Stamitz [Stamic].

Bohemian family of musicians. The family can be traced back to Marburg an der Drau in Styria (now Maribor, Slovenia). From there Martin Stamitz emigrated to the Bohemian town of Pardubice, where his name is first recorded in 1665. About 1710 Martin’s son Antonin Ignác (1686–1765) moved to Německý Brod, where he was appointed organist and choirmaster of the Dean’s church and later became a wealthy landowner and town councillor. In 1714 he married Rosina (Rozyna) Böhm von Loisbach; the third of their 11 children, and the first to survive, was (1) Johann Stamitz.

The spelling of the name in contemporary sources is extraordinarily erratic, the most common variants being Stamiz, Steinmetz, Steinmez, Stammiz, Stametz, Stammitz, Staimitz, Stamits and Stammetz. Every known signature by a member of the family uses the form Stamitz, even in documents in which the language and the forms of the first names are Czech.

(1) Johann (Wenzel Anton) [Jan Waczlaw (Václav) Antonin (Antonín)] Stamitz

(2) Carl (Philipp) Stamitz

(3) Anton (Thadäus Johann Nepomuk) Stamitz

EUGENE K. WOLF (1), JEAN K. WOLF, EUGENE K. WOLF (2, text), FRITZ KAISER/EUGENE K. WOLF (2, work-list), EUGENE K. WOLF, JEAN K. WOLF (3)

Stamitz

(1) Johann (Wenzel Anton) [Jan Waczlaw (Václav) Antonin (Antonín)] Stamitz

(b Německý Brod [now Havlíčkův Brod], bap. 19 June 1717; d Mannheim, ?27 March, bur. 30 March 1757). Composer, violinist and teacher. He ranks among the most important early Classical symphonists and was influential in making the court of the Elector Palatine at Mannheim a leading centre of orchestral performance and composition.

1. Life.

2. Works.

3. Problems of attribution.

WORKS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stamitz: (1) Johann Stamitz

1. Life.

Stamitz received his early schooling in Německý Brod, though his first musical instruction doubtless came from his father. From 1728 to 1734 he attended the Jesuit Gymnasium in Jihlava; the Jesuits of Bohemia, whose pupils included the foremost musicians in Europe, maintained high standards of musical education during this period. Stamitz is known to have spent the following academic year, 1734–5, at Prague University. His activities during the next six years, however, remain a mystery. It seems logical to assume that his decision to leave the university was prompted by a desire to establish himself as a violin virtuoso, a goal that could be pursued in Prague, Vienna or countless other centres.

The precise circumstances surrounding Stamitz’s engagement by the Mannheim court are unclear. The date of his appointment was probably 1741 (i.e. when he was 24), for he remarked in a letter of 29 February 1748 to Baron von Wallbrunn in Stuttgart that he was in his eighth year of service to the elector. The most likely hypothesis is perhaps that Stamitz’s engagement resulted from contacts made late in 1741 during the Bohemian campaign and coronation in Prague of the Bavarian Elector Carl Albert (later Carl VII), one of whose closest allies was the Elector Palatine. In January 1742 Stamitz no doubt performed at Mannheim as part of the festivities surrounding the marriage of Carl Theodor, who succeeded his uncle Carl Philipp as Elector Palatine less than a year later; Carl Albert of Bavaria was a guest at the wedding. He may also have played at the coronation ceremonies for Carl Albert in Frankfurt in February of that year. However, no contemporary evidence for either of these appearances exists; the earliest known reference to a public performance by Stamitz occurs in an advertisement for a concert in Frankfurt on 29 June 1742, at which he was to perform on the violin, viola d’amore, cello and double bass.

At Mannheim Stamitz advanced rapidly: in 1743, when he was first violinist at the court, he was granted an increase in salary of 200 gulden; in payment lists from 1744 and 1745 his salary is given as 900 gulden, the highest of any instrumentalist at Mannheim; in 1745 or early 1746 he was awarded the title of Konzertmeister; and in 1750 he was appointed to the newly created post of director of instrumental music. The latter promotion came almost two years after the offer of a position at the court of Duke Carl Eugen in Stuttgart with an annual salary of 1500 gulden, an offer that the Elector Palatine probably saw fit to match, as Stamitz remained in Mannheim. In court almanacs for 1751 and 1752 Stamitz is also listed as one of the two Kapellmeisters, but after the arrival of Ignaz Holzbauer in 1753 he appears as director of instrumental music alone. Stamitz’s principal responsibilities at court were the composition and performance of orchestral and chamber music, although he seems also to have composed some sacred music for the court chapel. As leader of the band and conductor Stamitz developed the Mannheim orchestra into the most renowned ensemble of the time, famous for its precision and its ability to render novel dynamic effects. Stamitz was also influential as a teacher; in addition to his sons Carl and Anton, he taught such outstanding violinists and composers as Christian Cannabich, the Toeschi brothers, Ignaz Fränzl and Wilhelm Cramer. ..\Frames/F006348.html

