# Why so many giants from Austria / Germany



## DavidMahler

I think it's safe to say when speaking (at least critically) of the greatest composers, at the very least 2/3 of the ones we could refer to in the first and second tiers are of Austro-German descent.

Can anyone hypothesize why? And further, why it is that they do not dominate any other section of the arts to nearly the same degree.


Is it that the Deutschland heritage is just more musical
Is it that Germany got to writing about music history first and influenced all other historians
other reason

If you think about the giants of classical music:

Bach
Beethoven
Mozart
Haydn
Wagner
Brahms
Schubert
Schumann
Mendelssohn
Strauss
Handel
Bruckner
Mahler
Weber
Schoenberg
Berg
Weber
Schutz
Telemann
Hindemith

^
All Austria or German descent


----------



## Aramis

> I think it's safe to say when speaking (at least critically) of the greatest composers, at the very least 2/3 of the ones we could refer to in the first and second tiers are of Austro-German descent.


Not really, Italy makes serious competition and isn't any inferior, even more important in early periods.

Also, if you're talking about "descent", then exclude Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Mahler and Schoenberg from the list as they were not of German descent.


----------



## sospiro

I thought you were referring to










or


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Not really, Italy makes serious competition and isn't any inferior, even more important in early periods.

Oh come one. Let's be real here. Italy isn't even close... as much as I love Italian music. They are a major player during the Baroque and that's it. The middle ages are far more dominated by composers from France, Provence, and Burgundy (followed by Spain). The Renaissance may have started in Italy and many of the innovations in music were rooted in Italy to such an extent that just as in art, many composers felt almost obliged to make a journey to Italy... however if you look at the list of composers active during the Renaissance and into the Baroque, there are just as many major names to be found in Germany as there are in Italy... and nearly as many in England... especially during the Renaissance. As you move into the Baroque you find names such as Michael Praetorius Johann Schein, Samuel Scheidt,
Heinrich Schutz, Johann Froberger, Heinrich Ignaz Franz von Biber, Johann Pachelbel, Jan Dismass Zelenka, George Telemann, Johann Sebastian Bach, G.F.Handel,Silvius Weiss, Johann Fasch, Johann Hasse, Johann Heinrich Schmelzer, Johann Paul von Westhoff, Johann Fux, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Christian Bach. The Italians can field Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Alessandro and Domenico Scarlatti, Tartini, Corelli, and a number of others to rival Biber, Zelenka, and Hasse... but can any of them surpass Bach or Handel?

Obviously there are reasons for the predominance of artists from a given area within a given art form. Much of these relate to economic support for that given art form. Other influences would include the existence of a solid tradition within a given art form as well as the influx of outside influences. The Italians gained greatly from trade with other nations. This was major basis of the Renaissance where the Italians indisputably dominated in the fields of painting and sculpture. I suspect that part of the German strength in music came from the Protestant emphasis upon music over visual art. Indeed, Protestantism was quite iconoclastic. There developed a competition between the major German courts... and this was part of the Northern shift toward a Capitalist free-market as opposed to the dominance of the church in Italy which eventually led to stagnation.

Ultimately the question cannot be fully answered. Why does France and England have such a wealth of literary masterpieces... far beyond that which their population would suggest? How is it that the small population of the Belgians and Dutch are responsible for far more masterpieces of painting than the Russians and the English (and if you are speaking of the period through the Baroque, they also surpass the French, Spanish, Germans, etc...)? How is it that a little island nation such as Japan has achieved so many masterpieces of art and literature... surpassing nearly any other Asian nation... with the possible exception of China?


----------



## Sid James

^^ I think the gist of what Aramis is saying is that Italy was the source of European music, at least where all the early innovations and benchmarks were set. Eg. markings of movements are still predominantly in the Italian language, opera originated there, Rome being the centre of the papacy also meant a lot for sacred music, & so on & so forth.

I can go on and on but I won't, whenever I read about "first and second tiers" I just tune out. & 9 times out of 10 it's on online forums like this that that phrase is mentioned, elsewhere it's just never mentioned, or almost never, in my experience anyway. Gounod's _Petite Symphonie for Wind Instruments _is just as a core part of the wind repertoire as Mozart's _Gran Partita_. Ask any wind player & that's what they'll tell you. They won't mention "first and second tier" because it's utter rubbish...


----------



## science

I think this is a very good question and I know I'm nearly clueless. StLGO made a really good point about economic support, and obviously that's the sine qua non, and another good point about active tradition; but I'm not sure they explain the extent of the domination. But I have nothing concrete to add. I sometimes wonder if the German musicians weren't just a bit better at hyping their own tradition? 

