# Italy is very underappreciated in classical music



## IEatDirt (6 mo ago)

I hate it when people think Germany or France contributed most to Western classical music while neglecting Italy's contribution. People who still believe this are clearly very ignorant of the history and development of Western classical music.
-The birth of the modern concert form, on which classical music is practically based, mainly by composers such as straddli, Corelli, vivaldi, albinoni, platti, torelli and many others
-the birth of modern opera, with composers such as Monteverdi, Jacopo peri, baskets, etc.
-the birth and development of the string instruments(especially violin), the most important section in an orchestra, while woodwinds or brass are only supplementary and don't have a lot of importance.
-the birth of the modern piano by Bartolomeo cristofori, and its formal development by composers such as clementi (the father of the modern piano), and scarlatti earlier.
-the birth of the modern symphony and the forms of musical classicism, thanks to composers such as sammartini, brioschi, and in general to the Neapolitan school, therefore Pergolesi, cimarosa, anfossi, paisiello, etc ...
-the birth of Gregorian chants in the early Middle Ages and of modern notation by the theorist and musician Guido of Arezzo
- the contribution of Palestrina, Gesualdo, allegri, marenzio to Renaissance sacred music has remained the standard model for centuries to this day
-the birth of different genres of ethnic music such as tarantella, medieval saltarello, Neapolitan song, traditional Sicilian music, and Sardinian tenor songs
Italy is the birthplace of Western classical music. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven “copied” literally the Italian styles, from Palestrina (Bach) and Vivaldi (Bach/Handel) to Mozart (the Neapolitan classic school), etc…

Even apart from classical music, Italy has always been very active also in the field of soundtracks for films, documentaries, or TV dramas. With composers such as Ennio Morrison, Nino Rota, Giorgio Moroder, Goblin, Riz Ortolani, Armando Trovajoli, Stelvio Cipriani, Franco Micalizzi, Pino Donaggio, Piero Umiliani, Piero Piccioni, Nicola Rainani and many others, who with immortal soundtracks will contribute to giving the “Italian” sound typical of cinecittà


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Some is true other emotional written, If you search the forum you see that Italian composers are well represented.

All those famous opera writher's, after all Verdi is the king. 👍


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I couldn't agree more about Italy's contribution to the art of music and you've named some of my favourite composers. I'm not sure about the ignorance you are railing against in your post but note that even an advocate for Italian music like yourself has missed out, or maybe even under appreciates, the high achievements of the last 100 years or so in Italian art music.
Scelsi
Nono
Maderna
Einaudi
Berio
Sciarrino
Castelnuovo Tedesco
et al..


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Italy is very underappreciated? Along with Austria/Germany and France, it is considered one of the main countries for classical music.

However, the reportoire is dominated by Romantic era music, and by that time Italy was less important. If the focus was on Early and Baroque music, Italy would be considered more important than even Germany.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I don't think that these historical facts are unknown or underappreciated, maybe a few details are not well known but the general gist is. Some things are also not mainly Italian; early chant has several sources (eventually byzantine/syrian/oriental) and similarly the "birth of the classical forms and styles".
Many Italian renaissance and baroque and 19th/early 20th century opera composers are well known and often have hugely popular works. 
(There is a bit of bad luck that the best late baroque "Italian" composer was Anglo-German and the best Buffa composer of the late 18th century Austro-German )
If anything, I'd say French music after the "Franco-flemish polyphony" and before the late 19th century is underappreciated (certainly by me and I also think there are good reasons for the relative underappreciation). The French style was considered as important as and distinct from the Italian style in the baroque but Lully or Charpentier are rather niche and French opera of the 19th century (both Grand and Comique) has mostly fallen from favor compared to Italian opera and Wagner.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

I was surprised to learn, that even ballet originated in Italy. At least wikipedia says so: 
"Ballet originated in the Italian Renaissance courts of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Under Catherine de' Medici's influence as Queen, it spread to France, where it developed even further.[4] The dancers in these early court ballets were mostly noble amateurs. Ornamented costumes were meant to impress viewers, but they restricted performers' freedom of movement.[5]


----------



## NovAntiqua (7 mo ago)

Well, Italy has been important in the music history when it was rich as a land: Renaissance and first Baroque phase.
With the discovery of America the centrality of Italy decreased; also for this reason many of the Italian composers of the eighteenth century sought their fortune abroad (the "brain drain" from Italy to foreign countries meant that the "know how" was transferred to richer countries).

An example (by no means exhaustive) is the large number of Tuscan musicians (Boccherini_ in primis_) who found their fortune in Paris, London and Vienna in the second half of the eighteenth century. The "Tuscania Serie" record series deals with this topic.

Here some Boccherini's music:

Notturno G.472 Op.38 No.6, composed in Madrid in 1787 (from CD "Rumbling Divertimenti") 
Quintet op.55 No.6, published in Paris in 1800 (from CD "Little Things in Odd Shapes")
the Sonata for Viola, composed in 1767 before travelling to Paris (from CD "Tuscania")


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

I don't think Italy is underappreciated musically. I think that label would apply more accurately to French composers from the Renaissance to the modern era, as the commenter above said. In particular I'd single out composers like François Couperin and Rameau.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

I'm not sure I get what your saying.

Italy gets a lot of credit for the history of European music and is still the undisputed home of Opera and Italian is the language of music with music notation usually being in Italian.

I'm not what you mean about France getting to much credit,up until the early 20th century when did France get any credit.
Before the impressionist movement with Ravel and Debussy and the teaching career of Boulanger the only big name in music from France was Berlioz.Until the early 20th century France was all but forgotten.

BTW During Mozart's time Salieri the Italian was the composer in residence for the Holy Roman emperor not Mozart or Haydn.

In Beethoven's time Rossini's opera's where tens times as popular than Beethoven ever was


----------



## khoff999 (Oct 31, 2018)

IEatDirt said:


> I hate it when people think Germany or France contributed most to Western classical music while neglecting Italy's contribution. People who still believe this are clearly very ignorant of the history and development of Western classical music.


 While this a good starting post about the Italian influence, as far as I can see it is unnecessarily based on a lame strawman argument. First, I don't know who thinks that France contributed the most to classical music (probably someone whose mother dropped them on their head when they were babies). I think that case can easily be made in the medieval period, but that's about it. Second, I don't think anyone who knows anything about opera doesn't appreciate the Italians' tremendous contribution to it unless they think Mozart invent it. So I will skip that genre entirely.

For this discussion, I will say there are three categories of classical music fan: 1) those that own a dozen or two classical CDs and go to a handful of concerts a year, 2) those who are very serious about classical music, listen to dozens and dozens of composers, read books on the subject and often belong to a forum like this one, and 3) those who are in category 1 and are moving towards category 2.

Those in category 1 don't know about practically any country's influence in the development of music and they really don't care. Most think classical music started in 1700 and if they do like Renaissance music they certainly know who Palestrina was. They don't know anything about Clementi but they also don't know of the importance of C.P.E. and J.C. Bach in the mid 18th century or Schutz, Sweelinck, Biber, Froberger, or Purcell in the 17th century . For them it is a general issue, not an Italian issue.

