The Waltz King, Johann Baptist Strauss II (1825–1899): a psychobiography from a componential creativity perspective

Abstract

This psychobiography was undertaken on the creative life of the eminent composer Johann Baptist Strauss II (1825–1899). As an Austrian violinist, conductor, and composer he produced acclaimed waltzes, quadrilles, polkas and devoted time to operettas and ballets. He was dubbed the ‘Waltz King’ after he composed the ‘The Blue Danube’. Psychobiography is rooted in the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm and involves a longitudinal and in-depth case study of an exceptional individual. Strauss was selected as psychobiographical subject through non-probability purposive sampling. The researchers uncovered and reconstructed Strauss’s creative life by utilising the Componential Model of Creativity (CMC) proposed by Teresa Amabile. Alexander’s proposed indicators of thematic salience were utilised to assist in demarcating the vast amount of publicly available primary and secondary biographical and historical literature on Strauss. The constructs of the model, by Teresa Amabilei, (CMC) consist of (a) domain-relevant skills, (b) creativity-relevant processes, (c) intrinsic motivation, (d) synergistic extrinsic motivation, (e) work orientation, (f) affect, and (g) finding meaning. Most of the constructs were found to align with the life and personality of Strauss. This was determined by a preliminary literature review of the historical and biographical information across the lifespan of Strauss. Findings indicate that Strauss’s creativity, as composer and conductor of light music, was well illustrated and explained by the constructs of Amabile’s model. This article highlights the relevance of psychobiographical case-study in understanding the lives of significant people, particularly those individuals who made contributions to the classical music industry. Using the CMC allowed the researchers to furthermore describe and explain how intrinsic and extrinsic factors influence creative output of individuals, providing a broader understanding of creativity.

Keywords:

• Psychobiography
• Johann Baptist Strauss II
• Waltz King
• componential model of creativity

Reviewing Editor:

• Samuel Adu-Gyamf i, History and Political Studies, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology College of Arts and Social Science, Kumasi, Ghana

Subjects:

• Psychological Science
• Music
• History

1. Introduction

The purpose of this psychobiographical case study was to uncover and reconstruct the creative life of the renowned Austrian composer Johann Strauss II (1825–1899) by utilising the Componential Model of Creativity (Amabile, 1983, 1988, 1996; Amabile & Pratt, 2016). This perspective or model aided the researchers in gaining a clearly conceptualised approach of Strauss’s creative life across historical periods over his lifespan. Although previous biographies focussed on the historical life of this influential composer, this study employed a psychobiographical approach, which is a subfield within psychohistory (Ponterotto, 2015). Psychobiography involves a synthesis of biography and scientific psychology. Biography gives weight to what is distinct and unique in an eminent individual by using the tools of history, literature, and arts. In turn, developmental psychology takes a more broad and scientific approach to trace and explain patterns of development. In the case of psychobiography, the focus is upon how children turn out to be the particular adult individuals they become, particularly in the case of exemplary and eminent individuals (Howe, 1997). Thus, the study can be characterised as an exploratory-descriptive life history and psychological case study. It provides a longitudinal and psychological description of Strauss’s creative life by utilising triangulated sources of historical data or evidence related to his creative life and interpreted via a psychological perspective to creativity.

2. A brief overview of the historical life of Johann Baptist Strauss II

This overview outlines five eventful historical periods representing a significant time in Joann Baptist Strauss’s life. For purposes of uniformity, Johann Strauss II will be used to refer to this subject under study throughout this article. These historical periods are discussed chronologically and guided the researchers’ exploration and description of Johann Strauss II’s life against the backdrop of socio-cultural, historical, and political forces at play across his life. The importance of understanding eminent psychobiographical subjects against contextual forces such as culture, history and politics has been emphasized by Schultz (2014) and Mayer (2023). Psychobiographical illustrations in sociocultural contexts have also been encouraged amongst psychobiographers (Mayer et al., 2021). Within the field of creativity research, Glăveanu and Tanggaard (2014) have also called for a sociocultural account of human identity and applying it to the case of creative identities. The historical periods across the lifespan of Johann Strauss II have been listed as follows: (a) Early life (1825–1843); (b) Debut as composer (1844–1848); (c) Death of his father: the beginning of a successful career (1849–1861); (d) Marriage, travelling and success (1862–1887), and (e) His final years (1888–1899). A brief discussion of each of these historical periods are provided below. The information for this section was gathered from a collection of biographies, articles, and internet sites to allow for a longitudinal and comprehensive historical overview of Strauss.

2.1. Early life (1825–1843)

Johann Strauss II was born in Austria (11 July 1825) into a Catholic family in St Ulrich near Vienna. Johann Strauss II was the son of an influential composer, Johann Strauss I, who was well-known for his music in Vienna (Gartenberg, 1974). Johann Strauss II’s father was married to Maria Anna Streim. The children were known as Johan Baptist Strauss II (or Johann Strauss II), the eldest child, who had two younger brothers, Joseph, and Eduard. They also much later became composers of light music (Lang, 2014). Although Johan Strauss II showed interest in music from a very young age, his father opposed his dream of entering the music industry (Jones, 2023; Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994). Due to Johann Strauss Sr’s own experience, he did not want his children to follow a career characterised by unpredictability and financial insecurity, thus motivating them to pursue a profession that was more stable, remunerative, and bourgeois (Sano, 1994). Johann Strauss I, therefore, enrolled his two eldest sons at the reputable Schottentorgymnasium, where they studied from 1837 to 1840 (Kemp, 2003; Sano, 1994). In preparation for a career in banking, Johann Strauss II also attended the Commercial Department of the Polytechnic Institute for one year and obtained a distinction for his bookkeeping exam (Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014).

Johann Strauss II’s mother helped him to secretly receive violin lessons from Franz Amon, the violinist of his father’s orchestra (Gartenberg, 1974; Jones, 2023; Sano, 1994), while an organist, Joseph Drechsler (Kapellmeister at St. Stephen’s Cathedral and the Leopoldstadt Theatre), taught him composition, and Anton Kohlman, the Vienna Ballet’s rehearsal pianist and co-répétiteur for ballet and opera gave him piano lessons (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003; Sano, 1994). Drechsler acknowledged that the young Johann Strauss II was gifted and motivated him to focus his compositions on sacred, ‘serious’ music (Sano, 1994). However, Johann Strauss II, never composed music of a more serious nature, yet Drechsler believed that the young musician would develop his talent and eventually become successful (Sano, 1994).

2.2. Debut as composer (1844–1848)

In April 1843, Johann Strauss II left his banking career to devote himself to his calling to persue a career in music (Kemp, 2003). During this time, his father had an affair with a young seamstress, Emilie Trampusch, which placed significant financial pressure on Johann Strauss II to become his family’s primary breadwinner. Johann Strauss II worked as a banker for a brief period early in the 1840’s prior to pursuing a career in music (Jacob, 2013). After the bankruptcy of the bank, however, Johann Strauss had to find another source of income (Fantel, 1971). Despite the uncertainty of success in the music industry, Strauss left his banking career to become a professional musician (Fantel, 1971). Therefore, Strauss deliberately pursued his passion for music, even though it was against the wishes of his father (Gartenberg, 1974). In 1843, Johan Strauss I, left his wife and family and moved in with Emilie Trampusch (Kemp, 2003). During the 19^th Century, minors did not need parental consent to be allowed to perform their music since it was considered a profession that was free to be pursued (Sano, 1994). Strauss wrote the gradual Tu qui regis totum orbem during a piano lesson, which impressed Drechsler (Kemp, 2003).

