Books › Grove's dictionary of music and musicians;, 1904 › scan 357
Scan 357
Grove's dictionary of music and musicians;, 1904
8 lines. Read by computer on 3 September 2026, twice; the two readings disagreed in places. No printed page number was found. See the scan on archive.org.
1combined a fine broad tone with a technique of the left hand unrivalled by any contemporary violinist.
3A most powerful influence on the style of the German violinists of the present day has been exercised by the Vienna school, more especially by the pupils of Boehm (1798–1876). Although it is difficult to trace any direct connection between the Viennese violin-players of the 18th century and the school of Italy, Italian violinists came very early to Vienna, and the local players adopted their method and style. We know that Tartini was for three years in the service of Count Kinsky, a Bohemian noble, and also that Trani, Ferrari, and other Italian virtuosos came to Vienna. It is remarkable that the leading Viennese composers of the 18th century, down to Haydn, were almost without exception violinists. Some of them, like Anton Wranitzky and Dittersdorf, were virtuosi of high rank, but most of them were in the first place composers and leaders, and in the second place only violinists. Naturally they excelled less as solo-players than in the performance of chamber-music, which at that period hardly enjoyed anywhere so much popularity as at Vienna. It was the time of preparation for the great classical period which opened with Haydn, and the circumstance that the violin was even then cultivated in Vienna far more in connection with good and serious music than merely as a solo-instrument, has undoubtedly contributed much towards giving to the later representatives of that school their thoroughly musical character, and towards making Vienna the earliest home of quartet-playing. As a quartet-player Schuppantzigh (1776–1830), a pupil of Wranitzky, attained great reputation, and may be regarded as standing first on the roll of great quartet-players. For many years in close intercourse with Haydn and Beethoven, enjoying the advice and guidance of these great masters in the production of their Quartets, he established the style of quartet-playing which has been handed down by the most eminent Vienna violinists to our days. His greatest pupil was Mayeder (1789–1863), a brilliant solo-player, of a style more elegant than powerful. Among his pupils the best known are Miska Hauser (1822–87) and De Ahna (1835–92). The latter, an excellent soloist, lived for many years at Berlin, and played second violin in Joachim's quartet. one of two readings
4A most powerful influence on the style of the German violinists of the present day has been exercised by the Vienna school, more especially by the pupils of Boehm (1798–1876). Although it is difficult to trace any direct connection between the Viennese violin-players of the 18th century and the school of Italy, Italian violinists came very early to Vienna, and the local players adopted their method and style. We know that Tartini was for three years in the service of Count Kinsky, a Bohemian noble, and also that Trani, Ferrari, and other Italian virtuosos came to Vienna. It is remarkable that the leading Viennese composers of the 18th century, down to Haydn, were almost without exception violinists. Some of them, like Anton Wranitzky and Dittersdorf, were virtuosi of high rank, but most of them were in the first place composers and leaders, and in the second place only violinists. Naturally they excelled less as solo-players than in the performance of chamber-music, which at that period hardly enjoyed anywhere so much popularity as at Vienna. It was the time of preparation for the great classical period which opened with Haydn, and the circumstance that the violin was even then cultivated in Vienna far more in connection with good and serious music than merely as a solo-instrument, has undoubtedly contributed much towards giving to the later representatives of that school their thoroughly musical character, and towards making Vienna the earliest home of quartet-playing. As a quartet-player Schuppantzigh (1776–1830), a pupil of Wranitzky, attained great reputation, and may be regarded as standing first on the roll of great quartet-players. For many years in close intercourse with Haydn and Beethoven, enjoying the advice and guidance of these great masters in the production of their Quartets, he established the style of quartet-playing which has been handed down by the most eminent Vienna violinists to our days. His greatest pupil was Mayeder (1789–1863), a brilliant solo-player, of a style more elegant than powerful. Among his pupils the best known are Miska Hauser (1822–87) and De Ahna (1835–92). The latter, an excellent soloist, lived for many years at Berlin, and played second violin in Joachim’s quartet. one of two readings
6Ernst (1814–65), G. Hellmesberger, sen., Dont, sen. (1815–88), Joachim, Ludwig Strauss, Rappoldi, and Grün, all studied under Boehm. Boehm himself can hardly be reckoned as belonging to the old Vienna school, since he made his studies under Rode, and no doubt was also influenced by Spohr, who resided at Vienna in 1813, 1814, and 1815. The modern Vienna school, therefore, though certainly not uninfluenced by the musical traditions of Vienna, appears in reference to technique and specific violin-style to be based on the principles of the classical French school. Counting among its representatives players of a great diversity of talent and artistic temperament, who afterwards formed more or less a style of their own, the Vienna school, or, strictly speaking, Boehm's school, can hardly be said to have been directly continued at Vienna. Boehm, although a thoroughly competent violinist, was not a player of great genius, but he was possessed of an eminently sound and correct taste and judgment in musical and technical