Category 2 people already know about everything you said (although I am not that interested in film music so I only know a little about that) and they recognize you left out Gabrieli and Frescobaldi in the development of keyboard music. They also know about the influence of Italian music on Bach, Handel, Mozart and many more non-Italian composers and that Cherubini was Beethoven's favorite contemporary composer.

So that leaves the category 2 people who are in the process of learning about the history of music and I think it is very helpful to post about this subject. But I really don't think it helps to label them "very ignorant." All of us were "very ignorant" of everything about classical music at some point in our lives. Why would anyone want to read posts by someone who acts both snooty and snotty towards them?

So, this is a good topic for discussion, but if you want to influence people, think honey rather than vinegar.


----------



## IEatDirt (6 mo ago)

Yabetz said:


> I don't think Italy is underappreciated musically. I think that label would apply more accurately to French composers from the Renaissance to the modern era, as the commenter above said. In particular I'd single out composers like François Couperin and Rameau.


In what way did French composers contribute and influence classical music, as Italian composers did, apart from impressionist movements during the romantic era?


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

IEatDirt said:


> In what way did French composers contribute and influence classical music, as Italian composers did, apart from impressionist movements during the romantic era?


The dance suite, for one, which gradually morphed into the multi-movement sonata and symphony. Look at the influence of French music on J. S. Bach. In the keyboard pieces of Couperin, Rameau and others you also have some prototypical "program" music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

IEatDirt said:


> In what way did French composers contribute and influence classical music, as Italian composers did, apart from impressionist movements during the romantic era?






_"Idomeneo_ (1781) is Mozart’s tragédie lyrique. He was impressed with the dramatic quality of French operas especially those of Rameau. Indeed, his _Idomeneo _is modelled on a French opera of the same name, composed in 1712 by Campra with a libretto by Antoine Danchet. His other major influence was the French operas of Gluck whose integrated dramatic style Mozart greatly admired; in fact the subject of the opening chaconne in _Idomeneo _is taken from Gluck’s _Iphigénie en Aulide. _The dances in _Idomeneo _are beautifully integrated into the dramatic action, from the freeing of the Trojan captives to the rites in honour of Neptune, and of course the final celebration so traditional in France. The choreography was in the French style by the ballet master M. Le Grand. Mozart’s interest in the ballet sequences was intense.He even suggested which dancers perform which dances, reserving the best music for M. Le Grand himself. The style of choreography in our production is based on late baroque dances along with early ballet. The unearthing of the ruins of Pompeii beginning in 1748, had a huge influence on the arts, from 1750 until the early 19th century. The Neoclassical style is shown in various steps and poses which were drawn from these exciting discoveries. Mozart’s final dance suite is his tribute to the French Ancien Régime in all its brilliance." Choreographer's Notes: Mozart's Idomeneo | Opera Atelier


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Along with Italy’s retrrat into opera during the 19th century, Italians were not considered fully white by Americans and Brits, whereas Germans were. So that impacted the musicology of the period.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Along with Italy’s retrrat into opera during the 19th century, Italians were not considered fully white by Americans and Brits, whereas Germans were. So that impacted the musicology of the period.


I'm not sure about that. Was it ever illegal in the US or the UK for a "white" to marry an Italian?


----------



## IEatDirt (6 mo ago)

hammeredklavier said:


> _"Idomeneo_ (1781) is Mozart’s tragédie lyrique. He was impressed with the dramatic quality of French operas especially those of Rameau. Indeed, his _Idomeneo _is modelled on a French opera of the same name, composed in 1712 by Campra with a libretto by Antoine Danchet. His other major influence was the French operas of Gluck whose integrated dramatic style Mozart greatly admired; in fact the subject of the opening chaconne in _Idomeneo _is taken from Gluck’s _Iphigénie en Aulide. _The dances in _Idomeneo _are beautifully integrated into the dramatic action, from the freeing of the Trojan captives to the rites in honour of Neptune, and of course the final celebration so traditional in France. The choreography was in the French style by the ballet master M. Le Grand. Mozart’s interest in the ballet sequences was intense.He even suggested which dancers perform which dances, reserving the best music for M. Le Grand himself. The style of choreography in our production is based on late baroque dances along with early ballet. The unearthing of the ruins of Pompeii beginning in 1748, had a huge influence on the arts, from 1750 until the early 19th century. The Neoclassical style is shown in various steps and poses which were drawn from these exciting discoveries. Mozart’s final dance suite is his tribute to the French Ancien Régime in all its brilliance." Choreographer's Notes: Mozart's Idomeneo | Opera Atelier


That's just a particular opera written by Mozart that was based on a particular French opera. I meant something that fundamentally changed music (i.e. musical notations). Bach, Handel, and Mozart's music are literally all in Italian Baroque style, and all the formal structures are Italian in origin.

Edit: I'm specifically talking about the Baroque and Classical periods, I'm aware that France contributed a lot during the romantic period.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

IEatDirt said:


> ...Bach, Handel, and Mozart's music are literally all in Italian Baroque style, and all the formal structures are Italian in origin.


Well actually they aren't, but you undercut your point about Italian music being "underappreciated" if at the same time you point out the huge Italian influences. In the opinion of most over the years, Bach, Handel and Mozart simply wrote superlative music. That doesn't mean Italian music is "underappreciated". Gluck may be "underappreciated" compared to, say, Vivaldi or Rossini.


----------



## IEatDirt (6 mo ago)

Yabetz said:


> Well actually they aren't, but you undercut your point about Italian music being “underappreciated” if at the same time you point out the huge Italian influences.


1. How so? I explained in the first post.

2. Because most people aren't aware. I've come across too many people (even ones with adequate knowledge on this subject) who think classical music is just “Bach Mozart Beethoven” and that it's dominated by Germans/Austrians.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

The only way Italy can be underappreciated in classical music is if you never heard of Vivaldi, Verdi, Puccini, Rossini, Monteverdi, Donizetti or the greatest conductor in history Toscanini.

Though Paganini wrote violin concertos in the Romantic period it is true there was not otherwise a great Italian writer of orchestral music in the age ... but a German -- Mendelssohn -- wrote the "Italian" symphony for them in the vein of Dvorak's American "New World" symphony.

In the 20th century few writers of orchestral music were as fecund or original as Respighi who composed a dramatic symphony and concertos for both piano or violin. And few composers of any type became as well known or beloved as Ennio Morricone whose Concerto No. 1 (a concerto for orchestra) is a wonderful piece of modern classical music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I don't think Italy is under-appreciated. What with composers from Palestrina to Monteverdi to Vivaldi to Verdi to Berio, each century has great Italian composers. For opera alone, Italy ranks very high with me.

But I think with cliches such as "the three B's" Classical music institutions have promoted the German/Austrian school above all others.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

IEatDirt said:


> 1. How so? I explained in the first post.
> 
> 2. Because most people aren't aware. I've come across too many people (even ones with adequate knowledge on this subject) who think classical music is just “Bach Mozart Beethoven” and that it's dominated by Germans/Austrians.


That's because most people have considered that they composed "better" music than contemporary Italian composers. Which Italians contemporary with Bach-Mozart-Beethoven would you say are unjustly underappreciated? Most of us know Scarlatti and most of us also know that overall he just doesn't measure up to Bach's achievements. It doesn't mean Scarlatti is underappreciated.