Or possibly - this is original thought and thus very likely to be completely wrong - the "dominance" of German music lasted only about 70 years (maybe 1750ish to 1820ish), but they happened to be the key years because some important developments happened to take place in those years: in particular, a much increased sense of history and the development of the classical style. On the "sense of history" point, it seems that Bach and all his illustrious predecessors were unburdened by the notion that they had to equal the great composers of previous generations. Of course no one after Beethoven could approach music that way.


----------



## Aramis

> however if you look at the list of composers active during the Renaissance and into the Baroque, there are just as many major names to be found in Germany as there are in Italy...


I don't know but I actually remember us exchanging arguments when you were diminishing German music of pre-classical era and claimed that is wasn't really that important region for musical and general artistic development during those centuries


----------



## TxllxT

Just a guess: Germany has had a fertile breeding ground for music in the controversy between the Lutheran and Catholic churches. The Lutherans have Bach, so Catholics, come on, you must be able to do better...


----------



## Taneyev

Because they are the superior race and all the rest are just crap and sub-humans. If you don't believe it, ask Adolf.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I don't know but I actually remember us exchanging arguments when you were diminishing German music of pre-classical era and claimed that is wasn't really that important region for musical and general artistic development during those centuries

Outside of Hildegard of Bingen and a few others, the German-speaking states don't seem to have been a major player in the music of the Middle-Ages. But if you look at the art of the period you will find that neither were they a major player there outside of some few architectural works (especially Cologne Cathedral... which was located in a German-speaking state at that time). France, Provence, the Netherlandish/Burgundian states, Italy, and England seem to have all been more advanced in the arts in general at this point.

By the Renaissance, the German composers and artists began to make major contributions. A lot of this was due, no doubt, to the trade between the Italians and the French/Netherlandish/Burgundian courts which would have necessitated travel through Germany. Italy was undoubtedly the dominant culture of Europe during the Renaissance with Dante, Petrarch, Machiavelli, Ariosto, Leonardo, Giotto, Michelangelo, and composers such as Gesualdo, Monteverdi, etc... and undoubtedly they were seen to be the artistic, musical, and literary center by most Europeans of the time. Of course, just as Shakespeare's and Bach's reputations grew over time, so it seems today that it would be hard to place any single country as the dominant force in music during the Middle-Ages or Renaissance based upon the composers we now see as the most outstanding.

I sometimes wonder if the German musicians weren't just a bit better at hyping their own tradition? 

There is this possibility as well. We see the Italians as dominating the visual arts from the late Middle Ages (1200s) through the 1600s... but how much of this is owed to the efforts of Vasari (the first art historian) as well as Leonardo, Michelangelo, Cellini, and Alberti... all of whom wrote persuasively on Italian contributions to art? And then there was John Ruskin, the first great modern art historian who was enamored of Italian art.

Music history and music theory and musicology, however, certainly had more than a few involved German academics. Indeed, with the expansion of the university systems in the German states at the time of the rise of Prussia, there were more University-educated German scholars... including those focused upon cultural history... than University-educated scholars from any other European nationality. AS I have noted in any number of other posts, there are, for example, any number of Baroque composers such as Vivaldi, Alessandro Scarlatti, Nicolo Popora, Antonio Caldara, and Giovanni Bononcini whose works are certainly deserving of rediscovery.

Whenever I read about "first and second tiers" I just tune out... Gounod's Petite Symphonie for Wind Instruments is just as a core part of the wind repertoire as Mozart's Gran Partita. Ask any wind player & that's what they'll tell you. They won't mention "first and second tier" because it's utter rubbish...

As a visual artist I can tell you that most of the artists I know have a clear concept as to the fact that someone like Giotto, Michelangelo, Rubens, and Rembrandt rank above
Boucher, Gainsborough, Renoir, and Gerard David... regardless of their own personal preferences. There is an understanding that regardless of personal opinion or taste, certain artists were far more central to the narrative of art as it has unfolded to the present than others. You cannot erase a figure like Michelangelo from the history of art without major consequences. Gerard David, as lovely as his works are, could disappear with hardly the least effect upon art history.

The same holds true of music. Mozart cannot be removed from the narrative of musical development without a major impact. Gounod could probably disappear tomorrow with hardly the least ripple. Again, this has nothing to do with what we personally like. Personally, I like Gounod... and Massenet far more than I like Schoenberg... who I still acknowledge to be a major, major influence on all that followed.