matters, and had a rare talent for teaching. Ernst, next to Joachim the most famous of his pupils, came largely under the influence of Paganini, whose style he for some time closely imitated. Undoubtedly a violinist of the first rank, and by no means exclusively a bravura-player, he did not to any extent affect the prevailing style of violin-playing, nor did he train pupils. An enormous influence on modern violin-playing, and on the general musical life of Germany and England, was exercised by Joachim. He combined in a unique degree the highest executive powers with the most excellent musicianship; and while through his brilliant example he may truly be said to have given to modern German violin-playing a peculiar character, it has not been without effect even on the style of the French school. Unsurpassed as a master of the instrument, he used his powers of execution exclusively in the service of art. First musician, then violinist, seemed the motto of his life and the gist of his teaching. His performances undoubtedly derived their charm and supreme merit from the strength of his talent and of his artistic character, and were stamped with a striking originality of conception; at the same time fidelity to the text, and careful endeavour to enter into the spirit and feeling of the composer, were the principles of executive art which Joachim through his long career invariably practised. In the rendering of Bach's Solos, of Beethoven's Concerto and Quartets, he had absolutely no rival, and it seems impossible he should ever be surpassed in these highest tasks of the violinist, in which both his conception and execution appeared to fulfil the ideal of the composer. With Ernst, and still more with Joachim, an element derived from the national Hungarian, and from Hungarian gipsy music, has come into prominence. It is fiddle-music par excellence, and if introduced into serious music with such judgment and discretion as in Joachim's Hungarian Concerto and transcriptions of Brahms's Hungarian Dances, it is not only artistically legitimate and musically interesting, but opens a field for telling and beautiful violin-effects. It evinces the same desire to make the resources of popular national music available for artistic purposes, which showed itself in Chopin's idealisations of the Polish element, and later in Sarasate's adaptations of Spanish melodies and one of two readings
7Ernst (1814–65), G. Hellmesberger, sen., Dont, sen. (1815–88), Joachim, Ludwig Strauss, Rappoldi, and Grün, all studied under Boehm. Boehm himself can hardly be reckoned as belonging to the old Vienna school, since he made his studies under Rode, and no doubt was also influenced by Spohr, who resided at Vienna in 1813, 1814, and 1815. The modern Vienna school, therefore, though certainly not uninfluenced by the musical traditions of Vienna, appears in reference to technique and specific violin-style to be based on the principles of the classical French school. Counting among its representatives players of a great diversity of talent and artistic temperament, who afterwards formed more or less a style of their own, the Vienna school, or, strictly speaking, Boehm’s school, can hardly be said to have been directly continued at Vienna. Boehm, although a thoroughly competent violinist, was not a player of great genius, but he was possessed of an eminently sound and correct taste and judgment in musical and technical matters, and had a rare talent for teaching. Ernst, next to Joachim the most famous of his pupils, came largely under the influence of Paganini, whose style he for some time closely imitated. Undoubtedly a violinist of the first rank, and by no means exclusively a bravura-player, he did not to any extent affect the prevailing style of violin-playing, nor did he train pupils. An enormous influence on modern violin-playing, and on the general musical life of Germany and England, was exercised by Joachim. He combined in a unique degree the highest executive powers with the most excellent musicianship; and while through his brilliant example he may truly be said to have given to modern German violin-playing a peculiar character, it has not been without effect even on the style of the French school. Unsurpassed as a master of the instrument, he used his powers of execution exclusively in the service of art. First musician, then violinist, seemed the motto of his life and the gist of his teaching. His performances undoubtedly derived their charm and supreme merit from the strength of his talent and of his artistic character, and were stamped with a striking originality of conception; at the same time fidelity to the text, and careful endeavour to enter into the spirit and feeling of the composer, were the principles of executive art which Joachim through his long career invariably practised. In the rendering of Bach’s Solos, of Beethoven’s Concerto and Quartets, he had absolutely no rival, and it seems impossible he should ever be surpassed in these highest tasks of the violinist, in which both his conception and execution appeared to fulfil the ideal of the composer. With Ernst, and still more with Joachim, an element derived from the national Hungarian, and from Hungarian gipsy music, has come into prominence. It is fiddle-music par excellence, and if introduced into serious music with such judgment and discretion as in Joachim’s Hungarian Concerto and transcriptions of Brahms’s Hungarian Dances, it is not only artistically legitimate and musically interesting, but opens a field for telling and beautiful violin-effects. It evinces the same desire to make the resources of popular national music available for artistic purposes, which showed itself in Chopin’s idealisations of the Polish element, and later in Sarasate’s adaptations of Spanish melodies and one of two readings
The computer misreads some letters and numbers. Where a name matters to you, read the scan.