In 1744 Stamitz married Maria Antonia Lüneborn. They had five children: the composers (2) Carl and (3) Anton, a daughter Maria Francisca (1746–99) and two children who died in infancy. In 1749 Stamitz and his wife journeyed to Německý Brod to attend the installation of Stamitz’s younger brother Antonín Tadeáš as dean of the Dean’s church. In February 1750, while the family was still in Bohemia, Stamitz’s brother Václav Jan or Wenzel Johann (b 1724; d after 1771), also a musician, was in Mannheim. Johann Stamitz returned to Mannheim in March 1750, but his wife remained temporarily in Německý Brod, where (3) Anton Stamitz was born on 27 November 1750.

Probably in late summer 1754 Stamitz undertook a year-long journey to Paris, appearing there for the first time at the Concert Spirituel on 8 September 1754. (At least one work by Stamitz, a symphony with horns, trumpets and timpani, had already been performed in Paris, at the Concert Spirituel on 12 April 1751, but there is no evidence that he himself was present.) While in Paris Stamitz lived at Passy in the palace of A.-J.-J. Le Riche de La Pouplinière, a wealthy amateur whose private orchestra he conducted. He was also active in public concerts in Paris, appearing with particular success at the Concert Italien. Performances of his compositions were frequent, and his Mass was given on 4 August 1755. Stamitz’s success in Paris induced him to publish his ‘orchestral trios’ op.1 (fig.2), for which he received a royal privilege on 29 August 1755, and probably also to plan further publications with various Parisian houses. He presumably returned to Mannheim in autumn 1755, dying there less than two years later at the age of 39.

Stamitz: (1) Johann Stamitz

2. Works.

Stamitz’s most important compositions are his symphonies, some 58 of which are extant, and his ten orchestral trios. The latter works, though frequently classed as symphonies, actually occupy a position midway in style between the symphony and the chamber trio, and may be played with or without doubling of parts. Stamitz was also a prolific composer of concertos. These include, in addition to his numerous violin concertos, at least two for harpsichord (only one of which can be identified with certainty), 12 for flute (three of which were offered for sale by Breitkopf in alternative versions for violin), one for oboe (also listed by Breitkopf in versions for violin and flute), and one for clarinet, possibly the earliest solo concerto for that instrument. He also composed a large amount of chamber music for various instrumental combinations, as well as eight vocal works; among the latter is his widely circulated Mass in D, an ambitious setting in modern concerted style.

Owing to the complete lack of autograph manuscripts and the extreme paucity of dated sources, firm conclusions cannot be drawn about Stamitz’s evolution as a composer. His pre-Mannheim compositions probably comprise several of the extant symphonies for strings alone and most of the eight lost symphonies listed in a thematic catalogue from Brtnice (Pirnitz) in Moravia. Certain of his chamber works and concertos may also have originated from this period, providing him with material for use in performance, as may many of the vocal works that still survive in Czech collections. However, the great majority of his compositions obviously date from after his arrival in Mannheim. The somewhat conservative style of most of the concertos and sonatas, together with evidence regarding the chronology of his orchestral trios and advanced symphonies, suggests that Stamitz’s interest gradually shifted away from the composition of music intended for his personal use as a performer to the substantially different stylistic demands of the symphony and orchestral trio.

The principal innovation in Stamitz’s symphonic works is their adoption of the cycle of four movements, with a minuet and trio in third place followed by a Presto or Prestissimo. While isolated precedents for this succession exist, Stamitz was the first composer to use it consistently: well over half of his symphonies, and nine of his ten orchestral trios, are in four movements. The chief exceptions among the symphonies are the three-movement works characteristic of his early period (to c1745–8). It is noteworthy that Parisian prints of the later works often omit the minuets and trios found in the authentic manuscript sources.