Johann Strauss II completed an application to the authorities for a licence to poses musical entertainments and included written recommendations from both Drechsler and Kohlmann, together with 20 florins in employment tax (Sano, 1994). Johann Strauss II was successful in his application, and at the age of 19, in October 1844, he made his public debut as composer and conductor at the Dommayer’s Casino in Hietzing (Gartenberg, 1974; Lang, 2014). During his first public performance, he presented music by Meyerbeer, Suppè, Auber and his father, Johann Strauss I (waltz Loreley-Rhein-Klänge op.154) (Kemp, 2003; Sano, 1994). Johann Strauss II also presented four of his own works, including Sinngedichte, Debut-Quadfrille, Herzenslust, and Gunst-Werber. The press and the Viennese public praised Johann Strauss II for his unique compositions, and the Wiener Zeitung newspaper included an invitation to a Soirée dansante performance at the Dorrmayer’s Casino for Strauss’s second performance on 15 October 1844 (Sano, 1994). A newspaper commentary started a rivalry between father and son with the words, ‘Good night, Lanner! Good evening, Father Strauss! Good morning, Son Strauss!’ (Weinberger, 2006. p. 172). Johann Strauss II was inspired by the Viennese public’s praise for him. His public debut as composer motivated him to achieve even more acknowledgement from the public and his family (Kemp, 2003; Sano, 1994).

In 1845, Johann Strauss II, received the honorary position of Bandmaster of the Second Vienna Citizens’ Regiment, while his father, at that time, was known as the Bandmaster of the First Vienna Citizens’ Regiment (Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014). From 1846 until 1847, Johann Strauss II and his orchestra performed at Graz, Ungarisch-Altenbyrg and Pest-Ofen (named Budapest in 1872), Hungary, Bucharest, and Wallachia (Gartenberg, 1974; Lang, 2014). Strauss Jr. received significant recognition after dedicating his orchestral waltz Sängerfahrten op.41. to the noteworthy Wiener Männergesang-Verein (Vienna Men’s Choral Association) (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014). During later years, Johann Strauss II composed nine other works for the former, including the well-known waltzes An der schönen, blauen Donau op.314 (1867), Wein, Weib und Gesang! op.333 (1869) and Bei uns ‘Haus op.361 (1873) (Kemp, 2003). The rivalry between father and son escalated at the beginning of the Viennese Revolution in 1848 (Sano, 1994). Johann Sr. remained loyal to Metternich, the emperor, and the establishment by composing the Radetzky, while Johann Strauss II supported the ideals of the liberal left (Sano, 1994). Both father and son composed some of their best works during this year (Gartenberg, 1974). Throughout 1848, Johann Strauss II demonstrated his support for the revolutionary elements in the capital with his compositions such as his Revolutions-March op.54, Brünner-Nationalgarde-March op.58, Freiheits-Lieder op. 52, the Burschen-Lieder op.55 and La Marseillaise (Gartenberg, 1974; Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994).

The Viennese police interrogated Johann Strauss II after he publicly performed La Marseillaise, which the monarchy considered provocative and subversive (Jones, 2023; Lang, 2014). However, the case against him was dismissed (Gartenberg, 1974; Sano, 1994). It is speculated that his father, who was loyal to the emperor, may have possibly intervened in his son’s case to have the case dismissed (Jones, 2023; Lang, 2014). The provocative behaviour of Johann Strauss II prevented him from obtaining the title of k.k. Hofballmusik-Direktor from the Austrian Empire at the time, which left him devastated (Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014).

2.3. Death of his father: beginning of a successful career (1849–1861)

His initial success as the Waltz King only came after his father’s death from scarlet fever in September 1849 (Ewen, 1935). Johann Strauss II merged his own orchestra with his father’s, and the numerous entertainment authorities eventually handed him the contracts drawn up by his father (Kemp, 2003). Franz Josef, I became Emperor on 2 December 1848, and Johann Strauss II and his orchestra performed Johann Sr’s Radetzky March to show their support for the Austrian movement to break away from Metternich (Sano, 1994). Even though Johann Strauss II did not appear to be Viennese due to his dark features, he soon became a symbol of Viennese and Austrian culture globally (Warren, 2023). One of his first widely recognised waltzes was Liebe’s-Lieder op.114, which he composed in 1852 (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003). The Allgemeine Wiener Theaterzeitung praised his talents on 27 May 1852, when they supported the public’s opinion that Johann Strauss II was a better composer than his father (Sano, 1994; Warren, 2012). The emperor denied Johann Strauss II’s request for the title of Hofballmusikdirektor in 1850 due to Strauss’s earlier provocative music (Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994). The titles of Johann Strauss II’s compositions from 1850 to 1852 had somewhat patriotic titles such as Kaiser Franz Josef Marsch op.67 (1849), Viribus unitis March op. 96 (1851) and Wiener Jubel-Gruss Marsch op. 115 (1852) and was aimed at winning the emperor’s approval (Kemp, 2003). However, Johann Strauss II’s attempts to win over the emperor were unsuccessful (Gartenberg, 1974; Lang, 2014).

Due to the psychological and physical exhaustion caused by his successful career, he suffered a sudden ‘nervous breakdown’ in 1853 and rested for seven days after doctors warned him about his declining health (Kemp, 2003). His younger brother, Josef, left his engineering career to direct Johann Strauss II’s orchestra while he recovered (Lang, 2014). Josef composed nearly 300 pieces and remained the orchestra conductor for the following year (Gartenberg, 1974; Lang, 2014).

During 1854 and 1855, Johann Strauss II and Josef travelled, with the orchestra, to Bad Geastein in agreement with the Tsarskoye-Selo Railway Company in St Petersburg to continue performances at the summer concert season at the Vauxhall Pavilion at Povlovsk in 1856 (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003). The youngest Strauss brother, Eduard, also became involved with the orchestra due to the growing success of the eldest brothers (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994). The performances at Pavlovsk received much support from the public, which led the brothers to return each year until 1865 (Kemp, 2003; Sano, 1994).

2.4. Marriage, travelling and success (1862–1887)

In 1862, Johan Strauss II married Henrietta Jetty Reffz, who fulfilled various roles in Johann Strauss II’s life, including being his secretary, public relations liaison, financial manager and wife (Lang, 2014). In 1863, Johann Strauss II finally received the title of k.k. Hofballmusik-Direkto, and by 1865, Johann Strauss II was recognised as the leading composer of dance music in Europe (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994). Johann Strauss II’s success as a musician peaked during the annual carnival campaign, where he performed works including waltzes Reiseabenteuer op.227, Accellerationen op.234, Morgenblätter op.279, Künstler-Leben op.316, Geschichten aus dem Wienerwald op.325 and Wein, Weib und Gesang! op.333 (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003).

Prussia threatened Vienna with war in June 1866, and on 10 June, the Männer-Gesangverein (Men’s choir) asked Johann Strauss II to compose a choral piece for them (Sano, 1994). Johann Strauss II was inspired by the poem ‘An der Donau’ by Karl Beck and later composed one of his most famous works, ‘The Blue Danube’ (Gartenberg, 1974). The premiere of this masterpiece was held on 15 February 1867 in the Vienna Dianabadsaal and was conducted by Rudolf Weinwurm (Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994).

The Blue Danube was popularised during Johan Strauss II’s performance in Paris and his appearance at the Austrian Embassy Ball, as well as his performances in London (63 promenade performances at the Royal Italian Opera House), in Boston (1872 performance at the World’s Peace Jubilee and International Musical Festival) and then in Berlin (concerts at the brand new Königsbau concert hall during which another composition ‘Kaiser-Walzer op.437’ was introduced) (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994). After the death of his brother, Josef Strauss in 1870, Johann Strauss II composed his very first operetta, Indigo und die vierzig Räuber (Lang, 2014). Furthermore, Johann Strauss II composed 14 other operettas (i.e. Eine Nach in Venedig, Der Zigeunerbaron and Fledermaus), of which Fledermaus (1874) was the most popular (Gartenberg, 1974; Sano, 1994). After the sudden passing of his wife Henrietta, Strauss married Angelika Dittrich in 1878 (Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014). He later divorced Angelika in 1882. After composing yet another famous operetta, The Gypsy Baron, in 1885, he married the love of his life, Adele Deutsch, in 1887 (Gartenberg, 1974). According to Gartenberg (1974) Adele Deutsch was reportedly always the long-term love of his life, even though he never proclaimed it publicly. Strauss composed musical pieces for each of his wives: Jetty (the Bluette-Polka Fracaise op. 871 in 1862), Lili (Kuss-Walzer op.400 in 1882) and Adèle (Adelen-Walzer op.424, 1886) (Kemp, 2003).

