Classical Music and the Masses

Cafe Society
1

Listening to some classical music the other day got me to thinking: in my mind’s eye I could totally see the Viennese upper crust gently waltzing while the music was playing.

But as for the rest of the population of Vienna at the time, I’m guessing they were too busy trying not to die of starvation or cholera to worry about such things.

So in Mozart’s, Beethoven’s, etc. day, was music (excluding folk music, minstrels, liturgical music, etc.) strictly the domain of the upper classes? Would a lower-class person ever have the chance to hear a symphony or concerto-- as in, a free performance in a park or church or whatever?

2

From what I understand, a lot of Mozart operas, such as the Magic Flute, were written specifically for the people’s theater, not for the court. It’s of course debatable how accessible that was to the real masses, but then again, not a very large part of the population goes to the opera today.

Also, of course there was no such thing as classical music - Mozart composed in the style of his time that would be performed - in varying degrees of sophistication - pretty much everywhere.

3

It depends on when we’re talking but let’s focus on “Mozart’s/Beethoven’s day” and say 18th/19th centuries.

One of the important bits you leave out is the middle class, which was growing rapidly throughout that period and aspired to higher social standing. Part of that was a voracious consumption of music, both printed music for home performance and attendance at the opera and at subscription concerts.

As for the working classes, they did go to popular entertainments and the popular entertainments borrowed heavily from the favorite operatic tunes of the day. I hesitate to reference the historical hot mess that is Amadeus but if you’ve seen it you may recall a scene in which Mozart and family are watching a ridiculous pantomime featuring dwarves and fake horses which is parodying Mozart’s opera Don Giovanni. That sort of thing really happened. And the working classes also went to the actual opera, particularly by the 19th century, standing (and talking) throughout the performance.

That’s a very quick and dirty summary - whole books have been written on the subject. But yes, the lower classes did have the opportunity to hear live “classical” music.

4

Moving to Cafe Society from GQ.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

5

Again, referencing Amadeus, I seem to remember a scene in which Mozart proposed a new opera in German (the Magic Flute). I think operas of the time were in Italian. So could the lower and middle classes of the time understand the Italian from the operas?

6

Probably not, although by the 19th century the fashion for operas to be in Italian was fading and operas in the “local” language more common. Also, Die Zauberflöte is technically a Singspiel, which has spoken dialogue in addition to the sung pieces (like operetta or stage musicals) and which was usually in German. As the Wiki link notes, Mozart wrote four of them starting with Zaide in 1780.

And as noted, for the Italian operas the catchy tunes just got borrowed and adapted for other works (including other Singspiele) so they probably got some other German lyrics slapped in there.

7

It’s a fascinating question!

First off, it’s important to consider that at this time, if you wanted to hear music, you had to sing/play it yourself, pay someone to sing/play it for you or get a friend to sing/play it. From our modern perspective, it’s hard to imagine going through a day without hearing some music, somewhere, even if it’s just the asshole on the subway with his iPod on too loud.

There wouldn’t have been the huge difference in instrumentation between ‘serious’ music and ‘popular’ music that we have today. The tavern that had music would probably have had a couple of fiddle players; the guy busking in the town square would probably have been playing a violin, and the orchestra at court was centered around having violins.

Not at all like today, when the tavern that has ‘live’ music is a special thing, and there are specific instruments associated with particular styles of music. For instance, if there’s a saxophone playing, the music is much more likely to be jazz or rock - we don’t really associate sax with classical music, or folk.

Also, don’t forget the church - many, many more people went to church in 18th and 19th century society, and even the poorest churches had choirs. Most of them had organs, and some highly respected composers made their entire careers around being church musicians. Look at J. S. Bach - he was not writing for a huge cathedral, he wrote for a medium sized church in a fairly obscure town in Saxony. Slightly different circumstances, and he could have passed into total obscurity. When you went to mass, you would often hear a musical setting - not necessarily as grand as the Beethoven ‘Missa Solemnis’, but something serious and written to the best of the composer’s ability in order to glorify God.

I would venture to say that we modern people have the widest diversity between musical styles happening within what we would consider the same culture of all time. Certainly, we have access to more music than Franz Joseph would ever have dreamed possible.

8

In other words, a lot of the music for the masses was for the masses.

9

Mozart is an interesting case, because he came of age as a composer right as the business model for professional musicians was changing. Prior to Mozart music was financed by patrons. If you were a good composer, or a musician, or a singer you’d attach yourself to the entourage a nobleman, or find yourself a gig with the church. You’d write and perform what your patron wanted, and if you had any creative vision of your own, you’d fit it into the leftover time after your day job was done.

But in the 18th century the rising middle class made it possible for musicians to support themselves by selling tickets (or subscriptions) and performing in public. So a style of secular music that had previously been confined to the aristocracy became part of the wider culture. And with this shift came a greater emphasis on originality and showmanship. “Artistic vision” became much more important, and the idea of “high art” (as opposed to “stuff the upper class likes”) emerged.

10

Just a nitpick: the opera he was proposing was Die Entführung aus dem Serail, not Magic Flute.

11

Good point. I have heard it argued that if Mozart had lived another two or three decades he may have done more paying gigs as a performer (fortepiano, presumably) to earn money.

12

Just a side note: The Waltz dance was first originally popular with the unwashed rabble. It then caught on with the upper class.

13

So, would you say that there’s a bit of irony in this? That prior to this time, creative musicians for “serious” music had to be supported by an aristocrat or the church – yet there wasn’t as much of a difference between “serious” and “popular” music as there was afterwards? Or, better yet…the nineteenth century was a sort of “Golden Age”, when creators of “art music” could be supported by popular money and acclaim – but when people started to pay for professional “popular” (folk, etc,) musicians and composers as well (Scott Joplin, e.g.?), the stage was set for a popular-music commercial industry diverging from an art (“classical”) music professional world catering to a diminishing audience… something like that!

14

I think that goes for pretty much all the dances that, say, Bach adapted in his suites for small orchestra (and also for solo cello, etc.), no? Gigue, Allemande, Sarabande…indeed, wasn’t one of these condemned by some church or other as being too sensual?