Stamitz’s earliest symphonies and most of his concertos are scored for strings alone or for strings and two horns. His later symphonies generally call for a pair of horns and either oboes, flutes or (in several late works) clarinets, to which on five occasions he added a pair of trumpets and timpani. In conjunction with this expansion of the orchestra Stamitz gradually began to give more distinctive treatment to the wind instruments, for example handling them as sustaining instruments capable of providing a chordal background and support for the strings. The late symphonies place considerable emphasis upon striking dynamic effects, most notably the crescendo. Extended crescendo passages, almost certainly modelled on those of Nicolò Jommelli, occur in 14 of Stamitz’s symphonies, primarily works in his most advanced (and familiar) style. Stamitz’s treatment of orchestration and dynamics, combined with his forceful and vigorous rhythmic drive, represented a decisive new phase for the style of the concert symphony: the approach became manifestly orchestral rather than relying upon Baroque concerto style or the galant chamber idiom. Yet neither Stamitz nor the other Mannheim composers actually invented this style; it had already characterized a large number of Italian opera overtures from about 1730 to 1755 by such composers as Vinci, Leo, Jommelli and Galuppi, works that were staples of the operatic repertory at Mannheim during the 1740s and 50s. In the process of adaptation, however, Stamitz unquestionably extended and deepened every element of the overture style. For instance, he often introduced conspicuous solo passages for pairs of woodwind or horns in the first movements of all but his early symphonies; such emphasis upon the woodwind is rare in the Italian opera overture of the time.

Stamitz’s phrase structure shows a gradual expansion from an early hierarchy based on half-bar motifs and two-bar phrases (in 4/4 metre and allegro tempo) to a mature one containing most of the essentials of later Classical phrase syntax, founded on four-bar phrases, eight-bar sentences or periods and 16-bar double periods. The structure of the individual movements of Stamitz’s symphonies and orchestral trios has its basis in large-scale binary form, frequently modified in the later works by omission of the central double bar (and consequently of the repeats) and expansion of the second half of the movement. Thematic development of the type usually associated with later composers appears in Stamitz’s symphonies from every period. By contrast, he never consistently employed the principle of full recapitulation, although enough examples of this procedure exist to demonstrate his awareness of its possibilities. Perhaps by way of compensation, most of Stamitz’s first movements among his later works return towards the end of the movement to thematic material originally presented near the beginning. This material normally consists of a crescendo passage, but in a few instances the primary theme itself recurs. The occasional appearance of primary material near the end of a movement has given rise to the belief that Stamitz and the other Mannheimers frequently used ‘reversed’ or ‘mirror’ recapitulations. That is not statistically accurate; nor does it take account of the fact that the reorganization of the recapitulations in Stamitz’s late first movements nearly always amounts to far more than the mere reversal of primary and secondary themes.

Although Stamitz’s slow movements, dance movements and early finales are mostly homogeneous in style, the expositions of his first movements and more advanced finales regularly introduce contrasting thematic material – including, in just over half of these movements, a clearly articulated and differentiated secondary theme. This approach also originated in the Italian opera overture, which had used polythematic expositions since at least the 1730s. Once again, though, Stamitz went well beyond his model, often scoring his secondary themes for wind and, in his latest works, increasing their lyricism substantially.

In sum, Stamitz’s contribution in the particular areas of thematic differentiation, orchestration and dynamics may be defined as the transfer and adaptation of Italian overture style to the concert symphony, rather than as actual innovation. Charles Burney, writing some 15 years after Stamitz’s death, stated this viewpoint:

It was here [in concerts at Mannheim] that Stamitz, stimulated by the productions of Jomelli, first surpassed the bounds of common opera overtures, which had hitherto only served in the theatre as a kind of court cryer, with an ‘O Yes’ in order to awaken attention, and bespeak silence, at the entrance of the singers.

To recognize Stamitz’s debt to Italian overture style is in no way to belittle his achievement, for in the process of adaptation he greatly enriched and refined every element of that style; but it enables Stamitz’s symphonies to be placed in a more valid historical context than that proposed by Riemann and others. Moreover, the imagination, vitality and craftsmanship evident in Stamitz’s symphonies and orchestral trios were rarely surpassed by either contemporary symphonists or his more stylized followers at Mannheim. To quote Burney again:

He [Stamitz], like another Shakespeare, broke through all difficulties and discouragements; and, as the eye of one pervaded all nature, the other, without quitting nature, pushed art further than any one had done before him; his genius was truly original, bold, and nervous; invention, fire, and contrast, in the quick movements; a tender, graceful, and insinuating melody, in the slow; together with the ingenuity and richness of the accompaniments, characterise his productions; all replete with great effects, produced by an enthusiasm of genius, refined, but not repressed by cultivation.