2.5. Final years (1888–1899)

In 1898, Johann Strauss II worked on a new ballet, the Aschenbrödel. Even though he became terminally ill in 1899, he continued to pursue his love for music. He requested that the music score be brought to him before Mahler, the conductor of this new work, performed it (Sano, 1994). Johann Strauss II believed in artistic perfection until his death. He was not only named the ‘Waltz King’ based on his famous Austrian compositions but also because he was the first composer to develop the Viennese operetta further (Lang, 2014). Johann Strauss II was described as a reformer of dance music and a beachcomber of world history. He died of pleuropneumonia on 3 June 1899 at the age of 73 (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014).

3. The componential model of creativity as a theoretical approach to understanding the creative life of Johann Baptist Strauss II

This section provides a brief sketch of the Componential Model of Creativity (Amabile, 1983, 1988, 1996, 2012; Amabile & Mueller, 2008; Amabile & Pillemer, 2012; Amabile & Pratt, 2016), which served as the main theoretical approach applied within this psychobiography to uncover and reconstruct the creative life of Johann Strauss II. Prior to the discussion of this model proposed by Teresa Amabile, one must acknowledge researchers with alternative, enriching and complementary conceptions of creativity to that of Amabile (e.g. Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007; Glăveanu, 2013; Glăveanu & Tanggaard, 2014; Green et al., 2014; Mayer, 2019; Runco, 2023; Simonton, 2011).

Teresa Amabile is best known for her Componential Model of Creativity (Amabile, 1983) and her research on motivation, and the work environment. According to Pallister (2023), one of her most influential publications, ‘The Social Psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualisation’ published in 1983, was the beginning of her fruitful research career. Her research included guidelines on monitoring and enhancing individual motivation (Pallister, 2023; Plous, 2011). In later years, Amabile and Kramer (2011) published their work named: ‘The Progress Principle: Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work’. This was regarded as a highly influential book written on creativity (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012). In more recent years, Amabile focused on how inner work life (i.e. hidden experiences and perceptions of work) could influence an individual’s emotions, perceptions, and their performance at work (President & Fellows of Harvard College, 2023).

The Componential Model of Creativity, proposed by Amabile (1988, 1996, 2012), served as the approach that was utilized within this psychobiography. According to Amabile (2012), an individual can be considered creative when they can produce new ideas relevant to a specific goal. In her theory, the internal factors necessary for creativity include domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, intrinsic motivation, work orientation, affect and finding meaning in one’s work, while the external factor impacting individual creativity entails synergistic extrinsic motivation (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). The Componential Model of Creativity was considered an appropriate choice to use in this psychobiography due to its unique characteristics, that include the following: (a) it provides comprehensive information on the different components or constructs of creativity relative to other creativity theories; (b) it specifies the influence of each construct throughout the creativity process; (c) it places emphasis on the social context, and the influence that the environment might have on the individual’s creativity (which psychobiographical studies also adhere to via their sociocultural and historical sensitivity to the world in which the psychobiographical subject developed); (d) and allows for the investigation of creativity on multiple levels (Amabile, 2012). Therefore, the researchers applied the theoretical constructs outlined by the Componential Model of Creativity to serve as salient indicators or components of the creative life of Johann Strauss II, within a psychobiographical and longitudinal case study approach, which is anchored within psycho-historical research design (Ponterotto, 2015).

Even though creativity is a diverse concept, many researchers accept the standard definition, including the criteria of (a) originality or novelty and (b) usefulness, value, or appropriateness (Plucker et al., 2004; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). Furthermore, creativity entails producing an original and relevant response, product or solution to a task that does not have limits or restrictions (Amabile & Mueller, 2008). For a response to be creative, it must be relevant to the task being completed or the problem being solved (i.e. valuable, correct, feasible, or to attain a specific goal) (Amabile, 2012; Kaufman & Glăveanu, 2021). Furthermore, creative tasks are considered creative when individuals display the necessary knowledge and skill about the domain in which the task is undertaken (Amabile, 2012).

Creativity is a vast and complex phenomenon, and therefore, researchers should have a comprehensive understanding of the topic (Kaufman & Glăveanu, 2021). The Componential Model of Creativity, simplifies complex ideas into smaller and more simplistic components or constructs, making creativity research easier to conceptualize (Kaufman & Glăveanu, 2021). In 1983, Amabile propounded the original Componential Theory of Creativity, stating that there are three factors influencing creativity, namely: (a) domain-relevant skills (i.e. having expertise), (b) creativity-relevant processes (i.e. the processes involved in cognition and personality that allow for innovative thinking) and task motivation (i.e. intrinsic motivation to interact with the activity with curiosity and showing interest in the activity) (Amabile, 1983,1988; Kaufman & Glăveanu, 2021). In addition, external factors (e.g. the social environment) also impact upon creativity (Amabile, 1996). In later years the model was revised and extended, with four additional components or constructs, pairing intrinsic motivation with synergistic extrinsic motivation (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). These original three constructs, and further four additional constructs (i.e. seven in total), that are indicative of creativity, include the following:

3.1. Domain-relevant skills

Domain-relevant skills include an individual’s expertise, technical skills, and natural talent in the applicable domain of activity (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012). Furthermore, domain-relevant skills encompass raw sources that assist the individual during the creative process (Emami et al., 2022). These components interact to produce credible responses and proficiency to evaluate the practicality of potential responses (Amabile, 2012). The ‘expertise’ concept, part of domain-relevant skills, is the cornerstone of all creative activities (Emami et al., 2022). Certain cognitive skills are used to solve a problem or carry out an activity, and therefore, thorough domain-relevant expertise is vital. The elements of expertise could be the recall and memory of information, including specific facts, technical skills, and original talents (Amabile, 1996; Emami et al., 2022). According to the definition provided by Amabile, domain-relevant skills are a performance beginning in a relevant domain (Amabile, 1996). The knowledge in the applicable domain is vital to finding an effective solution since domain-relevant skills combine factual knowledge, technical expertise, and the original talent of an individual that forms part of a specific domain (Duarte Alonso et al., 2018; Emami et al., 2022). Knowledge and technical skills can be influenced by the support of supervisors and educational opportunities (Amabile, 1996).

3.2. Creativity-relevant processes

Creativity-relevant processes encompass cognitive and perceptual styles, together with thinking skills that are associated with approaching problems, changing ideas, comprehensive thinking, making uncommon associations (i.e. processes associated with individual personality, traits and characteristics that cause the individual to take risks and refrain from conformity), and determined, energetic styles of work (Amabile & Pratt, 2016).

Creativity-relevant skills include implicit or explicit knowledge of heuristics to create new ideas, as well as a specific work style. Creative skills are largely influenced by the individual’s training in the domain, their experience generating novel ideas, as well as the different aspects of their personality (Amabile, 1983, 1988).

