His Life and Works (Part 3)
Observations and Commentary
The preceding listing clearly shows Wanhal's presence on the Viennese scene during his maturity. Especially revealing are the references from the first half of the 1780's. Even though there are no notices of Wanhal's performing as a soloist, and though he lacked the necessary desire and ambition to be the leader of a Musikkapelle, he obviously was capable, as well as willing to participate in public performances, like those given in 1784 by the famous quartet of Dittersdorf, Mozart, Haydn, and Wanhal. Forster also speaks of Wanhal as a violinist in the same year.
Michael Kelly's notice of 1787 and Carl Czerny's from 1791 are based on direct contact with Wanhal in Vienna. These authors present differing points of view: Kelly, the opera star, depicts Wanhal still functioning in high society. Czerny's mention of Wanhal shows that, at his very early age, he was impressed by Wanhal's visit—that his parents had stressed to him the importance of the occasion. But two later sources, articles in the Wiener Schriftsteller of 1793 and the Jahrbuch der Tonkunst of 1796 strike a much different pose. The former expresses regret that Wanhal is no longer publishing symphonies and quartets. His mention of Wanhal's church works reveals his awareness of the less well-known side of Wanhal's composing— since only a few of his church works were ever published, and none by that time. The article implies that the composer of such masterful church music ought to be publishing equally serious instrumental music. The Jahrbuch article further emphasizes that Wanhal appears to have slipped from the scene; thus it presents the same point of view. In Gerber's more forthright style he remarks in his 1792 Tonkünstler Lexikon that all Wanhal wants to do is "please the masses." Gerber was speaking, however, from both the distance and the attitude of Northern Germany where the musical intelligentsia preferred serious contrapuntal music to melody-predominated pieces—but where Wanhal's symphonies, nonetheless, were still au courant.
The observations in the Schriftsteller of 1793 and the Jahrbuch of 1796 reflect what had been going on for some time in Vienna. Wanhal began to lose favor among the Musikgelehrten in all Germany from the time he ceased composing and publishing symphonies and quartets, the last of which were not likely to have been composed later than ca. 1782-83. He may have composed another set of quartets on commission, possibly ca. 1791-92, but it does not alter the fact: during the last twenty years of his life he composed no more symphonies or quartets—genre to which he had been one of the most active of all the contributors of his generation. Furthermore, no more accounts seem to exist that show his appearance in public. His active performances in Viennese salons must have been drastically reduced, at least among musical connoisseurs.100
Several reasons can be cited for the change in Wanhal's activities. At the most fundamental level, the musical life style of the nobility changed. Their interest (and financial capability) to maintain their own musical establishments diminished drastically, and with it, the demand for large quantities of music for orchestra. Payment to composers and performing musicians would have provided a great financial strain on the new and not-so-rich lower nobility. Many of them were probably happy to see changes in what was musically fashionable. Even the affluent upper nobility maintained only small in-house groups,101 preferring to replace their orchestras with Harmoniemusik, or other small ensembles which could provide Tafelmusik, and which could be augmented to full-sized orchestras when needed.
The ecclesiastical Kapellen were also severely affected. They would, of course, have been affect-ed by changes in what was fashionable, but the decrees of Joseph II were the real culprits that caused the demise of many monasteries, whose main function was deemed to be useless frivolity. Those monasteries which remained, and the Pfarrkirche which had inherited material from those which were aufgehoben seem, however, to have continued performing considerable quantities of instrumental and instrumentally accompanied music in their services. There seems no way to ascertain whether Wanhal's C major symphonies with especially prominent parts for clarini, such as C17, still extant in several archives, were performed in the later 1780s, after the appearance of Joseph II's edicts. Probably they were: the monks in the largest establishments (such as Kremsmünster, Rajhrad monasteries and the parish church at Eibiswald) had been trained to perform them in addition to fulfilling other functions.
It is not mere coincidence that the new musical styles occurred simultaneously with improvements in the pianoforte, an instrument whose expressivity and versatility opened new doors to the individual. The instrument could be played by each music lover him-or herself, and increasingly with someone else (i.e., four hands at once). Its personal and social appeal was seen, especially among the lower levels of nobility or nouveau riche, who discovered their own latent talents and purchased increasing quantities of small-scale keyboard pieces to satisfy their urges. The market for printed music and pianofortes in Vienna had drastically changed. A new and powerful substrata of musical society had arisen. All composers, including Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, reaped the financial rewards bestowed by publishers who eagerly issued copious quantities of their attractive compositions which demanded limited performance capability or intellectual concentration.