----------



## khoff999 (Oct 31, 2018)

IEatDirt said:


> In what way did French composers contribute and influence classical music, as Italian composers did, apart from impressionist movements during the romantic era?


Other than what others are saying about the French influence in the Baroque period, you also have to look at the Middle Ages. The contributions of the secular Troubadours and Trouveres was very influential. Especially important was the rhythmic influence they got from the Spanish moors (Christian chants weren't very danceable). 

Then Perotin (c. 1200) expanded on Guido's notation by adding rhythmic notation. He was also crucial to the development of polyphony. The most important 14th century composer was Machaut who developed isorhythmic motets. He also wrote the first complete mass we can attribute to a specific composer.

And while Italian composers were important in the Renaissance, the most important High Renaissance composer was Josquin, a Franco-Flemish composer who went to Italy (because that was where the money was in the Renaissance) where he impacted some Italian composers. 

Richard Taruskin's _Music from the Earliest Notations to the Sixteenth Century_ delves into all of this and more with plenty of detail.


----------



## IEatDirt (6 mo ago)

Yabetz said:


> That's because most people have considered that they composed "better" music than contemporary Italian composers. Which Italians contemporary with Bach-Mozart-Beethoven would you say are unjustly underappreciated? Most of us know Scarlatti and most of us also know that overall he just doesn't measure up to Bach's achievements. It doesn't mean Scarlatti is underappreciated.


I was talking about contribution and influence, not the talent of individual composers. It's fine if people think that German/Austrian composers are superior, my favorite composer isn't Italian either, but they don't acknowledge (or simply don't know) how much Italian musical traditions influenced those said composers. 

Also, would you not agree that Bach and Handel (and to some extent, Mozart) wrote in the Italian style, which was the dominant style in Europe at that time period?


----------



## IEatDirt (6 mo ago)

khoff999 said:


> Other than what others are saying about the French influence in the Baroque period, you also have to look at the Middle Ages. The contributions of the secular Troubadours and Trouveres was very influential. Especially important was the rhythmic influence they got from the Spanish moors (Christian chants weren't very danceable).
> 
> Then Perotin (c. 1200) expanded on Guido's notation by adding rhythmic notation. He was also crucial to the development of polyphony. The most important 14th century composer was Machaut who developed isorhythmic motets. He also wrote the first complete mass we can attribute to a specific composer.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, the Franco-Flemish school was undoubtedly influential (it's worth noting that the birth of Gregorian chants was incredibly essential too). I guess to a certain extent, French musical traditions are somewhat underappreciated, since most people are only familiar with their contribution to the Romantic era.


----------



## khoff999 (Oct 31, 2018)

IEatDirt said:


> 2. Because most people aren't aware. I've come across too many people (even ones with adequate knowledge on this subject) who think classical music is just “Bach Mozart Beethoven” and that it's dominated by Germans/Austrians.


And just what is "adequate knowledge" if you think classical music is just Bach, Mozart & Beethoven?


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

IEatDirt said:


> ... Because most people aren't aware ...





IEatDirt said:


> .... most people are only familiar with their contribution to the Romantic era.


I'd encourage you to stop making spurious claims about what, "Most people", think.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

IEatDirt said:


> Also, would you not agree that Bach and Handel (and to some extent, Mozart) wrote in the Italian style, which was the dominant style in Europe at that time period?


Imv, the German influences were far more important for Mozart and they're fundamentally what make him not sound "deprived" like his Italian contemporaries, Cimarosa, Jommelli, in terms of harmonic and orchestral texture, from the modern-day perspective. Here's what I wrote in a recent thread about Bellini-

"On the other hand, for the French, Mozart was certainly not 'one of us' from a national point of view. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered negative features of 'Germanic' music." -Benjamin Perl.
"The Germans have always been the greatest harmonists, and we Italians the greatest melodists" -Rossini.
This distinction between the German and Italian, I think is something originated in the 18th century. (By Germans, I mean actual Germans on German lands, not Gluck or Handel.) And of course the degrees to which the Germans and Italians adhered to their respective styles varied, and there were cases of one group being influenced by the other. I'm also yearning btw to hear dramatic works by Georg von Pasterwitz (1730~1803) of Salzburg, but none of them have been recorded yet. He is expected to exhibit characteristics like this teacher of Weber's to a degree-




(1769)"


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

IEatDirt said:


> -the birth of the modern symphony and the forms of musical classicism, thanks to composers such as sammartini, brioschi


Whatabout F.X. Richter, F.I. Beck, I. Holzbauer?




(1760)




(1762)


----------



## khoff999 (Oct 31, 2018)

IEatDirt said:


> Fair enough, the Franco-Flemish school was undoubtedly influential (it's worth noting that the birth of Gregorian chants was incredibly essential too). I guess to a certain extent, French musical traditions are somewhat underappreciated, since most people are only familiar with their contribution to the Romantic era.


I think everyone here understands the importance of plainchant in western classical music. And I think we all know that later Italian music was highly influential. 

But if Bach's style is wholly Italian baroque, as you seem to say, please explain his style of organ music (that is, explain what is called the North German organ school). How much of that is Italian and what other national influences in it are there?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Forget the composers...look at conductors. The center of gravity in the conductijng world shifts. For a long time it was Hungary (Szell, Ormandy, Reiner, Solti eg), then a lot of top talent came from Germany/Austria. Now it seems to be Finland. But Italy! Toscanini, Serafin, Cantelli, Muti, Abbado! I play with a conductor trained at the St Cecilia Academy and he had a great career in Italy before retiring but still has incredible ears and a phenomenal stick technique that he credits to his Italian training. And there are some brilliant young Italian conductors out there. Like in Detroit. Jader Bignamini.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

IEatDirt said:


> I was talking about contribution and influence, not the talent of individual composers. It's fine if people think that German/Austrian composers are superior, my favorite composer isn't Italian either, but they don't acknowledge (or simply don't know) how much Italian musical traditions influenced those said composers.


Are you kidding? Any musician LIVES that influence. It's in our tempo markings, articulation, phrasing and on and on. It's also acknowledged in the origin of the instruments that we play. The piano and violin family, all proudly Italian.



> Also, would you not agree that Bach and Handel (and to some extent, Mozart) wrote in the Italian style, which was the dominant style in Europe at that time period?


Handel was "Italianate" and that has been thoroughly acknowledged historically. Bach was a great amalgamation of lots of different national and regional traditions and he revered the Italian tradition. I don't see what your gripe is.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I also don't see any field where the Italians are obviously unduly neglected. Sure, some Italians of the baroque or later 18th century are neglected. But often less, certainly not more so than the lesser know French or Germans or whatever of such time periods. 
Italian opera totally dominates overall, although some of the best was written by non-Italians like Handel, Hasse and Mozart. Even in the period with strong German opera, as the mid-19th-early 20th century, Italian opera clearly holds its own.
And to claim that Italian non-operatic music in the 19th century where most the standard symphonic and a lot of chamber repertoire comes from would be equal to Austro-German or Russian or French or Bohemian would be deluded.
One might argue about 20th century Italian composers being neglected. Maybe, I don't really know if Respighi, Malipiero, Casella, Nono etc. are neglected.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Andante, Adagio, Allegro, Presto, Moderato, con brio, con spirito, Maestoso......all Italian words and phrases. That alone speaks volumes on the Italian influence in music.