3.3. Intrinsic motivation

Motivation entails two categories that guide direction, intensity, and the perseverance of performance, namely: (a) intrinsic and (b) extrinsic motivation (Cerasoli et al., 2014; Deci et al., 2017). According to Amabile (1983), intrinsic motivation is vital to creativity and is associated with the passion and motivation of an individual to engage in an activity to find a solution to a problem that seems to interest or satisfy the individual on a personal level (Amabile, 1996; Emami et al., 2022). Intrinsic motivation is produced when an individual perceives the value of engaging in an activity that is enjoyable, rewarding or positively demanding (Amabile, 1983, 1988). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation differ since intrinsic motivation comes from within an individual and is not determined by external factors, such as a role model or motivator (Emami et al., 2022). Intrinsic motivation can drastically change when factors supporting it are present or absent (Amabile, 2012). Another important aspect of intrinsic motivation is that it can compensate for expertise or innovative thinking skills when present to a high degree (Amabile, 1988; Emami et al., 2022). An individual with high intrinsic motivation, therefore, will focus on gaining more skills in the applicable domain, which will enhance their creativity (Amabile, 1988). Grant and Berry (2011) suggested that perspective-taking skills of individuals, influence the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity.

3.4. Synergistic extrinsic motivation

Synergistic extrinsic motivation refers to the presence or absence of an individual’s knowledge, competence, values, and engagement (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Extrinsic motivation can positively contribute to intrinsic motivation and add additional positive outcomes such as increased motivation and creativity (Amabile, 1983, 1988, 1996). Extrinsic motivation adds to intrinsic motivation, leading to more creativity (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Two components of extrinsic motivation might add to intrinsic motivation and, ultimately, creativity (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). The first, termed ‘extrinsics in service of intrinsics’, consider how certain external motivators increase intrinsic motivation, whereas other external motivators do not (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). The Cognitive Evaluation Theory focuses on informational extrinsic motivators (i.e. motivators that provide individuals with information that leads to their increased competence or validates their efforts) and it focuses on controlling extrinsic motivators (i.e. people feel that an external force controls them and inhibits their development of self-determination), subsequently highlighting that information motivators are more beneficial to intrinsic motivation than a controlling motivator (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Therefore, any extrinsic factors that inform and support the person’s expertise and competence and encourage engagement within work without inhibiting the person’s self-determination would be considered synergistic extrinsic motivators (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). This is especially seen in the praise from the Viennese public for his debut as composer (Kemp, 2003; Sano, 1994), which propelled him to be more motivated to receive acknowledgement from the public and his family for his creative works. Resultantly, recognition of the individual’s work and rewards that encourage the individual’s interaction with activities that interest them will lead to increased creativity (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). The second component of extrinsic motivation is termed the ‘motivation-work cycle match’. This mechanism states that synergistic extrinsic motivators facilitate the creative process only at specific stages (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). During Stage 1 (i.e. problem conceptualisation and first interaction with the creative process) and Stage 3 (i.e. generation of novel ideas), intrinsic motivation is an important facilitator of novelty (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, contributes significantly to the stages that determine the appropriateness of ideas and in cases where tasks might be uninteresting, including Stage 2 (i.e. preparation) and Stage 4 (i.e. validation and communication of ideas) (Amabile, 1996; Amabile & Pratt, 2016). It is evident that a relationship exists between levels of motivation and creative performance since intrinsic motivation and controlling extrinsic motivation are vital to creativity, and informational extrinsic motivation can be advantageous, especially at the beginning of the creative process (Amabile, 1996).

3.5. Work orientation

With the revised theory proposed by Amabile (1996), Work orientation was added as a factor influencing motivation. The term refers to the internal evaluations that individuals have that contribute to making work beneficial and worth doing (Pratt et al., 2013). Work orientations are related to personal interpretation and perception of how valuable work is (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Work orientation accounts are created by internalising society’s standards (i.e. family members, religious affiliations, social media, educational institutions, and other influential social roles) (Pratt et al., 2013). It can, therefore, be concluded that a relationship exists between work orientations and creativity: a creative activity may be regarded as intrinsically motivational and rewarding if an individual recognises creativity within the task (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Work orientations are linked to creativity in three ways: (a) work orientation directly influences creativity through motivation, (b) the statements made by authority figures regarding innovation will only be considered motivating if individuals perceive innovation and creativity within work as meaningful and (c) work orientations may affect persistence and ultimately the degree to which individuals have perseverance during the creative process (Amabile & Pratt, 2016).

3.6. Affect

Positive moods lead to increased levels of creativity and components of performance that relate to creativity (Isen, 1999). Various research studies have indicated the relationship between positive affect, ‘joyfulness’ (i.e. the most common affective response to work progress) and creativity (Amabile et al., 2005). Positive affect on a given day influences a person’s creativity on subsequent days (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Work progress is related to the emotion of joy, which leads to positive affect and, ultimately, creativity and the experience of meaningful work (Arnold et al., 2007; Isen, 1999). Isen (1999) proposed that positive affect increases the scope of individual cognitions (i.e. it allows for more uncommon cognitive thoughts) and should, therefore, facilitate creativity (Fredrickson, 2001; Isen, 1999). However, according to Kaufmann and Vosburg (1997), negative affect could lead to increased levels of creativity, maintaining that negative affect may identify potential problematic tasks that stimulate deeper cognitive tasks and ultimately lead to creativity. Certain individuals are more innovative and creative when they experience negative affect and are deeply ‘in touch’ with their emotions (Zhou & George, 2003). Despite the lack of clarity in the research on affect, it remains evident that the creative process is directly influenced by affect (Amabile & Pratt, 2016).

3.7. Finding meaning in one’s work

Individual work progress is directly influenced by the meaning they attach to their work (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Meaningful work is associated with work that is regarded as being positive and significant in a certain way, although not all individuals experience their work as being enjoyable (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Therefore, research maintains that individuals who experience meaningfulness during task engagement have a higher chance of experiencing positive affect and creativity (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Meaningful work depends on the individual and their personal intrinsic motivations (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Meaningful work increases creativity, work progress and persistence in the relevant activity (Rosso et al., 2010). In conclusion, finding meaning in one’s work is vital for understanding an individual’s intrinsic motivation to engage in creative tasks and progress within their work (Amabile & Pratt, 2016).

4. Research design and methodology

In this section the aim of this psychobiographical case study is provided. Mention is made of the psychobiographical design and approach as well as the sampling of the psychobiographical subject under study. Furthermore, the data collection and analysis, as well as the rigor and trustworthiness of psychobiography as case study, are provided with relevant mention and sensitivity to ethical considerations.

4.1. Aim of the research

This psychobiography aimed to uncover and reconstruct the creative life of the renowned Austrian composer Johann Strauss II (1825–1899) by utilising the Componential Model of Creativity (Amabile, 1983, 1988, 1996; Amabile & Pratt, 2016). The study can be characterised as an exploratory-descriptive and longitudinal life history psychobiography.

4.2. Psychobiographical research design and methodology

The research design entailed a psychobiographical single case study over an entire lifespan, which is the most typically used method in psychobiographical research (Du Plessis, 2017; Fouché & Van Niekerk, 2010). Psychobiography is mostly a qualitative psycho-historic research design grounded within the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm (Ponterotto, 2014, 2015; Ponterotto et al., 2015; Ponterotto & Reynolds, 2017). Emerging psychobiographical studies are no longer critiqued for their limited rigor and trustworthiness and are increasingly incorporating socio-cultural, anthropological, and historical components within the field of psychology (Citlak, 2023; Mayer, 2023). Furthermore, both historiographical and psychological methodologies are used in combination to contribute to the overall integrity of the field of psychobiography (Ponterotto, 2015; Van Niekerk, 2022).

4.3. Sampling the psychobiographical subject under study: Johann Baptist Strauss II

Johann Strauss II, the renowned composer, was selected as the subject for this psychobiographical study through non-probability purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is used in qualitative research to gain an in-depth understanding of a certain phenomenon against the backdrop of an existing theory or model. The latter is called analytical generalization (Yin, 2018) instead of the mere statistically generalization of results (Burnell et al., 2019; Marshall, 1996; Yin, 2018). Non-probability purposive sampling relies on the researchers’ purposive choice of a case or human subject that would lead to the further development, refinement or even refuting of constructs and propositions of the theoretical framework or model that was utilized to uncover the case (Lune & Berg, 2017; Yin, 2018).

