The Fifth International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony ...

358
Anna Piotrowska
be claimed that one of the many reasons why the figure of an improvising virtuoso gradually disappeared
from the concert life of 19 th century Europe was the – steadily, though not particularly consciously growing
among musically educated intellectuals – conviction of predominately improvising nature of music practised
among less advanced cultures. <strong>The</strong> discovery of Oriental musical traditions (Bohlman, 1987: 150) (especially
after Napoleonic wars) resulted in the common knowledge about improvising practices cultivated in so called
primitive (in the hierarchical structure) cultures. Improvisation began to be associated with departure from the
aesthetics and compositional norms of European music. This way of thinking about improvisation affected also
many early 20 th century scholars, including Ernst Ferand, the author of 1938 book Die Improvisation in der
Musik (published first in Zurich) as since the mid-19th century it has often been underlined that improvisation
–where inventor and executor is the same person – is a concept relevant to non-Western cultures (Nettl, 1974:
2) (including Gypsy cultures). Hence improvisatory expression – as Robin Moore once observed – became
to be treated as “threatening, unfamiliar or undeserving of interest” (Moore, 1992: 63). Gypsy musical culture
was naturally classified as the one of barbarian origin. Writing at the end of the 19 th century about primitive
music cultures Richard Wallaschek included Gypsies into his book as representatives of primitive music in
Europe. For him “as a rule the Jews and gipsies, who have retained much of their primitiveness, are considered
in archaeological studies” when he topic is to be disused (Wallaschek, 1970: 62).
In the meantime, the period of early 19 th century (more precisely the first three decades) was already
marked by the signs of transition in the perception of the status of musicians which achieved its peak in
mid – 19 th century. <strong>The</strong> popularity of dilettantism was confronted with the tendency to alleviate the status of
a musician as a professional. Dilettantes were finally replaced by artists, although during the phase between
1830 and 1848, it was still the figure of a virtuoso, encompassing professional and amateur practices alike,
that dominated European musical life. When the battle against virtuosi began, they were portrayed as homeless
strangers, surprisingly enough closely linked with the typical imagination of a free, wandering Gypsy. <strong>The</strong>
itinerant virtuoso was in many respects similar to the “hopelessly divorced from his roots” (Gooley, 2006:
89) Gypsy. <strong>The</strong> ambiguous position of the virtuoso suspended between professional and amateur made him
even more susceptible to this type of associations: wandering and improvising Gypsy, often self-taught and
uneducated was often (as virtuoso were) treated as nothing more but a famous dilettante.
One of the leading forces in the battle against virtuosity was music journalism. By 1870s virtuosity was
described with the “recurrent adjectives such as cheap, superficial, dishonest and flashy” (Gooley, 2006: 105).
Gypsy music, however, was only occasionally reported in the 19 th century press, some articles appearing that
dealt with this issue, stereotypically repeated the information available from books by George Borrow, and
most notably Franz Liszt. Gypsies were considered as unable to conceive and notate their music since as an
English author H.R. Haweis claimed in 1871 “a man’s work is always a true index of his character” (Haweis,
1912: 84). Heavy burden of stereotypes prevented Gypsies – in the eyes of Europe society – from being
capable of composing. It was rather the virtuosity of Gypsies articulated in their improvisations that was linked
with the overall characteristics of Gypsies, underlying negative aspects of their nature. As the immediate
result of this tendency, while claiming that “the Morality depends upon the Artist, not upon the Art” (Haweis,
1912: 38) improvisation – seen as the basic means of musical expression among primitive cultures (including
Gypsies) – began to be looked on in the intellectual circles of Europe with certain disdain. Consequently
improvising practice lost its impact and popularity it cherished in the first half of the 19 th century.
By its very nature improvisation does not necessarily follow the all regulations of theory of music and
does not always obey the rules of composition. And yet, already in the 1840s the thorough knowledge of these