Content area
Full Text
Virtuosity has evolved both in popularity and by definition over the past two centuries. A look at the phenomenon through the lens of the 19th century, when it was simultaneously celebrated and reviled, can help us better understand its development and significance.
Why is so much flute music very difficult?
Why do flutists lack solo repertoire by major Romantic composers?
These questions are intimately linked within the context of virtuosity in the 19th century. It is therefore worth exploring this phenomenon, which affected attitudes about the flute and flutists so dramatically that players still deal with the aftermath.
The Controversial Rise of Virtuosity
The European middle class of the early 19th century was hungry for novelty in all fields, including music, where novelty was represented in part by instrumental virtuosity. Provincial instrumentalists flocked, for example, to Vienna, "the musical metropolis,"1 assembling careers piecemeal. To make ends meet they often played in orchestras, taught, and composed. They also staged benefit concerts for themselves, which typically featured a wide array of performers, as well as one concerto and at least one virtuoso showpiece.2
Not confined to Vienna, virtuosity increasingly flourished throughout Europe from 1800 to 1830, followed by what musicologist Carl Dahlhaus called "the heyday of virtuosity [that] began with Paganini's tours of the European capitals in the early 1830s and ended in September 1847 when Franz Liszt abandoned his career as a pianist."3 Like his Viennese counterparts, Liszt in particular founded his career on new socioeconomic ground. His touring performances demanded higher-than-typical ticket prices, excluding the lower middle class but enticing members of the "middle bourgeoisie"4 to purchase a level of artistic appreciation previously available only to aristocrats and nobility in private salons and at court.
The burgeoning market for virtuosity accidentally contributed to a backlash. Critics harbored "suspicion that middle-class audiences only went to concerts...to see and be seen...and it was far stronger for audiences at virtuoso concerts than at symphony concerts."5 This dismissive attitude was extended beyond audiences to performances and performers, revealed in phrases like "excessive ornament" and "superficial virtuosity."6 Lines were drawn between Liszt, virtuosity's quintessential representative, and such critics as Robert Schumann and, later, Eduard Hanslick, who advocated "serious or 'symphonic' music [over] insignificant, 'dilettantish' instrumental music."7
Liszt: Reinventor...