Johann Strauss II, who is not a relative of the second author’s family, has been chosen due to both the researchers’ interest in exceptional eminence, psychobiography as research design and method, and in genius and creativity. Strauss significantly contributed to the classical music genres, specifically the Viennese waltz and the Viennese operetta (Lang, 2014). Furthermore, Johann Strauss II’s music provided cultural meaning for Austrians in the 20^th Century, and the Viennese public found comfort in the Blue Danube waltz in a traumatic post-war era (Gartenberg, 1974; Lang, 2014).

4.4. Data gathering, extraction and analysis

Both primary data sources (i.e. the subject’s own written documents) that were publicly available and secondary data sources (i.e. documents about the subject that others have written) (Yin, 2018), were utilised in this study. The most pertinent primary sources included his famous works such as the following: The Blue Danube; Kaiser-Walzer; Tales from the Vienna Wood, as well as famous operettas such as Die Fledermaus and Der Zigeunerbaron. Important secondary sources include the works undertaken by Gartenberg (1974); Jones (2023); Kemp (2003); Lang (2014) and Sano (1994). The latter are listed in the reference list. Data sources, such as biographies, written letters, the subject’s compositions, audio materials, and memoirs, have been included and analysed according to the inter-connected constructs set out by the Componential Model of Creativity (Amabile, 1996). Only publicly available data sources were utilised for collection, extraction, and analysis. Alexander’s (1988, 1990) widely recognized and utilized biographical indicators of saliency (i.e. uniqueness, negation, emphasis, primacy, frequency, error, isolation, incompletion, and omission) were utilised for the successful identification and extraction of salient data and themes. In utilizing these indicators of significance, it was intended that the detection of salient fragments of data can be scrutinised further for meaning. To illustrate this, primacy as an indicator of salience, is utilized. In primacy, saliency can be elicited through exploring what appeared to come first in texts. Alexander (1990) noted the importance, both in psychology and in human nature in general regarding being attentive to foundational experiences, as well as what instances were reported first in a narrative. The useful data in the primacy category includes early memories, first experiences and introductory comments elicited directly from the verbal or written words of the subject or biographer. In the case of Joann Strauss II, the subject of this study, primacy is given to the fact that he was the son of the well-known composer, Joann Strauss I. The second strategy involves the questioning of the historical and biographical data and successfully identifying and extracting the appropriate analysis-units or themes in the data, that indicate and construe creativity according to the Componential Model of Creativity, namely: (a) Domain-relevant skills, (b) Creativity-relevant processes, (c) Intrinsic motivation, (d) Synergistic extrinsic motivation, (e) Work orientation, (f) Affect, and (g) Finding meaning in one’s work, that clearly link with the study’s overall aim (Alexander, 1990).

4.5. Ensuring rigour and trustworthiness within psychobiography

For data to have rigour and trustworthiness, four criteria should be considered: confirmability, credibility, transferability, and dependability (Ponterotto, 2014; Shenton, 2004). Confirmability entails establishing the relevant operational measures for the concepts and propositions being investigated. This was ensured by using the components or constructs proposed by the Componential Model of Creativity (Amabile, 1996), which also are listed in the psycho-historical matrix (Yin, 2018). Credibility was ensured through data triangulation (Yin, 2018). Publicly available data sources, such as biographies, written letters, the subject’s compositions, audio materials, and memoirs, were included and analysed according to the inter-connected constructs set out by the Componential Model of Creativity (Amabile, 1996). Transferability is not mainly associated with whether the study’s results can be generalised to the larger population but more with analytical generalisation by comparing the results of a case study to an established psychological theory or model that was used in the psychobiography as a case study (Yin, 2018). Therefore, the researchers compared the findings on the creative life of Johann Strauss II with the components and constructs indicated in the Componential Model of Creativity. Dependability is ensured when a study can be duplicated several times and produce the same results every time. Dependability was strengthened by the systematic application and utilisation of data and thematic gathering strategies via the use of the previously mentioned indicators of psychobiographical thematic salience (Alexander, 1988, 1990).

4.6. Ethical considerations

To maintain confidentiality concerning the relatives of the subject, it is advised that the subject should have been deceased for a minimum of 80 years (Ponterotto & Reynolds, 2017), making this study feasible since Strauss has been deceased for 124 years. Only publicly available data sources have been used to prevent any harm or embarrassment to the subject’s relatives. The study adhered to the recommended best practices in psychobiography (Ponterotto, 2014), as well as the implementation of legal and ethical guidelines that psychobiography should aim at adhering to Ponterotto and Reynolds (2017). This study received ethical clearance from the institution’s General Human Research Ethics Committee for Humanities (ethical clearance number: UFS-HUM-2014-68/1806/21/22). This committee acts as an institutional review board of research undertaken by the university.

5. Research findings and discussion: the creative life of Johann Baptist Strauss II

The seven components or constructs proposed by Amabile, served as the most significant indicators during the exploration and reconstruction of Strauss’s creative life. In addition, the Componential Model of Creativity, utilized in conjunction with a psychobiographical case study design and method, allowed the researchers to gain a longitudinal psychological understanding of Strauss’s creative life across the five historical periods in his developmental history. These five historical periods of Strauss’s creative life were analyzed and interpreted within the Componential Model of Creativity’s seven components or constructs and appear in below discussion.

5.1. Early life (1825–1843)

5.1.1. Domain-relevant skills

According to Amabile, a person with a high degree of domain-relevant skills has the specialised knowledge and expertise necessary to successfully perform a task. Furthermore, domain-relevant skills include having sufficient intelligence and a unique talent within a certain area of interest (Amabile, 1983, 1988, 1996; Amabile & Pratt, 2016). The individual, therefore, uses these domain-relevant skills as resources when confronted with a domain-specific problem, and creates personal standards against which all creativity-related activities are compared (Amabile, 2012). Johann Strauss II’s musical talent was evident from a very young age (Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994). Since Strauss’s father was an influential composer in Vienna, he grew up in a house characterised by piano and violin music played by his father (i.e. Johann Strauss I), including frequent composition rehearsals with his father’s orchestra (Gartenberg, 1974). The young Johann Strauss II, therefore, was exposed to a variety of resources necessary for music-related skills. Furthermore, Johann Strauss II’s cognitive skills and technical expertise were further developed when he received music lessons from Franz Amon (violin), Joseph Drechsler (composition) and Anton Kohlman (piano) (Gartenberg, 1974; Sano, 1994). Drechsler provided recognition for Johann Strauss II’s giftedness and shared this with other authority figures in the music industry, especially when Strauss’s originality was evident in one of his first works, the gradual Tu qui regis totum orchem (i.e. a sacred work) (Sano, 1994).

5.1.2. Creativity-relevant processes

Creativity-relevant processes include an individual’s cognition, perception and thinking in relation to domain-specific problems, as well as the personality characteristics that foster independence, willingness to take on challenges, perspective-taking, and self-discipline within their work environment (Amabile, 2012; Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Although Johann Strauss I knew about his son’s musical talent, he did not favour his passion for music. However, Johann Strauss II’s continuous exposure to music within his household provided a climate for learning and creativity (Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014). His father’s opposition and his enrolment at the Schottentorgymnasium may have motivated him to take the risk of having secret music lessons from his father’s orchestra members (Kemp, 2003; Sano, 1994). Furthermore, Johann Strauss II’s training in violin, composition and piano most likely taught him how to utilise his existing knowledge to generate new ideas, develop his own unique style in music and apply his own perspective to his music in the face of ambiguity. Also, when Drechsler encouraged Johann Strauss II to compose music of a serious and sacred nature, he did not conform to his teacher’s wishes and instead used his own creative ideas to compose waltzes (Sano, 1994).