I do suspect you are right that the wind players embrace Gounod's _Petite Symphonie for Wind Instruments_ as a core work of the oeuvre. But then they are speaking of a limited oeuvre... not of music as a whole. To the harp player there must be any number of works that feature the harp which they see as part of their core repertoire, where the conductor might not. Indeed... we must recognize that even conductors are biased. Most chamber music, the Baroque, Renaissance, Medieval, and Byzantine music rarely shows up in concert for the simple reason that it does not fit within the repertoire of the large symphonic orchestra.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Because they are the superior race and all the rest are just crap and sub-humans. If you don't believe it, ask Adolf.

And how is such a racist stereotype in any way different from the racism that fueled Hitler?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

the "dominance" of German music lasted only about 70 years (maybe 1750ish to 1820ish)

So German music declined after 1820 and Schubert, Schumann, Hugo Wolf, Felix Mendelssohn, Richard Wagner, Johannes Brahms, Gustav Mahler, Johann Strauss, Richard Strauss, Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, Alban Berg, Erich Korngold, Alexander Zemlinsky, Paul Hindemith, Kurt Weill, etc... were all but minor figures?


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> The same holds true of music. Mozart cannot be removed from the narrative of musical development without a major impact. Gounod could probably disappear tomorrow with hardly the least ripple. Again, this has nothing to do with what we personally like. Personally, I like Gounod... and Massenet far more than I like Schoenberg... who I still acknowledge to be a major, major influence on all that followed...


This is the grand narratives view of history of the creative arts. It's good in some ways, but bad in others. Eg. sure Mozart & others like Haydn & Beethoven were all huge innovators, but in terms of influence I'd say guys like Bizet & Gounod (with their symphonies, incl. Gounod's one for winds) made a big impact as well. They were the link between those earlier guys and the guys in c20th - esp. after World War One - with the rise of neo-classicism. So in some ways the grand narratives view doesn't take into account the "everything old is new again" type of approach.



> ...I do suspect you are right that the wind players embrace Gounod's _Petite Symphonie for Wind Instruments_ as a core work of the oeuvre. But then they are speaking of a limited oeuvre... not of music as a whole...


Well, it is limited as a whole compared to the string quartet repertoire, but there have been some wind works that made a huge impact on musical history. Mozart's _Gran Partita_ would be one definitely, Gounod's_ Petite Symphonie_ to an extent presaging/prefiguring neo-classicism of the c2oth as I said above, & there were quite a few in the c20th proper, from Stravinsky's _Symphonies of Wind Instruments_ to Messiaen's _Quartet of the End of Time_ (the clarinet part was revolutionary for that instrument alone, but also the other instruments, esp. the string writing in that).

It's the macrocosm/microcosm thing. Even with my focus on chamber, I am able to take in a variety of music. Musicians in their respective fields would agree & even scholars to some extent. Eg. I don't think they'd rank those or other works in their fields, they just know how each are unique, how they all add to the rich tapestry of musical history/technique/expression, etc...


----------



## mtmailey

the true reason is because how it sounds not because where it came from-also the Edomites use or say stole elements of African music such as variations,rhythm,homophony,polyphony,monophony & dance in their music-without the African elements the music would sound boring.Also remember people do not like boring or lifeless music.


----------



## mtmailey

Odnoposoff said:


> Because they are the superior race and all the rest are just crap and sub-humans. If you don't believe it, ask Adolf.


I can not ask HITLER since he is dead & been dead.Also Europeans stole parts of African music to use in there music.


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> the "dominance" of German music lasted only about 70 years (maybe 1750ish to 1820ish)
> 
> So German music declined after 1820 and Schubert, Schumann, Hugo Wolf, Felix Mendelssohn, Richard Wagner, Johannes Brahms, Gustav Mahler, Johann Strauss, Richard Strauss, Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, Alban Berg, Erich Korngold, Alexander Zemlinsky, Paul Hindemith, Kurt Weill, etc... were all but minor figures?


I don't think Science is suggesting Austro-German music declined after 1820's, simply that more pluralism came after that.

This can certainly be said of the period post-1945. The Western-Euro-centrism if you like that was kind of the norm before, or the cultural hegemony of Western European classical kind of disintegrated with a number of major composers emerging from other traditions, eg. Eastern Europe gave us many big names like Penderecki, Lutoslawski, Xenakis, Ligeti, Arvo Part, to name some of the main ones.

I think it is fair to say that after the c19th the Austro-Germanic hegemony or whatever you'd call it began to break down and be challenged. But the fact is that composers tend not to think with national boundaries in mind. Messiaen had with him the scores of J.S. Bach and Webern when he composed his seminal _Quartet for the End of Time_ in the prisoner of war camp. Ironic how those two were from the wrong side of the French border, their countries were the enemies of France, but in terms of music as an artform, Messiaen wasn't taking sides, they both influenced him profoundly when he was composing that work...