Stamitz: (1) Johann Stamitz

3. Problems of attribution.

Because at least five other musicians of the 18th century bore the surname Stamitz – four from Stamitz’s immediate family – and because few manuscripts of the time supplied first names, any attempt to enumerate Stamitz’s authentic works is hazardous at best, particularly in view of the many variations in spelling. Actually, few difficulties arise in distinguishing between works by Johann Stamitz and those of his sons Carl and Anton. By contrast, the relationship of the names ‘Steinmetz’ and ‘Stamitz’ has caused considerable confusion, as at least two other musicians called ‘Steinmetz’ lived in the 18th century. The list of works below includes most of those compositions attributed in the sources to ‘Steinmetz’ for the following reasons. First, the two names were constantly interchanged in the 18th century, as seen both in the numerous references to Stamitz (even at Mannheim) in the form ‘Steinmetz’ and in the large number of works indisputably by Johann Stamitz attributed to ‘Steinmetz’ in concordant sources. Second, the notion that Johann Erhard Steinmetz, an oboe player in the Dresden hunting band, was a composer of symphonies derives primarily from J.G.I. Breitkopf, whose reliability on this point is demonstrably low. Third, analysis of the style of those works ascribed to ‘Steinmetz’ for which no concordant sources exist generally reveals an unmistakable connection to authentic works of Johann Stamitz – but to works in his relatively unfamiliar early style.

See also Steinmetz, Johann Erhard.

Stamitz: (1) Johann Stamitz

WORKS

printed works published in Paris unless otherwise stated; for thematic catalogue see Gradenwitz: ‘Johann Stamitz’ (1936), ii, and ‘Johann Stamitz’ (1984); symphonies and orchestral trios also catalogued with incipits by Riemann (DTB, iv, Jg.iii/1, 1902/R) and Wolf (1981), and chamber music by Riemann (DTB, xxviii, Jg.xvi, 1915/R)

orchestral

chamber

vocal

Stamitz: (1) Johann Stamitz

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BurneyGN

NewmanSCE

WalterG

M. Brenet: Les concerts en France sous l’ancien régime (Paris, 1900/R)

H. Riemann: Introduction to DTB, iv, Jg.iii/1 (1902/R); xiii, Jg.vii/2 (1906/R); xxviii, Jg.xvi (1915/R)

L. Kamieński: ‘Mannheim und Italien’, SIMG, x (1908–9), 307–17

G. Cucuel: La Pouplinière et la musique de chambre au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1913)

P. Gradenwitz: Johann Stamitz, i: Das Leben (Brno, 1936); ii: Thematischer Katalog (MS, copies at US-NYp and Frankfurt, RISM)

P. Gradenwitz: ‘The Symphonies of Johann Stamitz’, MR, i (1940), 354–63

A. Pospíšil: Kolem Jana Václava Stamice (Havlíčkův Brod, 1947)

P. Gradenwitz: ‘The Stamitz Family: some Errors, Omissions, and Falsifications Corrected’, Notes, vii (1949–50), 54–64

P. Nettl: Der kleine Prophet von Böhmisch-Broda (Esslingen, 1953)

R. Schaal: ‘Johann Stamitz’ Mannheimer Bestallung von 1750’, Mf, vi (1953), 158–9

P. Gradenwitz: ‘Johann Stamitz als Kirchenkomponist’, Mf, xi (1958), 2–15

E. Schmitt: Die kurpfälzische Kirchenmusik im 18. Jahrhundert (diss., U. of Heidelberg, 1958)

R. Münster: ‘Vier Musiker der Mannheimer Schule’, Musica, xiv (1960), 488–91

F. Noack: ‘Die Steinmetz-Manuskripte der Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt’, Mf, xiii (1960), 314–17

P. Mechlenburg: Die Sinfonie der Mannheimer Schule (diss., U. of Munich, 1963)

B. Štědroň: ‘Zur Nationalität von Jan Václav Stamic’, BMw, vi (1964), 16–28

J. Sochr: ‘Dokumenty vydávají svědectví’ [Documents as testimony], HRo, xix (1966), 718–19

J. Sochr: Jan Václav Stamic: život a dílo [Life and works] (Havlíčkův Brod, 1967) [exhibition catalogue]

H.-R. Dürrenmatt: Die Durchführung bei Johann Stamitz (Berne, 1969)

H. Hell: Die neapolitanische Opernsinfonie in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts (Tutzing, 1971)

E. Wellesz and F. Sternfeld, eds.: The Age of Enlightenment, 1745–1790, NOHM, vii (1973)

E.K. Wolf and J.K. Wolf: ‘A Newly Identified Complex of Manuscripts from Mannheim’, JAMS, xxvii (1974), 379–437

W. Huschke: ‘Johann Stamitz (1717–1757): die Ahnenschaft des Komponisten und ihre Beziehungen zum Regensburger Raum’, Genealogie: deutsche Zeitschrift zur Familienkunde, xii (1976–7), 193–202

