon tendency toward cliches in the solo portions of concertos. The First Tutti Dussek's opening tuttis differ in a manner that may be explained as a chronological change. In the first concerto of the decade, there is impor¬ tant thematic material stated in the dominant in the middle of the tutti, with a return to the tonic for the end of the tutti. Dussek’s two harp concertos from about the same time also employ this practice. The four Grand Concertos, however, remain in the tonic throughout the first tutti, and this tutti is shorter than in the earlier concertos. The concertos by other composers are divided between modulating and non-modulating tut¬ tis. Cramer’s first three concertos and those by Field and Steibelt all modulate; Miss Parke’s and dementi’s remain in the tonic. Hummel’s has a short, transitory modulation to the dominant, but the tonic is quickly reestablished. Alternate procedures were recognized by theorists. Koch gives three possibilities for the tonality of the opening tutti. The first is to remain in the tonic throughout. The second is to modulate to the dominant and come to a conclusive cadence in this key. This is followed by a retransition to the tonic and then the restatement of earlier material in the tonic. This procedure may be summarized in the following diagram: Melody:

a

b

Tonality:

i

V

a or b modulates

I

Koch’s third alternative also involves a modulation to the dominant; it differs from the second by the absence of a conclusive cadence on the dominant. Hence a bipartite division of the tutti is avoided. Koch men¬ tions that the third procedure is the most frequent in the recent concertos.16 In those of the London concertos which correspond basically to Koch’s second procedure, there is an important distinction, however, in the form of the tutti. Instead of a main dividing point just after b, as Koch specifies, there is the strongest degree of formal articulation just before b. A modulation ending with a strong cadence in the dominant precedes the presentation of melodic material b in the dominant key. If the tutti does not modulate, there is likewise a sectional dividing point at the be¬ ginning of b, created partly by the change in melodic and rhythmic char¬ acter at the entrance of a new theme and partly by the presence of either a strong cadence or a prolongation of the dominant chord just prior to this point.

70

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

Thus there is a clearly defined first section, which one might expect to be composed of primary thematic material followed by transitional material. In Dussek's Op. 14 this is certainly the case. A broad, regularly phrased melody (Example 9) makes up the first 24 measures of the tutti, and there follows a transitional passage occupying the next 13 measures (Example 10). The next four Dussek concertos are different. They do not really have a “first theme” but rather a string of motives approximately 6 to 8 measures in length (or two such 8-measure groups in the Grand Military Concerto) followed by a relatively longer transition. Example 11, taken from the First Grand Concerto, illustrates this type of beginning. The onset of the transitional passage is usually marked by an increase in rhythmic activity and a louder dynamic level. Sequences and tremolos are two of the prominent features of tutti transitions (Example 12). Example 9.

Example 10.

Dussek, Op. 14, mm. 1-5.

Ibid., mm. 25-27.

P

Tfrlr gr

> *

fj—rf j

^4 -1

f f±'tT-r-r

1

f .Tff/m

milm

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis Example 11.

71

Dussek, Concerto, Op. 22, mm. 1-10. Allegro

Tutti —p.—g ft1

rtbUfi.i pWi- K\t i id J TO

L=*0

f 1hur J jl-W f 1_ 1 1 V1-v

1

A_

r >

u

^fT

L1

7

) f P

* ^

p

£— p

-

j*. —;-f—t—i— -f-f-0-f WrriPlif

Example 12.

Field, Concerto No. 1, mm. 20-23.

B'jviu

nit

m

m§

sf

Vn.

II

rr3~=s =:=^£-Eir#:-===

lEzzr k(->— ■ 5.3 ■-

-4

Via.

Vc.

'jiiVJ. J1 J~Xi=t i. j\jtj j Si

rr=f=^ 1/ ^ p—f-l

- *=FF

izks

—fv/ ■f7—

€)-&

:=F: = T: -'■7t

The second section of the tutti begins with what Koch describes as “a cantabile statement out of the solo,”17 implying that this passage is

72

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

idiomatic for the solo instrument and was “borrowed” for the opening tutti. In nearly all of the London concertos this seems to be the case. Whereas the opening material of the tutti may or may not appear in the solo sections, the later cantabile theme always has an important place in the solo.18 Examples 13, 14, and 15 illustrate the type of melody employed in this position. Example 13.

Dussek, Op. 14, mm. 38-41.

],j

J J. 7'W -I t r

rjjrii

U J ,* Ml T " ~

> ^

) 41/ rri

t r

t ’

*

fog1- • ^ ii i r diE ZAM* i \ i i ~ * w ’ill i i ^ i 1 y

. ih ^

# ' #

V

sfeM:

Example 14.

Clementi, Concerto, mm. 83-84.

Example 15.

Field, Concerto No. 1, mm. 104-6.

*

^ t i.

^

1

1^

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

73

It is, of course, this cantabile theme which can be in either the tonic or the dominant in the opening tutti, depending upon whether or not the tutti modulates. The variability of key at this point is one of the problem¬ atic areas with respect to coherence of form in the movement. The use of either tonic or dominant for this theme has both advantages and draw¬ backs. Since the cantabile theme is in the dominant in the first solo sec¬ tion, there is a sense of resolution when it appears in the tonic in the recapitulation. To present the theme in the tonic in the opening tutti before it is heard in the dominant in the first solo tends to negate the tension inherent in presenting material in a non-tonic tonality. If the theme is in the dominant in the first tutti section, there is no premature tonicization to detract from the resolution in the recapitulation; however, a longer first tutti is required to accommodate a movement from tonic to dominant and back to tonic. Dussek's and Cramer’s tuttis that modulate are at least four-fifths as long as the first solo section and in some cases the same length. Beginning with the First Grand Concerto, Dussek kept the tutti in the tonic and the length was about half to two-thirds of the solo. A related problem is that a tutti which modulates can more effectively reestablish the tonic if previously heard melodic material is brought back also; this is mentioned by Koch.19 In Dussek’s Op. 14, where the first tutti theme does not reappear in the solo, a tutti in ABA form is satisfac¬ tory. If this theme does appear in the solo, however, an ABA form for the tutti would cause too much reiteration of A. In the later concertos without a modulating tutti, Dussek follows the practice of writing an ABA tutti in concertos where the opening material is not to reappear in the solo, but there are no internal restatements of material within the tutti in the opposite case. Dussek’s Grand Military Concerto attempts to resolve the thematic and harmonic problems just discussed by means of thematic transfor¬ mation. The cantabile theme of the solo (Example 16) begins with the same rhythm and melodic contour as the secondary theme of the tutti, which, however, is not lyrical in nature but rather martial (Example 17). The recapitulation brings back both versions. In Steibelt’s Concerto No. 3 a similar relationship exists between the modification found in the tutti (Example 18) and that in the solo (Example 19).

74

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis Ibid., mm. 35-38

Example 17.

JL-L_tr : ■FTTTTT tiff

f yi *

r f Ef ff mh

r=u

|

JL—i—=—

/U0 V

Example 18.

*

.

* * * •

~cf~

s

-r—t—=- ~rt~

1

'

Steibelt, Concerto No. 3, mm. 29-30.

JT, 7 * » rl-

-

r 1

i

m 'Sr- £ "I ■+-“

||

77

Ibid., mm. 148-49.

- • -f

Example 19.

vnr

1

hi—„ m HjiM. [ffl l- M Ij

-f-

*+

yf-

/ A1 j— m Ped.

-V"

-

fW.

—-—1

Unlike Dussek, who seems to be searching for a satisfactory solution to the form of the tutti, Cramer has a more definite plan: he writes the tutti as if he were writing a sonata exposition. By way of comparison, Dussek’s modulating tuttis usually reach the dominant by a very short modulation, as if to indicate that he is not going to stay there long. Cra¬ mer’s First Concerto, on the other hand, has an extended modulation, with a long pedal on the dominant of the dominant. The return to tonic

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

75

in this case is accomplished without reference to any previous theme, but with typical closing material. Therefore, the tutti is much like a sonata exposition except for the retransition to the tonic. The now-unrespectable concept of the “double exposition’’ is quite applicable to this concerto; in fact, it is the only one of the group that is so constructed. The “second exposition’’ in this case must include the second tutti, which is the end of the first tutti transposed to the dominant. The tutti of Cramer’s Second Concerto is similar in form, except that it is in a minor key and the modulation is therefore to the mediant. There is no double exposition in this case, however; the first tutti theme does not recur in the solo. The ending of the tutti was composed of closing-type material in the tonic key, culminating in either an authentic cadence or a half cadence. The London theorist Kollmann expressed a preference for a half cadence at this point.20 The actual concertos show a preponderance of the op¬ posite, however. Dussek’s concertos are equally divided between the half cadence and the authentic cadence in no chronological pattern. One special case of an unusual procedure in an opening tutti demands particular attention. This is the slow introduction in Dussek’s Third Grand Concerto, the beginning of which is shown in Example 20. This Larghetto, 22 measures in length, ends with dominant harmony, as is usual for a slow introduction, and it is followed by the main Allegro portion of the tutti, as shown in Example 21. At the end of the tutti, a part of the introduction is restated, without, however, any change of meter or tempo. Thus the entrance of the soloist is set up in the same manner as the Allegro of the tutti (Example 22).

Example 20.

Dussek, Concerto, Op. 29, mm. 1-5.

76

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

Example 21.

Ibid., mm. 20-24.

-r-p*rri-rr :H=tT

-\

I Vn.

nt'

t-rff i1 i. ,1 1 u J'iV’1 rT ftfl fj ^ /

II

Via. Vc.

W‘

hr-H 87

Solo

1

A.

_

[ j -f-TTT S .9— =?= :±±1± 1 ll»: f\ I- t ** -

An assessment of the overall function of the opening tutti in the Lon¬ don concertos of this period might begin with a consideration of the fol¬ lowing comment of Donald Francis Tovey: The modern concerto form must rest more than ever on the old and natural concerto idea, the entry of a personal voice instantly arresting attention, and by mere force of its individuality thrusting even the most elaborate orchestra into the background. And the more rich the orchestra, and the greater the number and range of themes, the longer and more effectively may the appearance of this individual voice be delayed by an orchestral ritornello, if only this remains truly a ritornello and does not merge into pure symphonic writing.21

That the opening tutti was at the time considered to be purely introduc¬ tory is supported by the fact, mentioned in Chapter 2, that concertos

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

77

transcribed as sonatas usually omitted the first tutti altogether.22 A con¬ sciousness of a need to keep the tutti from becoming “pure symphonic writing" can be discerned rather clearly in the Dussek concertos, but much less readily in those of other composers. Cramer and Steibelt wrote rather long tuttis which reflect the form of a sonata exposition much more than the examples by Dussek. Dussek, in several of the developments already mentioned—the abandonment of a coherent first theme, the turn¬ ing away from a modulating tutti, and the use of a slow introduction— reaffirms the introductory role of the opening tutti. In the case of some of the minor composers, such as Hummel and Miss Parke, the entire movement, and hence the first tutti also, is relatively short; this prevents the tutti from having too much weight. One development in the late 1790's should be mentioned. In Dussek’s Grand Military Concerto, Steibelt’s “Storm” Concerto, and the Field concerto, all composed in 1798 or later, the tutti takes on a march-like character. The previously cited Examples 17 and 18 illustrate this stylistic feature in the Dussek and Steibelt concertos. Example 23, from the Field concerto, is similar in character. Of course, if the tutti is written in an idiom different from the rest of the movement, its function as mere intro¬ duction is strengthened. A military opening for a concerto exemplifies nothing new; this type may be found in some of the Mozart concertos, for example. There seems to have been a particular flourishing of this kind of opening near the end of the 1790's in London, however, in contrast to the styles prevalent there earlier in the same decade.

Example 23.

Field, Concerto No. 1, mm. 1-6.

pMug “x-

n 'f-T

Miir 1J*

The First Solo Section In those of the London concertos which are most simply constructed, the first solo section consists of an alternation between thematic material and passagework. One of the clearest examples occurs in Cramer’s Sec-

78

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

ond Concerto, in which the first solo is organized as follows (P = primary theme; S = secondary theme; pw = passagework): p

pw

s

i

—>

hi

pw

In this concerto the changeover from theme to passagework can be dis¬ cerned on the basis of rhythm alone. The primary theme is made up mainly of half notes, quarter notes, and dotted rhythms; the secondary theme, a melody with varied rhythm, is accompanied by constant eighth notes. The passagework sections are set off from these by the presence of constant sixteenth notes. In some of the other concertos, in which the first solo section is longer than in this Cramer concerto, three groups of alternating theme and passagework are to be found. Steibelt’s Concerto No. 3 contains two secondary themes, the first of which is a variant of the primary theme, thus; P

pw

I

—>

1S(P)

pw

2S

pw

V

Dussek’s Second Grand Concerto simply repeats the secondary theme with its accompanying passagework: p

pw

s

i

—>

V

pw

s

pw

more pw

Of course, there are more complexities in form than these basic out¬ lines indicate, especially in the concertos of Dussek. Some of the factors which must be considered are the nature and variety of thematic sections and passagework sections, the implications of the supporting harmonic framework, and the types of organizational procedures. The beginning of the section, in most of these London concertos, consists of a cliche: a series of chords, frequently with the rhythm followed by a rapid scale or arpeggio. Examples 5, 7, 24, and 25 illustrate this type of opening. However, it is absent from the Clementi concerto, presumably written in 1790, and the Dussek concerto of the same year, as well as from the “amateur” concertos—those with no re¬ corded public performances—by Miss Parke and Nicolai. Although it is not found in the concerto that Steibelt wrote immediately after his arrival

J J. J11 J,

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

79

in London, it is used in the Concerto No. 3, written the next year. In the Field concerto the second solo section, rather than the first, most clearly reflects this customary pattern (Example 6). This opening figure had, however, become so well established by the mid-1790’s that it may be considered a regular feature of London concertos of this time. It contin¬ ued on into the early 19th century; the concertos of George Griffin, for example, begin in this manner. Example 24.

Dussek, Op. 22, mm. 61-91.

80

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

Example 24 (cont'd).

76

jjRxn

rffi Bj M7 p d *f < # illTri =p

(&=?=

y fjj

cil.

)^=»

■■r

t’-'tfi

81

itJm p 7ir-^7T7 . V' ' r

■'tfJ .

t\> 1 1 zpnrj—-—

’Lu .

~

nni.J.flJi 1 xil_Jj 1 111-V* / , * W°H9*\ d iff! r —T**-:-TT1-—T~7 ^ !1 1

/

~

*~7TZ ~i

■*

1

. =*

3

F

tuflJ

-

w

Jr -•-

l V

—

---

jfL/ l/.b U* rrfr L.MJ r Ah ' £fc? KB IJ+i LV

1

,

olj

l5

f

LLLL' 1 1

P

r

1 j

J-l 1 f 111 4—LJ ^KL

e. . ' ,F ~ ■ 1 -L4- M I f

.-$£+&-A - - 1 J 1 1 L F IJ M » i U-r 1 Ejr ^-=r=n-i K'

f

fE_1 f f " f fLc

1 w -—7 9

e

»

1

w

Tf

.

1 rs

3 --w” 1-£

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis Example 25.

81

Hummel, Concerto, S., 4, mm. 72-85.

*“S” numbers refer to the listing in Joel A. Sachs, “A Checklist of the Works of Johann Nepomuk Hummel," Notes, XXX (1973-74), 732-54.

82

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

Historically, this type of solo entry seems to have resulted from the merging of a textural component with an optional rhythmic component. The rhythm J. J1) J was a frequently occurring pattern in the concerto

J

after about 1770, and may be found in concertos of the Mannheim school as well as those of other cultural centers.23 The textural component, the full chords in both hands followed by the scale or arpeggio figure, was introduced into London through a single, very popular work, the Sixth Harp Concerto of J. B. Krumpholtz (ca. 1745-1790). Krumpholtz’s wife, known as Madame Krumpholtz (ca. 1755-1813), settled in London about 1788, and her frequent performances of this concerto resulted in its pub¬ lication in London in eight pre-1800 editions, including not only the orig¬ inal form but also piano transcriptions by Dussek and Stephen Storace.24 Clementi also performed the work, presumably at one or more of his 1790 performances, as indicated on the title page of the Storace transcription. The beginning of this concerto is shown in Example 26. Example 26.

J. B. Krumpholtz, Concerto, Op. 9, mm. 52-55.

Solo

^1

m I

3=

'

The London concertos demonstrate two different methods of relating this opening material, functionally, to the first solo section as a whole. Dussek’s usual method is to give it a heraldic, introductory function and then to progress to a series of rather short, contrasting ideas (Example 24). An alternate handling of the initial figure is to incorporate it into a regular phrase and period structure. This approach is to found in the Hummel concerto (Example 25), as well as in the first three concertos of J. B. Cramer. The portion of the first solo that is in the key of the tonic is ordinarily not extensive in length. It may be a simple period as in the case of the Hummel concerto just cited or the Clementi concerto. In Dussek’s con¬ certos, even though this section is short, the material is usually variegated (see Example 24). Usually one of the contrasting segments is lyrical in nature (see measures 78ff. of Example 24), and it is sometimes similar in style—but not in melodic content—to the secondary theme previously

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

83

heard in the tutti and anticipated once again in the dominant key area of the solo. Alternately, this short cantabile passage may be of a figural type, as in the Grand Military Concerto (Example 27). Example 27.

Dussek, Op. 40, mm. 92-107.

t

105

1,1i)iy frf pP

(

■:=r

uj iij til m

w

'

iJ=N i

r—f= —i*—

i

i

t

ft -•a

-=

t

fc±

r

i

-V a-

84

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

The modulation to the secondary key area is usually accompanied by rapid passagework. An exception is the Clementi concerto, in which there is a sonata-like transition section motivically derived from the primary theme. This passagework consists largely of extended arpeggios and scales; frequently the scales are in parallel thirds. Sequential chord patterns (Example 28) also occur. Example 28.

Dussek, Op. 14, mm. 142-44.

Example 29.

Dussek, Op. 27, mm. 97-101.

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

85

The first movement of concertos, we have observed, gradually be¬ came longer; this means that each component section of the movement also had to increase in length. The transition from the primary to the secondary theme, which consisted of virtuoso passagework, could not be extended beyond a certain degree, however, without causing the ear to become sated with uninterrupted passagework. Therefore, in the Dussek concertos, the transition was sometimes interrupted with contrasting ma¬ terial. This usually consisted of a melodic segment in which the appoggiatura was prominent. Dussek's Second Grand Concerto represents his first use of this procedure (Example 29). It is significant that melodic interpolations within the passagework connecting the primary and sec¬ ondary themes do not recur in the recapitulation. Instead, the transition section within the recapitulation is shortened in such a manner as to leave these interpolations out. Thus the interpolations, although they are similar to the recurring thematic material of the movement,25 do not function as recurring thematic material themselves, but merely provide momentary contrast at the point of their one-time appearance. Harmonically, the function of this portion of the movement is, of course, to modulate to the dominant, or in the case of a composition in a minor key, to the mediant. There is nothing remarkable about this mod¬ ulation in most of the concertos. In some of Dussek’s concertos, however, the modulation wanders off into harmonic areas on the flat side of the goal of the modulation. Dussek’s First Grand Concerto, of which a por¬ tion of the modulation is shown in Example 30, is in the key of Bb major and is therefore headed toward F major. Through measure 101, the mod¬ ulation seems quite ordinary. Then in measures 102 through 108, there is a sudden move to Ab major. The key to this harmonic progression is the augmented sixth chord in the second half of measure 110. The Db chord in measure 103 is the initial preparation for the augmented sixth. The ultimate resolution to C major is delayed for seven measures, while the half-step descent Db-C is reiterated in the soprano. All four of the Grand Concertos of Dussek emphasize within the modulation the lowered sixth scale degree of the new key, whether an actual augmented sixth chord is introduced as the final dominant preparation or not. This expansion of the augmented sixth beyond the level of the single chord also occurs in the Dussek sonatas of the same period and is one of the important features in the development of his use of harmony.26 The lyrical secondary theme, sometimes repeated in order to expand the movement to a greater length, has been discussed to some extent already in connection with the first tutti. The manner in which this theme is connected to the material that follows remains to be considered. Fre¬ quently there is a section in eighth-note triplets following the secondary

86

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

Example 30.

Dussek, Op. 22, mm. 100-111.

theme. This produces an intermediate stage of rhythmic activity between the usual eighth-note background of the cantabile section and the constant sixteenth-note rhythm of the passagework that closes the first solo. The Clementi concerto and Dussek's Second and Third Grand Concertos, as

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

87

well as his earlier Op. 14, exemplify this usage of triplets. Alternately, there may be a secondary theme group composed of two subsections: the first, the expected lyrical melody with an eighth-note accompaniment, and the second, a melodic passage with basically a sixteenth-note surface rhythm (Example 31). Dussek’s First Grand Concerto and Grand Military Concerto are so constructed. An intermediate stage between the lyricism of the secondary theme and the scales and arpeggios of the ensuing passagework is likewise provided in this case. Not all concertos make use of one of these devices, however; Cramer plunges straight into the passagework, creating a strong point of articulation through rhythmic contrast. The closing passagework, in most of the London concertos, does not show much innovative harmonic usage. Dussek, however, sometimes em¬ phasizes the lowered sixth scale degree, as was seen previously in the modulation to the dominant, and also the lowered second scale degree (Neapolitan). Example 32, from the Third Grand Concerto, illustrates a jump to the ^VI. As one might expect, this turns out to be an expansion of the augmented sixth chord.

Example 31.

Ibid., mm. 117-39.

i i 4J._d l IU2 ^=f=t=t,r

> Jj ii.jUjj-Jrii

m

~

nr

.

Iff

r-

BpBffai

sg Con espressione

T-

Hit t?Hf

y

3

m

88

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

Example 31 (cont'd).

j

i-

n

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis Example 32.

89

Dussek, Op. 29, mm. 165-69.

The Second Tutti Following the customary trill on a dominant seventh chord which closes the first solo section, there is a second tutti. This section usually has no more than about 20 measures, and in Dussek’s Third Grand Concerto has only 13 measures. One of the functions of this tutti is to reinforce the climactic level that has been reached at the end of the first solo. The composer frequently restates material from the first tutti at this point, but this material usually comes from transitional or closing passages rather than from the main thematic statements. Transitional material inherently has more tension than thematic statement, and closing material, when it reinforces a non-tonic key, also provides tension on the larger harmonic level. This procedure, regularly found in the Mozart concertos, contrasts with the old ritornello principle, still used by J. C. Bach, of beginning the second tutti with the main theme of the first tutti. The concertos of Field and Miss Parke are the only ones of those under consideration that begin the second tutti with the opening theme; the others follow the newer practice. The tonal function of this tutti also has an important consideration. At this point in the movement, the harmonic plan is approaching the occurrence of the last cadence in the dominant key before the beginning of the departure of those additional key areas that are to be introduced before the return to the tonic. As mentioned above, Kollmann’s descrip¬ tion of the concerto placed this dividing point at the end of the second tutti, thus merging it with the first solo section. Such a procedure is quite common, but not invariable, in the London concertos. The textural di¬ viding points in the movement, it should be remembered, do not always correspond to the harmonic dividing points. The final dominant cad¬ ence—or, to use traditional terminology, the juncture between the ex¬ position and the development—may also occur in the middle of this tutti (Steibelt) or on the first chord of the tutti (Miss Parke).27 In the latter

90

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

case the second tutti modulates to the submediant, and the next solo section continues in this key. An unusual treatment of the second tutti is to be found in Dussek’s Second Grand Concerto. The trill closing the first solo is converted to an unexpected modulation to (Example 33). The tutti then progresses from E^ major to C minor, ending on a dominant chord in this key. The second solo section then resumes the normal dominant key of C major. Thus the tutti is a relief from the key of the dominant rather than a reinforcement of it. The Second Solo Section Kollmann distinguishes the portion of the concerto that we are calling the second solo by the “sort of Modulation and Elaboration it admits of, or requires.’’28 He compares the concerto to long bipartite pieces in general, in which the beginning of the second part comprehends a second sort of elaboration, consisting of digressions to all those keys and modes which shall be introduced besides that of the fifth (or third;) and being the place for those abrupt modulations, or enharmonic changes, which the piece admits or requires.29

Kollmann does not comment on the nature of the melodic material suited to this section; Koch, however, favors beginning the section with new material, a Nebengedanke to that which precedes.30 Example 33.