Several composers, like Koželuch, Hoffmeister, and Pleyel, sought to reap their own rewards by publishing their own compositions (and, eventually, other composers' works too). I have seen no evidence that Wanhal published any of his own music, and, considering his personal qualities as described by Dlabacž (friendly, self-effacing, generous and unambitious), it would seem illogical if he had. His ability to compose attractive and melodious music and his apparent close relationship with publishers produced a path of least resistance which he could easily follow. It was easy for him to draw away from the demands of competitive high society like the famous string quartet evening in 1784, events which a person of his nature would quite likely not have enjoyed, the more so in his later years.
The continued production of large quantities of music almost exclusively for entertainment and instruction affected the perception and acceptance of Wanhal's work, especially among sophisticated patrons of music, many of whose wives were his pupils. His reputation in those circles was, of course, adversely affected. Gerber's first Lexikon of 1792 was read throughout northern and southern Germany, which included Vienna and the Hapsburg lands.
If Wanhal's career really was sagging at this time, it must have been revived quickly by the overwhelming public acceptance of Die Schlacht bei Würzburg, published in 1796.102 The exact circumstances of how the piece came into being are obscure. An earlier "Schlacht" piece (in manuscript) by an unnamed composer had been advertised in 1789 by Traeg.103 The idea might have come from the publisher, Eder, in response to the success of a public performance by a sixty member orchestra of Klöffler's battle symphony on Feb. 17, 1787.104 Eder may have published all of Wanhal's programmatic pieces; his catalog shows that he specialized in such works. But Sauer, who began his publishing career as Eder's partner, also issued Die Schlacht bei Würzburg, and, in addition, two of the other so-called Characteristische Sonaten.105 Sauer was ever alert to the possibility of new schemes; the idea might, therefore, have been his, but could have been financed by Eder, apparently a much better businessman. A conflict between them is suggested by the very close publication dates of their competing versions of Wanhal's composition celebrating the sea battle of Abukir (responding to the Viennese fascination with warfare among seafarers, especially the famous Admiral Nelson). Eder's was advertised in 1799106 as Nelsons grosse Seeschlacht—the title a bit different from the version issued by Sauer in 1800 as Die Seeschlacht bei Abukir. They must have been keyboard versions of the composition which, according to Morrow, were performed with orchestra on December 23, 1798.107
Wanhal was himself worldly wise and could easily have had the idea. Another work of the time that might seem to have been consistent with this attitude is his Trauergesang, published by Artaria in 1790 to memorialize the death of Joseph II.108 The work is, however, a five movement cantata whose serious text and a setting that reminds one of Beethoven, shows that Wanhal was intensely grateful for his happy circumstances in Vienna. He seems to have seized the occasion of the emperor's death to express himself in a serious and substantial composition. Regardless, the succession of programmatic and named pieces, such as the Friedensfeier sonata, Die Poststationen des Lebens, and the marches such as Marsch für die Wiener Akadem. Künstler zur Zeit des allgemeinen Aufrufes he produced must have propelled Wanhal to the top of the Viennese "Hit Parade."109 I would be curious to know the tenor of the Jahrbuch reviewer's comments in 1793, had they been based on the situation a few years later. Doubtless they would show that Wanhal was again enjoying public favor; at least he was pleasing the masses, as Gerber phrased it.
Unfortunately for Wanhal, the writing of the influential Gerber, on whom these pieces made such an unfavorable impression, created an unpleasant aura which would besmirch Wanhal's reputation forever. Gerber was unquestionably aware of the spate of concerts in Vienna, as reported by Morrow, featuring the spectacular and vulgar music by composers such as Klöffler, Kauer, Vogler, Mayer, Mälzel, and Bohdanowicz; they would have revolted the minds of the self-respecting, intellectual, and superior-feeling North German Burgers; for them music was not to be trivialized into a game for peasants. Gerber's low opinion of the music Wanhal was writing, already expressed in his 1792 article, was driven even lower by the new battle pieces, along with the articles in the Schriftsteller and the Jahrbuch, which certainly arrived for his perusal sometime before he wrote the little snippet which appeared in his Neue Lexikon of 1814. Knowing nothing about the large quantity of Wanhal's church music, he was incensed that a composer who was capable of writing such works as the fifty symphonies he had seen in Breitkopf's archive, plus other serious instrumental music (trios, quartets, concertos, etc.) whose existence Gerber knew about, and the beautiful accompanied arias he seems to have known, would plummet to such musical depths.