----------



## Sid James

TxllxT said:


> Just a guess: Germany has had a fertile breeding ground for music in the controversy between the Lutheran and Catholic churches. The Lutherans have Bach, so Catholics, come on, you must be able to do better...


Yep, the Protestant work ethic gave us the best (J.S. Bach) & the worst - one of them being August Bungert, whose music can be described overall as "boring and lifeless" based on what I've read, although it was said that Brahms admired one of his chamber works highly. In any case, none of his music has survived in the repertoire today, although in his time some said he was the next Wagner or things of the sort...


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Yeah- I think the 'what' of it (i.e.: 'So Many Giants From Germany/Austria') is obvious enough that "why" should prove an interesting question. [For instance, I've thought that Germany, Austria and Russia are the three giant nations for Classical Music _composition_, and that fourth place is a distant fourth (although advocates for a place at the table for Italy & France will doubtless disagree with me.)]

I might be blinkered by the nature of my education (inclining as it did towards the Geographical/Political), but am leaning towards a Geopolitical explanation.

(If you'll permit a little generalization), *Austria* at the dawn of the Classical Era was the center of a polyglot empire, with tendrils reaching southeast- abutting the World of Islam, northeast, interfacing with Slavic Europe, north, engaging in conflict and co-operation with disunited elements of modern Germany, and west, into the 'Latin' tradition of Italy, and even (occasionally) France. (In fact, for a time, a Hapsburg even held the Spanish throne.) In short, it _was_ a crossroads, and possibly a crosswords for nothing else so much as music.

*Germany* takes more subtlety to try to explain. Of course, it isn't hurt by its relative location at near the center of Europe-- but I'd also argue that its fragmentation was a benefit to musicians. Handel's employe in the House of Hanover is very well-known. Also famously documented was the underwriting of Wagner by Bavaria's Ludwig II. It's a question worth asking- to consider if either of these positions would have been open in a unified Germany. The weak link in this train-of-thought is that the respective talents of Handel & Wagner were a thing _a priori_ to their employment, and while I've explained their employment, I haven't explained the talents that made this employment a possibility. I'd argue this, though- it wouldn't take Harry Turtledove's imagination for alternate history to envision that without Ludwig II, there would be no _Ring_ cycle. What works of Handel don't come to pass if not for his Hanoverian security? It _certainly_ isn't that their voices would go mute- it is instead that (to use a literary metaphor) maybe we'd only know them by their 'short stories' and not their immortal 'epic novels.'

Finally, (anticipating a possible objection to the 'crossroads-hypothesis'), a legitimate question could be framed around this: if these circumstances led to a musical flowering, why was there no similar flowering in the world of (say) Visual Art. To this, I'd reply that music is _a more portable Art-form_ (perhaps THE MOST portable Art-form), and thus could be expected to gain a 'crossroads' advantage more surely.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Well, the reason why Russians produce less great painters (until XX century) then Italy and France - Orthodox church.
Yet, there is an interesting hypothesis by Salvador Dali about Mediterranean weather, more colourful, etc.

And literature became something as ersatz-religion or ersaztz-philosophy in Russia. So literature was always more important to Russians.

And in music - you should remember that most of this composers were from Catholic (even Beethoven in Cologne) or Lutheran background (Bach, yet even Saxony was not strictly Lutheran). No Calvinists.

Still id doesn't explain the situation in France.

Also the cult of Beethhoven (see Taruskin for that) was very important in Germanic countries. Sure, Beethoven was of Flemish decent, but I am not sure if he thought of himself as Flemish.

And the influence of Magyar and maybe Czech culture, I suppose. The only *North-German *was Brahms.


----------



## hocket

*Sid James wrote:*



> Whenever I read about "first and second tiers" I just tune out


I couldn't agree more. The Canon should be a teaching aid and nothing more. Using it to indulge in 'ranking systems' is giving in to your worst instincts and a kind of a idolatry. (PS: DavidMahler, sorry, I know I had a bit of a pop at you the other day of a similar nature in regard to aesthetics. Nothing personal, this sort of thing just winds me up a bit. I do appreciate that making lists etc does help to get a feel and make sense of the history of a subject -that's one reason why the canon is a useful educational tool. I appreciate that I'm in danger of spiting your enthusiasm, which is far from being my desire.) Sure we all have our favourites and will feel that some things 'reach the parts that others cannot', but turning culture into some kind of point awarding competition isn't a healthy development.

*StlukesguildOhio wrote:*



> As a visual artist I can tell you that most of the artists I know have a clear concept as to the fact that someone like Giotto, Michelangelo, Rubens, and Rembrandt rank above Boucher, Gainsborough, Renoir, and Gerard David... regardless of their own personal preferences. There is an understanding that regardless of personal opinion or taste, certain artists were far more central to the narrative of art as it has unfolded to the present than others.