H. Scharschuch: ‘Johann Stamitz’, AMw, xxxiii (1976), 189–212

E.K. Wolf: ‘Authenticity and Stylistic Evidence in the Early Symphony: a Conflict in Attribution between Richter and Stamitz’, A Musical Offering: Essays in Honor of Martin Bernstein, ed. E.H. Clinkscale and C. Brook (New York, 1977), 275–94

E. Schmitt: Foreword to DTB, new ser., iii (1980)

E.K. Wolf: ‘On the Origins of the Mannheim Symphonic Style’, Studies in Musicology in Honor of Otto E. Albrecht, ed. J.W. Hill (Kassel, 1980), 197–239

E.K. Wolf: The Symphonies of Johann Stamitz: a Study in the Formation of the Classic Style (Utrecht, 1981)

P. Gradenwitz: Johann Stamitz: Leben – Umwelt – Werke (Wilhelmshaven, 1984)

E.K. Wolf and J.K. Wolf: Introduction to The Symphony at Mannheim: Johann Stamitz, Christian Cannabich, The Symphony 1720–1840, ser. C, iii (New York, 1984)

E.K. Wolf: ‘The Orchestral Trios, Op.1, of Johann Stamitz’, Music in the Classic Period: Essays in Honor of Barry S. Brook, ed. A.W. Atlas (New York, 1985), 297–322

L. Finscher: ‘Mannheimer Orchester- und Kammermusik’, Die Mannheimer Hofkapelle im Zeitalter Carl Theodors, ed. L. Finscher (Mannheim, 1992), 141–76

C. White: From Vivaldi to Viotti: a History of the Early Classical Violin Concerto (Philadelphia, 1992)

S. Kunze: Die Sinfonie im 18. Jahrhundert: von der Opernsinfonie zur Konzertsinfonie, Handbuch der musikalischen Gattungen, i, ed. S. Mauser (Laaber, 1993)

M.H. Schmid: ‘Typen des Orchestercrescendo im 18. Jahrhundert’, Untersuchungen zu Musikbeziehungen zwischen Mannheim, Böhmen und Mähren im späten 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert, ed. C. Heyter-Rauland and C.-H. Mahling (Mainz, 1993), 96–132

E.K. Wolf: ‘Driving a Hard Bargain: Johann Stamitz’s Correspondence with Stuttgart (1748)’, Festschrift Christoph-Hellmut Mahling zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. A. Beer, K. Pfarr and W. Ruf (Tutzing, 1997), 1553–70

Stamitz

(2) Carl (Philipp) Stamitz

(b Mannheim, bap. 8 May 1745; d Jena, 9 Nov 1801). Composer and violinist, viola player and viola d’amore player, son of (1) Johann Stamitz. He was a leading member of the second generation of Mannheim orchestral composers, a widely travelled performer and a major contributor to the literature of the symphonie concertante and concerto.

1. Life.

2. Works.

WORKS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stamitz: (2) Carl Stamitz

1. Life.

Carl Stamitz received his earliest musical training in Mannheim from his father, but was only 11 when his father died. His subsequent teachers were other court musicians: Christian Cannabich, Ignaz Holzbauer and F.X. Richter. Extant orchestral lists include Stamitz as a violinist with the electoral orchestra from 1762 to 1770, a position that enabled him to learn the contemporary Mannheim repertory and master a brilliant performing technique.

In 1770 Stamitz went to Paris, stopping en route to perform in Mons. By 1771 he was court composer and conductor for Duke Louis of Noailles in Paris, where he came in contact with such musicians as Gossec, Leduc, Sieber and Beer. In addition to publishing many new compositions in Paris, both Stamitz and his brother (3) Anton were active performers at the Concert Spirituel in the 1770s. Between 1771 and 1773 the Mercure de France reported appearances of both brothers as well as performances of their compositions, but often without distinguishing clearly between Carl and Anton. In summer 1772 Stamitz lived at Versailles, where he composed La promenade royale, the first of several programme symphonies. During his tenure with the Duke of Noailles, journeys as a virtuoso took him in 1772 to Vienna, in 1773 to Frankfurt, and in 1774 to Augsburg, Vienna and also Strasbourg, where he published six quartets and delivered compositions to Ignaz von Beecke for Prince Kraft Ernst von Oettingen-Wallerstein. Carl or possibly Anton performed again at the Concert Spirituel on 2 February, 25 March and 7 April 1775; the Mercure de France described a concert on 24 December 1775 at which a ‘grande symphonie nouvelle de M. Stamitz l’aîné’ was performed with the composer himself as one of the brilliant violinists. Additional references occur until March 1777. Stamitz’s years of relative security had come to a close; henceforth he lived the life of a travelling virtuoso, never holding an important permanent position.