Piano, Pianoforte and Fortepiano are also Italian names. If I'm not mistaken, the piano itself was invented in Italy.


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

ORigel said:


> Italy is very underappreciated? Along with Austria/Germany and France, it is considered one of the main countries for classical music.
> 
> However, the reportoire is dominated by Romantic era music, and by that time Italy was less important. If the focus was on Early and Baroque music, Italy would be considered more important than even Germany.


I agree. It is one of the main countries for classical music. But I also think that Italian music focused more on vocal expression, whereas in France and Germany, instrumental music was more important. Even among classical music fans, vocal music seems less important than instrumental.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> Even among classical music fans, vocal music seems less important than instrumental.


Not for me.  Most of my listening, of any genre, is vocal music. But then again, I'm Italian; Sicilian to be exact.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Not for me.  Most of my listening, of any genre, is vocal music. But then again, I'm Italian; Sicilian to be exact.


Same here. I probably actually have a preference for vocal music, although I'm not very knowledgeable at all about 19th and early 20th century Italian opera.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

IEatDirt said:


> I was talking about contribution and influence, not the talent of individual composers. It's fine if people think that German/Austrian composers are superior, my favorite composer isn't Italian either, but they don't acknowledge (or simply don't know) how much Italian musical traditions influenced those said composers.
> 
> Also, would you not agree that Bach and Handel (and to some extent, Mozart) wrote in the Italian style, which was the dominant style in Europe at that time period?


I do not know music theory, but everyone who listens to CM associates Italy with opera, musical terminology, and popular composers like Vivaldi and Verdi. So even with little knowledge, I and probably almost everyone else, knows Italy had a huge impact on CM.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Bruce said:


> I agree. It is one of the main countries for classical music. But I also think that Italian music focused more on vocal expression, whereas in France and Germany, instrumental music was more important.


It depends on the period. In any case, as was already pointed out, Italian music established or contributed to many instrumental forms in the 17th and 18th century. And the culture in mid-19th France was so focussed on opera that a chamber composer like Onslow was not even a great success in his own country and that when Wagnerianism also threatened to dominate opera, French composers in the last 3rd of the 19th century made a conscious effort to revive French (instrumental) music, lest it be swamped by the German schools.



> Even among classical music fans, vocal music seems less important than instrumental.


I think this is mostly an impression created by self-sorting on the internet. There are lots of fans who mostly care for opera but they are in their own section or fora. 
(Classical) choral singing is also very broadly practiced, sometimes by people who don't listen much to classical.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

I think you are totally wrong as to what concerns music before the second WW. 78 of the 400 composers in my archives are Italian (nearly 20 %). On the other hand after the second WW it drops severely as only 15 of the 400 listed are Italian. This is due to the enormous rise of American music and the strong numbers of French and English composers who benefit from better institutions.


----------



## khoff999 (Oct 31, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> I think this is mostly an impression created by self-sorting on the internet. There are lots of fans who mostly care for opera but they are in their own section or fora.


I don' think that it is just an impression. "Importance" aside, instrumental music has generally been more popular than vocal music since the Romantic era. Liszt's extreme fame during his touring years is a good example of its rise in popularity. People go more often to orchestra concerts to hear symphonies and concertos than go to the opera (at least here in the Unites States). Solo piano performances are also highly popular (chamber music is popular but probably no more popular than opera).

As I see it, there are a few reasons for this (and some of this is from my own personal view). Most Americans are not multi-lingual, so they don't know Italian, German, French) so you have to invest a lot of time in learning the librettos. I lived most of my life near New York City, and when I did go to the opera (not often) I went to the New York State opera at Lincoln Center rather than the Met because they showed the English translation above the stage so you knew what was going on. Thanks to YouTube (and being retired) I can watch dozens of great operas with subtitles so I have come to appreciate opera more in the past 10 years than I ever did before.

I do go to hear quite a bit of religious vocal music, especially masses. But he lyrics are much simpler and generally the same in most masses. The language 'barrier' is as much less of a problem.

Second, most operas are well over two hours where most American's patience for anything other than a football game wears thin. Also, operas are very expensive because of costumes, stage sets, etc. (and also the high cost of renting an elephant!). I think almost every large U.S. cities have a symphony orchestra, not nearly as many can afford to have an opera company or hire a touring opera company with any regularity. So opera is far less accessible here outside of the largest cities.

There are probably some other reasons for instrumental music's greater popularity, but I want to make a final point about what I consider to be the ridiculous premise of this thread, especially the unfounded claim that there are people out there who think classical music is only Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and other German speaking. I have been teaching music appreciation courses for 8 years and I never had any student, no matter how much of a beginner, who didn't love Vivaldi's _The Four Seasons_, or some of Chopin's works, or the works of quite a few other non-Germanic composers. And several relative beginners in my classes have expressed their fondness for Boccherini or Respighi. While German classical music is highly popular, I don't believe it is a all true that that there any classical music fans who only like the Germans.

But a problem with mass appreciation of Italian classical music is the popularity of symphonies and piano music I addressed above. Although Italians were instrumental in the beginnings of these genres, the Italians haven't produced great symphonies, piano concertos, or solo piano works since the early Romantic era that compare to the Germans, the Russians, the Spanish, the French and composers from other countries (this doesn't include modernists like Dallapiccola whose piano works I really like, but 20th century atonality, etc. is not widely popular despite what country the composer comes from). So, for those who prefer tonal instrumental music Italians just aren't going to be as popular as the other composers, especially composers from 1800 onward.

I think that exhausts my interest in this thread, and I appreciate the very cogent and informative responses of forum members who spoke to this silliness and especially to Hammerklavier for posting the Franz Beck piece. I never heard one of his works before. Way cool, man.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

IEatDirt said:


> I hate it when people think Germany or France contributed most to Western classical music while neglecting Italy's contribution...


Germans and Austrians rightly deserve to take almost all the gold medals in classical music. This is not to say that they weren't aware of other styles or cultures as Bach had the _French Suites_, _English Suites_, and _Italian Concerto_; Mendelssohn had the _Symphony #3 "Scottish Symphony"_ and _Symphony #4 "Italian Symphony"_; Beethoven had the _Irish Songs; _and Mozart had most of his operas composed for the Italian language. Bach admired Vivaldi enough that there are one or two Bach concertos (I forget which ones) that were adapted from Vivaldi concertos. Still, the Germans and Austrians deserve rightful credit as the culture that has given the world it's most beautiful and (apart from Stravinsky) most influential music with Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, Johann Strauss, Richard Strauss, Mahler, and Schoenberg, being the real heavy-hitters. I think though that every country in Europe has it's niche; it's own little handful of good composers and even a few great ones, if not at least one that comes to the fore.

With the Italians opera is the genre where they surpass them all and even the Germans depending upon how you look at it. Since the 1980s Monteverdi and especially_ L'Orfeo_ has been rediscovered and has justly taken it's place as the first of all modern operas. The Rossini operas have yet to be given their full due. Those who enjoy Verdi and Puccini seem to be atracted melody and very fine singing. Just as Germany and Austria's central location may have contributed to it (and especially Vienna) becoming a musical hub; it may be that the Italian language with it's clarity and it's abundance of vowels has made it so that Italian is the most beautiful and musical of all languages most given to opera. Italianas comes straight fro the gut whereas German (and maybe English) which are heavy on consonants seens to some more from the throat, and French from the nose. Russian is also very beautiul but seems more inclined to favor the bass as opposed to Italian which seems to favor the tenor.