There's no doubt that what you outline is a traditional view of the canon. Germany for music, English for literature, Italy for art and the French are good all-rounders. You do seem to be skirting around the fact that the canon itself and also the uses to which it is put are highly controversial though. You've mentioned elsewhere that you're a fan of Harold Bloom, but the truth is he was a hell of a lot better critic than he was a theorist. I do feel that you're buying into his concept of 'belatedness' a bit too readily here. Boucher may not be to my taste (I'll take Watteau, Chardin or Fragonard over him any day) but the allocation of 'significance' based on influence may be useful as a teaching tool but gives you nothing more. Bloom's hermeneutic vision of a 'high culture' characterized by a line of influence and a tendency to quote itself is a blatant attempt at self justification creating nothing more than a snake devouring its own tail IMO. (Don't get me wrong though -as a critic he's a god. His insights are truly extraordinary and revelatory).

The traditional canon, really created at the height of nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th Cs, has all kinds of issues. Talking about things in nationalistic terms is falling into one of its traps to begin with. Britain's traditional soubriquet as 'the land without music' was of course a deliberate nationalistic slur (of course the sting came from the fact that, at least for the period the canon traditionally covered, there was at least an element of truth to this). This has undoubtedly led to neglect. The likes of Avison are often dismissed for being old fashioned, yet JS Bach was old fashioned in his day (i'm not seriously comparing them, just making a point). I can't help but suspect that it has something to do with way Chopin has become a major figure in musical history whilst his idol John Field remains very obscure.

This is, if anything even more so the case with Italy and Germany. Amadeus does get it right in portraying Italian music as what was popular. It's the fact that Mozart's perfectly normal professional rivalry with Salieri got mythologized into the ludicrous legend as a result of the nationalism and indeed racism of people like Weber that is indicative of how musical history writing has had a distorting effect. As German music's star waxed it undoubtedly played a role in denigrating and dismissing the waning star of Italian music.

As for your points about why the german musical tradition developed I agree that the proliferation of states with courts and towns competing for the best artists was a contributing factor (as it was in Italy). Patronage is a key point, and it seems plausible. I'm not so convinced about the religious angle. The other Protestant countries such as Britain, Holland and Sweden have a very different musical history.

*StlukesguildOhio wrote:*



> Oh come one. Let's be real here. Italy isn't even close... as much as I love Italian music. They are a major player during the Baroque and that's it


Hmmm. I can't agree with that assessment and I believe that you're seriously understating the importance of Italian music. I also think it's a distortion and that DavidMahler's Q about the writing of music history is relevant. Italy had a rich composing tradition from c.1550 well into the second half of the 18th C. Throughout that period it was Italian music and musicians that were admired and the most sought after throughout Europe. That is why you see so many Italians employed at the courts of European rulers. Using period classifications (especially artificial ones like Renaissance and Baroque) to exclude substantial bodies of music strikes me as misleading.



> ....however if you look at the list of composers active during the Renaissance and into the Baroque, there are just as many major names to be found in Germany as there are in Italy...The Italians can field Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Alessandro and Domenico Scarlatti, Tartini, Corelli, and a number of others to rival Biber, Zelenka, and Hasse... but can any of them surpass Bach or Handel?


Actually, although there are an awful lot, there aren't as many Germans as there are Italians and the sheer abundance of quality Italian music during the baroque period is overwhelming. 
Yes Bach and Handel are greatly admired composers but using people who, largely due to historical accident, have 200+ year established reps to dismiss a tradition that is only in the process of being rediscovered doesn't strike me as very reasonable.
Your list making exploits also look a little lopsided to me. Just naming some of the real titans here that you didn't: Carissimi, Cavalli, Lully, Cesti, Stradella (mind you, your list of Germans had some fairly eccentric omissions).

Anyway, whilst my own personal preferences in the broadest sense probably are for 'German' music, I can't help but feel that you're overstating things. Just as Flemish painting may really have been far more pivotal to the Renaissance than Italian (Jan van Eyck died more than ten years before Leonardo da Vinci was born) the 'dominance' of German music is probably not the whole truth.

*Sid *made some comments about the relative unimportance of Italian music post baroque until Verdi that I believe have been deleted whilst the site was offline. Anyway, I thought it worth mentioning how inaccurate I think that is. Sammartini, Domenico Scarlatti, Boccherini, the entire Neapolitan school that dominated the 18thC stage, Cherubini: these people shouldn't be underestimated as I think the scholarly tradition has partly as a result of buying into the mythology of 'the dominance of German music'. FWIW I also thought your comments about the unimportance of the various 'wigs' of French music seriously undervalued the regard that French baroque culture was held in back in the day. As such I think your views betrayed a certain anachronistic lean towards the later German-centric critical tradition. It's something that I suspect is worth questioning.