. /

Dussek, Op. 27, mm. 188-93.

1_(L !| *99 irm < L* r 7 H

rT’-

A -

j

I

^

3

tr 0

—-

°

r

T7

-

-i >• 1

h

ZTI ’ 91J sa _fJL ~

^

V

•

—

M-^

> t/

AU.

-

g

rfr

t -f-f-

—L—f-L-

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

91

Since the term “development” is frequently applied to this portion of the movement, the implications of this term and its applicability to the London concertos need to be considered. The equivalent word in Ger¬ man, Durchfuhrung, was in the late 18th century applied to the successive imitations of a fugue subject by each of the voices. Then it began to be used to refer to types other than the fugue and in this sense was defined by Koch as follows: In compositions that are not in the strict form of the fugue, the term implies the continuation and constant working over of the main idea in various changes and modifications.31

It should be noted that Koch refers to a procedure and not to a specific section of the composition. If development is thus thought of as a reworking of thematic material from the exposition, then only Dussek’s Grand Military Concerto and to a lesser degree the Field concerto demonstrate this sort of development as the main feature of the second solo section. Other concertos do have some references to earlier thematic material but not a consistent working over or modification of this material. Modern theorists, however, do not regard development merely in the sense of thematic manipulation. Leonard Ratner defines development as: (1) The treatment of musical materials to convey a sense of expansion (increased scope of structure) or exploration (significant shifts in harmonic direction); (2) the section in sonata form that is devoted to such treatment, i.e., the development section.32

He goes on to say that “virtually any” classical or romantic development section demonstrates the harmonic exploration alluded to in his definition, but with respect to thematic treatment he cautiously states that “the de¬ velopment section generally makes some reference to melodic material from the exposition.”33 This definition of development is perfectly con¬ sistent with the function of the second solo section in the concertos under consideration. One general observation about tonality in these concertos is that the second solo section frequently remains in the dominant for a significant length of time. The Hummel concerto, in fact, maintains this key for the entire second solo—the effect of such a static tonal plan is not completely satisfactory. The earlier Dussek concertos begin the second solo with a Nebengedanke which remains in the dominant; the move toward other key areas then takes place in the passagework which follows. The Third Grand Concerto and the Grand Military Concerto move away from the dominant more quickly. Example 34 illustrates the abrupt departure in

92

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

the Third Grand Concerto. The Grand Military Concerto begins modu¬ lating in the second tutti; thus the beginning of the second solo is already in a new key. The lengthy first solo in this concerto, which goes to the dominant a quarter of the way through, necessitates the departure to other tonal areas as soon as possible. The submediant is the most favored key area for subsequent empha¬ sis. The arrival in this tonality is sometimes set off by an interruption of the rapid passagework for a segment in longer note values. This may be new material (Dussek’s Op. 14) or in some cases the secondary theme from the first solo (Dussek’s Third Grand Concerto and Field’s concerto). Example 34.

Dussek, Op. 29, mm. 210-16.

There are basically two harmonic alternatives for ending the second solo. There may be a progression to an extended dominant chord which prepares the return of the tonic, or the section may cadence in some non¬ tonic key, usually the submediant or mediant, thus shifting to the third tutti the function of modulating back to the tonic. The first procedure was the most common in the London concertos; however, the second was a feasible alternative and may be found in Cramer’s First Concerto and Dussek’s First Grand Concerto. To end the second solo with a strong cadence in a non-tonic key reinforces the tutti-solo alternation scheme,

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

93

since the third tutti then has the essential harmonic function of modulating back to the tonic. Otherwise the third tutti is somewhat superfluous, and may in fact be omitted (Field). Koch describes the relationship between the basic tonal plan of the second solo section and the melodic treatment, and he gives two main alternatives.34 The first pertains to a harmonic scheme for this section which begins in the dominant and then progresses to one other principal tonality (vi, ii, or iii). This is, of course, the procedure found in a majority of the London concertos. Koch specifies the corresponding melodic usage as follows: Thereupon, several such melodic parts, as are best suited for presentation in one of these keys, are repeated or fragmented, in a different form or relationship than they had in the first section [i.e., exposition].35

Example 35.

Clementi, Concerto, mm. 142-53.

94

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

This rather ambiguous description is clarified somewhat by the musical example that Koch cites; the melodic material is expanded by means of sequences. Such treatment is perhaps seen most clearly in the dementi concerto (Example 35). In concertos in which the farthest tonal digression is the submediant, melodic and small-scale harmonic factors have an im¬ portant role in keeping up the tension within the second solo. Extensive use of sequence contributes toward this goal; a bass line with a gradual stepwise ascent, of which Dussek’s First Grand Concerto provides a clear example, also serves as a means of increasing tension. The other alternative mentioned by Koch is that in which the section progresses through various near and distant keys, rather than centering around a particular tonality. He states: The second type of construction for this section, which is used very frequently in modern symphonies, consists of the following: the theme included in the first part, or often only a portion of it that is particularly suitable, is continued, fragmented, or transposed, either in the uppermost voice alone, or else alternating among other voices, in such a manner that it little by little makes continual excursions through several keys—some closely related and some also distant—until the arrival in the tonality in which the section ends.36

Koch is describing here “development” in the traditional sense, and Dussek’s Grand Military Concerto exemplifies this type. It is character¬ ized by its inclusion of both the greatest tonal digression—the concerto is in Bb major, and the second solo goes as far as A major—and also the most pervasive working over of motives from the first solo section, of any of the London concertos. Examples 36 and 37 illustrate two of the most striking passages from the second solo of this concerto.37 The Recapitulation The most striking feature of the recapitulations of these concertos is the manner in which some of them begin. In Dussek’s Second and Third Grand Concertos and the Grand Military Concerto the return to the tonic does not coincide with the restatement of the initial thematic material. It will be remembered that the initial solo entrance in the concerto consists of a series of full chords in a pattern that became a cliche in the concertos of this period in London. The return of these chords at the beginning of the second and third solos is a factor in articulating the beginning of a new main section of the movement. To make this chordal pattern at the beginning of the third solo coincide with the return to the tonic would increase the dramatic effect at this point. However, in Dussek’s last three concertos written in London he has already returned to the tonic 14 to 24 measures previously.

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis Example 36.

Dussek, Op. 40, mm. 226-35.

95

96

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

Example 37.

Ibid., mm. 248-58.

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

97

The first step in determining the logic behind such a procedure is to ascertain its effect. Example 38, from the Grand Military Concerto, il¬ lustrates the method Dussek used in returning to the tonic. The example begins with the last two and one-half measures of the dominant seventh harmony that prepares the return of the tonic. The arrival in the home key in the middle of measure 291 is accompanied by material from within the primary thematic group (cf. Example 27), but not the opening. In the Second Grand Concerto, the material used here was the secondary theme. There follows in measures 299 to 312 a tutti, and then the soloist comes in with the expected opening chords. Several observations may be made pertaining to this sequence of events: (1) The return to the tonic with this type of thematic material is a point of relaxation; a more climactic moment, the entrance with the full chords, comes later. (2) The chordal entry is preceded by a tutti passage, paralleling the corresponding places in the first and second solos. (3) Both the preparation for the return to the tonic—which is the most suspenseful portion of the movement—and the arrival in the tonic are given to the soloist. (4) Apropos Rosen’s remark that “the audience waits for the soloist to enter, and when he stops playing they wait for him to begin again,”38 once the soloist sets out with the full-chord idiom, he can con¬ tinue unimpeded by another tutti section. Example 38.

Y'

Ibid., mm. 289-315.

1 *

Pel

V-

PcJ.

98

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

Example 38 (cont’d).

Let us postpone further discussion of these features in order to com¬ pare the recapitulation procedures in Dussek’s earlier concertos. It has been stressed in the previous discussion that the tonal plan of the move¬ ment, especially near the end, does not have a fixed correspondence to the solo-tutti alternation pattern. There are in fact four possibilities for

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

99

the point of return of the tonic: within a solo section, at the juncture of a solo going to a tutti, within a tutti, and at the juncture of a tutti going to a solo. These possibilities are shown in the following diagram by the letters A, B, C, and D: 2nd Solo

3rd Tutti N

t

1

A

B

3rd Solo /

C

D

All four of these may be found in Dussek concertos of the late 1780’s and early 1790’s, if both harp and piano concertos are included. The original solo entrance in the movement may have begun like the opening tutti (S=T) or differently from the opening tutti (S^T). Thus there are seemingly eight possibilities with respect to the combined fac¬ tors. However, all eight are not to be found in Dussek’s concertos; not all possibilities are feasible in terms of certain procedural requisites which he follows. Dussek begins with the opening tutti theme at B or C only if the soloist has something different that may be restated at his entrance (logically: B or C —» S^T). Conversely, the existence of different incipits for solo and tutti requires the recapitulation to commence at the beginning or in the middle of the tutti so that both are heard in their proper sequence (S^T —* B or C). The same diagram, expanded to show the solo-tutti relationship as well as the Dussek opus numbers which exemplify each combination is as follows:

t Op. :

3rd Solo

3rd Tutt

2nd Solo

t

A

A S=T

B S/T

S/T

D S=T

17

14

22

15

C

Thus Dussek, in four concertos written during approximately his first three years in London used four different methods of beginning the re¬ capitulation, all of which, however, employed either the tutti’s opening theme or the solo's opening theme. A reconsideration of the list of fea¬ tures pertaining to his last three London piano concertos reveals that none of the recapitulation procedures found in the four earlier concertos is able to satisfy items 2, 3, and 4 simultaneously. Op. 17 violates numbers 2 and 4; Op. 14, number 3; Op. 22, number 3; and Op. 15, number 3. Con¬ sequently, whatever merit these three features may have, to achieve all of them requires a separation of the return of the tonic from the return of the opening material. A further consideration of the effect of returning to the tonic with a

100

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

lyrical passage rather than the opening chords is now in order. Since these concertos include a considerable amount of virtuosic display, a large pro¬ portion of lyricism is required for contrast. In the discussion of earlier sections within the movement, it was mentioned that the number of lyrical passages might be increased by such procedures as restating the second¬ ary theme after a section of passagework or interrupting the transition to the dominant with a brief cantabile passage. The end of the second solo section is another logical place for such contrast to be introduced, since the second solo provides much opportunity for the performer to exhibit his “rapidity of execution.” In the Third Grand Concerto and the Grand Military Concerto the lyrical passage at the return to the tonic comes from the primary thematic group, which, like many of the concertos from this period, contains a series of short ideas. When this passage begins the recapitulation, it is then absent from its usual place. This provides the advantage of allowing a continuous drive from the full-chord idiom through the following tran¬ sition section without the interruption that would result from an interven¬ ing cantabile passage. An important feature of the recapitulations in the London concertos is the fact that they are sometimes shortened considerably. In Dussek’s later concertos, the third solo may be only three-fifths as long as the first solo. This extensive abridgment contrasts sharply with the Mozart con¬ certos, in which the two sections were about the same length. Moreover, Mozart included in his recapitulation material from the opening tutti that was not also incorporated into the solo. In the London concertos the restatement of material unique to the first tutti was not considered oblig¬ atory or even optional, except as such material might appear in the very brief third tutti. In these concertos, the portion of the first solo in the tonic key or within the modulation to the dominant is shortened drasti¬ cally. That portion originally in the dominant is restated with only slight curtailment. The Final Tutti and Cadenza There is little to be said about the concluding tuttis in the London con¬ certos. They are usually quite short—12 measures or less—and are in most cases a repetition of the end of the first tutti. Cadenzas are absent from the concertos of Dussek, Cramer, Field, and Steibelt. The Clementi concerto includes a written-out cadenza; the one by Miss Parke indicates a cadenza with a fermata without including it in the printed solo part. The Clementi cadenza, the beginning of which appears in Example 39, is mainly composed of figuration over a dominant pedal, concluding with a six-measure trill.

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis Example 39.

101

Clementi, Concerto, cadenza.

The trend during the decade seems to have been the omission of the cadenza. This is perhaps related to the general trend in the proportions of the movement. Concerto first movements were becoming longer—Steibelt’s was over 500 measures—and the increase in length was largely accounted for by the expansion of the first solo section. The proportions of Dussek’s Grand Military Concerto, for example, are as follows: T1

SI

T2

S2

T3

S3

T4

The end of the movement is thus greatly compressed; to prolong it with a cadenza would contradict the basic inclination toward abbreviating the recapitulation. The Second Movements The role of the second movement in the concerto, as viewed by one listener of the time, is expressed in the following review of a Dussek performance: HARRINGTON played a new Oboe Concerto in a chaste and pleasing stile. DUSSECK played another, the first movement of which was certainly in a very opposite taste; we often heard the master, but we were sometimes reminded of the madman.

102

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis That he can play with delicacy and expression, so as to delight, was evident from his second movement, which was generally applauded, and most by the best judges.39

Another assessment of the slow movement, which considers it to be the “summit of perfection” with regard to both composition and perfor¬ mance, was quoted in Chapter 2.40 The emphasis in the second movement is usually on florid melody. Example 40, from the Field concerto, illustrates the use of a high degree of embellishment and also demonstrates the utilization of the upper range of the instrument. Both cadenza-like passages and indications for impro¬ vised cadenzas may be found in the slow movement of some of the concertos. There are three principal types of formal design in the slow move¬ ments of the London concertos. In the two Cramer concertos the slow movement employs a rondo form. Specifically, it is the same type of rondo found also in most of the final movements of the London piano concertos: there are three refrains and two episodes, and the episodes are in the keys of the dominant and the tonic minor. Each of the five sections con¬ tains usually about 16 measures, or 32 measures at most. Since in both Cramer concertos the slow movements are a 3/8 andante, the form thus produced is much shorter than the final-movement rondos, although the basic design remains the same. There is also less participation of the orchestra in these slow movements than in the normal rondo; after the initial statement of the theme by the orchestra, the soloist plays contin¬ uously for the rest of the movement. Example 40.

Field, Concerto No. 1, ii, mm. 15-16.

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

103

A second type of formal design features a modulation to the dominant as the main tonal feature. Names such as sonatina form, rudimentary sonata form, and rounded binary have often been used to classify the different variants of this general type. An attempt to distinguish between these and to make a detailed classification of the slow movements in the London concertos will not be undertaken here. The slow movements of Dussek usually fall into this category, as does the single example by de¬ menti. The orchestra usually begins the movement, as in the previous type. A theme and variations—a third type of formal design—may also be used for the second movement. In John Field’s Concerto No. 1, variations on “Within a Mile of Edinburgh Town,” a Scottish-style song by James Hook, make up the second movement. The Steibelt Concerto No. 3 also uses a Scottish tune. Hummel's concerto includes variations on a theme which has not been identified by this writer. In a manner similar to the other types of slow movement, the initial statement of the theme is usually given to the orchestra, and the soloist presents the series of variations. The inclusion of familiar melodies in a concerto, which might occur either in the slow movement or in the rondo, seems to have been a feature which especially pleased the general audience. The key of the second movement has significance since this is the only movement that may be in a non-tonic tonality. The most frequent key for this movement is the subdominant, with the dominant the next most prevalent. In Dussek’s First Grand Concerto in Bb, the second movement is in the lowered mediant (Db). It does not cadence in this key, however, but rather ends on a dominant chord in the original key, pre¬ paring for the tonality of the final movement. A similar non-tonic ending may be found in the slow movement of Miss Parke’s concerto. A slow movement is not invariably present in a concerto. Among the piano concertos under consideration here, only one, Dussek’s Grand Military Concerto, has two movements. Traditionally, two-movement con¬ certos have been considered as a “lighter type.” The Grand Military Concerto, however, is not basically different in character from the other Dussek concertos; it is certainly not a step in the direction of the musicbox tunes found in James Hook’s concertos for outdoor garden perfor¬ mances. The most plausible explanation for the omission of the slow movement in this case is the desire to avoid an excessive length. Each of the two Allegro movements in this concerto has approximately 400 mea¬ sures (in C and 3/4 meter, respectively); these two movements alone com¬ prise a concerto of a comfortable length. In conclusion, the slow movement contributes in several ways to the overall effect of the three-movement cycle. First, it provides a contrast

104

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

to the prevailing rapidity of the first and last movements. Related to this contrast is the possibility for expressive playing and delicate embellish¬ ment within this movement. The orchestra usually has much less of a role in the slow movement than in the others; this provides an additional type of contrast. The main weakness of these slow movements is that they are not dramatic enough to hold a convincing place within the three-movement cycle. A contemporary London composition, Haydn’s Sonata in Eb Major (Hob. XVI/52), provides an illustration of the relationship of the slow movement to the other movements. This sonata has a long and brilliant first movement, as do the concertos under consideration. The second movement maintains a high level of tension throughout, principally by means of large-scale harmonic dissonance. By comparison, the slow movements in the concertos impress the listener as rather insipid. The concerto composers did not seem to have the high level of compositional skill needed to create a really effective slow movement. The Last Movements In all the concertos under consideration, the final movement is a rondo. The rondo is one of three possibilities for this movement as given in Koch’s treatise. Koch’s other alternatives are a design similar to the first movement or a set of variations.41 In the London concertos, the form of the last movement, although it remains basically in the framework of a rondo, does sometimes take on certain aspects of the typical first-move¬ ment form. The rondo was a genre with much popular appeal during this period. Dussek composed and published rondos on such popular tunes as “O Dear, What Can the Matter Be,” and, in addition, rondos from his sonatas and concertos were sometimes issued as separate publications. The most usual tonal plan of the rondos in the London concertos consists of sections in the dominant and tonic minor besides the original key, with the basic pattern: I-V-I-i-I. The tonic minor section is normally indicated in the printed music by a change of key signature and the word "minore.” The proportions of these principal harmonic sections vary greatly from one concerto to another. The two most extreme ex¬ amples are Dussek’s Op. 14 and his Second Grand Concerto, in which the lengths of the sections, compared graphically, are as follows: Op.

14

2nd Grand

I

I

V

I

i

I

V

i

I i

i

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

105

Such a discrepancy in proportions implies that on the next lower level of organization one can expect to find considerable variety. This turns out to be the case in these concertos. In such details as the structure and complexity of the refrain and the episodes, or the extent to which material is shortened when it recurs later in the movement, there is much individ¬ uality to be found among the different works. Example 41, from Dussek’s First Grand Concerto, illustrates a typ¬ ical rondo melody. A duple division of the measure, either 2/4 or 6/8, is most common. Repeated rhythmic patterns are an essential feature, and there are usually one or two repeated melodic segments within the phrase as well. This type of melody can easily become trivial, and it is not surprising that there is a high degree of sameness in the rondos of the London concertos. Example 41.

Dussek, Op. 22, iii, mm. 1-5. Allegro non tanto

wrfff'~r

K . **~r„3 r . *w T s r—r 1K 7 in f 1 iti fit— M-V-W !l VLLI11

——i T“f—f— v m

,

Alternation between solo and tutti is an important part of the refrain of the rondo. The soloist normally begins, and the orchestra follows with either a repetition of the solo or with a counterstatement. The unit thus formed may in the simplest rondos, such as Dussek’s Op. 14, comprise the entire refrain. Usually, however, the refrain is more extensive. In Dussek’s First Grand Concerto and in the Clementi Concerto, it is in an aba form, and in Dussek’s later concertos the refrain becomes an abab'a. With respect to the form of the episodes, the tendency may be either to follow the pattern of an ordinary rondo or to lean toward the form of a concerto first movement. Dussek adopted the latter procedure beginning with the Second Grand Concerto. The first episode does not begin in the dominant, but rather is initially in the tonic. A transition section leads to the new key. This first episode, which is thus similar to a sonata exposition or the first solo section of a concerto first movement, does not recur in the tonic at the end of the movement as is often the case in a rondo. In Dussek’s rondos, the section in the tonic at the end of the movement usually consists of a portion of the refrain followed by a coda emphasizing the V-I cadence. The rondo in Cramer’s Concerto No. 1 deserves particular notice, since it is unusually long and complex. This movement is nearly 500 measures long, and it is much more innovative harmonically than the first two movements of the concerto. In a basic tonality of E13 major, D major

106

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

and C major are used as important key centers. The basic form of this movement of the Cramer Concerto No. 1 is as follows: B

A

Melody Harmony

»

-- —

771 V7, ~~m /■yn—

D

A' C A 1

i

-

zrr^

' P V

c

A"

A

-

-*-r*

As the diagram indicates, Cramer makes a greater use of distant tonalities than one usually finds in the rondos of the London piano concertos. Also, he alludes to the refrain melody within the contrasting episodes. Thus in this concerto Cramer has shifted the balance of the cycle in the direction of the final movement. Although this is unusual in the piano concertos, it will be seen in Chapter 6 that a complex and musically significant rondo is to be found in many of the violin concertos of Viotti. Some of the London concertos contain rondos that are program¬ matic. In Miss Parke’s concerto, the rondo is a chasse. This genre, which Example 42.

M. H. Parke, Concerto, iii, mm. 43-50.

/i-ftrir?. —i -\ ’—irz J*1 Is* > a \ r •ft t) p 2 J_LLi 1

)

1 I It 1 t-

1 / * Pa V

f f r /1 ' i

r

f

t

1- -

/

w

*

: = =k

_

^

9

jr,r

*

9

:=±

j j

-i.

i. j

J. J ii

A

i L#.c

, . . A-

1

1

—

j , # -A

—

7

1

V

j

—T/-

1

i

-x

i f

, «A

49 = = = = =| = = - = ^ t\ 1 J. 1 A. 1 A J fw==?=—-=?T-ly'f

*-

i

7

-

—p

•

r r#««

1

r r r.

46 > . n 1 '/b l S J J ^

y

1

/

**

J

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

107

imitates the sounds of a hunt, is characterized by 6/8 meter, horn fifths, repeated notes, and static harmony. It was a common type in the late 18th century. Both Clementi and Dussek published a chasse as a piano solo, and Wilhelm Cramer had included an example of it in a violin con¬ certo written in Paris before his arrival in London. A passage from the last movement of the Parke concerto is given in Example 42. The Steibelt Concerto No. 3 contains a “Rondo Pastorale” in which there is a depiction of a storm. The extreme popularity of this concerto was mentioned in Chapter 3. The storm imitation forms the second epi¬ sode of the rondo, and it is in the key of the lowered submediant. This section exploits some of the developments in pianoforte manufacture, such as improved sonority and the una corda pedal. The beginning of the storm portion of the movement is shown in Example 43. Example 43.

Steibelt, Concerto No. 3, iii, mm. 209-14. Allegro Moderato

1J

213

- -

M

■J-

-•

th e fu11 Orch e 3tra

\

\

□

/

i 11 i 1 1 » 7 "2 i i # sS U1 f M M £ ,___J_-__-_-J_«_____. 1 J f

it

1m a m j-

214 , V-t-4-

S'-1 .b-t-

108

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

Orchestration During the course of the 1790’s the instrumentation used in piano con¬ certos showed a gradual addition of more instruments. The minimum scoring, found in most concertos from early in the decade, was two oboes, two horns, and strings. Flutes might be used instead of oboes, as exemplified by Dussek’s First Grand Concerto. In Dussek's Third Grand Concerto, published in 1795, the wind instrumentation is expanded to two flutes, two oboes, two bassoons, and two horns. The Grand Military Concerto, first performed in 1798, includes clarinets. The most extensive instrumentation of any of the concertos appears in the Steibelt Concerto No. 3; it includes two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, two horns, two trumpets, trombone, timpani, and strings. The concertos from early in the 1790’s did not use all the instruments available in the orchestras of the concert series on which they were per¬ formed, as shown by a comparison with the Haydn symphonies. Haydn’s symphonies for 1791 and 1792 contained a complete wind section except for clarinets and trombones, and those for 1794 and 1795 included clari¬ nets. Thus, all the instruments used in Dussek’s Grand Military Concerto of 1798, and all used in the Steibelt concerto of the same year except for trombone, were available in Salomon’s orchestra in 1794. The wind instruments, moreover, were used rather sparingly in the concertos. They were usually heard only in the tutti sections, and they often merely doubled the string parts or reinforced the harmony. Occa¬ sionally a wind instrument was given a melodic line. Example 44, from Dussek’s Third Grand Concerto, illustrates the orchestration in a tutti section. The accompaniment to a solo passage ordinarily used string instru¬ ments only. Since the pianoforte did not have an extremely powerful tone at this time, it was necessary to guard against letting the accompanying orchestra overpower the solo. A review of Dussek’s Grand Military Con¬ certo praised the composer for careful attention to this detail: What makes this concerto especially commendable, however, is the appropriate ac¬ companiment of the solo passages, which throughout are so constructed that the soloist can be completely heard and understood—something which remains to be desired in the Mozart piano concertos, in spite of all their other excellent qualities.42

An accompanied solo passage from a Dussek concerto is given in Example 45. Steibelt was perhaps the most innovative composer in the area of orchestration. For example, in the rondo of his Concerto No. 3, he in-

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis Example 44.