Stamitz’s departure from Paris has not been precisely documented, but newspaper advertisements show that he was an active performer in London at least from May 1777 until 1780, often in association with J.C. Bach. On 6 April 1778 he gave a benefit concert of his own at the King’s Theatre. While in London he published many compositions, especially chamber works, continuing to list himself as composer to the Duke of Noailles. Some time after 1780 he moved to The Hague, where between May 1782 and July 1784 he appeared, primarily as a viola soloist, in no fewer than 28 concerts at the court of William V, Prince of Orange. The concert on 23 November 1783 featured not only Stamitz but Beethoven (aged 12), who played the piano and received a higher payment than his older colleague. Many compositions written by Stamitz during this period were published by B. Hummel of The Hague.

By April 1785 Stamitz had arrived in Hamburg, where he gave two academies. In August he performed in Lübeck, returning to Hamburg for two final concerts in the autumn. On 17 April 1786 he was in Magdeburg; he then went to Leipzig and to Berlin, where on 19 May 1786 he joined J.A. Hiller in directing a performance of Handel’s Messiah in the cathedral. At this time, according to Gerber, Stamitz negotiated a contract (as yet undiscovered) with the King of Prussia that guaranteed payment for any work composed by him for the Berlin court. Nor is there conclusive evidence to support Gerber’s claim that in 1787 Stamitz held the title of Kapellmeister to the Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, although it is found on a printed concert announcement of 1792 and in his death notice.

In 1787 Stamitz travelled widely, performing as a viola player in Dresden, Prague and Halle, and appearing in Nuremberg on 3 November 1787 for a performance of his musical allegory on the occasion of Blanchard’s balloon ascent. Concert reviews from 1788 and 1789 report his appearance as a viola player in Kassel. In 1789 he became director of the Liebhaber concerts there, a position he retained until April 1790.

Some time before 1790 Stamitz married Maria Josepha Pilz (b 1764; d Jena, 17 Jan 1801), and they settled in Greiz, Voigtland, where their first son was born in August 1790. The birth of a daughter by July 1792 and the illness of his wife prevented him from travelling extensively, and he tried unsuccessfully to obtain a permanent court position from Friedrich Franz I, Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. He continued to earn what little he could by sending compositions to the King of Prussia (fig.3), the Prince of Orange, the court at Schwerin and the court of Oettingen-Wallerstein, and succeeded in arranging two concerts, one on 12 November 1792 at the Hoftheater in Weimar, the other on 19 March 1793 in Leipzig. Letters to Breitkopf on 30 April and 6 May 1793 seeking help in producing operas and concerts or in finding a permanent position in Leipzig were of no avail.

A trip back to Mannheim before spring 1795 brought a variety of commissions, as mentioned in Stamitz’s letter to Breitkopf of 28 May 1795 from Jena, where he had moved with his family to become Kapellmeister and teacher of music at the university. This post was not sufficient to settle his affairs, however, and he sent compositions as far as Wales and Russia in hope of compensation. Stamitz even planned a concert tour to St Petersburg, but the letter sanctioning the trip did not arrive until after his death. Two sons born in Jena, like Stamitz’s other children, died in childhood.

Despite Stamitz’s earlier fame and his plans for grandiose concerts and travels – and even attempts at alchemy – his debts at the time of his death were so great that his possessions had to be auctioned. A printed catalogue of his music manuscripts was published for a separate auction in 1810, but the mode of the times had changed, and the music was neither bid for nor bought privately. The collection remained in Jena until 1812, but since then has disappeared.

Stamitz: (2) Carl Stamitz

2. Works.

Stamitz composed nearly as many chamber as orchestral works, but his reputation as a composer derives principally from the latter. His over 50 symphonies, 38 symphonies concertantes and more than 60 concertos make him the most prolific orchestral composer from Mannheim. On the whole his compositions reflect his Mannheim heritage, as seen in their idiomatic treatment of the orchestra, dynamic effects, homophonic texture, contrasting thematic types and specific Mannheim melodic clichés. Yet his years in Paris and London fostered the bulk of his compositions – in particular the popular symphonie concertante – and such characteristics of his style as pervasive lyricism and ease of melodic flow (often bordering on the superficial) place his music in a more cosmopolitan context than that of Mannheim alone.