5.1.3. Intrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation refers to an individual’s motivation during a confrontation with a specific problem. The individual with intrinsic motivation usually finds the activity interesting, challenging or rewarding due to their internal motivation and not due to motivation from external factors (Amabile, 1996; Emami et al., 2022). From a young age, Johann Strauss II had a deep passion for music, and therefore, he did not internalise his father’s wishes for him to become a banker (Gartenberg, 1974). Johann Strauss II’s internal motivation to follow his passion arguably created his determination and persistence to continue his lessons with his music educators. Thus, it is evident that Johann Strauss II enjoyed his engagement in music and most likely found it rewarding to solve musical ‘problems’ in his composition lessons with Drescher. Johann Strauss II’s intrinsic motivation was supported by various figures, such as his mother and music teachers (Gartenberg, 1974; Jones, 2023; Kemp, 2003; Sano, 1994).

5.1.4. Synergistic extrinsic motivation

Synergistic extrinsic motivation forms part of the social environment and relates to the presence or absence of controlling extrinsic motivators or information motivators (Amabile, 2012). Certain external factors foster motivation, while others reduce motivation and, ultimately, creativity (Amabile, 2012; Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Strauss’s father, an influential figure in Johann Strauss II’s life, maintained that a music career was unpredictable and financially insecure and tried to convince his children that a career in banking would produce more stable work opportunities (Kemp, 2003). In addition, it can be argued that Strauss Snr, a controlling external motivator, fostered his son’s creative processes by encouraging more determination and passion to pursue a music career. Furthermore, Johann Strauss II’s mother and his diversely skilled music educators believed in his talent and allowed Strauss to freely compose unique music, which, in turn, contributed to his own intrinsic motivation to practice self-discipline, autonomous thinking, and mastery in his music (Sano, 1994). Johann Strauss II received recognition for his creative music from Drechsler, who motivated him to succeed in his career as a composer (Gartenberg, 1974). Considering the stages of the motivation-work cycle match, Stage 1 represents the first years of Strauss’s interaction with music, where he encountered the creative process as a child, Stage 2 was influenced by his father’s opposing views regarding his passion for music (Strauss Snr slowed down his son’s preparation for a career in music), Stage 3 can be linked to that Johann Strauss II. used his own intrinsic motivation to get educated in music (which allowed him to compose new and unique music), and Stage 4 refers to Johann Strauss II’s very first performance as composer and conductor of dance music in 1844. This is where he had the opportunity to share his unique ideas with his social environment and receive recognition for it.

5.1.5. Work orientation

Work orientation directly influences an individual’s motivation within the work environment (Amabile, 1996). Individual internal evaluations, formed when an individual internalises societal standards, will determine the degree to which that individual finds their work advantageous and worthwhile (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Johann Strauss II’s persistence and dedication to follow a career in music is evident throughout the first historical period. He did not attach much value to his studies for a career in banking (even though he achieved distinctions) and, therefore, relied on his intrinsic motivation to receive an education in music. His educators played an important role in his motivation to persist in music since they fostered an environment open to innovation, creativity, and exploration (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Therefore, it can be argued that Johann Strauss II valued the opinions of his mother and authority figures in the music industry more than those of his father (Pratt et al., 2013), which ultimately contributed to the meaning that he attached to his career in music, the persistence to work hard and the dedication to compose creative works.

Johann Strauss II had a strong passion for music, which was the primary reason he abandoned his banking career to professionally pursue music in 1844 (Jacob, 2013). Although his father was against his dream of becoming a professional musician, his passion for composition and performance overruled the possible concerns regarding financial stability that was associated with a career in music (Jacob, 2013)

5.1.6. Affect

An individual’s affective state significantly influences the creative process (Amabile & Mueller, 2008). In addition, positive emotions, such as joy, foster creativity, while negative emotions, such as anxiety, inhibit the creative process (Amabile et al., 2005). Therefore, an individual will progress in their work when they experience positive affect, which, in turn, leads to creativity (Arnold et al., 2007; Isen, 1999). Johann Strauss II’s range of individual cognitions increased when he started to receive lessons from Franz Amon, Joseph Drechsler and Anton Kohlman (Fredrickson, 2001; Isen, 1999) since the opportunity to engage in activities that he found meaningful and that produced positive affect contributed to his own creativity. It can also be argued that Johann Strauss II experienced negative affect when his father did not support his passion for music, and these negative emotions had the potential to stimulate his deeper cognitive skills and, subsequently, his creativity in music (Kaufmann & Vosburg, 1997).

5.1.7. Finding meaning in one’s work

Individuals who experience their work as beneficial, positive, and meaningful during their interaction with work-related activities will, in most cases, experience positive emotions, facilitating innovation and creativity (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Individuals will, therefore, persist in their work if they have intrinsic motivation, attach meaning to it, and engage in innovative activities (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Johan Strauss II attached meaning to a career in music, and his interaction with tasks such as composition contributed to positive affect and, ultimately, creativity (Rosso et al., 2010). Furthermore, Johann Strauss II’s intrinsic motivation influenced the meaning he attached to music. Thus, he had the perseverance to continue his studies in music and progress in his career as a musician (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Furthermore, he attached meaning to the statements made by his music educators regarding his progress, and therefore, his work orientation and persistence also played a role in finding his engagement with music meaningful (Amabile & Pratt, 2016).

5.2. Debut as composer (1844–1848)

5.2.1. Domain-relevant skills

Johann Strauss II was trained sufficiently by his music educators and had the domain-relevant skills required for a performance license and a debut as composer and conductor in 1844 (Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994). His first public performance at the Dommayer’s Casino proves the creativity facilitated by his domain-relevant skills when he performed music from four different composers (with different styles in music), as well as four of his own unique compositions (Lang, 2014).

5.2.2. Creativity-relevant processes

One of the greatest risks that Johann Strauss II took during this life period was to exchange his middle-class, professional banking career with a music career (Lang, 2014). It can be argued that Johan Strauss II had a risk-taking personality and that he may have seen an uncertain career in music as an opportunity rather than a challenge. Furthermore, his risk-taking personality may have acted as a mediator between creativity and innovation at the beginning of his career (Graciano et al., 2022).

5.2.3. Intrinsic motivation

During a piano lesson with Drechsler in 1844, Johan Strauss II’s passion for music was evident when he engaged in a personally challenging yet rewarding activity and composed the Tu qui regis totum orchem (Sano, 1994). The challenge of composing new music was something that Strauss found enjoyable and rewarding, which explains why he had such a passion for continuing music-related activities. Furthermore, he focused his efforts on advancing his career and applied to the authorities for a license in musical entertainment (Sano, 1994). Therefore, Johann Strauss II’s intrinsic motivation and passion were vital to his creativity and initial success during his debut as a composer from 1844 to 1848 (Amabile, 1983).

5.2.4. Synergistic extrinsic motivation

Strauss’s music teacher, Drechsler, was assumably a significant informational extrinsic motivator since he praised him for his compositions and motivated him to develop his knowledge and skills as a young composer (Kemp, 2003; Sano, 1994). Kohlman, another external motivator, provided a letter of recommendation to the authorities to motivate Johann Strauss II’s application for a music entertainment license (Sano, 1994). It can be argued that Johann Strauss II’s successful application to the authorities and the opportunity to perform publicly may have motivated him to further equip himself with the necessary skills to become a successful composer. Even though Johann Strauss II’s father, Johann Snr, who can be regarded as a controlling motivator, did not give him credit for his efforts, Johan Strauss II received synergistic extrinsic motivation from the validation he received from the Viennese public and the Wiener Zeitung newspaper after his public debut (Gartenberg, 1974; Lang, 2014). Other synergistic extrinsic motivators that possibly influenced Strauss’s creativity include the title that was given to him as an honory position of Bandmaster of the Second Vienna Citizen’s Regiment, and the recognition he received from the noteworthy Wiener Männergesang-Verein (Gartenberg, 1974; Lang, 2014).