Dussek, Op. 29, mm. 50-63.

109

110

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

Example 44 (cont’d).

55

■ y •

F= -=

£N£]nr flYfri ,U-J

&

*

-

/

Ji :r

rW

il1 j /r'i Sc-^ ~—-- - Orffp- —1-L4wIr l; lift;

j , , irrTFFF H P[Thi ( iq) *-^^ J J » o—-=5^t^=: J- ^JJ H=£ \w ' ’ ; st i/1 t

(pj

*

,m L= J-i|J...f> ■ -- L ’If TP

H4#- rU

i .a - =4=?====" # 4,f Iff + i * * dfp —-i=N=-f-i—3-^7--

rf

p-t^T i

=

1 PrJt. 1 &M= -,-L>-U

fen r >

J-

--L

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis Example 44 (cont’d).

60

m fflpT f-uy ■J i -I j-i-Lfp~T

rr IrivP—J■f—t-M—

in A

f -A.

p

'O'

.^r-t ,

W -U*

n i

'

1

Pn-. -4-

J gJ

- r r

- r gj

;

,,

A

r

vtr—3T*—-

r r

; I \. ■*— i■» 1/1 \nf r ' U

i

a

„

*

-■

17 hrffl—pfm— ■ \-■ pi 1 n/ t ** r r • i r> 9 A* ) a '+-+t~r /

/

1 1 J. r* ~ + i . I ' V VV

— f- *- " f 1

‘

l 1

*

*

,1 T

^

^

V

*

4_J-

111

112

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

Example 45.

Ibid., mm. 106-11.

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

113

Example 45 (cont'd).

structs the strings to play “pres du chevalet.” The beginning of the slow movement in this concerto is scored for flute, two solo cellos, and double bass. This passage is given in Example 46. In conclusion, orchestration in the concertos tended to be rather restrictive and often routine. The main focus of attention, of course, was on the solo instrument. The subordinate role of the orchestra is illustrated by the fact that on title-pages and in advertisements of printed music the performing forces were listed not as “pianoforte and orchestra” but as “pianoforte with accompaniments.”

114

Piano Concertos—Musical Analysis

Example 46.

Steibelt, Concerto No. 3, ii, mm. 1-6.

t t *i*

^ r ~ *r —rr rr +r l l rr# ■ y=ui-

1 ^

l ft J* 1 J T ft] * lL + f

nil#7 f*V \“ U I T +

J

’7rr'-’ i LI

*

——

rRtr— /

f

h •

nr

umr

i

—f2i— ^r: 1* tJr- ~7~ - y J r M

1

r

b

—

^—-^... ^ wl ei v ^^ —;rrfrz— f■ A T7 r rr j - " -—4d-4 - = =tf- WUij >

zr^~rt~ri '-*~r~i r -7" #l *■'-lh E l : ~r i i i r»r r

~r

1 iI i:1

^ -

H^uu umj mi

i 0 1 ~ 1


^—

i, ,j ,i 4=^rtfe— —-- -TTtT JjJLL fpHP=

rm

■k't-L'i-A-

0. , -y ' ry -

IF f FI

4LS—--

Ir^

t.f-

--J

-yf~

J

?

T

—

-l-

With respect to the proportions of the sections making up the first movement, Viotti’s concertos employ recapitulations that are greatly ab¬ breviated. This shortening reaches its furthest extent in Concertos No. 24 and 29, in which the recapitulation is only 40 per cent as long as the first solo section. It will be remembered that the London piano concertos also have a shortened recapitulation, though it is not so brief, by com¬ parison, as in the concertos of Viotti. Thus both these groups of concertos stand in direct contrast to the Mozart concertos, in which the recapitu¬ lation is always within 10 per cent of the length of the first solo. Viotti's concertos differ from the piano concertos with respect to the selection of material to be left out. In the piano concertos a portion of the material originally appearing in the tonic or included in the transition to the dom¬ inant was omitted in the recapitulation. Anything that had originally ap¬ peared in the dominant was preserved basically intact in the recapitulation, where it was transposed, of course, to the tonic. Viotti’s recapitulations, on the other hand, usually omit the secondary theme altogether; they consist of the first theme plus the passagework that had originally fol¬ lowed the secondary theme. Thus Viotti leaves out the element that the composers of piano concertos found most essential even in the shortest recapitulations. Two important considerations must be kept in mind in assessing Viotti’s formal procedures in this respect. First, Viotti demonstrates once again a loose treatment of form on the largest structural level in that he presents thematic material in the key of the dominant without resolving the tension thus created through a later restatement of the same material in the tonic. Second, the omission of the secondary theme points up the fact that the

Violin Concertos—Musical Analysis

153

role of both the primary and secondary themes in Viotti’s concertos is different from that in the concertos of Dussek and Cramer. In the latter it is the secondary theme that is most important as a recognizable, re¬ curring melody. Instead of a cohesive first theme, these concertos contain a series of chord and scale passages, followed perhaps by a lyrical melody. In the Viotti concertos, however, the primary theme is characterized by— as White describes it—“a high register and a firm, clear melody line which can be played with long detached, yet legato strokes, giving the immediate opportunity for a strong, singing tone.”11 Illustrations of this type of melody are given in Examples 57 and 58 from Concertos 22 and 23. Thus Viotti includes in his recapitulations the most important melodic portion of the movement, followed by the most important section with regard to technical display—that is, the closing passagework. Melodic considerations therefore take precedence over tonal considerations such as the need to make the amount of time spent in the tonic after its return balance the rest of the movement or the need to resolve large-scale tension by restating all important thematic material in the tonic. Example 57.

Viotti, Concerto No. 22, mm. 81-96.

ff n-fV-

r— Li) ' J --

Example 58.

■-r

.

rW'yi

E

■i> ui) yi* 4 H

Viotti, Concerto No. 23, mm. 83-98.

One Viotti concerto is quite different from the others in the handling of the recapitulation; this is No. 24 in B Minor. The first solo section in this work has two secondary themes. The one stated first is that which

154

Violin Concertos—Musical Analysis

also is found in the opening tutti. There follows a section of passagework, the new secondary theme (Example 59), and then the same passagework repeated. Both secondary themes are in the usual key of the mediant. The recapitulation in this concerto begins with the second of the second¬ ary themes in tonic major; this is followed by the passagework in tonic minor. No other material from the first solo recurs. Thus this concerto corresponds to Dussek’s practice of reintroducing the tonic tonality with something other than the beginning of the first solo or the beginning of the first tutti. The logic underlying Viotti’s method in this case does not parallel Dussek’s, however, since Viotti does not bring back the opening thematic material at a later point. It appears that Viotti is simply beginning the recapitulation with the material that is melodically the most opportune in this location. Example 59.

Viotti, Concerto No. 24, mm. 134-41.

jffl P'**r\ /V' ^

--T7T13 1 g. r 777 p*r(\fn' ~ ~r~ rP-^ 1 zx tr * ^ II 1 -p-r--1——rr

1

f itf

In the violin concertos of the composers other than Viotti, the re¬ capitulation may be equally as long as the first solo, as in Giornovichi’s 1796 concerto, or it may be greatly abridged, as in Giornovichi’s Concerto in G major arranged by Dussek and in Janiewicz’s Concerto No. 5. How¬ ever, even in those concertos where the recapitulation is shortened con¬ siderably, the other composers do not follow Viotti’s lead in leaving out the secondary theme. In fact, in one of the briefest recapitulations, that of Janiewicz’s Concerto No. 5, the secondary theme is in effect “squeezed in’’ at the expense of adequate transitional material leading into this theme. Among the other features of the first movements in the violin con¬ certos, the manner of treating the opening tutti involves an important consideration. A comparison of the Giornovichi concertos indicates that the first tutti is very uniform in structure and in its thematic relationship to the first solo section that follows.12 Within the tutti there is always a modulation to the dominant and a statement of thematic material in this key. After a retransition to the tonic another theme is stated, and then the tutti concludes in the tonic key. The solo begins with the same first theme as the tutti. In the dominant key area there is a new secondary theme, passagework, a restatement of the third theme from the first tutti, and the concluding passagework. Thus the solo and tutti share two themes, and each section has one unique to itself. This procedure occurs not only in Giornovichi’s London concertos, but also in his earlier compositions.13 The Concerto No. 5 by Janiewicz and the Salomon Concerto are

Violin Concertos—Musical Analysis

155

each unique among the London concertos for any instrument in their handling of the opening tutti. The Janiewicz concerto begins with a slow introduction of 20 measures; this procedure was evidently patterned after Viotti. There follows a 13-measure allegro passage in a style correspond¬ ing to the closing section of a normal tutti. This passage ends on a half cadence, followed by the entry of the solo violin. The Salomon Concerto does not even have a first tutti. Instead there is merely a 15-measure slow introduction in which the solo instrument participates. In the piano con¬ certos it was seen that the first tutti was becoming shorter and less sig¬ nificant musically, although it retained the traditional form. Janiewicz and Salomon each went one step further toward abandoning this section, a trend which continued in the 19th century. The extent to which the violin concertos incorporated the innovative harmonic usage of the time is another significant consideration. In Dussek’s concertos, it will be remembered, the transitional passages fre¬ quently passed through the key a minor sixth above the final goal of the modulation. This was simply an expansion of the function of the augmented-sixth chord. The violin concertos do not reflect a similar har¬ monic treatment at this point in the movement; the modulations are quite regular. Viotti’s Concerto No. 27 comes the closest to this sort of har¬ mony with the three-measure prolongation of E-flat within a modulation from C major to G major (Example 60). Even so, the lowered-sixth har¬ mony is emphasized to a lesser degree here than in the Dussek concertos. Distant or abrupt modulations in the violin concertos, if they are present at all, are usually confined to the second solo sections. We have seen that the routine method for composing a second solo section was to use two principal key areas; the dominant and the submediant. Such a tonal plan is to be found in most of Giornovichi's pre-London concertos.14 In his concertos written in London, Giornovichi continued to emphasize the submediant, with transient modulations to other keys in some cases. His most significant departure from this regular plan is in his Concerto for the Opera Concert, 1796 in which the lowered mediant is used as the second principal tonality of the second solo. Viotti likewise uses two main keys for this section in most cases; however, he differs in his choice of tonalities. In a movement in a major key, the use of the submediant results in a minor key at this point. By contrast, Viotti, in a major-key movement, tends to use a major tonality for the second key area within the second solo. This may be the major key built on the mediant (No. 27), the lowered mediant (No. 20), the submediant (No. 23), or the lowered submediant (No. 25). Thematic ma¬ terial from the first tutti or first solo is usually restated at this point. This explains the preference for a major key. Viotti’s minor-key concertos

156

Violin Concertos—Musical Analysis

Example 60.

Viotti, Concerto No. 27, mm. 140-43.

show equal variety in the tonal plan of the second solo. Concerto No. 22, in A Minor, which uses the major dominant rather than the mediant as the secondary key area, goes to C-sharp minor in the second solo. Con¬ certo No. 24 uses the Neapolitan at this point. The most distant modu¬ lation within a second solo section is to be found in Janiewicz’s Concerto No. 5 in E Minor, which goes to Bb major, a tritone away from the tonic. Two concertos exhibit irregular tonal structure in the recapitulation. In the Janiewicz Concerto in G Major arranged by Cramer, the recapit¬ ulation begins in the subdominant. Although this is the only one of the London concertos under consideration that uses this scheme, the pro¬ cedure appears occasionally in other Classical genres. Salomon makes a more radical departure at this point in the movement. After preparing for the return of the tonic, D major, with a prolonged dominant-seventh har-

Violin Concertos—Musical Analysis

157

mony, he suddenly jumps to F major (Example 61). Salomon was prob¬ ably influenced by the sudden modulations used by Dussek; however, this example must be evaluated as a much less successful use of this technique. Example 61.

Salomon, Concerto, mm. 231-34. Molto allegro

r

/!> N# 1 ffl D/.* t i iiwi, j , i/: i fi i — . ^

n \U

K

r

^

Li

d _,

1 1 4' 4 4 + 9_1* #

J3JJ

0

i

J

4 71 * t r 'f ! i /VJt J h t + 9 L 9 9 .J 7 r 7ff l r* ' \-——--L-

As in the case of the piano concertos, the violin concertos might or might not include a provision for a cadenza. In fact each of the composers for whom there is more than one violin concerto is represented by ex¬ amples with and without cadenzas. It should be noted that the presence or absence of a cadenza is seemingly unrelated to the length of the recapitulation. The Second Movements All the extant violin concertos include a slow movement; this contrasts with concertos for many other instruments, which sometimes have only two movements. Admittedly, the small number of violin concertos that have been preserved allows this to be explained as coincidence; however, violinists were especially praised by critics for their slow movements. One special type to be found among the slow movements of the London violin concerto is the romance. This genre was derived from a vocal form that was popular in France during the 18th century. Koch’s Lexikon defines the term as follows: Romanze (Romance) in the original meaning is a song in a lyrical verse form that comprises a narrative of tragedy or love and that is clothed in an extremely naive and simple style. . . . And so one is accustomed to designating as romances those instru¬ mental pieces having a slow tempo and the aforementioned character, which are writ¬ ten in an unelaborate and naive manner and are in the form of a rondo, or very little different from the rondo.15

The most familiar example of an instrumental romance is the second movement of Mozart's Eine kleine Nachtmusik (Example 62).

158

Violin Concertos—Musical Analysis

Example 62.

Mozart, Eine kleine Nachtmusik, ii, mm. 1-5.

White gives Giornovichi credit for being the composer who intro¬ duced the romance into the concerto during the 1770’s.16 Among Giornovichi’s later works the romance is included in No. 15 (probably written just before he came to London), No. 16, and the unnumbered Concerto in F Major arranged by Dussek. Viotti used the romance in some of his earlier concertos. None of those written in London include a movement with this specific title; however, White sees a continued influence of this type in Viotti’s late concertos, even though the style has been somewhat modified from the genuine romance.17 Janiewicz included the romance in the revised version of the Concerto in F Major preserved in an arrange¬ ment by Dussek. Example 63, from Giornovichi’s Concerto No. 16, il¬ lustrates the type of melody to be found in a romance movement in a violin concerto. Example 63.

Giornovichi, Concerto No. 16, ii, mm. 45-51. Romance Andantino l \r f * i

cr

r

- y

1

1

r )

it rV 1_II r 1 1 1 l-Mr ^ / k '-* i .H-1

1

#*

JTl p

. V ^' JP TTTT

n r ^rr

Bfl-9

-

r

” wi

tr I

-

-t. i f—r \ I ’

r

:

In some of the violin concertos the slow movement has two sections with different tempos: an adagio followed by an andante or andantino. Such a combination occurs in Giornovichi’s Concerto for the Opera Con-

Violin Concertos—Musical Analysis

159

cert, 1796, his Concerto No. 16, and Janiewicz’s Concerto in F Major arranged by Dussek. In all of these the second portion of the movement is either a romance or a song-like section similar to the romance. Since the romance melody-type does not lend itself to added ornamentation, the adagio provides an opportunity for such embellishment. In the Janiewicz concerto, the romance is also designated “Tempo di minuetto.” The combination of movements thus created quite obviously parallels that of the symphony. Experimentation with the introduction of a minuet into the concerto had already been attempted by Giornovichi in the second version of his Concerto No. 15. Like Janiewicz, he did not make the minuet a separate movement, but in this case incorporated a minuet-like section as the first part of the final movement. An earlier version of the concerto does not have the minuetto section. White evaluates the revision as “a hodge-podge—really two half movements pasted together in such a manner that the characteristic unity and balance of Giornovichi’s rondo form is lost.”18 In two of the Viotti concertos the tonality chosen for the second movement is unusual. The Concerto No. 23 in G Major has a slow move¬ ment in the submediant (E major); in Concerto No. 27 in C Major, the key is the mediant (E major). In both cases the distant key of the second movement is prepared in the first movement through its use as the second tonal center within the second solo section. Chapter 5 established that No. 23 was probably composed for Viotti’s benefit concert on May 23, 1794, and that No. 27, the autograph of which has a 1794 watermark, was probably written for the 1795 season. Thus, Viotti’s experimentation with an unusual tonal plan for the cycle of movements was confined to a short period of time. The source of such a key scheme is easy to determine. While in Vienna in 1793, Haydn had composed for the 1794 Salomon Concerts two works with the slow movement in a distant tonality. These were the Sym¬ phony No. 99 in e!3 Major, in which the slow movement is in G major, and the String Quartet in G Minor (Hob. III/74), in which E major is the key of the second movement. Since Viotti was a regular participant in the Salomon Concerts in 1794, we can reasonably assume that the two con¬ certos reflect the direct influence of Haydn. In 1794 and 1795 Haydn continued to use non-diatonic keys for his slow movements, for example in several piano trios (Hob. XV/20, 22, and 25), and he carried the idea to its furthest extent in the Piano Sonata in E^ Major (Hob. XVI/52), in which the second movement is in the Neapolitan. Daring harmonic schemes were not always appreciated by the listeners of the day. A critic wrote of the Haydn sonata:

160

Violin Concertos—Musical Analysis The first movement is in E^, the second in E. Nothing, I think, can exceed the disa¬ greeable effect thus produced by the immediate succession of scales so unrelated to each other. All analogy is set at defiance, in this instance, and we can only regard it as one of those freaks in which the greatest men will sometimes indulge, and which must be overlooked, on the ground of their general excellence.19

The Third Movements In all the violin concertos being considered here the final movements have a rondo form. These movements combine display passages with the fa¬ miliarity of a recurring theme, and they are therefore the type of com¬ position that would appeal to the London audiences. Newspaper accounts of performances report frequent examples of popular tunes being used as rondo themes. Among those violin concertos which have been preserved in print, three include preexisting melodies in the rondos. Giornovichi’s Concerto No. 14 uses a Russian air that was also the basis for a set of variations by Beethoven (see Example 47). The rondo in the Salomon Concerto is based on a pas seul danced by Madame Hilligsberg (Exam¬ ple 64). The third movement of Viotti’s Concerto No. 25, in the piano arrangement by Dussek, is marked “Savoyard Air” (Example 65). The specific tune has not been identified.

Example 64.

Salomon, Concerto, iii, mm. 1-12.

■

.

f i

—f t, v

yfrr7 i

A

■A—

— >
m r 0'

m 4

J i: i . i. 1

tltrJrf *

7

i

. >

H4

/

—

67

nc

ff rr 1I

ITT n 1/ 1


-LUJ 11 ^

w—

Ibid., mm. 55-59.

Clarinet Concertos Concertos for the clarinet were relatively few in this period. John Mahon (ca. 1746-1834), who first performed in London in 1773,50 appeared twice on the Covent Garden oratorio series during the 1790’s. The Mahon who played a clarinet concerto at Ranelagh in 1791 may have been either John or his brother William (ca. 1750-1816); no first name is listed in the an-

212

Concertos for Wind Instruments

nouncement of this concert.51 John Mahon published two concertos dur¬ ing the 1770’s and 1780’s. Only the second still exists.52 Karl Hartmann performed solo concertos on three occasions, in¬ cluding the seventh Salomon Concert in 1794, which was reviewed as follows: Mr. HARTMAN, on the clarinet, was favourably received. Sweetness of tone has been his principle [s/c] study, and this he has very effectually attained. But musicians who aspire after excellence should never forget that if they want passion, the defect cannot be compensated by any other excellence, however great.53

Xavier LeFevre (1763-1829) played his own First Clarinet Concerto in 1790 on a benefit concert for himself and other visiting Paris musicians.54 Bassoon Concertos Jeremiah Parkinson, who performed frequently during the early 1790’s, was especially admired for his tone quality. A review of a 1790 perfor¬ mance stated: Parkinson’s Bassoon was much admired. His tone approaches more to the Vox humana, than any Bassoon player we ever heard.55

Another performance two days later was also favorably reviewed: The Bassoon performance of Mr. PARKINSON was rich and mellow:—more tone or expression we have seldom heard.56

William Parke made these comments about Parkinson’s playing: Parkinson had great and neat execution, and his tone was remarkably sweet, having none of that nasal quality which occasioned a medical friend of mine to observe, that the upper notes of the bassoon, in general, appeared to him like a hautboy labouring under a cold.S7

Parkinson was also active in the garden concerts at Vauxhall, a situation favorably suited to performance on wind instruments. Another bassoonist, Holmes, played solo concertos primarily during the second half of the 1790’s; thus, his period of greatest activity is later than that of Parkinson. A performance on the Salomon series in 1796 was assessed as follows: HOLMES gave a concerto on the Bassoon, in such a style as to render the instru¬ ment highly charming and interesting.58

Concertos for Wind Instruments

213

In a time when a common complaint was the excessive length of concer¬ tos, the following remarks were made about Holmes’ playing: Holmes played a concerto on the bassoon so well, that it was thought to end too soon.59

Besides concertos of his own composition, Holmes is recorded as having performed a concerto by Devienne.60 Bassoonists who performed concertos on only a single occasion are Perret, who played on the concert with LeFevre; Friedrich Kiichler, who appeared in 1791; and Preumayer, probably Johann Conrad Preumayer (1775-1819), who played on a concert of French emigrants in 1795. Horn Concertos The brother of violinist D.-P. Pieltain, identified in the sources as “Pieltain le jeune,” played horn concertos on the Professional Concerts and on three of Giornovichi’s benefit concerts. No reviews of these performances have been located. The performer was probably Pierre-Joseph Pieltain (b. 1751), who was, however, three years older than D.-P. Pieltain. The advertisement of a horn concerto by “Miss Pieltain” on the fourth Profes¬ sional Concert in 1790 was probably a typographical error.61 Solo horn concertos were performed less frequently in London than concertantes for two horns. In 1790 Buck and Duvernois, visiting from Paris, performed a concertante on two occasions, as did Messrs. Leander during the same season. Messrs. Potrides, who made their first appear¬ ance on Salomon's benefit concert in 1802, performed their “Echo” con¬ certo for two horns on frequent occasions during the next few years. Trumpet Concertos No trumpet concertos were played in London during the 1790’s until near the end of the decade. John Hyde performed one concerto in 1799 and two in 1800 on this instrument. One of the 1800 performances was re¬ viewed as follows: The Concerto on the Piano Forte by a Lady born blind, and that on the trumpet by Mr. HYDE, received, as they deserved, the warm and loud plaudits of the amateurs.62

During the next decade trumpet concertos on London concerts be¬ came more frequent, and several other players joined Hyde as performers of concertos on this instrument. In particular, trumpet concertos began to be heard at the Vauxhall Garden Concerts.63 It is curious that during

214

Concertos for Wind Instruments

the period of greatest activity in concerto performance, the early 1790’s, the trumpet concerto was completely absent from London concerts, and that it began to appear only after concert life in this city had greatly diminished. Perhaps the lack of trumpet concertos in the early 1790’s can be explained by an attitude that this instrument was not particularly suited for the concerto. Thomas Busby wrote: The Trumpet's want of diversity in its mode of expression does not, perhaps, qualify it for concerto execution; but as an accompaniment to the voice, in such songs as “The trumpet shall sound,” in Handel’s “Messiah,” or “The soldier tir’d of war’s alarms,” in Dr. Arne’s “Artaxerxes,” its powers are truly great.64

It is ironic that Haydn, after hearing during his London visits concertos for almost every orchestral instrument except the trumpet wrote only one concerto thereafter: a trumpet concerto.