Stamitz’s instrumentation is standard for the time, but exceptions to the norm do occur: the Masquerade Symphony (c1781) employs an expanded percussion section to simulate Turkish music, and there are two works for double orchestra. Unlike his father, over half of whose symphonies are in four movements, Stamitz adopted the three-movement Italian pattern (fast–slow–fast) in almost all his extant orchestral works: only four symphonies use a minuet and trio as third movement (two others are programmatic works with relatively free structure), and eight of the 28 surviving symphonies concertantes are in two movements, a plan common in this genre, rather than three.

Stamitz’s earliest symphonies date from his Mannheim years, and the last from Greiz in 1791. Like his contemporaries at Mannheim, he generally cast his first movements and finales in binary sonata form (like sonata form but with only partial recapitulation), often without repeat signs. 12 of his symphonies have slow introductions; in the early and middle-period symphonies there is often a rhythmic or motivic relationship between the introduction and first movement. In first movements Stamitz made relatively consistent use of contrasting secondary themes in the dominant, commonly set off by a reduction in orchestration and often featuring wind instruments in 3rds. Development sections are seldom extensive, and they tend to avoid concentrated reworking of material from the exposition; instead, they are closely linked formally to the recapitulation and frequently introduce episodic material. A few symphonies omit developments entirely. Most of Stamitz’s recapitulations begin with the second theme, though examples of full recapitulation can be found in symphonies throughout his career.

Stamitz’s second movements were praised by his contemporaries for their lyricism and expressiveness. Sentimental appoggiaturas are frequent, and over a quarter of these movements are in minor keys. Simple binary and binary sonata structures are typical. Stamitz’s last movements resemble his first in form except in the case of seven symphonies that close with rondos.

Of Stamitz’s 38 known symphonies concertantes, 30 call for two solo instruments (most often a pair of violins or a violin and cello), the others as many as seven. First movements follow the basic ritornello structure common in the 18th-century solo concerto, with three or four tutti sections in various keys framing modulatory or recapitulatory solo sections. Stamitz used two types of finale: the norm is a rondo, but in five works there are minuets and trios, adapted in various ways to incorporate the soloists. He used rondos in his orchestral works more often than other composers from Mannheim, presumably a result of his extensive contact with French music during the 1770s.

Stamitz wrote solo concertos for a wide range of instruments, including violin (15), clarinet (10), flute (8) and bassoon (7); many of these works are lost. His orchestral and chamber compositions for viola d’amore, an instrument with which he was especially identified, are historically important for their use of all seven strings, double and triple stops, left-hand pizzicato and harmonics.

Stamitz: (2) Carl Stamitz

WORKS

printed works published in Paris unless otherwise stated

orchestral

chamber

thematic catalogue in DTB, xxviii, Jg.xvi (1915)

vocal

Stamitz: (2) Carl Stamitz

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NewmanSCE

PierreH

H. Riemann: Forewords, DTB, xv, Jg.viii/2 (1907/R); xxvii, Jg.xv (1914/R)

F. Waldkirch: Die konzertanten Sinfonien der Mannheimer im 18. Jahrhundert (Ludwigshafen, 1931)

A. Schering: ‘Fünf Briefe von Karl Stamitz: Bruchstücke einer Selbstbiographie’, Festschrift Fritz Stein, ed. H. Hoffmann and F. Rühlmann (Brunswick, 1939), 57–65

P. Gradenwitz: ‘The Stamitz Family: some Errors, Omissions, and Falsifications Corrected’, Notes, vii (1949–50), 54–64

H. Heussner: Review of H.J. Schaefer and others: Theater in Kassel (Kassel, 1951), Mf, xv (1962), 287–9

F.C. Kaiser: Carl Stamitz (1745–1801): biographische Beiträge, das symphonische Werk, thematischer Katalog der Orchesterwerke (diss., U. of Marburg, 1962)

J. Záloha: ‘Drei unbekannte Autographe von Karl Stamitz in der Musikaliensammlung in Český Krumlov’, Mf, xix (1966), 408–11

M. Rosenblum: ‘The Viola d’amore and its Literature’, The Strad, lxxviii (1967), 250–53, 277

M. de Smet: La musique à la cour de Guillaume V, Prince d’Orange (1748–1806) (Utrecht, 1973)

E. Wellesz and F.Sternfeld, eds.: The Age of Enlightenment, 1745–1790, NOHM, vii (1973)

D. Thomason: A Discussion of the Viola d’Amore Music of Karl Stamitz (n.p., 1979)

M. Jacob: Die Klarinettenkonzerte von Carl Stamitz (Wiesbaden, 1991)

C. White: From Vivaldi to Viotti: a History of the Early Classical Violin Concerto (Philadelphia, 1992)

D.R. Rhodes: ‘Carl Stamitz and the Mecklenburg-Schwerin Court at Ludwigslust’, Musik in Mecklenburg, ed. K. Heller, H. Möller and A. Waczkat (Hildesheim, 1999), 489–510