----------



## DavidMahler

im convinced that the netherlands has as many great artists as italy

Italy has the Italian Renaissance (leonardo, boticelli, michelangelo, titian, giotto, raphael, donatello, bellini etc)and a bit of post impressionist resurgence..... giacometti, modigliani

Netherlands has (rembrandt, van gogh, rubens, vermeer, van dyck, Hals, van eyck).....i think Netherlands comes pretty close.....


----------



## hocket

DavidMahler said:


> im convinced that the netherlands has as many great artists as italy
> 
> Italy has the Italian Renaissance (leonardo, boticelli, michelangelo, titian, giotto, raphael, donatello, bellini etc)and a bit of post impressionist resurgence..... giacometti, modigliani
> 
> Netherlands has (rembrandt, van gogh, rubens, vermeer, van dyck, Hals, van eyck).....i think Netherlands comes pretty close.....


I don't know about sheer numbers but the tradition of painting in the Netherlands is just as distinguished as the Italian. However, the history of sculpture and architecture in the Netherlands does not compare with the Italy's.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

im convinced that the netherlands has as many great artists as italy

And you would be wrong. First of all we'd have to look at what what you are speaking of when you say "Netherlands". The term "Netherlandish" has been employed by art historians seeking to embrace the whole of the art produced in the regions that became Holland and Belgium. Netherlandish art is of minor importance until c. 1400 when we suddenly come upon Robert Campin, Jan Eyck, and Rogier van der Weyden. The importance of these three artists is that they essentially establish the technique of oil painting. Prior to Campin, van Eyck and van der Weyden the usual methods of painting were limited to fresco for large scale works, and egg tempera for smaller portable works.

Egg tempera was limited on a number of accounts. The medium itself is fragile and must have a sturdy support such as wood panel. This limits the size of the painting as such panels become incredibly heavy due to the necessary "cradling" over a certain scale. Egg tempera is also an incredibly time-consuming method of painting. Paint must me applied in endless layers of thin cross-hatching. Botticelli's Primavera, one of the largest egg tempera paintings (203 cm × 314 cm) took a year or more to complete... at a time when artists frequently worked 8-12 hours a day (or longer).

Oil paint had been known for some time, but was used mostly as glazes over egg tempera. Campin and most importantly, van Eyck developed the technique of pure oil painting. Oil painting allowed for an unheard-of level of gradations and transitions allowing the artist to create an incredible degree of illusionistic form. Van Eyck's reputation spread into Germany and Italy and Van der Weyden's paintings found their way into Italian collections. The Netherlandish painters were limited, however, in that they were still employing Gothic ideas of anatomy and perspective while the Italians, building off their access to classical Roman predecessors were developing skills in drawing and perspective that would prove absolutely ground-breaking.

Oil painting itself, came to Italy via the painter Antonella da Messina. Messina may have apprenticed with a Flemish master in order to learn the technique, although Vasari claims he posed as a patron and commissioned a Flemish painter to paint his portrait, watching him closely and asking questions in order to learn the method.

Oil painting rapidly spread an we cannot help but recognize how the Italians rapidly took the technique to a new level of sophistication:










The detail in Van Eyck is amazing... but one cannot help notice the doll-like form of the figures. The perspective... based upon what the artist saw... is almost correct.










Where van Eyck was a "realist", van der Weyden was an "expressionist", employing Gothic-like distortions that place him as the Netherlandish equivalent of Botticelli:









-_Primavera_

Looking at Raphael, we can see how the Italians took the oil painting media and employed it in a far more sophisticated manner. The anatomical understanding is masterful, as is the grasp of linear perspective. The artist also employs a broad handling of paint that shows the artist's touch in a painterly manner.



















From the start of the Renaissance through the Baroque the number of Italian masters is unrivaled. This is not to say that the Netherlandish artists do not account for a good number: Robert Campin, Dirk Bouts, Rogier van der Weyden, Petrus Christus, Hans Memling, Hugo van der Goes, Hieronymus Bosch, Quentin Matsys, Geertgen tot Sint Jans. Flemish painting slips during the late Renaissance/Mannerist period as it becomes dominated by painters working in a bloated, overly artificial and affected manner. Still a few great figures stood out: Pieter Brueghel the Elder, Lucas van Leyden, Quentin Matsys... With the Baroque period we have the division of the Netherlands into Protestant Holland and Catholic Belgium. Belgium is dominated by the towering figure of Peter Paul Rubens and his followers/assistants: Anthony van Dyck, Pieter Brueghel the Younger, Frans Snyders, and Jacob Jordaens. Protestant Hollands provides us with Rembrandt van Rijn, Jan Vermeer, Frans Hals and an entire slew of minor painters known as the "Little Dutch Masters".