11

Conclusions In his well known article on Romantic music in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Friedrich Blume wrote: There is no doubt that many of Muzio dementi’s piano sonatas, caprices, and preludes of the 1780s and ’90s, Johann Baptist Cramer’s concertos and other piano works of 1800-10 (the piano had about this time become the Romantic instrument), Jan Ladislav Dussek's piano and chamber-music works of around 1800 sometimes speak an un¬ mistakably Romantic tonal language, often at least a romanticizing one, and do so, like the compositions of the great masters, without giving up their basic Classic feeling. The same is true for several of the smaller composers such as Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia, Daniel Steibelt, Carl Czerny, Johann Nepomuk Hummel, Franz Ries, and others.1

It is of particular interest that Blume’s list of composers exhibiting Ro¬ mantic tendencies includes five of the London concerto composers being dealt with in this study. The question presents itself: to what extent did the London concertos of the 1790’s demonstrate the features that later would be called Romanticism? And, of course, the more general question as to the position of these concertos in the history of music must be considered simultaneously. The term “romantic” was in fact used in one newspaper review in 1798. Steibelt’s style was described as “marked by an original, romantic and impressive character.”2 Exactly what the word “romantic” means in this context is somewhat problematic. Among the definitions listed by the Oxford English Dictionary as being in existence at this time, the most likely meaning is “characterized or marked by, invested or environed with, romance or imaginative appeal.” The quotation by Addison: “It is so Romantic a Scene, that it has always probably given occasion to such Chimerical Relations” implies the same sense of the word that was prob¬ ably intended in the Steibelt review.3 It is certain that “romantic” was not used in 1798 to indicate that the composition belonged to a historical style period by that name. Mu-

216

Conclusions

sicians of the 1790’s recognized two styles, the “ancient” and the “mod¬ ern.” Although it was said of a Dussek performance that “we were sometimes reminded of the madman,”4 there is no indication that his music was regarded as the beginning of a new style period. Dussek, Cra¬ mer, Steibelt, and Field were considered to be members of the “modern school,” along with Haydn, Pleyel, and Mozart. Flights of virtuosity and daring harmonic usage were viewed by proponents of the style of Handel as simply another manifestation of the decadence and triviality that they thought had plagued the modern style all along. The attitude of contemporary London writers thus supports Blume’s theory that the “Classic-Romantic” is a single historical style period con¬ taining both Classic and Romantic elements that now and again come to the fore.5 Even such a view, however, must recognize that there are cer¬ tain important musical features which may be called Romanticism, and the preceding chapters have shown that these features, in varying degrees, are to be found in some of the London concertos of the late 18th century. William Newman lists several Romantic traits that began to appear in music about this time, while admitting that they do not precisely delimit the era: Certain style innovations—especially the more forthright, extended melodies, the “um-pah-pah” bass, the increasingly chromatic harmony, the new nationalistically flavored dance rhythms, the squarer phrase-and-period syntax, the wider-spaced scor¬ ing, the richer and more varied textures, the more personal, subjective inscriptions, and a more formalistic or self-conscious approach to form—all of these do characterize the early (and much of the later) Romantic music. . . . But no one of them ever permeates or brackets the era quite so inclusively as either the basso continuo or the Alberti bass in its respective era.6

The London concertos of this era have been examined in detail as a group for the first time in the present study. Previous research has con¬ sisted of either a consideration of the concerto within a larger scope of time or place or else a consideration of the works of one composer. This study has therefore been able to explore the subject matter more thoroughly than has been done heretofore and to make comparisons that have not been previously attempted. Contemporary newspaper reviews have provided information about concerto performers that has not been incorporated into previous biographical publications.7 It has been seen that the genre of the concerto was of particular importance in the concert life of this city. The numerous concert advertisements that have been located indicate that one or more concertos were included on nearly every subscription or benefit concert. An evaluation of the London concerts in terms of their position in

Conclusions

217

history must take into account that there were at least three diverging currents in existence in the music of London at this time. The first is the perpetuation of “ancient music.” Among the extant concertos, only the one by Samuel Wesley may be placed in this category, although it may be assumed that examples of this style were to be found in some of the lost concertos, especially those by elderly composers. The second category consists of works in a “chaste and pleasing stile.” Examples are the concertos of Clementi, Hook, Giornovichi, and William Parke, as well as the Dussek harp concertos written for Madame Dussek. Undoubtedly most of the non-extant concertos composed by the run-of-the-mill mu¬ sicians of the time are also in this group. A final classification is made up of concertos with forward-looking features, including those by Dussek (except as noted above), J. B. Cramer, Steibelt, Field, and Viotti. In the present study, performers and concertos belonging to all three of these categories have been dealt with. Even though the information in some cases is scanty, enough data have been located to permit the emergence of a reasonably clear picture of the situation. Fortunately, a few concertos by minor composers and youthful composers—as well as those by the major virtuosos—have been preserved. However, it is the concertos of the major virtuosos that are of primary interest, and the following sum¬ mary of significant features to be found in the London concertos will focus on these compositions. For these works it has been possible to establish approximate dates and, in many cases, to locate comments by contemporary listeners. For the period 1790 through 1800 there are five extant piano concertos by Dussek, two by Cramer, two by Steibelt, and one by Field. Nine violin concertos by Viotti date from his residence in London from 1792 to 1798. Virtuosity is one of the primary elements to be found in these con¬ certos. An allusion to Dussek’s tendencies in this area has already been made. Likewise, a review of Field’s first performance of his own concerto in 1799 states: “. . . and more calculated to display rapidity of execution, attended with characteristic musical expression, we never heard.”8 The trend toward greater technical difficulty was to continue, until by the 1820’s the concertos of Dussek were considered as relatively facile: DUSSEK'S name is of no mean repute—but the difference perceptible between the prodigious execution required by MR. KALKBRENNER’S concerto and DUSSEK’S is all but incredible, yet DUSSEK’S grand concertos, when they were composed, were thought to task ability for their performance. At this time of day many a girl of fourteen . . . would play them creditably. But there are, we suspect very few persons indeed, either in or out of the profession, who could execute MR. KALKBRENNER’S to his satisfaction—probably not half a dozen in the country.9

218

Conclusions

The use of virtuosic writing, however, does not mean that the concerto is necessarily forward-looking in its other aspects. Giornovichi was noted for his brilliant passagework, although his concertos showed little stylistic change from those written early in his career. Concurrent with the increase in brilliance of the solo passages was a decline in the importance of the orchestra. Among the London concer¬ tos, the one in which the tutti sections were the longest and melodically the most important was the Samuel Wesley concerto. In the Dussek con¬ certos, by contrast, there was a noticeable decrease in the length and thematic significance of the tutti sections during the course of the decade. In the area of melody, a wide variety of types has been observed, for example, the idiomatic violin melodies of Viotti, the relaxed, lyrical sec¬ ondary themes of the piano concertos, the clear and simple romance tunes, and the delicate filigree type exploiting the newly added upper notes of the pianoforte. In a few of the more progressive concertos one finds the beginnings of thematic transformation—the use of the same sequence of notes in different contexts to produce contrasting themes. Dussek’s Grand Military Concerto thus transforms a march-like military theme from the first tutti into a lyrical melody for the soloist. Melody also became more important in giving coherence to the move¬ ment. Concertos were becoming longer, a fact that caused much com¬ plaining by reviewers. Contrast between solo and tutti had already become much less significant in shaping the movement, and composers were be¬ ginning to depend much less upon the tension inherent in the tonic-dom¬ inant polarity as a means of coherence. Melodic factors, such as the recurrence of familiar material and the contrast between brilliance and lyricism were, by contrast, being exploited much more. Harmonically, there was a gradual expansion of the vocabulary that may be observed in the more progressive concertos. In particular, the harmonic means that were employed in the large dimensions began to reflect that of the smaller dimensions. For example, the Neapolitan, which was already in common use as a single chord, was increasingly used as the goal of a more lengthy modulation. Also abrupt, distant modulations were introduced into the compositions. In the areas of texture and sonority, the piano concertos, in com¬ parison with those for other instruments, showed the greatest amount of development within this period. The progress in the manufacture of the instrument—the expansion of the range and the improvement of the tone— provided an opportunity for pianists to explore the idiomatic possibilities of the pianoforte. Steibelt’s “Storm” rondo, however trivial it may seem to modern musicians, provides a clear example of experimentation with the possibilities of sonority.

Conclusions

219

These musical developments in the concerto took place within a con¬ text of high demand for this type of composition. The public concert was at a high peak of development in London, and the audiences came to the concerts to hear soloists. The opening of the Salomon Concerts in 1791 had to be postponed for a month in order that the singer Signore David could perform on the first concert. Haydn had been brought over from Vienna at great expense, but in this case Haydn had to wait. Furthermore the attempt of the Philharmonic Society in 1813 to maintain a higher level of taste by banning concertos from their concerts proved futile. It became necessary to allow distinguished performers from abroad to perform con¬ certos on their guest appearances, and this led to a gradual reintroduction of the genre. Thus the state of musical life in London in the 1790’s guar¬ anteed that concerto performances would be numerous, if nothing else. How such an environment affects musical quality is a complex ques¬ tion. The same London public that propagated so much trivial music was also responsible for the commissioning of some of Haydn’s finest sym¬ phonies and string quartets. Haydn succeeded in becoming popular—or, as Rosen puts it, he “created and mastered a deliberately popular style’’10 without compromising artistic standards. The concerto composers, who of course were obligated to produce works that would be acceptable to the public, differed in the level of taste that they maintained while doing this. Viotti must be ranked as the composer whose concertos are of the highest quality musically. Viotti was also one of the most popular per¬ formers; he was favored much more by the public than was his rival Giornovichi, who catered to the desire for brilliant playing and familiar tunes. Dussek showed much creativity and compositional skill in his con¬ certos, but they are not of as high a quality as his best sonatas. It must be said, therefore, that although Dussek composed the best piano con¬ certos from this period in London, his accomplishments in this genre fail to reflect completely his ability as a composer. J. B. Cramer treated his concertos as compositions meriting serious effort; this is shown by his careful attention to details of form. The fact that his concertos do not quite match those of Viotti or Dussek seems to be the result of a lesser ability as a composer. Steibelt was an innovator; he experimented with orchestration and pianistic effects. His gifts as a composer, however, were insufficient to turn his originality into great composition. In many ways, the London concertos from the late 18th century reflect both the cultural environment and the general musical trends of the time. The large number of concertos performed was a natural outcome of the great proliferation of public concerts in a competitive market. The small number of published concertos demonstrates the growing gap be-

220

Conclusions

tween professional and amateur music and the necessity of a large volume of sales to keep a publisher financially solvent. The increase in the pro¬ portion of piano concertos from the beginning to the end of the decade reflects the increasing significance of this instrument. Finally, a stylistic assessment of the London concertos indicates that certain new features were gradually emerging. Although these London concertos cannot be considered as examples of full-blown Romanticism, they do demonstrate in their melodic, harmonic, and textural features a movement in the di¬ rection of the music of the following century.

Notes Chapter 1 1.

Otto Erich Deutsch, Handel: A Documentary Biography (New York: Norton, [1954], p. 821.

2.

C. F. Pohl, Mozart und Haydn in London (2 vols.; Vienna: Carl Gerold’s Sohn, 1867), II, 336.

3.

J. Steven Watson, The Reign of George III, 1760-1815, Vol. XII of The Oxford History of England, ed. Sir George Clark (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), p. 336.

4.

Georg August Griesinger, Biographische Notizen iiber Joseph Haydn (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1810), p. 61.

5.

“Es entsteht dadurch zwar gewissermassen ein Mangel an eingebohrnen Tonkiinstlern in England; allein, dies schadet der guten Aufnahme der Kunst in diesem Lande so wenig, dass man vielleicht sogar behaupten konnte der vortheilhafte Zustand derselben schreibe sich hauptsachlich davon her. Denn der Englander wird dadurch genotigt, die vorziiglichsten Kiinstler anderer Lander zu benutzen, und da es ihm weder an Vermogen fehlt, sie bezahlen zu konnen, noch an Kenntnis und richtiger Beurtheilung, um die Besten auszuwahlen, so hat er von jeher eine weit betrachtlichere Anzahl der ersten Kiinstler aller Art in seinem Lande beysammen gehabt, als sie anderwarts neben einander bestehen konnten. Der englische Nationalgeist, der sich in den meisten Dingen am liebsten zum Grossen und Soliden neigt, mit dem fast allgemeinen Wohlstand derjenigen Menschenklasse verbunden, von welcher vorziiglich die Aufnahme der Kiinste abhangt, musste unter solchen Umstanden die Musik in England nothwendig in eine so vortheilhafte aussere Lage bringen, in welche sie anderwarts bey minderer Neigung zum Grossen, und bey weit kiimmerlichern Aufwand unmoglich kommen konnte und kommen wird.” Anonymous, “Ueber den Zustand der Musik in England.” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, II (1799-1800), cols. 5-6.

6.

Diary, April 28, 1791.

7.

Charles Dibdin, A Letter on Musical Education (London: For the author, 1791), p. 16.

8.

William Jackson of Exeter, A Short Sketch of My Own Life, ed. Gertrude Jackson, Mitteilungen der Kommission fur Musikforschung, no. 24 (Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1974), p. 90.

9.

The Times, April 27, 1792.

10. Morning Herald, April 21, 1792.

222 11.

Notes for Chapter 1 Charles Cudworth, “The English Organ Concerto,” Score, No. 8 (September, 1953), pp. 51-52.

12.

John Marsh, Hints to Young Composers of Instrumental Music (London: Clementi, Banger, Hyde, Collard & Davis, n.d.), p. 1.

13.

Pohl, Mozart und Haydn, I, 145.

14.

Charles Cudworth, “London. Das 18. Jahrhundert,” Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart [hereafter MGG], ed. Friedrich Blume (14 vols.; Kassel: Barenreiter, 1949-1968), Vol. VIII, cols. 1147-48.

15.

Pohl, Mozart und Haydn, I, 49-50.

16.

General Evening Post, February 25, 1794, as cited in H. C. Robbins Landon, Haydn in England, 1791-1795, Vol. Ill of Haydn: Chronicle and Works (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976), p. 29.

17.

Morning Chronicle, May 10, 1794.

18.

The Times, March 11, 1791.

19.

Myles Birket Foster, History of the Philharmonic Society of London: 1813-1912 (Lon¬ don: John Lane, 1912), p. 4.

20.

True Briton, May 31, 1796.

21.

A chi-square test shows no statistically significant deviations from the mean figures for the entire 11-year period, using the four year-combinations shown in Table 2 and the three concerto-groupings 0-1 ;2;3.

22.

For example Felix Janiewicz on April 17, 1793, and June 1, 1796, or G. M. Giornovichi on March 29, 1792, and May 22, 1793.

23.

“Ich machte diesen Abend vier tausend Gulden. So etwas kann man nur in England machen.” Joseph Haydn, Gesammelte Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, ed. by H. C. Rob¬ bins Landon and Denes Bartha (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1965), p. 553.

24.

The Times, December 12, 1793.

25.

Pohl, Mozart und Haydn, II, 22.

26.

Ibid., II, 24.

27.

A chi-square test applied to the data of Table 3 indicates a statistically significant difference in the number of concertos on subscription and benefit concerts.

28.

Anonymous, “The Gleaner,” Universal Magazine, CVIII (January-June, 1801), 239.

29.

Anonymous, “The Prostitution of Lent,” Monthly Mirror, I (1795-96), 301.

30.

William B. Boulton, The Amusements of Old London (2 vols.; London, 1901; reprint. New York and London: Benjamin Blom, 1969), II, 6-16.

31.

George Rude, Hanoverian London 1714-1808 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1971), p. 73.

32.

Ibid.

33.

On these concerts see T. Lea Southgate, “Music at the Public Pleasure Gardens of the Eighteenth Century,” Proceedings of the Musical Association, XXXVIII (1911-12), 141-59.

Notes for Chapter 1

223

34.

Paintings and drawings of both Vauxhall and Ranelagh are reproduced in Rude, Han¬ overian London, Plates 19-21.

35.

A manuscript list of music performed during two seasons at Vauxhall is discussed in Charles Cudworth, “The Vauxhall Lists,” Galpin Society Journal XX (1967), 24-42.

36.

The Times, May 17, 1791.

37.

James Hook, “Then Say My Sweet Girl Can You Love Me” (London: W. & S. Wybrow, n.d.; reprint, Amsterdam: Heuwekemeijer, 1970).

38.

E. N. Williams, Life in Georgian England (London: B. T. Batsford, Ltd., 1962), p. 8.

39.

Dorothy Marshall, Industrial England, 1776-1851 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973), pp. 3, 20.

40.

Watson, Reign of George III, pp. 335-36.

41.

T. S. Ashton, An Economic History of England: The 18th Century (London: Methuen Co., 1955), p. 232.

42.

Landon Haydn in London, p. 129.

43.

Watson, Reign of George III, p. 336.

44.

Landon, Haydn in London, p. 180.

45.

Pohl, Mozart und Haydn, I, 11-12.

46.

Richard Edgcumbe, Musical Reminiscences of an old Amateur for Fifty Years, from 1773 to 1823 (London: W. Clarke, 1824), pp. viii-ix.

47.

Anonymous letter, Universal Magazine, XCII (July-December, 1793), 199.

48.

Pohl, Mozart und Haydn, I, 12.

49.

The Times, April 21, 1800.

50.

Anonymous, “Historical Anecdotes of Music in England,” Universal Magzazine, CVII (July-December, 1800), 264.

51.

David S. Grover, The Piano: Its Story from Zither to Grand (London: Robert Hale, 1976), p. 90.

52.

Arthur Loesser, Men, Women, and Pianos (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954), p. 234.

53.

Dibdin, Letter, p. 16.

54.

Anonymous, “Desultory Remarks on the Study and Practice of Music,” European Magazine, XXX (July-December, 1796), 180.

55.

Anonymous letter. Universal Magazine, XCII (July-December, 1793), 198-99.

56.

Morning Chronicle, February 7, 1792.

57.

William Weber, Music and the Middle Class (London: Croom Helm, 1975), pp. 4-5.

58.

Samuel Wesley, “Reminiscences,” unpublished manuscript, London, British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Add. 27593, ff. 154-154v.

59.

T. S. Ashton, The Industrial Revolution 1760-1830 (Revised ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 102.

224

Notes for Chapter 2

60.

The Times, January 16, 1795.

61.

William T. Parke, Musical Memoirs (2 vols.; London: Colburn and Bentley, 1830), II, 190.

62.

Foster, Philharmonic Society, p. 4.

Chapter 2 1.

This use of the term originated in the first half of the 18th century in the German¬ speaking countries; see Erich Reimer, “Concerto/Konzert,” Handworterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie, ed. Hans H. Eggebrecht (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1972-), p. 11.

2.

Augustus C. F. Kollmann, An Essay on Practical Musical Composition (London: For the author, 1799), p. 20.

3.

Thomas Busby, A Complete Dictionary of Music (London: Richard Phillips, 1806), [no page].

4.

Anonymous review of Grand Concerto for the Piano Forte, Op. 64, by Moscheles, Quarterly Musical Magazine and Review, VII (1825), 64.

5.

Gunther Schuller, lecture at the Eastman School of Music, February 2, 1977.

6.

The advertisements of Salomon’s series for 1792 mentioned “Principal Instrumental Performers, who will alternately perform Solo Concertos, and Concertantes, on their respective Instruments. . . .” The Times, January 30, 1792.

7.

Barry S. Brook, “Symphonie concertante,” MGG, XII, col. 1900.

8.

Busby, Dictionary, [no page],

9.

Barry S. Brook, “The Symphonie concertante: An Interim Report,” Musical Quar¬ terly, XLVII (1961), 496.

10.

Brook, “Symphonie concertante,” MGG, XII, col. 1900.

11.

Jackson, Observations, p. 47.

12.

The Times, March 9, 1792.

13.

Ibid., May 27, 1790.

14.

Also, George Frederick Pinto, born in 1785, was listed as 11 years old in 1798 (The Times, March 7). The age of Benoit-Auguste Bertini, born in 1780, was given as 9 in 1793 (Ibid., April 9).

15.

World, February 20, 1790.

16.

Oracle, March 20, 1790.

17.

The Tunes, May 8, 1790.

18.

Morning Post, March 12, 1791.

19.

Morning Herald, February 25, 1790.

20.

Anonymous, “Desultory Remarks on the Study and Practice of Music,” European Magazine, XXX (July-December, 1796), 357-58.

Notes for Chapter 2

225

21.

London, Guildhall Library, Gresham Music MS 472, vol. XIV, ff. 16-17.

22.

Thomas Wright, Preface to A Concerto for the Harpsichord or Piano Forte (London: For the author, n.d.).

23.

[John Marsh], “Comparison of Ancient and Modern Music,” Monthly Magazine and British Register, II (July-December, 1796), 982.

24.

Diary, or Woodfall's Register, February 23, 1793.

25.

William Jackson of Exeter, Observations on the Present State of Music in London (London: Harrison and Co., 1791), quoted in The Harmonicon, IV (March, 1826), 47.

26.

Gazetteer, March 23, 1790.

27.

Morning Herald, May 24, 1792.

28.

Morning Chronicle, February 15, 1793.

29. Diary, February 19, 1793. 30.

“Nothing could exceed his [Viotti's] brilliancy in the allegro, but it was in the more difficult adagio, in that movement which tries and displays the master, that his powers were unrivalled.” Anonymous, “Memoir of Giovanni Battista Viotti,” The Harmon¬ icon, II (April, 1824), 55.

31.

Ibid., p. 270.

32.

Sources from which the data given in this table were obtained will be discussed in the chapters pertaining to concertos for each specific instrument.

33.

The catalog is in William Shield, The Choleric Fathers (London: Longman and Broderip, [1785]).

34.

The catalog is in J. L. Dussek, Trois Sonatas pour le Piano-Forte, Op. 10 (London: J. Dale, n.d.). N. B., this copy of the sonatas is not the first printing of this collection by Dale.

35.

The catalog is in J. L. Dussek, Second Grand Concerto in F, Op. 27 (London: Corri, Dussek and Co., [1794]).

36.

The catalog is in an unidentified harp piece (British Library, Hirsch IV, 1111, (2)).

37.

Steibelt was in London in 1797-89, and then returned around 1804.

38.

In these cases the exact dates of first performances cannot be established. The evi¬ dence for delay in publication is the inclusion on the title page of the names of the concert series in which the work had been played. If the composer did not perform on a particular series during the year the work was published, or if the series had been discontinued by this date, an earlier date of composition may be inferred. Un¬ fortunately such title-page indications cannot be regarded as absolutely reliable his¬ torical evidence, and caution must be exercised in using them for dating purposes.

39.

Owain Edwards, “Karl (Carl) Friedrich Baumgarten,” MGG, XV, cols. 572-73.

40.

Parke, Memoirs, II, 190.

41.

Charles Burney, A General History of Music from the Earliest Ages to the Present Period (4 vols.; London: For the author, 1776-89), IV, 682.

226 42.

Notes for Chapter 3 Cari Johansson, French Music Publishers' Catalogues of the Second Half of the Eigh¬ teenth Century (2 vols.; Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Music, 1955), I, 99.

43.

Sun, February 17, 1800.

44.

British Library, Royal Music Library, 16.e.ll.

45.

Morning Herald, May 22, 1794.

46.

Ibid., February 3, 1792.

47.

Star, January 3, 1791.

48.

Owain Edwards, The Concerto in England during the 18th Century (Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Wales at Bangor, 1967), p. 231.