People who are like Verdi and Puccini are different from from those who are devoted to Wagner. With Verdi and Puccini everything is straught-forward, the passion, the spectacle, and the beauty. The Wagnerians remind me more of the _Star Wars_, _Star Trek_, _Marvel_, or JRR Tolkien fans; not just because it's a world or an alternate universe that is teaming with magic and endless varieties of humanoid creatures such as elves, dwarves, giants, mermaids, etc, but also because they find all sorts of musical as well as extra-musical meanings in Wagner's world that are mystifying to the rest of us.


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> It depends on the period. In any case, as was already pointed out, Italian music established or contributed to many instrumental forms in the 17th and 18th century. And the culture in mid-19th France was so focussed on opera that a chamber composer like Onslow was not even a great success in his own country and that when Wagnerianism also threatened to dominate opera, French composers in the last 3rd of the 19th century made a conscious effort to revive French (instrumental) music, lest it be swamped by the German schools.
> 
> 
> I think this is mostly an impression created by self-sorting on the internet. There are lots of fans who mostly care for opera but they are in their own section or fora.
> (Classical) choral singing is also very broadly practiced, sometimes by people who don't listen much to classical.


I was expecting some disagreement on my post, Kreisler. Of course, you're right. Italy has a great tradition of instrumental music. But I think that composers like Verdi and Puccini dominated Italian music so much that much of the instrumental music didn't get it's fair share of exposure. And vocal music was so important in religious contexts of the 17th and 18th centuries when Italian composers really shone so brightly that I think other forms kind of took a back seat. (Of course, there's always Vivaldi, whose violin concertos are justly famous.)


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Not for me.  Most of my listening, of any genre, is vocal music. But then again, I'm Italian; Sicilian to be exact.


Oh, yes, there are always you weirdos. (Just kidding!🤪) It took me years to learn to appreciate vocal music, especially opera, and I've often analyzed why. I think part of the problem, at least for me, was that I was distracted by the vocal line, and focused too much on that (being trained to listen to a speaking voice, or to popular music), and for a long time I simply could not hear how the vocal line and instrumental accompaniment worked together. Thankfully, I've learned to love opera, as well as Lieder, Mélodies, art songs or whatever you choose to call them. Finally I can understand why so many people find vocal music so attractive.

In fact, I still prefer to listen to music in foreign languages, because if I focus on the lyrics, I miss the music, and listening to an English text makes it impossible for me to hear what's going on musically. Even following a libretto for an opera distracts me, and I prefer to listen without knowing the words. I think my brain is just too comparmentalized. 

I believe it also depends on what one grows up with. Fortunately, my father was interested in classical music, and had a few LPs which I learned from. But none of it was vocal music. It was mostly the most popular works, like Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture and his Nutcracker Suite, Beethoven's fifth symphony and Schubert's eighth. We had a copy of Bernstein's Messiah, but I only listened to the choral and instrumental parts. He used to buy a lot of the old Readers' Digest offerings of "Great Moments in Classical Music", which were extracts of only the most salient melodies of the great works. But again, no vocal music.


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

khoff999 said:


> . . . especially the unfounded claim that there are people out there who think classical music is only Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and other German speaking. I have been teaching music appreciation courses for 8 years and I never had any student, no matter how much of a beginner, who didn't love Vivaldi's _The Four Seasons_, or some of Chopin's works, or the works of quite a few other non-Germanic composers. And several relative beginners in my classes have expressed their fondness for Boccherini or Respighi. While German classical music is highly popular, I don't believe it is a all true that that there any classical music fans who only like the Germans. . . .
> 
> But a problem with mass appreciation of Italian classical music is the popularity of symphonies and piano music I addressed above. Although Italians were instrumental in the beginnings of these genres, the Italians haven't produced great symphonies, piano concertos, or solo piano works since the early Romantic era that compare to the Germans, the Russians, the Spanish, the French and composers from other countries. . . .


I think you make excellent points. There are some wonderful Italian symphonies and concertos, like those of Martucci, for instance, but for some reason, they've never reached the popularity of some of the composers from other countries. 

As a music educator, I'm so happy to hear that you've been able to expose your students to composers other than Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. The world of music is so rich, and yet most of the people I know, if they have heard any classical music at all, only know those three Germans. And perhaps The Four Seasons, but of those, many would not be able to name its composer. They may have a vague apprehension of a few of Chopin's Preludes or Études, but for anything from Schönberg and beyond they would not have the patience to unravel the musical ideas.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

IEatDirt said:


> I hate it when people think Germany or France contributed most to Western classical music while neglecting Italy's contribution. ...


I think the whole premise of the thread is off. I don't think in terms of nation-states when it comes to music but rather about individual composers. Their "national environment" may be interesting to think of as it relates to the influences it might have had on their creative processes, but I really don't think "France vs Austria" or "Germany vs Italy". That sounds 19th century.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Coach G said:


> Germans and Austrians rightly deserve to take almost all the gold medals in classical music.


Not after 1900, when Russia and Eastern Europe begin to dominate.


----------



## khoff999 (Oct 31, 2018)

Bruce said:


> As a music educator, I'm so happy to hear that you've been able to expose your students to composers other than Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.


Well, its quite an endeavor. I teach free classes for senior citizens chronologically from the beginning of classical music, one 2 hour class each week. After blowing through a brief overview of Medieval music in 2 weeks, it takes another 80 weeks to get into the 1950s where I end it (about two years with about 20 weeks off for holidays and with almost no opera). The numbers of students dwindle significantly after the atonality starts but I usually keep about 20% with me until the end. But if I can get a couple of them interested in Bartok, then my life has meaning LOL. 



> The world of music is so rich, and yet most of the people I know, if they have heard any classical music at all, only know those three Germans. And perhaps The Four Seasons, but of those, many would not be able to name its composer. They may have a vague apprehension of a few of Chopin's Preludes or Études, but for anything from Schönberg and beyond they would not have the patience to unravel the musical ideas.


 Well, as I said, atonal music like Schoenberg's is a problem in itself for popularity. Plenty of people who are big fans of many Romanic composers don't like it, so I don't consider that the same as people who like Bach, Mozart & Beethoven but only have a vague idea of Chopin's (or Tchaikovsky's?) music.

I am not sure what type of people you are talking about. "Most people" I know, including my parents, don' even know who Beethoven was except for the first 8 notes of the 5th symphony. But they just aren't classical music fans so I don't care what they like no more than I assume they care that I don't like hockey.

Do the people you are talking about really know much about Beethoven, Bach or Mozart? Do they own numerous CDs of those three but no CDs of any other composers? Can they describe say 5 of Beethoven symphonies and 5 of the piano sonatas yet they only have a vague impressions of all other composers' works other than Bach's and Mozart's? 

If so, I never met, or even heard of, anyone like that and I find this phenomenon extremely interesting. I can't figure out how that happens. Do you have any guesses as to why and how that happens?