The most important contribution of the Dutch Baroque, for better or worse, is that it resulted in the shift away from the artist working directly for a patron... producing art according to demand. Instead the artist began to churn out a body of work which were then marketed. As a result, artists began to specialize. Among the "little Dutch Masters" there were those who specialized in landscapes, seascapes, landscapes with cows, interiors of churches, interiors of prosperous middle-class homes, still life, etc... We also had the beginning of quite possibly the worst thing ever to happen to art: the middle-man or art dealer/art gallery. Where the Italian, French, Spanish, and Belgian collectors were largely aristocrats or high-ranking clergy who were well-educated and knowledgeable of art, the Dutch collector was an upper-middle-class bourgeoisie who wanted a landscape or still life to hang over the couch. Thus began the great love/hate relationship between the artists and the bourgeois.

For all the great Netherlandish painters, their numbers and achievements were absolutely dwarfed by the Italians. Among the major Italian painters of the same period we have: Cimabue, Giotto (the father of the Renaissance), Masaccio, Fra Angelico, Paolo Uccello, Piero della Francesca, Verrocchio, Brunelleschi, Andrea de Castagno, Simone Martini, Domenico Ghirlandaio, Duccio di Buoninsegna, Pietro Cavallini, Tadeo Gaddi, Francesco Traini, Orcagna, the Lorenzetti Brothers, Buonamico Buffalmacco, Botticelli, Gentile da Fabriano, Andrea Pisano, Lorenzo Ghiberti, Fra Filippo Lippi, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo Buonarotti, Perugiono, Lucca della Robbia, Donatello, Francesco del Cossa, Ercole de' Roberti, Antonella da Messina, Giovani and Gentile Bellini, Giorgione, Titian, Tintoretto, Veronese, Parmigianino, Rosso Fiorentino, Jacopo Pontormo, Bronzino, Giulio Romano, Correggio, Andrea del Sarto, Benvenuto Cellini, Giuseppe Arcimboldo, Caravaggio, Guercino, Salvator Rosa, the Carracci brothers, Tiepolo, etc...

Not only are the numbers immense, but the influence of the Italian artists was absolutely unrivaled. Van Der Weyden, Pieter Brueghel the Elder, Heironymus Bosch, Rubens, Van Dyck and Rembrandt all made the "required" journey to Italy... some studying there for years. The same was true of leading French artists (Lorraine, Pousin, Boucher) and even the Spanish (El Greco, Velasquez, Goya). The Italian journey was almost obligatory for artists until the late 19th/20th century.


----------



## TxllxT

In Holland for many years there is a television program called '_Kunst of Kitsch_' (Art or Kitsch/Trash/Junk) which is a Dutch copy of the BBC program. It is amazing to see how many paintings are hanging above Dutch couches! Countless discoveries of (lost) art have been done this way. I don't understand the terminology of 'little Dutch masters'; just look at the sky in a Dutch painting (take a miniature painting or a big one with a composition of sailing vessels) and compare that with the smokey billows of the Italians and I will tell you who is really great. Did the Italians never look up at the sky, the real one outdoors? In art you cannot convince with numbers.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The tradition of Dutch landscape painting is clearly rooted in the paintings of two Flemish masters: Pieter Bruegel and Peter Paul Rubens. Bruegel, it might be argued, was the first true landscape painter. He was fascinated with the changing seasons and the effects of light and shade and color and captured these vividly in his paintings:




























Unfortunately, Bruegel died relatively young and after having produced a rather limited body of paintings. Luckily for us, his work was championed by his great follower, Peter Paul Rubens.

Rubens was profoundly inspired by the art of the great Italian masters... but he brought to this a love of the clear, limpid color of the Flemish painters and a love of nature equal to that of Bruegel. Rubens actually owned a good number of Bruegel's paintings. Rubens' aristocratic patrons had little interest in paintings of landscapes, and so his landscape efforts were clearly undertaken for personal pleasure... which resulted in their ranking among his finest works as the artist made no use of his apprentices, assistants, or workshop in their creation.

A number of these paintings found their way into British collections where they formed the foundation of the English landscape tradition. One cannot help but see the precedents for Gainsborough, Turner, and Constable in these paintings:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

One particular "landscape" painting by Rubens known as _The Garden of Love_ (above) became the basis of virtually the whole of the subsequent French landscape tradition, beginning with Watteau, Fragonard, and Boucher and moving forward through Delacroix and into Impressionism (which also build off the English tradition, equally rooted in Rubens).