Stamitz

(3) Anton (Thadäus Johann Nepomuk) Stamitz

(b Německý Brod [now Havlíčkův Brod], 27 Nov 1750; d Paris or Versailles, between 1796 and 1809). Composer, violinist andviola player, son of (1) Johann Stamitz. He should not be confused with a brother, Johann Baptist (b Mannheim, 25 Nov 1754; bur. 20 Dec 1755). Anton was born during a family visit to Německý Brod. Johann Stamitz had returned to Mannheim in late March 1750, and his wife and new son presumably joined him there in 1751. Anton grew up at the electoral court and as a youth received violin instruction from his brother (2) Carl and from Christian Cannabich. He is listed in court almanacs as a violinist in the Mannheim orchestra in 1764–6 and again in 1770. The latter listing states that he was a supernumerary (Accessist), and it is probable that this was his status during the entire period 1764–70. In 1770 he moved to Paris with Carl. There, in addition to performing during the next 20 years, Anton composed the main body of his works – principally concertos (many for his own use), quartets, trios and duos. The first specific mention of Anton in Paris occurs in a report in the Mercure de France of the Concert Spirituel on 25 March 1772, when he played a violin and viola duo with Carl. Anton may also have appeared at other concerts between 1772 and March 1777 for which the Mercure de France gives only the surname ‘Stamitz’. As a composer he is first explicitly mentioned in May 1777, when a symphonie concertante by him for oboe and bassoon was performed at the Concert Spirituel.

With Carl’s departure for England in 1777, Anton figured more prominently in Parisian musical circles, appearing twice at the Concert Spirituel in 1778 as soloist in his own viola concertos. Between 24 December 1779 and 24 December 1787 five more concertos, one definitely by Anton and several of the others probably so, were played at these concerts. Mozart, who was in Paris in 1778, was evidently not favourably impressed with either Anton or Carl, for he wrote to his father from there (9 July):

Of the two Stamitz brothers only the younger one is here, the elder (the real composer à la Hafeneder) is in London. They indeed are two wretched scribblers, gamblers, swillers and adulterers – not the kind of people for me. The one who is here has scarcely a decent coat to his back.

Mozart’s statements of this sort cannot always be taken at face value, but there is evidence that Anton had numerous debts, at least during the 1780s. Between September 1778 and 31 January 1780 Stamitz was violin instructor to Rodolphe Kreutzer at Versailles, receiving 18 livres monthly for 12 lessons. Many of his duos for string instruments were no doubt written in conjunction with his teaching, and as an instructor he gained fame when Kreutzer, aged 13, made a successful début playing a violin concerto of Anton’s at the Concert Spirituel on 25 May 1780.

In 1782 the Almanach musical provided an address in Paris for Stamitz, but in the same year he probably moved to Versailles, for court records list him as a violinist with the musique du roi there from 1782 to 1789. At the same time various publications give Anton the title ordinaire de la musique du roi. With the Revolution in 1789 Stamitz dropped from sight. A news item from 1796 states that he was at that time in an asylum for the insane, having gone mad in 1789 (Lebermann). He must have died at some point between 1796 and 1809, for two letters from his widow, N. Bouchet de Grandpré, written in Paris in June and November 1809, explain that she is no longer receiving the pension of 800 livres granted at the death of her husband.

WORKS

all printed works published in Paris unless otherwise stated; names of publishers are included only when identification is ambiguous

orchestral

thematic catalogue of symphonies and symphonies concertantes in DTB, iv, Jg.iii/1 (1902)

chamber

thematic catalogue in DTB, xxviii, Jg.xvi (1915)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Hardy: Rodolphe Kreutzer (Paris, 1910)

M. Pincherle: ‘La veuve d’Antoine Stamitz’, Bulletin de la Société ‘Union musicologique’, iv (1924), 29–32

M. Pincherle: ‘Antoine Stamitz et sa veuve’, Feuillets d’histoire du violon (Paris, 1927), 110–17

W. Lebermann: ‘Biographische Notizen über Johann Anton Fils, Johann Anton Stamitz, Carl Joseph und Johann Baptist Toeschi’, Mf, xix (1966), 40–41

J. Sochr: Jan Václav Stamic: život a dílo [Life and works] (Havlíčkův Brod, 1967) [exhibition catalogue]

For further bibliography see (2) Carl Stamitz.