5.2.5. Work orientation

From 1846 to 1847, Strauss performed in numerous places, including Hungary, Bucharest, and Wallachia (Gartenberg, 1974; Lang, 2014). Therefore, Johann Strauss II’s internal evaluations regarding his career made the long hours of travelling between destinations worth doing (Pratt et al., 2013). Furthermore, Johann Strauss II’s work orientation was influenced when he internalised the societal standards created by the Viennese Revolution and composed almost political music (such as the Revolutions March op.54) to demonstrate his support for the ideals of the liberal left (Sano, 1994).

5.2.6. Affect

There was significant pressure on Johan Strauss II when he had to fulfil the role of family breadwinner after his father left the household and moved in with Emilie Trampusch (Kemp, 2003). He possibly experienced negative emotions such as anger and anxiety due to the financial hardships in his household, which may have stimulated core cognitive tasks and, subsequently, creativity in his work (Kaufmann & Vosburg, 1997). Furthermore, Strauss’s provocative behaviour during the Viennese Revolution prevented him from obtaining the title of k.k Hofballmusik-Direkto (Director of Music for the Imperial-Royal Court Balls) (Jones, 2023). The disappointment may have caused innovation and creativity to further pursue the dream of earning the title.

5.2.7. Finding meaning in one’s work

Strauss valued the Vienna Men’s Choral Association and dedicated more than nine compositions to the association (Kemp, 2003). Johann Strauss II’s intrinsic motivations and the meaning that he attached to writing music for the Wiener Männergesang-Verein increased his creativity, progress in his career and persistence to become even more successful in the Viennese culture (Rosso et al., 2010).

5.3. Death of his father: beginning of a successful career (1849–1861)

5.3.1. Domain-relevant skills

Johann Strauss II merged his own orchestra with his father’s (Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014). It can be argued that these orchestra members provided Strauss with their personal insights during rehearsals, contributing to the educational resources the young composer had available during the creative process (Emami et al., 2022). Also, when Strauss decided to focus on his father’s compositions during performances, the musicians of his father’s orchestra would have been able to recall Strauss Snr’s music. Therefore, Strauss not only had the opportunity to develop his own technical skills and talent but also to be influenced by experienced musicians, which contributed to his creativity (Amabile, 1996).

5.3.2. Creativity-relevant processes

In 1853, when Johann Strauss II suffered a ‘nervous breakdown’ (this more likely could be the result of professional burnout), he took another risk when he asked his brother, Josef Strauss, who had been in an engineering career, to direct his orchestra for the following year. The fact that Strauss trusted his relatively inexperienced brother to perform under his name demonstrates Strauss’s tolerance for ambiguity (Amabile, 2012) and his strong motivation to ‘solve’ the problem of his declining health temporarily without giving up his passion.

5.3.3. Intrinsic motivation

The orchestra of Johann Strauss II’s father faced uncertainty when their conductor passed away, and Johann Strauss II arguably found it rewarding to solve this problem (Amabile, 1996; Emami et al., 2022). Strauss also might have felt responsible for continuing his father’s legacy, which could have compensated for his creative expertise and innovative thinking since he had a specific internal motivation as to why he had to merge his father’s orchestra with his own. Furthermore, Johann Strauss II most likely enjoyed working with experienced musicians who carried with them a piece of his father, which facilitated his intrinsic motivations (Amabile, 1996).

5.3.4. Synergistic extrinsic motivation

During this period, Johann Strauss II had several synergistic motivators: (a) the entertainment authorities that his father previously had contracts with, which most likely provided him with a platform, validation and financial compensation for his music; (b) the recognition and motivation he received from the Allgemeine Wiener Theaterzeitung; and (c) the continuous support from the Viennese public, that considered him a better composer than Strauss Snr. These synergistic extrinsic motivators informed and supported Strauss’s expertise and competence without controlling his passion for music (Amabile & Pratt, 2016).

5.3.5. Work orientation

It can be argued that Johann Strauss II’s perception regarding the value of his music career informed his choice to ask for his brother’s help during his health recovery period in 1853. The societal standards Johan Strauss II lived up to throughout his career had to be maintained. Therefore, his intrinsic motivation, influential authority figures in society (such as the emperor), and his work orientation influenced his persistence to continue his career in music.

5.3.6. Affect

The death of Strauss’s father arguably caused him to experience intense sadness, and if Strauss had been deeply in touch with his emotions, it might have contributed to his scope of cognitions, creativity, and innovation during the process of composing one of his widely recognised waltzes, the Liebe’s-Lieder op.114, in 1852 (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003).

5.3.7. Finding meaning in one’s work

Strauss attached significant meaning to his father’s orchestra, possibly because some of the orchestra members educated him in piano (Joseph Drechsler) and violin (Franz Amon) and contributed to his success as conductor and composer of dance music. In addition, he merged his own orchestra with that of his father’s (Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014), demonstrating that he found his father’s work meaningful and that his own intrinsic motivation and work orientation may have contributed to his choices during this time.

5.4. Marriage, travelling and success (1862–1887)

5.4.1. Domain-relevant skills

Johann Strauss II’s domain-relevant skills were the most prominent during this period, and his musical success peaked (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994). Strauss’s training in composition provided him with the skills to write works such as the Wein, Weib und Gesang! op.333 (1869) and his most popular waltz, the An der schönen, blauen Donau op.314 (1867) (Kemp, 2003). Furthermore, he wrote works such as waltzes Reiseabenteuer op.227, Accellerationen op.234, and composed his very first operetta in 1870 (Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994), which also demonstrates the significance of his musical expertise.

5.4.2. Creativity-relevant processes

In 1863, Johan Strauss II’s self-discipline and perseverance finally paid off when he received the title of k.k. Hofballmusik-Direktor (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014). The Wiener Männergesang-Verein knew that Strauss was an experienced and noteworthy composer and asked him to write a choral piece for them in response to the threats to war made by Prussia in 1866 (Sano, 1994). Strauss’s innovative ideas, perspectives and experience generating novel ideas played a significant role in the creative process of writing his most popular work of all time, ‘The Blue Danube’ (Gartenberg; 1974).

5.4.3. Intrinsic motivation

After Johann Strauss II had received the title of k.k. Hofballmusik-Direktor (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994), it can be argued that his intrinsic motivation and dedication to pursue music increased even more. He achieved one of his biggest dreams, not because of the rewards, competition or status accompanying his successful career but because of his interest, perseverance, and passion (Emami et al., 2022). His intrinsic motivation significantly influenced his creative efforts throughout his life (Amabile, 1996; Emami et al., 2022).

5.4.4. Synergistic extrinsic motivation

Johann Strauss II received significant recognition (extrinsic synergistic motivators) during this period of his life: (a) In 1865, he was known as the leading composer of dance music in Europe (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003; Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994); (b) during the annual carnival campaign he was praised for works such as Geschichten aus dem Wienerwald op.325 and Wein, Weib und Gesang! op.333 (Gartenberg, 1974; Kemp, 2003); and (c) during his performances in Paris, London and Berlin, The Blue Danube, was popularised. The success that came with his music provided him with an environment that motivated his innovation and creativity (Amabile, 2012).

5.4.5. Work orientation

Strauss’s persistence in not giving up his dream of receiving the title of k.k Hofballmusik-Direkto is evident throughout his life. Johann Strauss II’s internal evaluations regarding the composition of creative music made this challenging yet rewarding career worth doing. Although his father intentionally opposed his success as a young musician, he did not internalise these statements. Furthermore, he focused on the societal standards created by the Viennese public, the motivation and support of his mother, his political beliefs, and the motivation he received from his educational leaders (Pratt et al., 2013).