49.

J. L. Dussek, Grand Concerto for the Pedal Harp, Op. 30 (London: Corri, Dussek & Co., [1785]), p. 2.

50.

Georg Kinsky and Hans Halm, Das Werk Beethovens (Munich: G. Henle, 1955), pp. 147-48.

51.

Chappell White, “Did Viotti Write any Original Piano Concertos?” Journal of the American Musicological Society, XXII (1969), 275-84.

Chapter 3 1.

On Stationers Hall registry see Alan Tyson, The Authentic English Editions of Bee¬ thoven (London: Faber and Faber, 1963), pp. 131-43.

2.

The probable reason for this falsification was the necessity of presenting nine copies of the printed work. Publishers may have assumed that Stationers Hall registry was not worth the extra expense.

3.

Libraries have sometimes relied heavily on watermark dating, and these dates have been incorporated into standard bibliographical publications. It should be remem¬ bered that libraries are mainly interested in dating their own copy of a work, whereas a historical study is more concerned with the original publication date.

4.

Tyson, dementi Thematic Catalog, p. 72.

5.

Hans Engel, Die Entwicklung des deutschen Klavierkonzertes von Mozart bis Liszt (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1927), p. 104.

6.

Muzio Clementi, Concerto in do, per pianoforte e orchestra, ed. Renato Fasano (Milan: Ricordi, 1966).

7.

Tyson, Clementi Thematic Catalog, p. 72.

8.

Cf. ibid., p. 72; Leon Plantinga, Clementi: His Life and Music (London: Oxford University Press, 1977), pp. 162-63; and Jerald C. Graue, Muzio Clementi and the Development of Pianoforte Music in Industrial England (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois, 1971), p. 231.

9.

Diary, or Woodfall’s Register, March 6, 1790.

10. “THE FAVORITE / Harp Concerto / Perform’d by Madm. Krumpholtz with Uni¬ versal Applause / Adapted for the / Harpsichord or Piano-Forte, /& played by / Mr. Clementi / at the Theatre Royal Covent Garden / . . . LONDON. / Printed & Sold by J. Bland. . . .”

Notes for Chapter 3

227

11.

Engel, Deutsches Klavierkonzert, p. 104.

12.

Max Unger, Muzio dementis Leben (Langensalza: Hermann Beyer & Sohne, 1913) p. 73.

13.

Muzio Clementi, Concerto for Piano and String Orchestra, arr. Robert Barclay (Great Neck, N.Y.: AM-CA Publishing Company, 1955).

14.

“C” numbers refer to the listing in Howard A. Craw, A Biography and Thematic Catalog of the Works of J. L. Dussek (1760-1812) (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1964).

15.

Ibid., p. 210.

16.

See note 14, above.

17.

Craw, Biography and Catalog, p. 210.

18.

Ibid., p. 229.

19.

London Chronicle, March 4, 1790.

20.

Mrs. Charlotte Papendieck, Court and Private Life in the Time of Queen Charlotte, ed. Mrs. Vernon Delves Broughton (2 vols.; London, 1837), II, 184-85, as quoted in Craw, Dussek Thematic Catalog, pp. 69-70.

21.

Mrs. Papendieck was obviously writing these recollections many years later, as evi¬ denced by the sentence: “Handel was the only master whose oratorios were then performed. . . .” Several of the details in this account are simply not creditable. The New Musical Fund concerts, in both 1789 and 1790, took place after the oratorio season. John Cramer was in the midst of a two-year Continental tour when Dussek arrived in London. Cramer’s father was leader (concertmaster) of the Professional Concerts, not the oratorios.

22.

One of Dussek’s harp concertos (C. 264) exists only in an arrangement as a sonata (Craw, Dussek Thematic Catalog, pp. 381-82).

23.

Since this concerto was not published in London, the question of its authenticity needs to be considered. The main evidence for considering the work authentic is that it was published again circa 1809 by Breitkopf und Hartel, which at that time was one of Dussek’s regular publishers (ibid., p. 255).

24.

It should be noted that Dussek’s Paris publications through Op. 7 were advertised in the Journal de Paris or Mercure de France (ibid., pp. 226-36). The cessation of these publication announcements seems to have taken place at the time Dussek moved to England.

25.

Autograph inscribed “L’an 1789 dans le mois de Juillet a Chelsea pres de Londres” (ibid., p. 238).

26.

Ibid., pp. 56-57.

27.

Plate numbers of Sieber publications of Dussek’s works pose certain problems (for a discussion of difficulties in using French publishers’ plate numbers, see Johansson, Publishers’ Catalogues, I, 4-5). Sieber issued four consecutive Dussek compositions with plate numbers as follows: Op. 9, #1013; Op. 10, #1029; Op. 11, #1105; Op. 12, #1078. The plate number for Op. 11 is out of order. It is possible that Op. 11 was published at first without a plate number, as was sometimes the case with Sieber

228

Notes for Chapter 3 publications, and that the plate number was added to the plates a few months later. Alternatively, if the Sieber edition of Op. 11 was not the first edition, it might have been published after the Sieber edition of Op. 12.

28.

The British Union-Catalogue of Early Music, ed. Edith B. Schnapper, (2 vols.; Lon¬ don: Butterworths Scientific Publications, 1957), I, 301.

29.

The revision was probably made by Dussek himself. The same publisher issued an edition of Dussek’s Op. 10 “Corrige et Augmente par 1’Auteur.”

30.

Johansson, Publishers’ Catalogues, I, 152.

31.

Boyer and Mme. Le Menu were in business in the Rue du Roule at this time, and Boyer alone also had a shop in the Rue de Richelieu. The premises in the Rue de Roule were taken over by Lobry, whose first advertisement appeared on August 22, 1790. Boyer continued in business at the other address (ibid., I, 105).

32.

Alan Tyson, Thematic Catalogue of the Works of Muzio dementi (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1967), p. 64.

33.

Johansson, Publishers’ Catalogues, I, 105.

34.

Table 8 was compiled from the following sources: (1) Craw, Dussek Thematic Catalog, (2) Tyson, dementi Thematic Catalogue, (3) Johansson, Publishers’ Catalogues, (4) Milan Postolka, LeopoldKozeluh, Zivot a Dilo (Prague: Statni Hudebni Vydavatelstvi, 1964), (5) Alexander Weinmann, Verzeichnis der Verlagswerke des musikalischen Magazins in Wein, 1784-1802 “Leopold Kozeluch” (Vienna: Osterreichischer Bundesverlag, 1950), (6) idem., Vollstdndiges Verlagsverzeichnis Artaria & Comp. (Vienna: Ludwig Krenn, 1952), (7) Anthony van Hoboken, Joseph Haydn: Thematisch- bibliographisches Werla’erzeichnis (2 vols.; Mainz: B. Schott’s Sohne, 1957-71), (8) Sibley Music Library card catalog.

35.

A Longman and Broderip edition of Op. 15 was advertised on November 23, 1791. Longman and Broderip also published Op. 17; a precise date could not be determined.

36.

The Times, March 3, 1790.

37.

Quoted in S. V. Klima, “Dussek in London,” Monthly Musical Record, XC (1960), 18.

38.

Pohl, Mozart und Haydn, II, 155.

39.

The Times, March 25, 1791.

40.

True Briton, April 17, 1799.

41.

The Times, December 13, 1793.

42.

Ibid., December 16, 1794.

43.

Great Britain, Office of the Commissioners of Patents for Inventions, Patents for Inventions: Abridgments of Specifications Relating to Music and Musical Instruments 1694-1861 (London, 1864).

44.

It is to be assumed that an announcement of a “new concerto” on several concerts in the same season refers to the same work and not to a new one on each occasion.

45.

The Times, February 16, 1798.

46.

The Times, May 27, 1797.

Notes for Chapter 3

229

47.

Ibid., March 21, 1800, and June 6, 1800.

48.

Ibid., January 28, 1799, and February 7, 1799.

49.

Anonymous review of Grand Military Concerto by J. L. Dussek, Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, II (1799-1800), cols. 790-81.

50.

True Briton, March 5, 1798.

51.

The Times, March 21, 1800.

52.

Ibid., February 20, 1804.

53.

Ibid., May 29, 1804.

54.

Ibid., March 26, 1790.

55.

Morning Herald, February 22, 1792.

56.

Erich Hertzmann, “Mozart and Attwood,” Journal of the American Musiciological Society, XII (1959), p. 184.

57.

The Times, January 9, March 21, March 27, April 18, and May 12, 1788.

58.

Morning Herald, April 27, 1792.

59.

The Times, February 25, 1795.

60.

Ibid., April 27, 1792.

61.

Ibid., February 18, 1796, and May 12, 1796.

62.

True Briton, April 1, 1796.

63.

The Times, May 31, 1796.

64.

Morning Chronicle, June 3, 1796.

65.

The Times, July 4, 1797.

66.

The Times, May 23, 1797; March 31, 1801; and May 10, 1802.

67.

Ibid., May 16, 1801; May 7, 1804; and May 20, 1807.

68.

Charles Humphries and William C. Smith, Music Publishing in the British Isles from the Beginning until the Middle of the Nineteenth Century (Oxford; B. Blackwell, 1970), p. 206.

69.

The Times, March 24, 1790.

70.

J. Doane, ed., A Musical Directory for the Year 1794 (London: For the editor, [1794]), p. 49.

71.

British Union-Catalogue, II, 762.

72.

Morning Herald, May 13, 1790.

73.

The Times, May 16 and 17, 1791.

74.

Ibid., June 13, 1791.

75.

H. C. Robbins Landon, Haydn in England 1791-1795, Vol. Ill of Haydn: Chronicle and Works (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976), p. 85.

230

Notes for Chapter 3

76.

Pohl, Mozart und Haydn, II, 155.

77.

Oracle, May 4, 1792.

78.

London, British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Add. 32216, ff. 148-57, and Add. 32218, ff. 1-20.

79.

Oracle, March 24, 1791.

80.

Public Advertiser, March 19, 1792.

81.

After 1800, however, piano transcriptions of Viotti violin concertos began to appear occasionally on London concerts.

82.

The Times, May 3, 1791.

83.

Lothar Hoffmann-Erbrecht, “Hassler,” MGG, V, col. 1301.

84.

Morning Herald, March 17, 1792, as quoted in Landon, Haydn in England, p. 147.

85.

The Times, May 14, 1792.

86.

Morning Herald, May 30, 1792. Landon (Haydn in England, p. 170) states that Haessler also played a concerto of his own composition on this occasion. This information is not found in the newspaper announcements that I have seen.

87.

Hoffmann-Erbrecht, “Hassler,” cols. 1301-1302.

88.

“Doch iiberwiegen in seinen Sonaten op. 3-5 und op. 16 die virtuosen Ziige, vor allem in den phantasievollen Durchfiihrungen, und die Erfindung bleibt schwach.” Ibid., col. 1303.

89.

The date of her death is usually given as 1847. Highfill (Dictionary, IV, 528) contends that it was Sophia’s daughter Olivia who died in 1847 and that Sophia died around 1830.

90.

The Times, March 31, 1792.

91.

Her performance of harp concertos will be discussed in Chatper VIII.

92.

William Barclay Squire, “Elizabeth Billington,” Dictionary of National Biography (22 vols.; London, 1885-1901; reprint, London: Oxford University Press, 1949-50), II, 499.

93.

The Times, May 19, 1792.

94.

[Sainsbury], Dictionary, I, 88.

95.

The Times, May 22, 1792, and April 19, 1793.

96.

Willi Kahl, “Bertini,” MGG, I, cols. 1800-1802.

97.

The Times, April 12, 1793.

98.

Morning Chronicle, May 15, 1794.

99.

Johannes Wolf, Handbuch der Notationskunde (2 vols.; Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1913-19), II, 427-28, 471-72, and Rosamund E. M. Harding, The Piano-Forte: Its His¬ tory Traced to the Great Exhibition of 1851 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933), pp. 134, 411-12.

100.

The Times, March 6, 1794.

Notes for Chapter 3

231

101.

H. Bertram Cox and C. L. E. Cox, Leaves from the Journals of Sir George Smart (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907), pp. 4, 7.

102.

The Times, May 23, 1794.

103.

Ibid., April 23, 1794.

104.

Ibid., March 20, 1795.

105.

True Briton, June 18, 1795.

106.

Ibid., March 5, 1796.

107.

Reinhold Sietz, “Daniel Gottlieb Steibelt,” MGG, XII, col. 1223.

108.

The Times, February 13, 1797.

109.

Three of these appearances were on the Opera series, and the other, on Salomon’s benefit concert (The Times, March 20, May 1, May 15, and June 5, 1797).

110.

Ibid.

111.

Ibid., February 27, 1797.

112.

Steibelt's name was announced in the newspaper advertisement of the concert with¬ out his actually having been engaged. Not wanting to disappoint anyone who might come specifically to hear him, Steibelt decided to go ahead and play (ibid., Febru¬ ary 20, 1798).

113.

True Briton, February 20, 1798.

114.

Morning Herald, March 19, 1798.

115.

John Henry Mee, “Daniel Steibelt,” in George Grove, ed., A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (4 vols., 1st ed.; London: Macmillan & Co., 1879-89), III, 701.

116.

A. F. C. Kollmann, An Essay on Practical Musical Composition (2nd ed.; London: For the author, 1812), p. 13.

117.

The Times, April 16, 1804.

118.

Nicholas Temperley, “John Field,” New Grove’s, VI, 534-39.

119.

The Times, May 25, 1795, and May 3, 1798.

120.

H. C. Robbins Landon, ed., The Collected Correspondence and London Notebooks of Joseph Haydn (Fair Lawn, N.J.: Essential Books, 1959), p. 301.

121.

Morning Herald, February 9, 1799.

122.

Morning Post, February 9, 1799, as quoted in Heinrich Dessauer, John Field, sein Leben und seine Werke (Langensalza: Beyer & Sohne, 1912), pp. 6-7.

123.

Ibid., pp. 32-33.

124.

Cecil Hopkinson, A Bibliographic Thematic Catalogue of the Works of John Field, 1782-1837 (London: For the author, 1961).

125.

Dessauer, Field, pp. 6-7.

126.

The Times, May 27, 1799.

127.

Ibid., June 5, 1799.

232

Notes for Chapter 3

128.

Ibid., April 25, 1800.

129.

Morning Post, February 20, 1801, as quoted in Dessauer, Field, p. 7.

130.

The Times, April 13 and May 15, 1801.

131.

Temperley concedes that the first edition may be somewhat different from the original form of the concerto (“John Field,” p. 536).

132.

The Times, April 27, 1796.

133.

Ibid., May 20, 1796.

134.

True Briton, March 15, 1796.

135.

The Times, December 4, 1797.

136.

Ibid., March 12, and April 7, 1798.

137.

True Briton, April 21, 1798.

138.

The Times, April 25, 1799.

139.

Monthly Mirror (March, 1800), p. 176.

140.

The Times, March 14, May 15, and May 16, 1800.

141.

[Sainsbury], Dictionary, II, 218.

142.

Charles Cudworth, “T. LaTour,” MGG, VIII, col. 308.

143.

Hubert Unverricht, “Valentin Nicolai,” MGG, IX, col. 1455.

144.

Johansson, Publishers' Catalogues, I, 99.

145.

Sun, February 17, 1800.

146.

William H. Husk, “George Eugene Griffin,” Grove’s (1st ed.), I, 631.

147.

The Tunes, February 4, 1801.

148.

Husk’s article seems to have been compiled from several different sources of infor¬ mation; the dating of the concerto evidently comes from Fetis (Biographie universelle des musiciens [8 vols.; Paris: H. Fournier, 1837-44], IV, 419-20). Fetis, who gives Griffin’s middle name as Charles (nota bene), lists as Griffin's first two published works: “Sonate pour le clavecin, Londres, Preston, 1797" and “Concerto pour le clavecin, ibid." Fetis’ information, in turn, was unquestionably derived directly from Ernst Ludwig Gerber (Neues historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonkiinstler [4 vols.; Leipzig: A. Kiihnel, 1812-14], II, col. 410). Gerber’s date of 1797 probably was based on a watermark. There is one important distinction between Fetis' and Gerber’s articles: the name of the composer to whom the article pertains. Gerber gives the composer’s name as “Griffes.” The British Union-Catalogue lists two works by Charles Griffes, both published by Preston. There is a march dated circa 1790 and a piano sonata dated circa 1795 (British Union-Catalogue, 1, 406). That Griffes and Griffin are two distinct individuals is established by Sainsbury’s Dictionary (I, 302), which gives separate listings for the two, identifying Griffes as a “composer of some pianoforte music in London, in the latter part of the last century." There has therefore been a succession of small errors with respect to the Griffin concerto. Fetis combined George Griffin and Charles Griffes into a George Charles Griffin, attributing to him the works listed in Gerber’s article on Griffes. Husk, noting that the "Blue Bells” concerto was

Notes for Chapter 4

233

Griffin's Op. 1, assumed that it had the same date as the sonata, that is, 1797. Patrick Piggott perpetuates the 1797 date in The Life and Music of John Field 1782-1837 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973), p. 147. 149.

The Times, March 5, 1804.

Chapter 4 1.

Jane R. Stevens, “Theme, Harmony, and Texture in Classic-Romantic Descriptions of Concerto First-Movement Form, ’’ Journal of the American Musicological Society, XXVII (1974), 25-60.

2.

Johann Adolph Scheibe, Der Critische Musicus, No. 69 (December 22, 1739), p. 337.

3.

A. B. Marx, Die Lehre von der musikalische Komposition, IV (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1847), 439.

4.

Heinrich Koch, Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, III (Leipzig: A. F. Bohme, 1793), 327-41.

5.

Ibid., pp. 332 and 337.

6.

Ibid., p. 335.

7.

Stevens, “Theme, Harmony, and Texture,” p. 34, fn. 29.

8.

Heinrich Christoph Koch, Musikalisches Lexikon (Frankfurt am Main, 1802; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964), col. 355.

9.

Stevens, “Theme, Harmony, and Texture,” pp. 34 and 37.

10.

Kollmann, Essay (1st ed.), pp. 20-21.

11.

Since all but one of the London piano concertos under consideration are in major keys, only the description of major-key movements is given here. In minor, of course, III replaces V as the secondary key.

12.

Denis Forman (Mozart's Concerto Form [New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971]) has attempted to differentiate between the first-movement form of the North German concerto, as exemplified by C. P. E. Bach, and the London concerto of the generation previous to the one under consideration here, of which J. C. Bach was the principal composer. His conclusions about the North German concerto resemble Koch’s de¬ scription, and the London concerto, Kollmann's (pp. 27-46). In the London concer¬ tos, Forman sees the second and fourth tuttis as being merged into the previous solo sections and looks upon the third tutti as the beginning of the recapitulation. Forman's aim is to show that Mozart’s starting point was the concerto form of J. C. Bach and not that of the North German composers.

13.

Nevertheless, for convenience in locating a particular part of the concerto movement in the ensuing discussion, the terms first tutti, first solo, second tutti, second solo, recapitulation, and final tutti will be adopted. This is not to imply a six-part form, but rather to provide a clear and simple means of reference. The terms exposition and development are being avoided since their applicability to these concertos is questionable.

14.

These four variants may be found, respectively, in Dussek’s Op. 14, Op. 22, Op. 15, and Op. 27.

234

Notes for Chapter 4

15.

Charles Rosen, The Classical Style (New York: Viking Press, 1971), p. 196.

16.

Koch, Versuch, III, 335.

17.

“Ein cantabler Satz aus dem Solo” (ibid., p. 334).

18.

The opposite is true in the Mozart piano concertos. The initial portion of the tutti invariably recurs in the first solo section, although in some cases it is played by the orchestra rather than the soloist. However, there is not always a common secondary theme between tutti and solo.

19.

Koch, Versuch, III, 335.

20.

Kollmann, Essay (1st ed.), p. 21. Kollmann’s own piano concerto, written for his son five years after the publication of the Essay, illuminates his ideas about the ending of the tutti. Not only does the first tutti end with a half cadence; all successive solo and tutti sections are elided into one another, creating one continuous chain with no strong dividing points.

21.

Donald Francis Tovey, Essays in Musical Analysis, Vol. Ill: Concertos (London: Ox¬ ford University Press, 1936), p. 16.

22.

See Publications as Transcriptions in Chapter 2.

23.

Egon Wellesz and F. W. Sternfeld, “The Concerto,” in New Oxford History of Music, VII (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), 438.

24.

Repertoire international des sources musicales [hereafter RISM], Series A/I, ed. by Karlheinz Schlager, Vol. V (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1975), p. 172, nos. K 2863-64, K 2866-71.

25.

The same melodic type that is used for the interpolations is to be found in earlier Dussek concertos, but in a different location. In his Piano Concerto, Op. 14, and his Harp Concertos, Op. 15 and Op. 17, this sort of appoggiatura-based melody is found within the primary thematic group.

26.

Orin L. Grossman, The Piano Sonatas of Jan Ladislav Dussek (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1975), pp. 140-56.

27.

Mozart’s concertos also make use of all three procedures; see Rosen, Classical Style, p. 241.

28.

Kollmann, Essay (1st ed.), p. 21.

29.

Ibid., p. 5.

30.

Koch, Versuch, III, 338.

31.

“Bey Tonstiicken, die nicht in der strengern Form der Fuge gesetzt sind, verstehet man darunter die Beybehaltung und stete Bearbeitung des Hauptgedankens in verschiedenen Wendungen oder Modificationen.” Koch, Lexikon, col. 506.

32.

Leonard G. Ratner, “Development,” in Harvard Dictionary of Music, ed. Willi Apel (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1969), p. 229.

33.

Ibid., pp. 229-30.

34.

These remarks are found in Koch’s discussion of the symphony; in his section on the concerto he states that the construction of this part of the movement is similar (Koch, Versuch, III, 338).

Notes for Chapter 5 35.

235

“Alsdenn werden einige derjenigen melodischen Theile, die sich zum Vortrage in einer dieser Tonarten am besten schicken, in einer andern Wendung oder Verbindung, als die sie im ersten Perioden hatten, wiederholt, Oder zergliedert; worauf der Periode in dieser Tonart geschlossen wird.” Ibid., pp. 308-9.

36.

“Die zweyte Bauart dieses Perioden, der man sich in den modernen Sinfonien sehr oft bedient, bestehet darinne, dass man einen in dem ersten Theile enthaltenen Satz, oft auch nur ein died desselben, welches hierzu besonders schicklich ist, entweder in der Oberstimme allein, oder auch wechselweis in andern Stimmen dergestalt fortsezt, zergliedert, oder transponirt, dass man nach und nach erst in mehrere, theils nahe verwandte, theils auch entferntere Tonarten durchgehende Ausweichungen macht, ehe man mit der Modulation in diejenige Tonart gehet, in welcher der Periode ge¬ schlossen werden soil.” Ibid., pp. 309-10.

37.

Measures 226-32 of Example 36 show a striking resemblance to Haydn’s Sonata in C Major, Hob. XVI/50, measures 120-23, including the pedal indications.

38.

Rosen, Classical Style, p. 196.

39.

Morning Chronicle, March 5, 1794.

40.

See Note 31 for Chapter 2.

41.

Koch, Versuch, III, 341.

42.

Was aber diesem Konzerte wieder besonders zur Empfehlung gereicht, ist die zweckmassige Begleitung der Solo-Stellen, die durchaus so eingerichtet ist, dass der Konzertspieler vollkommen gehort und verstanden werden kann—ein Umstand, der bey den Mozartischen Klavierkonzerten, bey alter ihrer iibrigen vortrefflichkeit, zu wiinschen iibrig bleibt. Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung, II (August 1800) col. 781.

43.

Plantinga, Clementi, pp. 137-38.

Chapter 5 1.

Charles Cudworth, “Felice (de) Giardini,” MGG, V, cols. 84-85.

2.

Morning Herald, May 24, 1792.

3.

H. C. Robbins Landon, ed.. The Collected Correspondence and London Notebooks of Joseph Haydn (Fair Lawn, N.J.: Essential Books, 1959) p. 266.

4.