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

khoff999 said:


> I am not sure what type of people you are talking about. "Most people" I know, including my parents, don' even know who Beethoven was except for the first 8 notes of the 5th symphony. But they just aren't classical music fans so I don't care what they like no more than I assume they care that I don't like hockey.
> 
> Do the people you are talking about really know much about Beethoven, Bach or Mozart? Do they own numerous CDs of those three but no CDs of any other composers? Can they describe say 5 of Beethoven symphonies and 5 of the piano sonatas yet they only have a vague impressions of all other composers' works other than Bach's and Mozart's?
> 
> If so, I never met, or even heard of, anyone like that and I find this phenomenon extremely interesting. I can't figure out how that happens. Do you have any guesses as to why and how that happens?


I think I've been kind of lucky in being around at least some people who have an interest in classical music. Or music in general. One or two of my friends in college were as interested in learning about new music as I was, and we'd compare the recordings we bought. But for others, I admit I've rarely had any conversations in which Beethoven came up, unless I knew the person I was talking with had at least a nodding acquaintance with classical music. And in these cases, did they know much about Beethoven, Bach or Mozart? Certainly not. They would rarely have known when they lived, or what works they wrote. Most of my acquaintances might know Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and perhaps the Moonlight sonata, but that would be it. If they heard Bach's BWV 565, Beethoven's fifth symphony, or Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, they'd have recognized it, but would not have known the composer.

My own take on it? I think popular music is too ubiquitous. The melodies and accompanying harmonies are specifically designed to be easily memorable. Back in the days when the only way of hearing new music was on your friend's phonograph, or on the radio, a Beatles song would be played 100 times while a Bach fugue would never be encountered. So we grow up hearing only pop. And the melodies worm their way so easily into our heads. When we hear something classical, we might be impressed by the shear sound, or the rich harmonies, but our brains have not been trained to capture the melodies. Listening to a singer like Callas would have sounded like the wailing of someone in pain compared to a ballad by Joan Baez or Emmylou Harris. It certainly did for me, until I devoted the necessary time. When I did, I learned to love it. 

I remember the days when I found Chopin difficult. Chopin! My father had a recording of Rubinstein playing his F minor fantasy, and the first time I heard it, I really couldn't make any sense of it. It might as well have been a piece by Boulez or Babbitt. In fact, I remember putting this record on for background music while I was reading. I figured it would make good background music because there were no "catchy tunes" in it. Well, I was certainly mistaken, because the second time I tried it, I was so captivated by it I couldn't concentrate on the book I was reading. It was my first introduction to the idea that music beyond the Baroque era could be attractive.

But how many people will sit and listen to a 14 minute piece even once, let alone twice. Especially when popular music is so accessible, and it only lasts 3 or 4 minutes? In order to commit that much time to learning something, you have to have believe that it's worthwhile. And for most people, they don't have that expectation. Especially for a work like Chopin's Fantasy, the beginning doesn't exactly draw one in, compared, for example, to Led Zeppelin's Whole Lotta Love. (I recall the first time I heard that on the radio. I was really amazed. You can do that?)

Our world is so fast-paced, that when we run across something that requires time and effort, it's too easy to turn away, and there are plenty of options. But a select few will find something intriguing about classical music, and will want to know more.


----------



## khoff999 (Oct 31, 2018)

Bruce said:


> I think I've been kind of lucky in being around at least some people who have an interest in classical music. Or music in general. One or two of my friends in college were as interested in learning about new music as I was, and we'd compare the recordings we bought. But for others, I admit I've rarely had any conversations in which Beethoven came up, unless I knew the person I was talking with had at least a nodding acquaintance with classical music. And in these cases, did they know much about Beethoven, Bach or Mozart? Certainly not. They would rarely have known when they lived, or what works they wrote. Most of my acquaintances might know Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and perhaps the Moonlight sonata, but that would be it. If they heard Bach's BWV 565, Beethoven's fifth symphony, or Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, they'd have recognized it, but would not have known the composer.


 So what I take it you are saying is the ones you said only knew Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven but barely anything else, really didn't know much about those three either. They aren't tunnel-visioned classical music fans, they are not classical music fans at all. That I don't find surprising or related to what the guy who started the thread seemed to be claiming, that there were people who seriously liked the Germans but no one else. 


> My own take on it? I think popular music is too ubiquitous. The melodies and accompanying harmonies are specifically designed to be easily memorable. Back in the days when the only way of hearing new music was on your friend's phonograph, or on the radio, a Beatles song would be played 100 times while a Bach fugue would never be encountered. So we grow up hearing only pop. And the melodies worm their way so easily into our heads. When we hear something classical, we might be impressed by the shear sound, or the rich harmonies, but our brains have not been trained to capture the melodies. Listening to a singer like Callas would have sounded like the wailing of someone in pain compared to a ballad by Joan Baez or Emmylou Harris. It certainly did for me, until I devoted the necessary time. When I did, I learned to love it.
> 
> I remember the days when I found Chopin difficult. Chopin! My father had a recording of Rubinstein playing his F minor fantasy, and the first time I heard it, I really couldn't make any sense of it. It might as well have been a piece by Boulez or Babbitt. In fact, I remember putting this record on for background music while I was reading. I figured it would make good background music because there were no "catchy tunes" in it. Well, I was certainly mistaken, because the second time I tried it, I was so captivated by it I couldn't concentrate on the book I was reading. It was my first introduction to the idea that music beyond the Baroque era could be attractive.
> 
> But how many people will sit and listen to a 14 minute piece even once, let alone twice. Especially when popular music is so accessible, and it only lasts 3 or 4 minutes? In order to commit that much time to learning something, you have to have believe that it's worthwhile. And for most people, they don't have that expectation. Especially for a work like Chopin's Fantasy, the beginning doesn't exactly draw one in, compared, for example, to Led Zeppelin's Whole Lotta Love. (I recall the first time I heard that on the radio. I was really amazed. You can do that?)


 I look at it similarly. I am as big a jazz fan as I am a classical music fan (I am also a big fan of classic rock music). Both classical music and jazz has vocal music, but neither needs vocals (lyrics) to survive and thrive. Rock and pop music does. The music alone can't carry the load. As clever as Lennon and McCartney were with melodies and harmonies, no lyrics, no Beatles. Quite a few rock bands had some great instrumental pieces, but take all of their songs with lyrics away, there popularity would be extremely limited (even Zeppelin, as great as they were). Some rock bands with advanced instrumentalist with some knowledge of classical music or jazz may have done well (e.g. Yes or King Crimson) but the vast majority would not have. The majority of people who like pop music like it because most of it is simple musically. 

From a young age, classical music and jazz grabbed my ear whether it was Bugs Bunny conducting an orchestra or the themes from Mission Impossible or The Pink Panther. I know now I would have loved music as much as I do now if no one had ever written a lyric at all. Even though I was drawn to it early, I had to keep on learning how to listen to classical and jazz. My tastes for rock and pop music were fully developed by age 16, but as much as I was listening to classical music and jazz from age 14, it still took probably another decade before I could listen to avant-garde classical and jazz. So I know what you mean about when you first heard Chopin. With serious music your tastes have to mature as you experience new things. That's why I appreciate the seniors in my courses who stick around for the 20th century music. Remaining open minded and adventurous isn't all that common once you are on Medicare.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> Not after 1900, when Russia and Eastern Europe begin to dominate.


