Fin de siècle Vienna

[Florestan]

How, and why, are Johann Strauss, Jr., Carl Michael Ziehrer, Carl Millöcker, Franz Lehár etc. less and lesser representative(s) of Vienna around 1900 than Mahler and Schoenberg?

Discuss.

[Lisztianwagner]

An extremely interesting question!

I think because around 1900 Vienna wasn't the centre of the Austria Felix anymore, but it was the capital of an anachronistic empire which would be blown up in the following decade; the growing political tensions and social contrasts, the anxiety of war, the disillusions towards the rational and optimistic thinking of Positivism, the great interest for psychoanalysis, that brought out what was hidden in the inner being with its torments and fears, made people less able to connect with so bright, joyful and light-hearted compositions like waltzes and operetta, but on the contrary prone to a more introspective, contrasting in atmospheres and powerful music, that maybe could be perceived as too passionate and dramatic at times, too dissonant and overwhelming, but that was the mirror of those fragile times anyway. As a matter of fact, waltz melodies and rhythms were used in Mahler's and Schönberg's works, but as a parody, not with the lively, cheerful tone of Strauss and Ziehrer.

[Florestan]

Very interesting, Ilaria! --- many thanks for answering my question.

I'm not sure, though, that around 1900 the Austrians (meaning, the inhabitants of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) perceived their state as "an anachronistic empire". Have you read Stefan Zweig's The World of Yesterday - Memoires of an European? This extremely interesting and eminently readable book deals extensively with the topic and from reading it one can conclusively infer that on the contrary, most Austro-Hungarian citizens around 1900, Jews included, regarded the millenary monarchy as a stable, solid and trustworthy state and very few of them (mostly neurotic intellectuals and artists) would or could have foreseen the WWI catastrophe. The dualistic monarchy was dualistic not only politically but socially, intellectually and artistically too, hence my question. Vienna cca 1900 was just as much Strauss II, Ziehrer and Lehar as Mahler, Schoenberg and Freud.  The latter "camp" won retrospectively but back then there was no way to (fore)tell it.

[Lisztianwagner]

Very interesting, Ilaria! --- many thanks for answering my question.

I'm not sure, though, that around 1900 the Austrians (meaning, the inhabitants of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) perceived their state as "an anachronistic empire". Have you read Stefan Zweig's The World of Yesterday - Memoires of an European? This extremely interesting and eminently readable book deals extensively with the topic and from reading it one can conclusively infer that on the contrary, most Austro-Hungarian citizens around 1900, Jews included, regarded the millenary monarchy as a stable, solid and trustworthy state and very few of them (mostly neurotic intellectuals and artists) would or could have foreseen the WWI catastrophe. The dualistic monarchy was dualistic not only politically but socially, intellectually and artistically too, hence my question. Vienna cca 1900 was just as much Strauss II, Ziehrer and Lehar as Mahler, Schoenberg and Freud.  The latter "camp" won retrospectively but back then there was no way to (fore)tell it.

My pleasure, Andrei. I haven't, but provably I'll look for and read it, I'm always very interested in what concerns the history of Austria.
Maybe before neither I was clear nor I chose a correct expression in my first sentence (we people in 2022 can say the Austrian Empire was anachronistic from our point of view), I didn't precisely mean Austrian people around 1900 felt that the Habsburg Empire was falling, what I intended was that, without doubt, the political, social, economic, military climate around the beginning of the century became inevitably different from the 19th century and all contradictions the Empire had stemmed in some ways for decades (the nationalisms, the independence movements, etc.), were at the point growing till a breakdown; maybe Austrian people around 1900 didn't perceive the twilight of the Empire, but they certainly felt there were strong changes in the air, and that reflected itself on art (so, of course, on music).
Your question could have more than an interpretation and I wasn't sure about what you exactly wanted to discuss, I thought about how and why Strauss, Ziehrer, Lehar gave way to Mahler and Schönberg (because as a matter of fact, there weren't composers in the style of the Strauss's in the 20th century, apart from Lehar), I didn't think about the dualism of the musical situation, thanks for making it clearer.