Jean Gribenski, “Framjois-Hippolyte Barthelemon,” MGG, XV, cols. 509-12.

5.

Oracle, January 25, 1799.

6.

Landon, Haydn in England, p. 170.

7.

“Besonders geschickt war er im Auffuhren Handelscher und anderer Stucke von alten Meistern, wie er in den bekannten grossen Westminister-Abtey-Konzerten und im Concert of ancient Music bewiesen hat.” Anonymous, “Aus einem Briefe von London," Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, II (1799-1800), col. 223.

8.

The Times, May 24, 1797.

9.

Diary, April 5, 1791.

236

Notes for Chapter 5

10.

“Cramer in London war der erste, der in seinen Konzerten eine neue, gefalligere Spielart einfiihrte. Halbe, auch ganze Seiten voll rollender Passagen wurden staccato gespielt. Wie man vorher mit der Seite des Bogens diese geschwinden Noten abspielte, so brauchte man jetzt die Mitte des Bogens. Dadurch wurden sie abgesonderter, runder, mit einem Worte, schoner. Die Applikaturen wurden durch Verbannung unnatiarlicher Spriinge ausfiihrbarer. Daher wuchs auch die Zahl der Virtuosen.” Anonymous, “Ueber die heutige verworrene Strichbezeichnung,” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, VI (1803-1804), col. 730.

11.

Morning Chronicle, March 17, 1795.

12.

True Briton, March 20, 1798.

13.

“Er ist einer der feinsten, fertigsten und geschmackvollsten Violionspieler jetziger Zeit.” Anonymous, “Aus einem Briefe von London,” Allgemeine musikalische Zei¬ tung, II (1799-1800), col. 224.

14.

Burney, History, IV, 570.

15.

The Times, February 2, 1792.

16.

Ibid., April 29, 1795.

17.

Ibid., May 2 and 19, 1800.

18.

Johansson, Hummel, II, facs. 9, 11, and 17.

19.

Ibid., II, facs. 51.

20.

Most reference works give the date of Giornovichi’s arrival in London as 1791; this is erroneous, however, since two public performances in London in 1790 are documented.

21.

See Lionel de LaLaurencie, L'Ecole francaise de violon de Lully a Viotti (2 vols.; Paris: Librairie Delagrave, 1922-23).

22.

Chappell White, “The Violin Concertos of Giornovichi,” Musical Quarterly, LVIII (1972), 24-45.

23.

Aristide Wirsta and Hans Hasse, “Giovanni Mane Jarnowick,” MGG, VI, cols. 1771-72.

24.

London Chronicle, January 30-February 2, 1790.

25.

Morning Herald, March 20, 1790.

26.

Otto Erich Deutsch, Musikverlagsnummern (Berlin: Merseburger, 1961), p. 6.

27.

Cari Johansson, J. J. & B. Hummel Music-Publishing and Thematic Catalogues (3 vols.; Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Music, 1972), I, 49.

28.

Johansson, Publishers' Catalogues, I, 152.

29.

Anik Devries, “Les editions musicales Sieber," Revue de musicologie, LV (1969), 40. Devries gives 1189 as the last definite plate number for 1791, but this year’s numbers can be extended to 1191 (see Table 8).

30.

The publication rate of about eight works per month maintained by Sieber during the first four months of 1790 and during 1791 showed a sharp drop-off in the last part of 1790—or at least there was a decrease in publications to which plate numbers were assigned. This makes it impossible to interpolate accurately between known plate numbers.

Notes for Chapter 5

237

31.

Johansson, Hummel, I, 49.

32.

White, “Giornovichi,” p. 45.

33.

Johansson, Hummel, I, 52.

34.

Diary, May 18, 1791.

35.

Chappell White, “Giovanni Mane Giornovichi,” New Grove’s, VII, 397.

36.

Diary, March 6, 1793.

37.

The Times, November 23, 1791.

38.

Ibid., January 20, 1792.

39.

Star, March 20, 1792.

40.

True Briton, February 1, 1793.

41.

Ibid.

42.

RISM, Series A/I, Vol. Ill, p. 262, No. G 2403.

43.

Humphries and Smith, Music Publishing, p. 117.

44.

The Times, February 9, 1796.

45.

In RISM (Series A/I, Vol. Ill, p. 262, no. G 2399) the keys given for these concertos are wrong; they are actually in A and Bb (English nomenclature). Also GB Ob has both piano and violin parts.

46.

Monthly Magazine and British Register, I (February, 1796), 53.

47.

London, British Library, King’s Music Library MS, R.M. 21.a. 14, f. 97.

48.

Oracle, May 29, 1795.

49.

Johansson, Hummel, I, 57.

50.

Craw, Dussek Thematic Catalog, p. 297.

51.

Ibid., p.302.

52.

On the significance of the term “bass” in this period, see James Webster, “Towards a History of Viennese Chamber Music in the Early Classical Period,” Journal of the American Musicological Society, XXVII (1974), 236-42.

53.

Morning Chronicle, February 2, 1796.

54.

The Times, February 8, 1796, and February 22, 1796.

55.

True Briton, March 8, 1796.

56.

The Times, April 18, 1796.

57.

Morning Herald, March 20, 1794.

58.

The Times, March 28, 1794.

59.

Humphries and Smith, Music Publishing, p. 117.

60.

“The New Violin,” Morning Chronicle, January 31, 1792.

61.

Ibid., February 11, 1792.

238

Notes for Chapter 5

62.

Morning Herald, February 10, 1792.

63.

The Times, February 17, March 2 and 23, April 20 and 27, and May 3, 1792.

64.

Morning Herald, February 14, 1793.

65.

Anonymous, “Musical and Theatrical Chit-chat,” Monthly Mirror, V (March, 1800), 177.

66.

[Sainsbury], Dictionary, p. 551.

67.

Rita Benton, Ignace Pleyel: A Thematic Catalogue of his Compositions (New York: Pendragon Press, 1977), p. 230.

68.

Johansson, Publishers Catalogues, I, 57.

69.

Wolfgang Matthaus, Johann Andre Musikverlag zu Offenbach am Main (Tutzing: Flans Schneider, 1973), p. 208.

70.

Benton, Pleyel Thematic Catalogue, pp. 150-51.

71.

Matthaus, Andre, pp. 211, 221.

72.

Johansson, Publishers' Catalogues, II, Facs. app. 1.

73.

Jean-Jerome Imbault, Catalogue thematique des ouvrages de musique (Reprint; Ge¬ neva: Minkoff, 1972).

74.

The Times, January 20, 1792.

75.

Ibid., November 6, 1792.

76.

Johansson, Publishers’ Catalogues, I, 60.

77.

The Times, February 18, 1796.

78.

Ibid., March 10, 1796.

79.

Cecil Hopkinson, A Dictionary of Parisian Music Publishers (London: For the author, 1954), p. 99.

80.

Diary, February 8, 1793.

81.

Morning Chronicle, February 15, 1793.

82.

Diary, February 15, 1793.

83.

Morning Chronicle, February 11, 1794.

84.

Ibid., February 19, 1794.

85.

Ibid., April 9, 1794.

86.

It is interesting to note that in the year 1796, when Viotti did not perform, the number of performances of his rivals Giornovichi and Janiewicz greatly increased.

87.

Morning Herald, March 29, 1798.

88.

Oracle, February 21, 1800.

89.

There is one possible exception to this statement. The title page of the piano arrange¬ ment of Concerto No. 20 states that the work is also available for violin. No such edition is extant, however, nor was a violin version entered at Stationers Hall along

Notes for Chapter 5

239

with the piano transcription. The accuracy of this title-page statement is therefore open to doubt. 90.

Chappell White, Viotti and His Violin Concertos (Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton Uni¬ versity, 1957); idem, “Original Piano Concertos”; and idem, “Toward a More Ac¬ curate Chronology of Viotti’s Violin Concertos,” Fontes Artis Musicae, XX (1973), 111-23.

91.

In this table the dates are taken from White, “Chronology” (his most recent conclu¬ sions), and the instrumentation from his Viotti.

92.

The location of the Stationers Hall entry for this concerto overturns the argument of Marta Walter (“Ein Klavierkonzert von Jean Baptiste Viotti,” Schweizerische Musikzeitung, XCV (1955), 99-103) that this publication was pirated from a Boyer edition of 1796, and consequently established definitely that the work was indeed a piano arrangement of a violin concerto and not an original piano concerto, as claimed on the Boyer title page.

93.

White, “Chronology,” p. 121.

94.

Morning Chronicle. May 21, 1795.

95.

There is some confusion about piano transcriptions of this concerto in White’s two articles. In the earlier article (“Piano Concertos,” p. 284) he gives the arranger of this concerto as Nicolo [Nicolo Isouard?] and the publication date as 1803. In the next article ("Chronology,” p. 121), without an explanation for the change, he drops out the Nicolo arrangement, and substitutes a Dussek transcription published by Corri, Dussek and Company in 1796 or 1797 and reissued by Pleyel after 1799. This transcription is not known to me; whether White has actually seen this edition, or whether he ascertained its existence from an advertisement or catalog, he does not say. It does not appear in the Corri and Dussek catalog of 1796 that lists the Dussek transcriptions of No. 23 and No. 25; therefore it must have been published at a later date than these two.

96.

The Times, December 16, 1794.

97.

The advertisement of the concert of May 23, 1794, lists one violin concerto and one viola concerto, but a review (Morning Chronicle, May 26, 1794) states that he played two violin concertos.

98.

White, “Chronology," p. 123.

99.

Monthly Magazine and British Register, I (February, 1796), 53.

100.

RISM, Series A/I, Vol. IV, p. 445, no. H 7811.

101.

London, British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Add. 28970.

102.

White, “Chronology,” p. 123.

103.

Ibid., p. 124.

104.

Boris Schwarz, “(Jacques) Pierre (Joseph) Rode,” MGG, XI, cols. 594-95.

105.

According to Sainsbury’s Dictionary (II, 369), Rode was shipwrecked on the English coast en route to Hamburg. Since the year of this occurrence is incorrectly given as 1794, the veracity of the account is open to question.

240

Notes for Chapter 5

106.

Sun, March 3, 1798.

107.

Morning Herald, January 28, 1799.

108.

Morning Chronicle, June 3, 1799.

109.

The Times, February 24, 1800.

110.

Parke, Memoirs, I, 120.

111.

Barry S. Brook and Jean Gribenski, “Alday,” MGG, XV, col. 118.

112.

Constant Pierre, Histoire du Concert Spirituel 1725-1790 (Paris: Societe Frangaise de Musicologie, 1975), pp. 303-43, passim.

113.

The Times, February 9, 1789.

114.

Pierre, Concert Spirituel, p. 343.

115.

The Times, February 19, 1790.

116.

Diary, February 20, 1790.

117.

Parke, Memoirs, I, 120.

118.

Oracle, March 18, 1790.

119.

Morning Chronicle, February 24, 1795.

120.

Sun, February 24, 1795, as quoted in Landon, Haydn in England, p. 293.

121.

The Times, March 14, 1791.

122.

Ibid., April 18, 1792.

123.

Ibid., April 4, 1794.

124.

F.-J. Fetis, Biographie universelle des musiciens (2nd ed., 10 vols.; Paris: Librairie de Firmin Didot Freres, Fils, et Cie, 1860-70), V, 200.

125.

Emile Campardon, L'Academie royale de Musique au XVIIIe siecle (2 vols.; Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1884), II, 79.

126.

True Briton, June 18, 1795.

127.

Ibid., February 24, 1798.

128.

Samuel Wesley, “Reminiscences,” unpublished manuscript, London, British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Add. 27593, ff. 42, 154.

129.

Nicholas Temperley, “George Frederick Pinto,” Musical Times, CVI (1965), 266.

130.

The Times, May 27, 1790.

131.

Morning Herald, March 11, 1790.

132.

Diary, March 31, 1791.

133.

“Miss B. singt fur 3000 Pfund St. und unter der Bedingung, dass ihr Bruder vorspielt und dafiir 1000 Pfund bekommt . . . abwechselnd in Drurylane und Covent-garden. Die Geschwister sind Deutsch von Geburt, aber hier erzogen, und zuletzt in Italien gebildet. Der Bruder ist wirklich ein wackerer Geiger—noch besser als Vorspieler, als fiir das Solo, das er jedoch auch rund, nett, nachdriicklich und lebendig vortragt.” Anonymous report from London, Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, IV (1801-1802), col. 339.

Notes for Chapter 6

241

134.

Charles Cudworth, “Weichsell,” MGG,XIV, col. 371.

135.

London, British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Add. 29295. For a description of the contents see Augustus Hughes-Hughes, Catalogue of Manuscript Music in the British Museum (3 vols.; London: British Museum, 1906-1909), III, 16-17.

136.

Morning Herald, March 3, 1798.

137.

Wesley, “Reminiscences,” f. 105.

138.

True Briton, March 5, 1798.

139.

Jose Quiltin, “Dieudonne-Pascal Pieltain,” MGG, X, col. 1256.

140.

Morning Herald, March 8, 1790, and The Times, April 24, 1790.

141.

Cudworth, “Vauxhall Lists,” p. 42.

142.

Johansson, Publishers’ Catalogues, II, facs. 114.

143.

Rene Vannes, Dictionnaire des musiciens (compositeurs) (Brussels: Maison Larcin, [1947]), p. 318.

144.

Quiltin, “Pieltain,” col. 1256.

145.

The Times, May 20, 1791.

146.

Ibid., May 29, 1793.

147.

Oracle, June 18, 1791.

148.

The Times, April 25, 1800.

149.

Morning Herald, April 23, 1793, and March 3, 1794.

Chapter 6 1.

George Hogarth, Musical History, Biography, and Criticism (London: John W. Parker, 1835), p. 132.

2.

Parke, Memoirs, I, 338.

3.

Hogarth, Musical History, pp. 137-38.

4.

White, “Giornovichi,” pp. 42-43.

5.

“Viotti scheint den Ubergang vom Galanten zum Friihromantischen weit rascher vollzogen zu haben als die meisten seiner Zeitgenossen; er sprengt daher den 'klassizistischen' Rahmen, in den ihn Bucken hineinzufiigen sucht.” Boris Schwarz, “Viotti,” MGG, XIII, col. 1797.

6.

Morning Chronicle, February 19, 1794.

7.

White, Viotti, pp. 55-56.

8.

Morning Chronicle, February 11, 1792.

9.

Anonymous, “Desultory Remarks,” European Magazine, XXX (1796), 271.

10.

Norman K. Nunamaker, The Virtuoso Violin Concerto before Paganini, the Concertos of Lolli, Giornovichi, and Woldemar (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1968).

Notes for Chapter 7

242 11.

White, Viotti, p. 93.

12.

Four Giornovichi concertos have been preserved only as sonatas without the opening tutti; these must therefore be excluded from consideration in this respect.

13.

White, “Giornovichi,” pp. 30-31.

14.

Ibid., p. 31.

15.

“Romanze, (Romance) ist urspriinglich ein Lied, welches in einer lyrischen Versart die Erzahlung einer tragischen oder verliebten Vergebenheit enthalt, und in einen hochst naiven und einfachen Styl eingekleidet ist. ... so ist man gewohnt, diejenigen Instrumentalstiicke von langsamer Bewegung und von dem angezeigten Charakter, die in einer ungekiinstelten und naiven Schreibart gesetzt, und in die Form des Rondo, oder in eine nur wenig davon verschiedene Form eingekleidet sind, Romanzen zu nennen.” Koch, Lexikon, col. 1271.

16.

White, “Giornovichi,” pp. 33-34.

17.

White, Viotti, p. 98.

18.

White, “Giornovichi,” p. 40.

19.

Anonymous, “The Musical Student,” Quarterly Musical Magazine and Review, II (1820), 64.

20.

White, Viotti, p. 172.

Chapter 7 1.

World, March 29, 1790.

2.

Morning Herald, February 13, 1792.

3.

Ibid., February 14, 1792.

4.

Morning Chronicle, February 22, 1792.

5.

A printed program of this concert is in the British Library (c 61.g.20).

6.

The Times, February 1, 1796.

7.

Morning Chronicle, March 14, 1799.

8.

The Times, May 12, 1800.

9.

Fetis, Biographie (2nd ed.), V, 305.

10.

Humphries and Smith, Music Publishing, p. 86.

11.

True Briton, February 13, 1798.

12.

R. N., “Vocal and Instrumental Cadenzas,” Quarterly Musical Magazine and Review VII (1825), 12.

13.

Wesley, “Reminiscences,” f. 158.

14.

H. C. Robbins Landon, The Symphonies of Joseph Haydn (London: Universal Edition and Rockliff, 1955), p. 108.

15.

This information is compiled from three sources: “Dahmen,” Algemene Muziek-Encyclopedie (6 vols.; Antwerp-Amsterdam: Zuid-Nederlandse Uitgeverij, 1957-63), II,

Notes for Chapter 7

243

217-18; Clemens C. J. von Gleich, “Dahmen," MGG, XV, cols. 1687-88; and Herbert Antcliffe, “Dahmen," Grove's (5th ed.), II, 575-76. 16.

Pohl, Mozart and Haydn, passim, and Landon, Haydn in England, passim.

17.

Gleich, “Dahmen,” col. 1687.

18.

The Times, April 29, 1795.

19.

Ibid., March 16, 1796.

20.

Ibid., January 28, 1799.

21.

Ibid., February 23, 1801.

22.

Landon, Haydn in England, pp. 292-93.

23.

The Times, March 5, 1792.

24.

Morning Chronicle, March 17, 1795.

25.

Landon, Haydn in England, p. 144.

26.

The Times, April 25, 1800.

27.

Ibid., December 12. 1793.

28.

[Sainsbury], Dictionary, II, 53.

29.

Ibid., II, 306-307.

30.

The Times, January 13, 1795.

31.

Diary, April 28, 1791, and Oracle, April 30, 1791.

32.

Morning Chronicle, March 19, 1796.

33.

The Times, August 25, 1791.

34.

Hans F. Redlich, “Domenico Dragonetti,” MGG, III, col. 740.

35.

Philip H. Highfill and Kalman A. Burnim, A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Ac¬ tresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers & Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660-1800 (4+ vols.; Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973-), IV, 473-74.

36.

Morning Chronicle, February 17, 1795, as quoted in Landon, Haydn in England, p. 291.

37.

“Violon: Dragonetti, ein in seiner Art vielleicht einziger Mann. Er behandelt sein Instrument mit einer Festigkeit und Kraft, ohne Widrigkeit, wie man es nur wiinschen kann; aber auch mit Leichtigkeit und Galanterie, die mir noch nirgends vorgekommen ist. Ich will es nicht scherzhaft, sondern ganz diirr hingenommen wissen, wenn ich sage er spielt Viotti’sche Violinkonzerte auf dem Violon, wenn er will und es gilt.” Anonymous, “Zustand der Musik in England, besonders in London,” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, V (1802-1803), col. 199.

38.

... dass Dragonetti zwar allerdings den Ruhm eines vortrefflichen Contrabassisten verdiene, wenn aber gesagt sey, er spiele, wenn es darauf ankomme, Violinkonzerte von Viotti auf seinem Violon, so sey das wohl nur eine Redensart—(wofiir es ja wohl auch Jedermann genommen hat.)” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, V (1802-1803), col. 592.

244 39.

Notes for Chapter 8 Anonymous, “Sketch of the State of Music in London,” Quarterly Musical Magazine and Review, V (1823), 266.

40.

Wesley, “Reminiscences,” ff. 82v, 161.

41.

Gottfried Weber, “Concert," Allgemeine Encyclopadie der Wissenschaften und Kiinste, Section I, Vol. XXI (Leipzig, 1830), p. 334, as quoted in Reimer, “Concerto/Konzert,” p. 12 (see p. 22, fn. 1, above).

42.

British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Add. 17726, ff. 102-176.

43.

Philip H. Albright, Original Solo Concertos for the Double Bass (D.M. A. dissertation, University of Rochester, 1969).

44.

Ibid., p. 8.

45.

What Albright calls a divertimento is presumably any composition for double bass and other instruments with an irregular cycle of movements rather than a work spe¬ cifically titled divertimento in the sources. That these compositions were performed one-to-a-part does not seem to be implied by Albright, nor can such a manner of performance be substantiated by an examination of the music. Therefore we are not dealing with transcription of chamber music into concertos.

46.

Marsh, Hints, p. 1.

Chapter 8 1.

“. . . die beruhmte Mad. Krumbholtz, Wittwe des beriihmten Harfenkomponisten dieses Names, ohne alien Streit die erste Harfenspielerin der Welt. Es ist kaum zu begreifen, was sie auf ihrem Instrumente fur Schwierigkeiten spielend uberwindet: doch darin kommen ihr vielleicht Andere bey; aber ihre Behandlung der Harfe im Zarten und Sanften, wo ihre Finger die Saiten in der grossten Fertigkeit nur wie ein leiser Wind beriihren, wo sie gebundene Satze des Andante so herrlich vortragt—der Himmel mag wissen, wie sie das zwingt—darin ist sie gewiss einzig. Die Krumbholzischen Konzerte fur die Flarfe sind bekannt und gehoren unter die besten, die fur dies Instrument geschrieben sind.” Anonymous, “Zustand der Musik in England, besonders in London,” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, V (1802-1803), col. 200.

2.

For a discussion of this problem see Ursula Rempel, “The Perils of Secondary Sources: an Annotated Bibliography of Encyclopedic and Dictionary Sources Relating to Harp¬ ist Members of the Krumpholtz Family,” The American Harp Journal, VII (No. 3, Summer, 1980), 25-30.

3.

Pohl, Mozart und Haydn, II, 41.

4.

Pierre, Concert Spirituel, p. 312.

5.

Craw, Dussek Thematic Catalog, p. 238.

6.

Pierre, Concert Spirituel, pp. 312-22.

7.

Oracle, February 15, 1796.

8.

Morning Chronicle, February 16, 1796.

9.

Advertisements of two performances by Madame Krumpholtz (The Times, May 19, 1792, and February 28, 1793) indicate that she was to play a “new concerto” without

Notes for Chapter 8

245

specifying the composer. Normally this implies that the new work was composed by the performer. However, since Dussek was writing concertos for Madame Krumpholtz during this time, it is likely that he was the composer of the “new" concertos. 10.

The Times, February 27, 1797.

11.

Some biographers have concluded that Madame Krumpholtz eloped to London with Dussek (cf. Anna Tuhackova, “Jean-Baptiste Krumpholtz,” New Grove's, X, 283-84). The relatively large number of Dussek works for Madame Krumpholtz as well as the frequency of their joint public performances around 1790 could be easily understood if this is true. No direct evidence establishing such a liaison has been uncovered, however.

12.

Craw, Dussek Thematic Catalog, p. 238.

13.

The Times, April 16, 1790.

14.

For details of dating, see Chapter III, above.

15.

The Times, September 5, 1795.

16.

Ibid., March 9 and 23, 1792.

17.

Ibid., February 27, 1792.

18.

Oracle, March 24, 1792, as quoted in Landon, Haydn in England, p. 150.

19.

The Times, February 6, 1797.

20.

Ibid., February 10 and 13, 1797.

21.

Ibid., February 27, 1797.

22.

Ibid., March 18 and April 7, 1807.

23.

Morning Chronicle, March 19, 1796.

24.

Ibid., May 29, 1795, and The Times, May 27, 1796, and March 26, 1800.

25.

Craw, Dussek Thematic Catalog, pp. 381-82.

26.

Diary, March 8, 1791.

27.

Fetis, Biographie (2nd ed.), V, 200.

28.

Anonymous, “Zustand der Musik in England, besonders in London,” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, V (1802-1803), col. 198.

29.

Landon, ed., Collected Correspondence, p. 266.

30.

Gerber, Neues Lexikon, III, col. 532.

31.

Morning Herald, February 13, 1792.

32.

The Times, March 4, 1796.

33.

Morning Chronicle, June 3, 1796.

34.

The Times, April 7, 1798, and June 6, 1800.

35.

Morning Chronicle, April 8, 1799.

36.

The Times, April 25, 1800.