5.4.6. Affect

Johann Strauss II was happily married to Henrietta Jetty Treffz from 1862 until she died in 1878 (Jones, 2023; Lang, 2014; Sano, 1994). The joy he experienced during this time arguably contributed to his success as a musician since positive emotions increased the range of his cognitions in music-related activities and increased his creativity. The passing of his first wife and his unhappiness in his second marriage to Angelika Dittrich caused Strauss to experience intense negative affect; thus, his deeper cognitive tasks and creativity may have been stimulated during this time (Kaufmann & Vosburg, 1997).

5.4.7. Finding meaning in one’s work

Johann Strauss II’s three marriages became the meaning that he attached to three of his compositions: (a) After Henrietta’s passing, Strauss wrote the Jetty (the Bluette-Polka Fracaise op. 871 in 1862); (b) During his unhappy marriage to Angelika, he wrote Kuss-Walzer op.400 in 1882 and (c) for his last and happy marriage to Adéle Deutsch, he wrote Adelen-Walzer op.424, in 1886 (Kemp, 2003). Strauss arguably associated his love life with being significant motivators in his creative process (Amabile & Pratt, 2016), which ultimately impacted his work progress, persistence, and success during this period (Rosso et al., 2010).

5.5. Final years (1888–1889)

5.5.1. Domain-relevant skills

In 1898, Strauss equipped himself with new skills and succeeded in composing a new ballet (the Aschenbrödel), which demonstrated his expertise and natural talent in music for the final time in his life (Sano, 1994).

5.5.2. Creativity-relevant processes

Strauss became terminally ill in 1899 but continued showing his risk-taking personality (Amabile, 2012) by focusing on the ultimate perfection of his last composition, the ballet. It can be assumed that Strauss remained determined and energetic in his style of work until he died in 1899 (Amabile & Pratt, 2016).

5.5.3. Intrinsic motivation

Strauss had a significant passion for music throughout his life and achieved great success (Sano, 1994). In addition, his intrinsic motivation guided his direction and perseverance in performance from his first debut as a composer until his death (Amabile, 1983).

5.5.4. Synergistic extrinsic motivation

During Johann Strauss II’s final years, he continued to receive recognition for his creative and influential music. He became known as the ‘Waltz King’ based on his popular Austrian music. Furthermore, he was praised for further developing the Viennese operetta (Lang, 2014). It remains challenging to mention all the synergistic extrinsic motivators that influenced Strauss’s creativity, given that he was so successful.

5.5.5. Work orientation

Despite Strauss’s declining health during his last year, he continued to pursue his love and passion for music. He even edited his final composition to perfection before the conductor of this work performed it in 1899. Strauss’s work orientation positively influenced his motivation throughout his life (Amabile, 1996).

5.5.6. Affect

It can be argued that both positive and negative affect significantly impacted Strauss’s creativity and, subsequently, his ability to successfully compose influential music (Zhou & George, 2003). Johann Strauss II most likely experienced joyfulness when he composed new music, and this emotion, in turn, facilitated his expectancy that all his efforts in writing music formed the basis of creative achievement as a composer and conductor.

5.5.7. Finding meaning in one’s work

Strauss’s progress during his career can be attributed to the meaning he attached to music. He experienced music as an enjoyable, personally challenging, yet rewarding activity, and therefore, this meaningfulness led to positive affect and, ultimately, creativity. The latter could be explained as meaningfulness that resulted in positive affect and eventual creativity (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Deci & Ryan, 2008).

6. Conclusion: the value, limitations and recommendations of the study

This psychobiographical case study adds to the existing body of psychohistorical research on eminent musical personalities. The study was valuable since it provided for the uncovering and reconstruction of an exemplary personality’s life and illuminated a new dimension in the life of Johann Strauss II that has not been revealed in previous biographical or historical studies. With careful application of the Componential Model of Creativity, the researchers are of opinion that this study illustrated the relevance and applicability of Amabile’s Componential Model of Creativity to the creative life of Strauss. It may be of value to psychobiographically apply it to the lives of other creative personalities in different domains of creativity.

The findings of this study were based only upon publicly available information on Johann Strauss II’s life. Therefore, the findings do not provide for a more private and personalised explanation of his creative life in terms of the Componential Model of Creativity (Amabile, 1983, 1988, 1996, 2012; Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Although the Componential Model of Creativity is useful for a variety of reasons, one limitation of the theory is that it primarily focuses on mostly internal factors influencing individual creativity. Although this approach has been praised for its comprehensive view of creativity, further in-depth and socio-cultural case study examination of creativity-related processes within extraordinary individuals could continue to benefit creativity research from a psychobiographical approach. This study highlighted a unique approach to Johann Strauss II’ s creativity, and the longitudinal life history approach demonstrated the value of psychobiographical information in studying constructs on creativity over the subject’s entire lifespan. The researchers are of opinion that more psychobiographical studies on creativity should be undertaken upon musicians and composers, which currently form an underrepresented ‘subject-pool’ in psychobiographical studies. Psychobiographical research design allows researchers to study the lives of significant historical individuals from a psychological, sociocultural, historic, and political approach (Fouché, 2015). Furthermore, the researchers encourage future psychobiographers to focus especially on female composers in their studies to broaden the scope of gender discourse regarding creativity. Individuals such as Clara Wieck Schumann (1819–1896) and Lili Boulanger (1893–1918) are two examples of subjects that future psychobiographical researchers can include in their studies by carefully applying the Componential Model of Creativity. In addition, the influential power of music, sound, and resonance with its insurgent potential to unsettle and change the world has been called for by Ana Deumert (2023). Psychobiographical studies on musical creativity could benefit from the positive vibrations’ perspective referred to by Deumert. In conclusion, future research can utilise other creativity theories, including the five A’s proposed by Glăveanu (2013) to explore and describe the eminent life of Johann Baptist Strauss II. Since creativity is multidimensional (Glaveanu et al., 2019), other creativity theories will provide a new perspective on Strauss’s creative life. By means of utilising reflexivity the authors identified certain challenges that a psychobiographical study upon an eminent person poses in the undertaking of psychobiographical studies. This study required extensive and time-consuming literature reviews on the life of Johann Strauss II. Furthermore, it demanded of the psychobiographers to also review historical literature and identify significant socio-historical factors; political factors and economic and cultural factors that could have influenced the developmental trajectory of our subject, Johann Strauss II. Psychobiography entails a specialised division of psychohistory and the authors realised they could not merely try to fully understand the creativity of Johann Strauss II, without understanding his socio-historical and political environment he grew-up in.

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to express their appreciation for the language editing of the manuscript by Mrs. Anneke Diesel and thank Dr. Jacques Jordaan for his valuable guidance with the American Psychological Association’s 7^th edition of guidelines for authors in psychology.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Paul J. P. Fouché

Paul J. P. Fouché, D Phil, is a full-professor in Counselling Psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of the Free State (UFS), Bloemfontein in South-Africa (RSA). Paul has published psychobiographical and psycho-historical articles and chapters in various journals and books. His interest is in the field of psychobiography and psychohistory, and he acts as research supervisor to post-graduate scholars undertaking life history research. Psychobiographical research has grown to a well-established research project at the University of the Free State. Paul also serves as member of Senate at the UFS and serves on the Research Committee of the Faculty of the Humanities. Paul is coordinator of the Honors BPsych program and lectures to the Clinical Psychology and Counselling Psychology master’s students in the applied Clinical and Counselling Psychology programs. His e-mail address is: [email protected]

Elmé Strauss

Elmé Strauss, BPsych Hons, is a post-graduate psychology scholar in the Department of Psychology, at the University of the Free State in South Africa. She has a keen interest and academic background in psychobiographical studies and has studied classical music in her undergraduate academic programme. She is currently busy with the commencement of her master’s studies in psychobiography. Her e-mail address is: [email protected]