Gerber's attitude about either Wanhal's music or his personal characteristics cannot have been based on any personal experience, but he stated his disapproval of Wanhal's music even more emphatically than did Junker. His information, as he acknowledges, came from travelers—"wie mir Reisende versichert haben." The influence of Burney once again enters the picture; it shows in Gerber's report about Wanhal's sickness, recovery, and the resulting lack of inspiration in his compositions—and is acknowledged.110 Another traveler seems to have misinformed him about Wanhal's having acquired a rich wife. The notion that Wanhal was such a generous person, however, agrees with the considerably later reports of Dlabacž who actually knew Wanhal, and A-a who at least knew his reputation at home in Vienna.
As may be seen from Gerber's follow up article about "Wanhall" in the Additions and Corrections, we now know that, had he comprehended the true state of things, his attitude would have been different; Wanhal would have been spared the harsh remarks of an incensed critic whose two lexicons were the most widely read and cited of their time. Gerber's comments seem very unfair, especially considering that Wanhal was not the only reputable composer producing Schlacht music; after all Beethoven composed "Wellington's Victory." Gerber's observations might seem specious, since those works did not redound to Wanhal's credit, but one must pity the composer whose better compositions are devalued because of the sensationalistic comments of an uninformed critic.
Wanhal was not comparably censured by Johann Friedrich Rochlitz111 whose article, "Johann Wanhall." in AMZ, five months after Wanhal's death, was thus able—from a considerable distance, physical and intellectual—to build upon the previous efforts of Dlabacž, A-a, Burney, and Gerber's two Lexika. As with the other non-Viennese critics, there is no way to discover how much of Wanhal's music Rochlitz actually knew. His easily identifiable informant was A-a whose biography Rochlitz adapted and paraphrased; e.g., Rochlitz identified Countess Colloredo as Wanhal's patroness and the viole d'amour as the instrument she encouraged him to play during his first period. Rochlitz too was fascinated with the effects of Wanhal's sickness: the heavenly visions and the burning of quartets, etc., as described by A-a.
A very interesting aspect of Rochlitz's article is the way he paraphrased A-a's article and yet managed in a genteel way to add his own opinion of Wanhal's music and to state some strongly held views and pet theories. He mentioned neither the program pieces nor the mass production of little pieces Wanhal wrote in his final period. Rather he began by pointing out that Wanhal was one of the most appreciated and famous composers of German instrumental music: his sonatas, duets, trios, concertos, and especially his quartets and symphonies being heard everywhere. Then he adopted A-a's technique of changing in mid paragraph, to point out that the amateurs idolized Wanhal while the connoisseurs didn't hesitate—not without grounds!—to say that Wanhal's music was too lightly cast to allow him to be considered a really great composer, a not-unlikely view in 1814. Rochlitz continued: the attractive qualities of Wanhal's compositions had won him countless friends, and rarely had any composer of his time been so well rewarded. This comment is perhaps a neatly stated blast at the taste of the musical masses, especially the Viennese.
Rochlitz then again followed A-a's lead and proceeded to discuss Wanhal's church music. Now he tells that he has some examples at hand; he is acquainted with two masses which show that the composer has not lost, but gained: his ideas are special, have greater spirit, flair, and taste and are better worked out, especially in counterpoint and fugue, than in any of his symphonies. These works are so good that they compare favorably with the best of Haydn's lighter compositions. Finally, Rochlitz summed up Wanhal's ability as composer by saying that he did not revolutionize things (eine neue Epoche begann) or create his own "School" (eigene Schule gestiftet). In the best sense, and reflecting the taste of the times, Rochlitz continued, he had repaid with interest the capital (ability and talent) that his maker had bestowed upon him. This part of the discourse seems at first to be one of Rochlitz's own original thoughts, not based on earlier reviewers ideas, about Wanhal. Closer examination, however, shows that he had assumed another one of A-a's ideas and elaborated upon it.112
Rochlitz probably figured that he was having the last word. But that was not to be; the ironic turn concerning the effect of Gerber's articles upon Wanhal's reputation is provided by Gerber himself. His regret is seen in the tenor of his remarks in the article "Wanhall (Johann)" which was included in the Reports and Additions to the entire work [Berichten und Zusätze] published after Rochlitz's Nekrolog in AMZ. They appeared, however, too late and were little known. The damage to the publics' perception of Wanhal's artistic integrity was irreparable.
Unless otherwise specified on this page, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.