246

Notes for Chapter 9

Chapter 9 1.

The history of this genre is discussed in Cudworth, “English Organ Concerto,” pp. 51-60.

2.

Thomas Busby, A Grammar of Music (London: John Walker, 1818), p. 479.

3.

Cudworth, “Vauxhall Lists,” p. 42.

4.

Anonymous letter, Universal Magazine, XCII (July-December, 1793), 199.

5.

John Caldwell dates all of the surviving concertos between 1775 and 1778 (English Keyboard Music before the Nineteenth Century [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1973], pp. 205-6).

6.

London, British Library, Additional MS 34998.

7.

London, British Library, Additional MS 35008-9.

8.

Wesley, “Reminiscences,” f. 102.

9.

F. G. E[dwards], “Bach’s Music in England,” Musical Times, XXXVII (1896), 655.

10.

Ibid.

11.

Kollmann, Essay (1st ed.), pp. 97-98.

12.

The Bb Minor Prelude from Book I is imitated in Dussek’s Sonata in E13 Major, Op. 44.

13.

Edwards, “Bach’s Music,” p. 656.

14.

Hans-Joachim Schulze, ed., Bach-Dokumente, Vol. Ill: Dokumente zum Nachwirken Johann Sebastian Bachs 1750-1800 (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1972), p. 618.

15.

F. G. E[dwards], “Samuel Wesley,” Musical Times, XLIII (1902), 528.

16.

This correspondence has been published as Letters of Samuel Wesley to Mr. Jacobs, ed. by Eliza Wesley (London, 1875; reprint, London: Hinrichsen Edition, 1957).

17.

Percy Young, “Wesley,” MGG, XIV, col. 501.

18.

Wesley, Letters, p. 34.

19.

Busby, Dictionary, [no page].

20.

British Union-Catalogue, I, 504.

21.

Otto E. Albrecht, A Census of Autograph Music Manuscripts of European Composers in American Libraries (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1953), p. 153.

22.

Edwards, Concerto in England, p. 198.

23.

Nicholas Temperley, “William Crotch,” New Grove’s, V, 64-65.

24.

The Times, May 17, 1805.

Notes for Chapter 10

247

Chapter 10 1.

When Sainsbury was compiling his Dictionary of Musicians in the 1820’s, he received a communication from Ashe warning him that Ashe was an important musician and that the dictionary would suffer if his biography were omitted (see introduction to the reprint edition, p. xvi). Accordingly, Sainsbury devoted almost three pages to Ashe.

2.

Ibid., I, 36.

3.

Morning Herald, February 25, 1792, as quoted in Landon, Haydn in England, p. 137.

4.

Sun, March 3, 1795, as quoted in ibid., p. 296.

5.

Morning Chronicle, April 29, 1795.

6.

The Times, June 8, 1795.

7.

[Sainsbury], Dictionary, I, 36.

8.

Pierre, Concert Spirituel, pp. 325-26.

9.

[Sainsbury], Dictionary, I, 293.

10.

The Times, February 13, 1790.

11.

It is possible that the two flute concertos by “Graaf” listed in the 1781 supplement to the Breitkopf Thematic Catalogue (reprint; New York; Dover Publications, 1966, p. 727), but presumably unpublished, were by this composer; however, there was a large family of composers by this name, and Friedrich Hartmann Graf (1727-1795) would also be a likely candidate for composer of these works. There is a manuscript oboe concerto in Stockholm by J. G. Graf, who might also be this composer (Rob¬ ert G. Humiston, A Study of the Oboe Concertos of Alessandro Besozzi and Johann Christian Fischer [Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1968], p. 314).

12.

Pohl, Mozart und Haydn, I, 57.

13.

“. . . einer der ersten Virtuosen auf der Flote, die ich gehort habe.” Gerber, Neues Lexikon, III, col. 424.

14.

Pohl, Mozart und Haydn, II, 372.

15.

Morning Herald, February 24, 1792.

16.

The Times, January 7, 1795; May 26, 1800; and March 14, 1800.

17.

[Sainsbury], Dictionary, II, 264.

18.

Charles Cudworth, “Johann Christian Fischer,” MGG, IV, col. 269.

19.

[Sainsbury], Dictionary, II, 263.

20.

The Times, May 22, 1792.

21.

British Union-Catalogue, I, 337.

22.

In the concerto listings in Appendix B, however, those identified in the sources only as “Mr. Parke" will be reproduced as such. It will be left to the reader to make the assumption that this is John Parke.

23.

[Sainsbury], Dictionary, II, 264.

248

Notes for Chapter 10

24.

Morning Herald, May 13, 1790.

25.

[Sainsbury], Dictionary, II, 265.

26.

Parke, Memoirs, I, 111-12, 173, 215-16, 248-49, 286-87.

27.

Ibid., p. 216.

28.

Ibid., pp. 324-25.

29.

The Times, March 22, 1793.

30.

True Briton, April 15, 1796.

31.

The Times, March 3, 1797.

32.

Ibid., February 18, 1796.

33.

Ibid., March 3, 1796.

34.

Ibid., May 18, 1796.

35.

Parke, Memoirs, I, 274.

36.

Ibid., I, 321.

37.

Ibid., I, 111-12.

38.

Morning Herald, December 10, 1794.

39.

Edwards, “Baumgarten,” cols. 572-73.

40.

Parke, Memoirs, II, 189-90.

41.

Ibid., II, 185-89.

42.

[Sainsbury], Dictionary, I, 332.

43.

The Times, February 12, 1790.

44.

Morning Chronicle, March 5, 1794.

45.

Diary, February 8, 1793.

46.

Sergio Martinotti, “Giuseppi Ferlendis,” MGG, XVI, cols. 202-3.

47.

Landon, Haydn in England, p. 307.

48.

Morning Chronicle, February 12, 1796.

49.

Anonymous review of “Rondo Brillant” by W. T. Ling, The Harmonicon, II (1824), p. 114.

50.

Pohl, Mozart und Haydn, II, 373.

51.

The Times, June 23, 1791.

52.

The first movement is reprinted in Edwards, Concerto in England, plate 6 (after p. 351).

53.

Morning Chronicle, March 26, 1794.

54.

Morning Herald, March 8, 1790.

55.

Gazetteer, February 23, 1790.

56.

Morning Herald, February 25, 1790.

Notes for Chapter 11 57.

Parke, Memoirs, I, 142.

58.

True Briton, April 1, 1796.

59.

Ibid., February 20, 1798.

60.

The Times, February 2, 1795.

61.

Ibid., March 6, 1790.

62.

Oracle, June 24, 1800.

63.

The Times, June 5, 1804.

64.

Busby, Grammar, p. 487.

249

Chapter 11 1.

Friedrich Blume, Class:c and Romantic Music, trans. M. D. Herter Norton (New York: W. W. Norton, 1970), pp. 102-3.

2.

True Briton, February 20, 1793.

3.

Oxford English Dictionary (13 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933), VIII, 769.

4.

Morning Chronicle, March 5, 1794.

5.

Blume, Classic and Romantic, pp. 8-17, 124-31.

6.

William S. Newman, The Sonata since Beethoven (2nd ed.; New York W. W. Norton, 1972), pp. 6-7.

7.

Since reviews of concerts have been quoted extensively in this study, a few comments about their usefulness are in order. Newspaper reviews of concerts were not as frequent as one might be led to believe by the number that have been cited here. Usually only the first few concerts of the major subscription series were reviewed, as well as many of the oratorio performances and a few major benefit concerts. The number of reviews tended to decrease toward the end of the 1790’s. An estimate of the proportion of public concerts reviewed may be made by consulting the chrono¬ logical list in Appendix B (an “R” in the next-to-last column indicates a review). It should be noted, though, that no review is indicated unless a concerto was mentioned in the review. As historical evidence, a newspaper review cannot always be taken at face value, but must be subjected to the critical evaluation of the historian. A review gives the reaction of its writer, and sometimes also the reaction of the audience in general, to the performance. In many cases this tells us more about the prejudices of the reviewer or the audience than about the actual merits of the performance. A review may also be valuable in that it confirms that the performance actually took place, and it may give a certain amount of biographical information about otherwise unknown musicians. The frequency and quality of the reviews varies from one paper to another, and also from one year to the next in the same paper. In general, the most valuable reviews from the early part of the decade are found in the Morning Herald, the Oracle, and Diary or Woodfall’s Register; for the middle of the decade in the Morning Chronicle ', and for the latter part of the decade in True Briton.

8. 9.

Morning Post, February 9, 1799, as quoted in Dessauer, Field, pp. 6-7. Anonymous review of Grand Concerto for the Piano Forte by Kalkbrenner, Quarterly Musical Magazine and Review, V (1823), 74.

10. Rosen, Classical Style, p. 329.

'

Appendix A

Thematic Catalog

252

c.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog F. Baumgarten, Concerto in B

Major for Oboe.

^llogro Spiritoso

Solo

frfc- —7—hi—ri a. • t 3 ^ a/ It Jr's r [atl r—r—rr—r i i r - 11 ri i k y i ffpp

Andante

b m f rr-t r tj i -tjb1 —— ij l' J

.

r f LJ ipr\ j o u

:—

Rondo

/ J) | b -s -

.-rtf' * f

\w

\

rJ

A / GRAND CONCERTO / for the / HAUTBOY, FLUTE, or CLARINET Obligato / with Accompaniments for / Two VIOLINS, two TENORS, two FLUTES / Two BASSOONS, two HORNS & a VIOLONCELLO / ae performed at the / Professional Concert / by VX W. Parke / Dedicated to / W1? Leigh Lymes Esq? / Composed by / C. F. BAUMGARTEN / i.e«J Entered at Stationer's Hall Cr.} Price 4s / LONDON / Printed by Longman and Broderip N? 26 Cheaps ide and N9 13 Hay Market / Manufacturers of Musical Instruments and Music Sellers to THEIR MAJESTIES / His Royal Highness the PRINCE of WALES and all the ROYAL FAMILY.

Date of composition.

Probably late 1780's or early 1790's.

First edition. Londons Hall on March 25, 1792.

Longman and Broderip, entered at Stationers

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

253

Muzio Clementi, Concerto in C Major for Pianoforte.

Allegro con apirito

.

rirftf fcn

Solo t —7- J*

%

Adagio e cantabile jeon grande espressione

Rt

« Z

'resto

CONCERTO / PER IL / CLAVICEMBALO 0 FORTE PIANO / 2 VIOLINI / 2 OBOE / 2 FAGOTTI / 2 CORNI / 2 CLARINI / TIMPANO / VIOLE / e / BASSO / SigT Muzio Clementi / Partitur von der Hand, des Joh. Schenk in Jenner 796

Date of composition.

Probably 1790.

Manuscript copy. Vienna, Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, vii/17.639, in the hand of Johann Schenk, dated January, 1796. First edition (as transcription). London: Longman and Broderip, entered at Stationers Hall on June 3* 179^* as a solo piano sonata. First edition (original).

Milan:

Ricordi,

1966.

254

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

J. B. Cramer, Concerto in E*3 Major for Pianoforte, Op. 10.

Cramer's / GRAND CONCERTO / FOR THE / PIANO FORTE, / with or without Additional Keys, / as Performed by him with the utmost Applause, / at the / Opera 4 Professional Concerts; / DEDICATED TO / Miss Jervis. / [1 i] Price 7?6£ [cj Op. 10 / London, Printed 4 Sold by Preston 4 Son, at their Wholsale Warehouses, 97 Strand. / Where may be had Just Published. / Six Sonatas by Dussek_Op. 28. Pr. 7?/6^

Date of composition. First performance. Benefit.

Probably 1792-93* Possibly April 27*

First edition. London« on February 25, 1795*

1792, on the Wilhelm Cramer

Preston and Son, advertised in The Times

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

255

J. B. Cramer, Concerto in D Minor for Pianoforte, Op. 16.

CRAMER'S / Second / GRAND CONCERTO / for the Piano Porte. / with or without the Additional Keys / as performed by Him with the utmost applause / AT / SALOMON'S CONCERT, HANOVER SQUARE, / Dedicated to / Miss Louisa Scott. / Op. XVI / 1. Price 7?69 r. Piano Porte Pt only 5? / LONDON / Printed for R$ Birchall, at his Musical Circulating Library, 133 New Bond Street. / where may be had by the same Author / 2 Sonatas for the Piano forte, Op. 8 lr. Price 6?

Date of composition. First performance. Concert. First edition. on July 4, 1797.

Probably 1796. Probably February 18, 1796, on the first Salomon

Londoni

Robert Birchall, advertised in The Times

256

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

J. L. Dussek, Concerto in F Major for Pianoforte, Op. l4 (C. 77). Sc)l0

Allegrc

jj 1 Adagio

■

m

Rondo

=F=

1

3

Second / CONCERTO / POOR / Clavecin ou Forte-Piano / deux Violons, Alto, Basse, Cora et Hautbois / ad Libitum / COMPOSE / PAR M? DUSSEK / OEUVRE 14? / Prix 6* /A PARIS / Chez Nadermann, Rue du Roule, a la Clef d'Or, No. 34 / [1.3 11P^ [c.3 Ecrit par Ribiere / [pi. nos.] 52 rnew] 569 [old]

Date of composition. First performance. torio . First edition.

Probably 1790. Possibly March 3,

Paris:

1790, at the Drury Lane Ora¬

Lobry, probably late 1790.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

257

J. L. Dussek, Concerto in F Major for Harp (or Pianoforte), Op. 17 (C. 78).

All? j)L

A

Vivace

f

7 h: Ipffl J TTff 1 M L;L L. T’ I_l

1

9 1

LA

rvl Mv

r*-—

I

Hondo Allegro ao non presto presto_ #

Larghetto piu tosto Adagio

jwif fiirjg mm m

A / CONCERTO / Pour / CLAVECIN / ou / Forte Piano / Deux VIOLONS, ALTO et BASSE, / Deux FLUTES, Deux CORS. / Composed par / J. L. DUSSEK / [1.1 OEuvre XVII [r.j Price / Entered at Stationer's Hall. / LONDON / Printed by Longman and Broderip N? 26 Cheapside and N9 13 Haymarket. / Manufacturers of Harpsichords, Patent Grand Piano Fortes, Portable Grand and Small Piano Fortes, / Spinnets, Organs, Ditto in Tables and Book¬ cases, Organized Piano Fortes, &c. &c. / And Music Sellers to THEIR MAJESTIES, the PRINCE OF WALES, and all the Royal Family.

Date of composition. First edition. April, 1791.

Paris:

Probably 1789-90. Sieber, plate no. 1128, probably March or

258

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

J. L. Dussek,

Concerto in Bb Major for Pianoforte,

Op. 22 (C. 97).

Dussek's, / GRAND CONCERTO, / As Performed at Mr. Salomon's, and at the/ Professional Concerts, &c. / Composed for the Piano Porte, with additional Keys, / and also adapted for any other / PIANO PORTE, OR HARPSICHORD, / with Accompaniments for / 2 Violins, 2 Flutes, 2 French Horns, Tenor & Bass, / Dedicated to / MISS CORNELIA COLLINS, / By the / AUTHOR. / Cl.-' Op. 22. [r.j Pr. / Enter'd at Stationers Hall. / Printed for the Author, & to be had at Corri & C9 Dean Street, and Bridge Street, Edinburgh.

Date of composition.

First performance. Concert.

Soho. /

Probably 1791-92. Possibly March 25, 1791, on the third Salomon

-•‘•rsb edition. London: on December 15, 1793.

Corri and Company, advertised in The Times -

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

259

J. L. Dussek, Concerto in F Major for Pianoforte, Op. 27 (C. 104).

ooloAi

Allegro assai

p —p —• -

$1-pf>i-

r1 wrrpfi

1^ ••

3----^

M

1 * r

J

J

7?

Dussek's 21? / GRAND CONCERTO in F, / for the / Piano Forte, / With Addi¬ tional Keys, / Arranged Likewise for those without: / as Performed at / The Professional, Salomon's Concerts, / at the Oratorios, Theatre Royal Covent Garden, / And the King's Theatre Haymarket, / Dedicated / TO / 1^. HYDE. / fl.j Op. 27. [r.J Pr: with Accom. j £ / £r.j * without 6- / By the Author. / Entered at Stationers Hall. / London, Printed for Corri Dussek & C9 Music Sellers to her Majesty. / at their Musical Maga¬ zine's N? 67, Dean Street Soho. & Bridge Street Edinburgh. / Where every article in the Music Line may be had.

Date of composition. First performance. Concert.

Probably 1792-93* Possibly April 1}, 1792, on the seventh Salomon

First edition. London: Corri, Dussek and Company, advertised in The Times on December 16, 179^*

260

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

J. L. Dussek, Concerto in C Major for Pianoforte, Op. 29 (C.

L.ruvhetto oost enuto

125).

Rondo

DUSSEK's / Third / GRAND CONCERTO in C. / Composed for the Plane-forte, / with or without additional keys—as performed at / Salomon's 4 the Opera Concerts. / with / Accompaniments for two Violins, Tenor, / two Flutes, two Horns, and Bass. / Dedicated to / F. G. SMYTH. / Cl.J op. 27 [r.j Pr. 7.6. / without Ac com. 6? / By the Author. / Ent*? at Stationers Hall / [r.J Simpkins Sc. / London, Printed 4 Sold by Longman 4 Broderip, N9 26 Cheapside 4 N? 15 Haymarket.

Date of composition. First performance. Salomon Concert.

Probably 179^. Possibly February 10,

First edition. Londons Hall on May 27, 1795.

179^* on the first

Longman and Broderip, entered at Stationers

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

261

J. L. Dussek, Concerto in C Major for Harp (or Pianoforte), Op. 30 (C. 129).

DUSSEK'S / Grand Concerto / for the / Pedal Harp / or / Piano Porte / with or without Additional Keys / and with Accompaniments for VIOLINS &c. / as performed at / SALOMONS CONCERTS HANOVER SQUARE. / Dedicated / to Miss Anne Thompson / BY THE AUTHOR / Pi ."j Entered at Stationers Hall [c.j OP. 30 [r.] Pr. ® ^ without Accompos 6s / Printed for Corri Dussek ft C? Music Sellers / to their Majesties ft their Royal Highness ? / Prince of Wales & Duchess of York N? 67 ft 68 / Dean s£ Soho N? 28, Haymarket, LONDON. / 4 Bridge Street Edinburgh. / By the Same Author, Three Sonatas with Accs. Op. 31. [r.P] D? 12 Progressive Lessons, Op. 32 / Engraved by T. KING, N? 19 Wells St Oxford St.

Date of composition.

Probably 1791-93*

First edition. Londons Corri, Dussek and Company, advertised in The Times on September 5* 1795*

262

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

J. L. Dussek, "Grand Military" Concerto in Bb Major for Pianoforte, Op. 40 (C. 153).

The / GRAND MILITARY CONCERTO. / for the / Piano-Porte, / WITH ACCOM¬ PANIMENT (ad Libitum) FOR VIOLINS, ATIOLA, OBOE, / FLUTES, CLARINETTS, HORNS &a BASS. / as Performed at the / OPERA HOUSE CONCERTS, / and the / ORATORIOS AT COVENT GARDEN-THEATRE / Composer & Dedicated to / Miss Beauchamp, / by / J. L. DUSSEK. / Ll.] Op. 40 [r.J Price 8s / Cl.'J Ent*? at Stationers Hall Lr.j without Accomt 6/ / Printed for Corri, Dussek & C9 Music Sellers to the Royal Family 28 Haymarket, / 67 Dean Street Soho, London, North Bridge Street & South S't Andrew Street, Edinburgh.

Date of composition. First performance. First edition.

1798. February 23, 1798, on the Covent Garden Oratorio.

Londont

Corri, Dussek and Company, 1799.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

263

J. L. Duaaek, Concerto in F Major for Harp (or Pianoforte)(C. 158).

[Aiicpo]

.

Sol|°

Kondo

^

£

* j, run if t Ts$4 jm U Mm The / Favorite Concerto, / for the / Piano Porte, / with Accompaniments for a / VIOLIN, ALTO, 2 HORNS, 2 OBOES, FAGOTTO 4 BASS, / as performed by / Madam Dussek / at the / Nobility's Concerts 4c. 4c. / Dedicated by Permission to the / Right Hon£-*-e Lady Viscountess Lowther, / BY J.L. DUSSEK. / Cl.! Ent. at Sta. Hall. [r._ Price 8/- / Printed 4 Sold at N9 15 Little Newport Street Leicester Square. / Where every Article of the Valuable Catalogue of Corri Dussek 4 C9 may be had. / NB. This Con¬ certo is also Published as above for the Harp.

Date of composition. First edition.

Possibly 1795-96.

Londons

no publisher named, £a. l800.

264

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

J. L. Dussek, Concerto in Bb Major for Harp (C. 264).

J. L. Dussek's / much Admired / CONCERTO, / for the / Harp, / which was expressly Composed for / Madame Dussek, / And Performed by her with uni¬ versal applause at / THE / PUBLIC and NOBILITIES CONCERTS / Arranged to be Played without Accompaniments / and respectfully dedicated to / Miss Vaughan, / BY / S. DUSSEK MORALT. / [l._ Ent? at Sta. Hall Lr.J Price 5? / London, Printed 4 Sold by Madame Dussek Moralt, N9 8, Winchester, Row Paddington; and / by Rt Birchall, N9 133 New Bond Street / NB. This Concerto will be speedily arranged for the Piano Porte.

Date of composition.

Possibly 1793-96.

First edition (as transcription). London: Madame Dussek-Moralt, entered at Stationers Hall, March 19, 1813. The original version of this concerto is not extant.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

265

John Field, Concerto No, 1 in Eb Major for Pianoforte.

Premier / Concerto / pour le / Pianoforte / avec accompagnement / de grand Orchestre / par / John Field. / Pr. 2 Rthlr. / Chez Breitkopf * Hitrtel a Leipsic.

Date of compoaition. First performance. Fund Concert.

Probably 1799. Probably February 7, 1799. on the New Musical

Autograph manuscript. only).

Washington, Library of Congress (solo part

First edition. St. Petersburg, l8l4 (not extantj alluded to in a letter by Field). Itie oldest existing edition is that of Breitkopf und HJtrtel, 1815.

266

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

G. M. Giomovichi, Concerto No. 14 in A Major for Violin.

Amoroso A 7nt

1

Hondo alia, Husse 1

?

y--r • * Sr> ’‘A\ " -f■u -e-W--E-( -J———u -

N9 14. / CONCERTO / A Violon Principal / Deux Violons Alto et Baaae / 2 Hautbois 2 Cors, / Composes par / M. JARNOVIK. / Prix 4". 4? / A PARIS / Chez le ST Sieber Musician rue S* honore entre celle des / Vielles Etavea et celle D'Orleans chez 1'Apothicaire N9 92. /

Date of composition.

Possibly 1790; possibly earlier.

First London performance. January 30, 1790* at the Anacreontic Society. Whether the work had been performed previously in another city has not been determined. First edition.

Paris*

Sieber, plate no. 1080, 1790.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog 0. M. Giornovichi, Concerto No. 16 in G Major for Violin.

L All egro]

Solo

,

-

wmi r raf

to

3E

Adagio V . r f.

I

Romance ^.* /

J—*—+ * J ^—U-

Rorv.lo ') ff-i— /X t w u n

1

r i I

I

J

r 1

Allegro vivace

fW-ir-f wJ

#

J

—

CONCERTO / Favori en Sol pour Violon / Avec Accompagnement de deux Violons / Alto, Basse, Cora et Hautbois Ad Libitum / Compose / PAR JARNOVTCK / Dedie /AM. Hankey Esq? / Enregistre a la Bibliotheque Naie / Grave' par Michot. / Prix / A PARIS / Chez Pleyel, Rue Neuve des Petits Champs, entre la rue 3$ Anne et celle des Chabannais N? 24 / Propriete de l'Editeur / £pl. no.2 12

Date of composition.

Probably 1795*

Manuscript. London, British Library, King's Music Library, R.M. 21.a.l4, dated February, 1795* First edition. London: Corri, Dussek and Company, advertised in the Monthly Magazine and British Register. February, 1796.