In Italian art the landscape, by contrast, was largely reduced to a mere setting for the various mythological/religious/historical narratives. There are several reasons for this. First of all, contrary to our post-Romantic notion of "nature", the landscape... the forests and trees beyond the known boundaries and safety of the city and village were considered dangerous and not something seen through Romantic eyes. Secondly, in the Renaissance, "man" was the measure of all things... not "nature"... or certainly not nature as we think of it including trees and mountains and valleys and clouds, etc... The landscape setting in most Renaissance paintings was far from "naturalistic" but rather acted as a theatrical backdrop. The setting of Botticelli's Primavera, almost appears as a medieval tapestry:










Third we need to recognize that with the exception of Venice, the art of the Italian Renaissance stressed linear and sculptural elements. Such an approach is not conducive to rendering of the landscape.

The Venetians represented the one exception to the above rule, due to their emphasis upon color, a painterly handling of paint, and an emphasis upon atmosphere. The great Venetian painter, Giorgione, created a poetic merger of the human figure in a landscape setting... not unlike, perhaps, the classical pastoral poems of Virgil and Theocritus.



















Like the whole of the Venetian tradition of painting, Giorgione was a masterful colorist whose paintings make the very notion of "smokey billows seem laughable.










***********


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The great Venetian painters who followed Giorgione, built upon his marvelous use of color and atmosphere in the natural landscape settings of their paintings:

Bellini:



















Titian:










Veronese:










None of these reproductions even begins to capture the brilliant glowing color of these paintings... achieved through endless layers of oil paint.

The "Little Dutch Masters" by way of comparison certainly were among the first painters to take the landscape (as well as the still life) seriously as a subject matter. This was largely because the audience for these paintings were the new middle-class or Bourgeois. In Holland, this audience was especially proud of their little nation that had become an economic powerhouse and had successfully kept the English, French, and Spanish at bay. Painters such Jacob Ruisdael...



















*******


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Salomon Ruysdael...










and Aelbert Cuyp...










to say nothing of the "greater masters" such as Vermeer...










and Rembrandt...










all take the landscape in and of itself far more seriously as a subject matter or motif. They also point the way toward the Romantic notion of the landscape... but in no way do these painters surpass the Italians...

Did the Italians never look up at the sky, the real one outdoors?

Unless you embrace the notion that the measure of art lies in its ability to mirror nature.

In art you cannot convince with numbers.

Eliminating the numbers we are left with the reality of less than a dozen Dutch and Flemish painters of real significance to the history of art, and several dozen Italians that easily dwarf the achievements of all but two or three of these. Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael Sanzio, Giotto, Brunelleschi, Giorgione, Bellini, Titian, Veronese, Tintoretto, Caravaggio... these are artists whose influence and achievements resonate throughout the whole of art history and continue to speak to artists and art lovers today. They are not merely numbers.


----------



## science

Um, okay, but did you really think I meant to argue that all the German/Austrian composers after 1820 were minor figures?


----------



## graaf

science said:


> Um, okay, but did you really think I meant to argue that all the German/Austrian composers after 1820 were minor figures?


I'm afraid that's not the point, the point is in lists. Long lists. Lists of composers, painters, pianists, conductors... Many lists, and long ones too.


----------



## science

graaf said:


> I'm afraid that's not the point, the point is in lists. Long lists. Lists of composers, painters, pianists, conductors... Many lists, and long ones too.


Really, we should just criticize each other more. The problem is we're too tolerant, and people are doing whatever they want.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Moscow-Mahler said:


> The only *North-German *was Brahms.


I was looking through this thread- and discovered that my response to this was lost to the vortices of cyberspace, owing to the server-crash.

Brahms was born in Hamburg... but then so was Mendelssohn. Those two giants alone are sufficient to place Hamburg on any all-time short list of composer-birthplaces (though falling short of Leipzig- [Bach and Wagner]).

Carl Maria von Weber is on any reasonable short-list of great composers who died before the age of 40 (e.g.: Schubert, Mozart, Bizet, Gershwin)- his birthplace was another Hanseatic port-- Lübeck. Louis Spöhr is a name probably better-known to our great grandparents than to us- he was a Braunschweiger.

Without going into painstaking detail, I'd say it's safe to assert that there were great German composers born in Bavaria, great German composers born in Brandenburg-Prussia, great German composers born in Westphalia and the Ruhr, and great German composers born in 'Low-Germany' and the Hansa ports.


----------

