As a composer for the violin Léclair has among Frenchmen down to Rode hardly a rival. If most of his works are characterised by the essentially French qualities of vivacity, piquancy, and grace, he also shows in some instances a remarkable depth of feeling, and a pathos which one would feel inclined to ascribe to Italian influence, if at the same time it did not contain an element of theatrical pomposity characteristic of all French art of the period. His technique shows itself, within certain limits—he does not go beyond the 3rd position—to be quite as developed as that of his Italian contemporaries. By the frequent employment of double-stops a remarkable richness of sound is produced, and the bow is used in a manner requiring that agility and lightness of management for which at a later period the French school gained a special reputation.
Among other French violinists, directly or indirectly formed by the Italian school, may be mentioned Pagin (born 1721), Touchemoulin (1727–1801), Lahoussaye (1735–1818), Barthelemon (died 1808), and Berthaume (1752–1828). Meanwhile an independent French school began to be formed of which Pierre Gaviniés (1728–1800) was the most, eminent representative. Of his numerous compositions, 'Les vingt quatre matinees'—a set of studies of unusual difficulty—have alone survived. Without partaking of the eccentricity of Locatelli's Caprices, these studies show a tendency towards exaggeration in technique. Beauty of sound is frequently sacrificed—difficulty is heaped on difficulty for its own sake, and not with the intention of producing new effects. At the same time, so competent a judge as Fétis ascribes to Gaviniés a style of playing both imposing and graceful.
Not directly connected with any school, but in the main self-taught, was Alexandre Jean Boucher (1770–1801 [App. p.812 "1861"]). He was no doubt a player of extraordinary talent and exceptional technical proficiency, but devoid of all artistic earnestness, and was one of the race of charlatan-violinists, which has had representatives from the days of Farina down to our own time. If they have done harm by their example, and by the success they have gained from the masses, it must not be overlooked that, in not a few respects, they have advanced the technique of the violin. The advent of Viotti (1753–1824) marks a new era in French violin-playing. His enormous success, both as player and composer, gave him an influence over his contemporaries which has no parallel, except in the cases of Corelli and Tartini before him, and in that of Spohr at a later period.
In Germany the art of Corelli and Tartini was spread by numerous pupils of their school, who entered the service of German princes. In Berlin we find J. G. Graun (1700–1771 [App. p.812 "for 1700 read 1698"]), a direct pupil of Tartini, and F. Benda (1709–1786), both excellent players, and eminent musicians. In the south, the school of Mannheim numbered among its representatives Johann Carl Stamitz (1719–1761), and his two sons Carl and Anton—(the latter settled in Paris, and was the teacher of R. Kreutzer); Chr. Cannabich (1731–1798), well known as the intimate friend of Mozart; Wilhelm Cramer (1745–1799), member of a very distinguished musical family, and for many years the leading violinist in London; Ignaz Fränzl (born 1736) and his son Ferdinand (1770–1833). The Mannheim masters, however, did not contribute anything lasting to the literature of the violin. On the whole, the Sonata, as cultivated by Tartini, remained the favourite form of violin compositions. At the same time, the Concerto (in the modern sense) came more and more into prominence. The fact that W. A. Mozart, who from early childhood practised almost every form of composition then in use, wrote no sonatas for violin[1] solo, but a number of concertos for violin and orchestra, is a clear indication of the growing popularity of the new form. Mozart in his younger years was hardly less great as a violinist than a piano-player, and his Violin Concertos, some of which have been successfully revived of late, are the most valuable compositions in that form anterior to Beethoven and Spohr. While they certainly do not rank with his Pianoforte Concertos, which date from a much later period, they stand very much in the same relation to the violin-playing of the period, as his Pianoforte Concertos stand to contemporary pianoforte-playing. Here, as there, the composer does not disdain to give due prominence to the solo instrument, but the musical interest stands in the first rank. The scoring, although of great simplicity—the orchestra generally consisting of the stringed quartet, two oboes, and two horns only—is full of interest and delicate touches. On the other hand, the Concertos of Tartini and his immediate successors are decidedly inferior to their Solo Sonatas. The Concerto was then in a state of transition: it had lost the character of the Concerto grosso, and its new form had not yet been found, although the germ of it was contained in Vivaldi's Concertos. On the other hand, the Solo Sonata had for a long time already obtained its full proportions, and the capabilities of the form seemed wellnigh exhausted. Meanwhile the Sonata-form, in the modern sense of the word, had been fully developed by composers for the pianoforte, had been applied with the greatest success to orchestral composition, and now took hold of the Concerto. Mozart and Viotti produced the first Violin Concertos, in the modern sense, which have lasted to our day. Mozart, however, in his later years gave up violin-playing altogether,[2] and although, like Haydn, he has shown in his chamber-music how thoroughly in sympathy he was with the nature of the violin, he did not contribute to the literature of the instrument any works wherein he availed himself of the technical proficiency attained by the best violinists of his time. In this respect it is significant that Spohr, whose unbounded admiration for Mozart is well known,