267

268

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

G. M. Giornovichi, Two Concertos in A Major and B*3 Major for Violin.

Ar.dmti.'io

1 a a r i lAi " . n

y

—

l.iilajroJ

. -rr y—7-f)—fffH* r f ~ s* r r i i-y i I—y

ua yh

Alls ;rt-:.tc

e , /JtA *-n R -< # T

J rj

r r/ w

-7-M--1

[Sole]

Two / VIOLIN CONCERTOS / Composed & Arranged / for the / PIANO PORTE / With an Accompaniment / FOR THE VIOLIN / and / Humbly Dedicated / TO THE / Countess of Shaftsbury / BY / MY Giornovichi / [r.j Price 8? / Entered at / Stationers Hall / LONDON / Printed by Longman 4 Broderip 26 Cheapside 4 13 Haymarket.

Date of composition.

Probably 1790-95.

First edition (as transcription). London> Longman and Broderip, for piano with accompaniment of a violin, advertised in The Times, February 9, 1796. The original version is not extant.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

269

G. M. Giornovichi, Two Concertos in F Major and G Major for Violin.

a". ;e A n dn t in o

Follajca A11 err o •; t o

H:;-r

Allegro

y

,

-

.ivace r

r

J1*

r —

J

i

"

i*^> -r j»« r m . j - i - i i i ipi p J

*

r f

I

1 **

A:.:'?.ntino Sicilianc esprossivo

Allegro viv’ace

s

- ~ "

tJhfTi

11J | ^

1

:(ondo Allegretto -.la Lc^er"’

£

Giornovichi’a / WO FAVORITE CONCERTOS, / arranged as Sonatas for the / PIANO FORTE, / with an Accompaniment for a Violin, / by / J. L. DUSSEK, / !Ir.I Price 7s6d / Dedicated to / Miss Louisa Boscawen de Visme, / A Miss Harriet de Visme. / Ent^ at Sta.Hall. / LONDON. / Printed by Corri 4 C9 Music Sellers to their Majesties, / N? 28, Haymarket.

Date of composition.

Probably 1790-96.

First edition (as transcription). Londons Corri, Dussek and Com¬ pany, arranged by Dussek for piano with accompaniment of a violin, no earlier than 1796. The original version is not extant.

270

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

0. M. Giomovichi, Concerto in F Major for Violin, "Composed for the Opera Concert, 1796."

Allegro cor Spirit'

3cio

A

Yr

->

^-i

n L7 T

-

m

tpj

Ar.dante

Adagio v .

T©>rr/ —|--J—

1

r 1Tt

1 # #

\

r H w *J u

r

j /

0

*

R on:’ 0

—f 1 1 */ C 1 Xaf ■>Pii r. =e. • • J ■ ^ p1 v

GIORNOVICHI'S / Concerto / Expresly Composed for the / OPERA CONCERT, 1796. / Arranged for the / PIANO PORTE, / With Accompaniments for Violins, Alto / Flutes, Homs, and Bass / BY / J. B. Cramer / Zl.2 Enter'd at Stationers Hall [r.I Price ® £ / Printed for Corri, Dussek A C9 Music-Sellers to the Royal / Family N9 28 Hay Market, N? 67 Dean Strr Soho London / North Bridge Strt A South S$ Edinb(? / JUST PUBLISH'D / Cramers Op. 11 12 A 13. / Pleyels Op. 31 A 32. / Dusseks Op. 33 34 * 35-

Date of composition. First performance. Concert.

1796. Probably February 1,

1796, on the first Opera

First edition (as transcription). London: Corri, Dussek and Company, plate no. 628, arranged by J. B. Cramer as a piano concerto, 1797. The original version is not extant.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

271

James Hook, Six Concertos in C Major, A Major, Eb Major, Bb Major, G Major, and D Major for Organ (or Harpsichord), Op. 55.

II. All? mod?

Rondo—Moderato

HjEg-iLs-, -T7T rr. a n 9/• 1 l lift " II. C £ fl u , ^t_nr it i

, T77 W j'

7 v/

J

D - W ■ / *

r/ . 1 - TT7 \]f£ ii1 r w

v“> Tenpo li Minuet to i • A-!U 1»^L r / . V 73 I ^11 7 j . y, r -a M* 1 T-+TV~~1~ * /J/i; J /—TT-:;-# ■ ^ / f •T f * /v “5 . Andantino

III. Allegro fc 1 y,*? „ r ~ ,/L r h (-17 a +/ * . A 7 '

IV. Maestoso na non troppo Alleg ro 1 fftt K in r ** A *3 ^ LV “ 1 1 7 'Mj

. Anaan 1;e Staccato

Rondo Allegro

==i ri a.-^- ^1 tr l , . : ^ / i; . p >> . /■ V y fa 3 1 / ^ ^ tVP IT 1 i #^ 1 r ti 1 VI r7i. 1 r r# t i ui | y »

V. Allegro con 5p irito

J avott a qo'.'i Va riazione —Lodera to

Andantino

Ad m m n-rTTI_K L^& ~A TT Jl I 1 ZZTr.Fi*^ ——TT Wl 1 r fy, Tl . / +M . . 1 + w mr Ti r f r t C 3* u \ * a *7 A lL ^ 1 1 I I ^ ^J M -^ | | 1 \ZJ-J Adagio con nolto VI. Allegro con Spinto i/n ^ rr --7 Ui 1 ^ .. J r'n^ j—i i-yJ JLb J 1 *r’ ^ J® “ Tl_L ry 1 7/r

esraalon

: .

*

Rondo Alls to I_I_7 I* 1 I

u , .r "_fBUI_Li ^ -7/7

i

it w

, -r

r r i IT 1 LI. 11

I_/ 1 1 I**

s£x=

CThe t. p. has an engraving of a woman with a lyreC[under engravingT Cl.j Hamilton Invt [r.[] Milton Delt / SIX / Grand / CONCERTOS / for the Organ or Harpsichord, / with Accompaniments 5 / Composed, 4 humbly Dedi¬ cated to / HIS MAJESTY, / By James Hook. / [l.~ Opera LV. [r.J Price One Guinea / LONDON* / Printed for the Author 4 Sold by Preston 4 Son at their Warehouses, 97 Strand 4 Exeter Change.

Date of composition. First edition.

Probably around 1790, or slightly earlier.

London:

For the author, ca. 1790.

272

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

James Hook, Concerto in F Major for Organ (or Harpsichord). C 0:1

b

'

.1

: !U30~ L 0

Javotta Rond

1)lJ r . f # r

’—rrt-r--* r 1 1 II ^

[

* *1 ^

Cl._ Concerto per il Organo / C.1,] 1797

Date of composition.

D

1^1 .

i

rrr ¥+ - < W' i

4

t)rCU-

4

tti

lo

K

All-br O

o cembalo

(c.

originale

rrT

Hook.

1797*

Autograph manuscript. Washington, Library of Congress, dated 1797. The work was never published.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog J. N. Hummel, Concerto in A Major for Pianoforte (S. 4).

Rondo

m

Concerto in / pour le / Piano Porte / avec Accompagnement de / 2 Violons / 2 Hautbois / 2 Cors / Alto et Basso. / compose par / Jean Hummel juni

Date of composition. Autograph manuscript. Manuscripts, Add. 32,216. Manuscript parts. lished.

Probably the 1790's. London, British Library, Department of

Ibid.. Add. 32,218.

The work was never pub¬

273

274

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

Felix Janiewicz, Two Concertos in F Major and G Major for Violin.

Allegro no iert o

}*?

'■>

- —rif>

Rondeau Allegro

/ j.j j—^

-t-s — —

—j-

i

P

C

p

Two CONCERTOS, / Adapted for the / PIANO FORTE, / With an Accompaniment for the / VIOLIN, / The First arranged by J. B. Cramer, / The Second by J. L. Dussek, / Compos'd A Dedicated to / The Right Honb-ie Lady Clive, / BY / FELIX YANIEWICZ. / These Sonatas may be Performed with or Without the Additional Keys. / [1.3 Entered at Stationers Hall fr.J Price 8? / London, Printed for the Author, / & Sold by T. Skillern, N? 17. S^ Martins Lane & at the Music Shops.

Date of composition. Probably 1792-99* The first movement of the F Major Concerto is identical with the first movement of Janiewicz's Concerto No. 1 (1788). The second movement is completely new; the rondo contains some material from the episodes of the rondo of the Concerto No. 1, but the refrain is new. First edition (as transcription). Londons For the author, probably 1795-1800. These works were not published in their original form, except for the original version of the F Major Concerto.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

275

Felix Janiewicz, Concerto No. 4 in A Major for Violin.

Mod1;0 a *r w

. 1

s0i0 1 j

p*

. >1)1

.1. ll . 1 » d -J-1—4

.1 \

ET'-

a■■■!■ P

Adagio

-,/ffTl '-

1 f r M .7 r w Mr 1 LJi ’

If Ski ^

Rondo All .

ifcfc 1^ -t

n , yRVrfj y —

Quatrieme / CONCERTO / Pour le Violon / COMPOSE ET DEDIE / a / M? le Comte George Wielhouraki / PAR / Felix Janievicz / PRIX 6? / Propriete de l'Editeur / A PARIS / Chez Imbault de Muaique et de Cordes d'lnatrumens, Rue Honore / entre la rue des Poulies et la maiaon d'Aligre, N? 200 Section dea Gardea Francaiaea.

Date of compoaition. Firat edition. February 24, 1797.

Paria:

Poaaibly 1796. Imbault, plate no. 670, advertised on

276

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

Felix Janiewiez, Concerto No. 5 in E Minor for Violin.

A \a :io to., I Jn nr

Alle.^retto

fhfr

A \ - V? ■ p7 nr r ^ lr 1 v~-z-*~

rn lL 1 nnJ

■ft Tfr,

r-f—f—i*-7-

^

J

Cinquieme / CONCERTO / a Violon Principal / deux Violons, deux Altp, Baeae, Flute, / deux Baasona, deux Hautboia et deux Cora, / COMPOSE / par / FELICE YANIEWIEZ / Prix 9fs / Propriete de l'Editeur. / A PARIS / Chez PLEVEL, / Auteur et Editeur de Musique, Rue Neuve dea Petita Champa, N? 1286, / via-a-via la Treeorerie Nationale. / Tpl. no^ 582

Date of composition. First edition.

Parias

Probably late 1790'a. Pleyel, plate no. 582, ca. 1803-1807.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

277

Valentin Nicolai, Concerto in G Major for Pianoforte, Op. l4.

Allorro

Solo

.V.a-rio A

Rondo

^ A * ' -d--*——

f—frL

7 f 1) i 1 7

)

. 1

A / CONCERTO / for the Grand 4 Small / Piano Porte / with Accompaniments for / WO VIOLINS, WO FLUTES, ALTO 4 VIOLONCELLO. / Composed by / VALENTINO NICOLAI. / ll._, Op. l4 [c7 Ent$ at Stat?3 Hall [r.~ Pr 63 / London Printed by Broderip 4 Wilkinson Hay=3aarket / where may be had all this Author's Works

Date of composition.

Probably 1790's.

First edition. London: Sun. February 17. 1800.

Broderip and Wilkinson, advertised in the

278

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

Maria H. Parke, Concerto in Eb Major for Pianoforte, Op. 6. Allepro

Solo

A / CONCERTO / for the / Piano-Forte or Harpsichord, / Composed / And Respectfully Dedicated / TO / Lady Charlotte Oreville, / and / Lady Louisa Grey / BY / MARIA HESTER PARK. / [l*] Op. VI. £.3 Entered at Stationers Hall. [r.J Price 5? / Printed for the Author, N? 35 Piccadilly, opposite the Green Park. / 4 Sold by Rt Birchal, Music Seller to her Royal Highness the Duchess of York. / N? 133» New Bond Street.

Date of composition. First edition.

Probably 1790-96.

Londoni

For the author, no later than 1797.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

279

William T. Parke, Concerto in G Major for Oboe. Allegro 3-iriteso

^ *

Solo

rxu.TJ-Ji

* * *+

f-rf / -P T **

Rondo

Alario

#=# tff f

-hf--ftrr J— --iisj-

-=r

V f

M

V— - rr

A Grand Concerto for the Oboe / German Piute, or Clarinets / With Accompaniments / For Two VIOLINS, / Two FLUTES, Two TENORS, Two / HORNS, Two BASSOONS, A VIOLONCELLO, / AND / Bass. / AS PERFORMED AT THE / Pro¬ fessional Concert. / Dedicated by Permission / To his Royal HIGHNESS the Prince of Wales / Composed by / W. T. PARKE. / Musician To His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. / PRICE ? / London / Printed & Sold at P

Fentums Music Warehouse N9 78 comer of / Salisbury Street, Strand. / Where may be had all the above Authors Works / NB This Concerto may be had adapted as a Lesson for the Harpsichord or Piano Forte Price 2.6.

Date of composition.

Possibly 1789s possibly early 1790's.

First performance. According to Parke's Memoirs, on February 9, 1789, on the first Professional Concert; this date is, however, open to question. First edition. Londons on December 10, 179^«

Fentum, advertised in the Morning Herald

280

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

J. P. Salomon, Concerto i*n D Major for Violin. Grave I.^ertoso Tutti

Foco Allegro

Sclo

p —r. —

.,;.ar-io na r.on trope

#

Ft—1 —f—J—

LJ

Hondo Allegretto rodercto .

s

it

A / CONCERTO / (in which the Subject of the Rondo is taken from Hillisberg's Favorite Pas Seul) / Originally composed for the Violin & performed / at his annual Concert at the Opera Rooms, / by / J. P. SALOMON, / adapted / for the / PIANO FORTE, / with (ad libitum) accom¬ paniments of two Violins / Viola, Violoncello, 2 Oboes, and 2 Horns. / by G. MASI, / and Dedicated to / IV$S 00M / by the Author / [1.3 Enf? at Stationers Hall [r'C Price 8? / To be had of M? Salomon, N? 2 Argyll Street, Oxford Street, / at Birchall's, N? New Bond Street, and at all the principal Music Shops.

Date of composition.

Before _ca. 1805.

First edition (as transcription). Londons For the author, in an arrangement by G. Masi as a piano concerto, _ca. 1805. The original version is not extant.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

281

Daniel Steibelt, Concerto in Eb Major for Harp. CAllegro]

A / Grand Concerto / for the / HARP, / With Accompaniments. / Composed & dedicated to / Madam Krumpholtz, / BY / D. STEIBELT. / [l.D Entd at Sta. Hall Ic.j London [r.j Price 83 / Printed by Clementi, Banger, Hyde, Collard & Davis, 26, Cheapside. / NB The above Concerto, for the Piano Porte, may be had of the Editors. Price 8/:

Date of composition.

1797.

First performance. Probably February 27, on the third Opera Concert.

1797, by Madame Krumpholtz

First edition. London: Clementi, Banger, Hyde, Collard and Davis, or Paris: Miles Erard, £a. 1801-1805.

282

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

Daniel Steibelt, Concerto in B*3 Major for Pianoforte, Op. JO.

Allegro Foe.era to lSo1o3

Romance An.'.ar.tw

Allegro

A Grand / SONATA / for the / Piano Porte, / with an / Accompaniment for a Violin / as Performed at / THE OPERA CONCERT A at M? SALOMON'S BENEFIT, / Composed / by / D. STEIBELT. / Ql.^ Op. XXI [c.j Entered at Stationers Hall [r.3 Price 5s/- / LONDON / Printed for & Sold by J. Dale at his Music Warehouses / N? 19 Cornhill A the corner of Hollis St?^ Oxford Street / where may be had all this Author's Works Ac. Ac. / B. Barnes Sculpt

Date of composition. First performance,. Concert.

1797* Probably February 13, 1797, on the first Opera

First edition (as transcription). Londons J. Dale, arranged as a sonata for piano with accompaniment of a violin, entered at Stationers Hall on May 31» 1797- The original version is not extant.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

283

Daniel Steibelt, Concerto in E Major for Pianoforte, Op. 33.

Ail e_;ro .>ri 11ar. t e

.n

00

-5J' *

ft n ' fcU-1

-

hi ==

Rondo Pastoral ir. which Sootch Ai .• Adagio non trop-j>0

jXr mien -■'f\r

is introduced an Initatior of a 5torn

rfri

fstfr

—?

A / GRAND CONCERTO / for the / Piano Porte / as performed by the Author / with the utmost applause / at the / Opera Concert / Composed & Dedicated to / Miss Prances Fitz=Gerald / by / D. STEIBELT / 0p3 33 / [IT Price 7"6 [c.] LONDON [r.2 Entered at Stationers Hall / Printed by Muzio Clementi & C? 26 Cheapside

Date of composition. 1798. First performance.

Probably March 19, 1798, on the Salomon Benefit.

First edition. London: Hall on May 18, 1798.

Longman and Broderip, entered at Stationers

284

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

G. B. Viotti, Concerto No. 20 in D Major for Violin.

—11 11I £—ft Uv- n. i_LJ_Li 1 1 1,11 -/ 1 —rzn— 1 - s 1 ,1 * 1 ■ riT'r -> 1 1 n

ifT> L r- Ti—“ _ --

3oi_do

0 ©—

Jt-J

F.y/^'r > L

v -r

v./

—

A New / GRAND CONCERTO / with Accompaniments—as performed at / THE OPERA CONCERT. / Composed by / M? VIOTTI, / and Adapted for the / PIANO¬ FORTE, / With or without the additional Keys, / By / M? HULLMANDEL. / rjcZ Pr. 6s / Simpkins sc. / LONDON / Printed by Lewis, Houston 4 Hyde, N9 45 Holborn, / Manufacturers of Grand A Small Piano-fortes A Importers of Pedal Harps. / NB. The above Concerto may be had for the Violin. / Enter'd at Stationers Hall.

Date of composition.

Probably 1795*

First edition (as transcription). London: Lewis, Houston and Hyde, arranged by Htlllmandel as a piano concerto, entered at Stationers Hall on July 6 1795 -

,

First edition (original). Paris: Pleyel, advertised in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung in February, 1799•

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

285

G. B. Viotti, Concerto No. 21 in E Major for Violin.

Allegro con

Sole

CONCERTO / De Violon / Avec Accompagnement / De deux Violona, deux Hautboia, une Piute / deux Cora, deux Baaaona, deux Altos et Baaae. / PAR / J. B. VIOTTI / Lettre A. Prix 9 */ Propriete des Editeura Depose a la Biblioth^que Natiie / A PARIS / Au Magaain de Musique Dirige / Par Cherubini, Mehul, Kreutzer, Rode, N. Iaouard et Boieldieu / Rue de la Loi, N? 268. Via-a-via celle de Menara. / A Lyon Chez Garnier, Place de la Comedie N9 l8 / [pi. no.J (24) / [r.3 Sampier Sculp.

Date of compoaition.

Probably 1793-94.

First edition (as transcription). London: Corri, Dussek and Company, in an arrangement as a piano concerto by Dussek, _ca. 179697 (unlocated). First edition (original). Paris: Cherubini, Mehul, Kreutzer, Rode, Isouard, et Boieldieu, plate no. 24, reviewed in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung in September, 1803.

286

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

0. B. Viotti, Concerto No. 22 in A Minor for Violin.

Adagio

1— /j) $Jh It r/r m wr

Agitato asset v

T T7

7

u-.— 1 IL A Id ■ J

r~t

v^

Title page not available.

Date of composition.

Probably 1795-98.

First edition. Paris? Cherubini, Mehul, Kreutzer, Rode, Isouard et Boieldieu, plate no. 124, advertised in the Allgemeine musikallsche Zeitung in November, 1803.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

287

G. B. Viotti, Concerto No. 23 in G Major for Violin.

A _' e rc -e-

n, /

}

T

J

J J J

wtr r

/

f-trF.ff. tt-T l

**1

rvl-.fl lit 9

1

—

J-

I——-

A_ ‘ 3 TO

'1

jWJI

—

f~

VIOTTI'S Celebrated New Grand CONCERTO / IN G / as Performed at his Concert/ Hanover Square / Adapted for the Piano Porte / with or without Additional Keys / BY / J. L. Dussek / NB. This Concerto may be play'd without Accompaniments / Published at HIME'S MUSICAL CIRCULATING LIBRARY. N? 3^ College Green.

Date of composition. First performance. concert.

Probably 179^• Probably May 23, 1794, on Viotti's own benefit

First edition (as transcription). London: Corri, Dussek and Company, advertised in The Times on December 16, 179^+ • First edition (original). Paris: Cherubini, Mehul, Kreutzer, Rode, Isouard, et Boieldieu, plate no. 248, advertised in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung in August, 1804.

288

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

G. B. Viotti, Concerto No. 24 in B Minor for Violin.

I.’aostoso

3olo tv

-FTT . tt r 7^ r-, ft- :

L

9

-P”—“ S f /r

r—

—T rfr firrrrrt ai • 1 ji

L2

L-1

■\rc ?. r.t. 9 sos o-v' t y ttn is A 7 ik *71

n J

n

>

y “4

- "N i i >

.

/

*

v

-ntt*l *11 y i

’ i

u r i

i

Title page is not available.

Date of composition.

Probably 1794.

First edition. Paris: Cherubini, Mehul, Kreutzer, Rode, Isouard et Bo'ieldieu, plate no. 558* advertised in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung in September, 1805.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

289

G. B. Viotti, Concerto No. 25 in A Minor for Violin.

Allegro

Andaiite

Ffr#i it

U

r

Andante sostenuto

jw

—

g'--■'■o

—

Andante Solo 45

vivo assai

n

9^3^

r

1

--

“ft)

Allegro vivo assai

-.rf-t —h

Allegretto r\ K-77-

*-7-7

A third / Grand Concerto, / Arranged for the / Piano Porte, / with or without additional keys, with / Accompaniments for Violin, Alto A Bass, Ac. / by M? Dussek, / Composed A Dedicated to / M?s Chinnery, / bv M? Viotti. / Entered at Stationers Hall. / Price —without accomp^3 6? / Printed for Corri, Dussek A C? Music Sellers to their Majesties, / their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales A Duchess of / York, at their Warehouses, N? 67 A 68, Dean Street, Soho, / N? 28, Haymarket, London, A Bridge Street, Edinburgh. / NB. His favorite Grand Concerto in G is / also arranged for the P. P. by Dussek. / [l.j Just published for the P. F. Jlussek's Op? 30, 31, A 32 [r.j Giornoviki's Violin Concerto in G / CiZj Mozart's 8 Italian and English Canzonetti

Date of composition.

Probably 1795-

First edition (as transcription). Londons Corri, Dussek and Company, in an arrangement by Dussek as a piano concerto, advertised in the Monthly Magazine and British Register in February, 1796. First edition (original). Pariss Cherubini, Mehul, Kreutzer, Rode, Isouard et Boieldieu, plate no. 429, advertised in the Allgemeine musikalisohe Zeitung in November, 1807.

290

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

G. B. Viotti, Concerto No. 26 in B° Major for Violin.

s

Allegro uri ooco di moto

n

/

Andante piu tosto adagio

Solo 'fJ-

¥ Allegretto

mm a

i!

s

Title page not available.

Date of composition.

Probably 1795-98.

First edition. Paris: Cherubini, Mehul, Kreutzer, Rode, IsouArd et Bdieldieu, plate no. 55^, advertised in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung in March, 1808.

Appendix A: Thematic Catalog

291

G. B. Viotti, Concerto No. 27 in C Major for Violin.

>nda*.t

Allegro vivace

iv—i P .;n.>an*’i

fttj

IiJ- t ‘■fr

..

^1W

Pj=f=

iliejrctto piu tooto vi-.'c

to ,

3oJo

^-4=

—7=

K v. pi-r—ft—r -J-%

TU Viotti's / celebrated New / GRAND CONCERTO, / IN C / presented to the Admirers of his Popular Concerto / IN G / Adapted for the / Piano Porte / with Accompaniments for / Violins Alto Bass Ac Ac. / ad Libitum / BY / J. B. CRAMER. / rlC, Ent