I think Stravinsky was the one who made the most important departure from German influences. Then again, Arnold Schoenberg was just as important and as radical and abstract as was Schoenberg's 12-tone system, he saw it as very traditional and very German; the synthesis of Brahms' craftsmanship and Wagner's passion. Schoenberg called it "Expressive" and as running parallel to the German Expressive movment in painting, and by the 1950s every nation had their own little band of seral composers and even Italy had Dallapiccola and Berio. Stravinsky himself jumped on the serial bandwagon in the 1950s and 1960s but by that time serial or 12-tone music had taken off in a whole variety of directions most of which didn't have much to do with national identity.

One of the most interesting and listenable sets of serial compositions I've ever heard are the pieces for piano and for violin and piano by Luigi Dallapiccola. These pieces stay true to the spirit of serial technique and still manage to bring a certain element of Italian warmth and bounce to the fore.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Coach G said:


> Mozart had most of his operas composed for the Italian language.


What do you think are elements that distinguish his Italian ones from his German ones, other than the language?
Some singspiels from the period, btw, seem more like German opera seria and contain a lot of coloratura (eg. Ignaz Holzbauer's Günter von Schwartzburg) or recitative (eg. Anton Schweitzer's Alceste, J.F. Reichardt's Erwin und Elmire).
The style of singing (in terms of composition) in these for instance are I think distinctively Italian - "Un'aura amorosa", "Una bella serenata" (the excerpts time-stamped in the videos)










I don't quite find types like the above in, say, Die Zauberflöte-




which I think has more to do with, say,


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

> Bach admired Vivaldi enough that there are one or two Bach concertos (I forget which ones) that were adapted from Vivaldi concertos.


I agree with every post in this thread with just one minor correction. JS Bach borrowed from 12 of Vivaldi’s concertos. Mostly converted them to keyboard concertos but also organ concertos. He also borrowed from Alessandro Marcello and his brother Benedetto Marcello.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Coach G said:


> I think Stravinsky was the one who made the most important departure from German influences. Then again, Arnold Schoenberg was just as important and as radical and abstract as was Schoenberg's 12-tone system, he saw it as very traditional and very German; the synthesis of Brahms' craftsmanship and Wagner's passion. Schoenberg called it "Expressive" and as running parallel to the German Expressive movment in painting, and by the 1950s every nation had their own little band of seral composers and even Italy had Dallapiccola and Berio. Stravinsky himself jumped on the serial bandwagon in the 1950s and 1960s but by that time serial or 12-tone music had taken off in a whole variety of directions most of which didn't have much to do with national identity.
> 
> One of the most interesting and listenable sets of serial compositions I've ever heard are the pieces for piano and for violin and piano by Luigi Dallapiccola. These pieces stay true to the spirit of serial technique and still manage to bring a certain element of Italian warmth and bounce to the fore.
> 
> View attachment 171322


The 20th century Italian avant-garde produced several first rate composers: you mentioned Dallapiccola, but there were also Luigi Nono, Luciano Berio, Bruno Maderna, Goffredo Petrassi, Giacinto Scelsi, Franco Donatoni, Salvatore Sciarrino, and Fausto Romitelli.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The most famous is the 4 harpsichord concerto Bach arranged from Vivaldi's op.3,10 for 4 violins. I don't like much 4 keyboards together and prefer the ones arranged for solo harpsichord or organ...
While most forms and genres between around 1600 and the 1740s first appeared in Italy, they were often adopted and developed in almost no time by foreigners.

Because someone above mentioned American late 19th century racist stereotypes against Italian, I think this not relevant to Europe. In fact, quite the opposite was true from the middle ages until the late 18th century: Italy was usually both the artistic forerunner and highly admired by all northern Europeans, for a mix of lifestyle (probably mostly wine, food and girls), climate, Roman heritage and the actual high culture of the respective time period. 

Of course, this led to tensions because in some periods Italians abroad dominated some fields (especially music in the 18th century) to such an extent that there were ressentiments by locals and also the feeling that Italian dominance impeded the development of the own culture. This is what we find at the end of Meistersinger (although it was probably less of a problem in the early 16th and mid-19th century than in the 18th...) where the true German Art (that would remain despite the eventual Fall of the Holy Roman Empire) is pitched against the "welscher Tand" (Italian (or French) baubles or frippery). The American WASPs of the late 19th century might not have considered Italians racially equal but for at least 600 years before that (northern) Europe mostly suffered from a (often justified) minority complex wrt Italy in the fields of art and culture.


----------



## khoff999 (Oct 31, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Because someone above mentioned American late 19th century racist stereotypes against Italian, I think this not relevant to Europe.


 I doubt it was relevant to any great extent in the U.S. either. Although there was a lot of anti-Italian sentiment in the U.S. back then, most of came from middle and lower class WASPs who didn't give a hoot about classical music from any country, including their own. Verdi was very popular in the U.S. in the 19th century as was Caruso in the early 20th century. 

Until I see some actual evidence that anti-Italian sentiment hurt the popularity of Italian music in the U.S., I am going to sick to the advice of the great Italian composer Antonio Salieri: "Don't believe everything you read on the internet or see in the movies."


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

khoff999 said:


> I doubt it was relevant to any great extent in the U.S. either. Although there was a lot of anti-Italian sentiment in the U.S. back then, most of came from middle and lower class WASPs who didn't give a hoot about classical music from any country, including their own. Verdi was very popular in the U.S. in the 19th century as was Caruso in the early 20th century.
> 
> Until I see some actual evidence that anti-Italian sentiment hurt the popularity of Italian music in the U.S., I am going to sick to the advice of the great Italian composer Antonio Salieri: "Don't believe everything you read on the internet or see in the movies."


The Italians who came to America during the great wave of immigration (1880-1920) were mostly from southern Italy My mother's grandparents were among them from Calabria. All the high culture of the Renaissance and the great line of Italy's classical composers from Monteverdi through Rossini, Verdi, and Puccini came from the north. I think that what Americans saw coming off the boat and through Ellis Island and living in the tenements was a very different kind of Italian culture that came from incredible poverty which is why they came to America in the first place. While I don't know to what extent Italian culture was surpressed here in the USA, the two World Wars definately seemed to cuase a backlash against anything German with many German-Americans changing their names from "Schmitt" to "Smith" and "Braun" to "Brown". When I was a kid during the 1970s all I knew about Germany was Hitler and the Nazis but prior to the World Wars Germany was highly regarded as a land of poets, musicians, and great thinkers.


----------



## khoff999 (Oct 31, 2018)

Coach G said:


> The Italians who came to America during the great wave of immigration (1880-1920) were mostly from southern Italy My mother's grandparents were among them from Calabria. All the high culture of the Renaissance and the great line of Italy's classical composers from Monteverdi through Rossini, Verdi, and Puccini came from the north. I think that what Americans saw coming off the boat and through Ellis Island and living in the tenements was a very different kind of Italian culture that came from incredible poverty which is why they came to America in the first place. While I don't know to what extent Italian culture was surpressed here in the USA, the two World Wars definately seemed to cuase a backlash against anything German with many German-Americans changing their names from "Schmitt" to "Smith" and "Braun" to "Brown". When I was a kid during the 1970s all I knew about Germany was Hitler and the Nazis but prior to the World Wars Germany was highly regarded as a land of poets, musicians, and great thinkers.


Well, my ancestry is largely German and I still have the same German surname my paternal ancestor who arrived from German c. 1700 had. He came to New Jersey where nine generations of his descendants were dairy farmers. That area of New Jersey had a huge percentage of Germans (and English) people and it still does, although since WWII their are also large numbers of people of many other national backgrounds there. My German surname is still very common there. Very few of these people had high school educations before the 1930s and very few of them cared at all about poetry, classical music. or poetry, German or otherwise (and I am sure many of the looked down on Italians). Certainly some changed their surnames but there is still a large number of German surnames in western New Jersey. But during WWI, the names of two towns there, German Town and German Valley, did change their names to something non-German. 

My father had high school friends whose parents had recently immigrated German, some of who were having pro-Nazi meetings in their homes in the 1930s (but once WWII started most did an about-face and turned against the Nazis). But although they became loyal Americans, they never changed their surnames. And I was friends with their grandkids in my teens, and none of them listened to Beethoven or read any philosophy at all. 1960s-70s rock music was their main cultural release. 

I know what you said is correct in many instances, but U.S. cultural history is very complex and no one story can say much about it as a whole. I also don't think the German experience can say much about the Italian experience, except in the case of German Catholics experiencing the same U.S. anti-Catholic bigotry as Italian Catholics. 

Mostly, none of what you just said or what I just said is any evidence that anti-Italian sentiment in U.S. hurt the popularity of Italian classical music here. If there is any actual evidence of that I would be interested in reading about it.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

khoff999 said:


> Well, my ancestry is largely German... and very few of them cared at all about poetry, classical music. or poetry, German or otherwise...


We here in America associate classical music with Europe as if Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Verdi etc. were everyone's hit parade; but I guess that was just the nobility and the royals who had the time and luxury for such music. All the peasants had was folk music and, probably, that's where most of our European ancestors who came to America came from: peasants.


----------



## khoff999 (Oct 31, 2018)

Coach G said:


> We here in America associate classical music with Europe as if Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Verdi etc. were everyone's hit parade; but I guess that was just the nobility and the royals who had the time and luxury for such music. All the peasants had was folk music and, probably, that's where most of our European ancestors who came to America came from: peasants.


Well, something like that. But middle class Europeans got access to public opera houses starting in 1637 and public instrumental concerts (and much better education) became a thing about a century later. Of course, the poorest people only heard serious music when they went to church. By around 1800, the more prosperous middle class were buying pianos (a big deal for piano makers and radical improvements in piano construction) and giving their kids music lessons and music publishers were publishing works like Beethoven's bagatelles to be played a home. The middle class pretty music took over music from the aristocracy throughout the 19th century. Fewer and fewer composers worked for aristocrats and freelanced instead. 

But you are entirely right about poorer people. They seldom had good educations, exposure to great music, or the time to pursue 'the finer things'. But the U.S. has a large prosperous middle class and from what I've seen, far less than half of them know much if anything about classical music or the other arts. I can't think of any reason it was much different with the middle class in 19th century Europe, but enough of them were interested enough to radically impact the direction of serious music.

Speaking of German immigrants who Americanized their names, I like to tell those who take my classes about an 1850 immigrant named Heinrich Steinweg. He struggled at making a living building musical instruments in Germany because of the guild system, so he moved to New York, changed his name to Henry Steinway, and opened a piano company. Coming to America did have its advantages.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I should add that there was probably some difference between the longing for Italy and the attitude towards Italians abroad that could be perceived as dominating local culture and artists (and of course there was also a difference between foreign musicians or architects and foreign low skill workers or panhandlers...)
The reverence and longing for the land can be found even in 20th century literature, e.g. Death in Venice (admittedly, a bit twisted there). 
But I think that the trope of Italy as land of longing compared to the cold and "barbaric" North and artistic paradigm and influence can hardly be exaggerated.
And while it's true that northern Italy (Venice, Lombardy and Tuscany) was both richer and more artistically fecund, Rome and Naples ("the kingdom of both Sicilies" where the Scarlattis came from) were also quite important and distinct from the Northern styles. Although in the late 19th and early 20th century the economical differences were devastating, the North being more like Austria or Germany, the South totally underdeveloped and dirt poor. (And the ethnic heritages are also different, the north having more Germanic (lombards and goths) heritage, the south being very diverse with Greeks, Saracenes, Normans mixed in).


----------



## Laraine Anne Barker (8 mo ago)

IEatDirt said:


> I hate it when people think Germany or France contributed most to Western classical music while neglecting Italy's contribution. People who still believe this are clearly very ignorant of the history and development of Western classical music.
> -


I've never been aware that Italy's contribution to Classical music has been neglected. Certainly Italy is well represented in my CD collection. It has holes in it, of course. I'm not all that keen on the 19th century (which I'm well aware is the world's most popular) and can't stand anything after.


----------



## thorne (Aug 8, 2014)

For what it's worth, I recently discovered that my favorite "school" of American (US) composers (Barber, Menotti, Walker, etc.) were students of Rosario Scalero. I think he taught at Curtis, among other things. Learning that has made me more interested in looking into Italian music of that time in general.


----------



## tobias.mostel (6 mo ago)

SanAntone said:


> I don't think Italy is under-appreciated. What with composers from Palestrina to Monteverdi to Vivaldi to Verdi to Berio, each century has great Italian composers. For opera alone, Italy ranks very high with me.
> 
> But I think with cliches such as "the three B's" Classical music institutions have promoted the German/Austrian school above all others.


We could change the identities of the 3 Bs to Beethoven/or Bach, Bellini, and Berio. Or even Berlioz, Bellini & Berio. The possibilities are enormous.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Coach G said:


> The Italians who came to America during the great wave of immigration (1880-1920) were mostly from southern Italy My mother's grandparents were among them from Calabria. All the high culture of the Renaissance and the great line of Italy's classical composers from Monteverdi through Rossini, Verdi, and Puccini came from the north. I think that what Americans saw coming off the boat and through Ellis Island and living in the tenements was a very different kind of Italian culture that came from incredible poverty which is why they came to America in the first place. While I don't know to what extent Italian culture was surpressed here in the USA, the two World Wars definately seemed to cuase a backlash against anything German with many German-Americans changing their names from "Schmitt" to "Smith" and "Braun" to "Brown". When I was a kid during the 1970s all I knew about Germany was Hitler and the Nazis but prior to the World Wars Germany was highly regarded as a land of poets, musicians, and great thinkers.


Southern Italy was considered the slum of Italy, very much like the South Side of Chicago remains a slum. When Italians immigrated to the US in the late 19th, early 20th century, they were considered riff-raff. Just like the Irish immigrants immediately preceding them.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

progmatist said:


> Southern Italy was considered the slum of Italy, very much like the South Side of Chicago remains a slum.


At its worst it was in many respects like the rural region of a developing country as described in that rather fascinating book by a northern Italian who went to southern village as a doctor:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Stopped_at_Eboli


----------

