在幾個世紀的歐洲音樂歷史中，義大利音樂家在非義大利的場域中有傑出與盛行的表現為眾所皆知的情形。在本研究中，所要探討的是一個文化互動中多面向且複雜的例子：安東尼奧‧卡爾達拉（Antonio Caldara）於一七一六年到一七三六年在維也納的哈理斯堡宮廷中擔任音樂副主任，強化了在音樂文化交流中動態的、競爭的、挪用的各個面向。在奧地利人約翰‧約瑟夫‧富克斯（Johann Joseph Fux）接受委任成為音樂主任（他打破了哈理斯堡宮廷長達一個世紀以來皆聘用義大利人擔任音樂主任的傳統）之後一年，卡爾達拉接受委任到維也納，被聘用成為音樂副主任，他不僅輸入了義大利國內音樂的慣用語法；在二十年的期間中，這兩位作曲家皆塑造了一種帝國風格（Reichstil）的音樂，這種義大利式的
音樂方向卻是被奧地利帝國脈絡的意識形態影響，在音樂上表現出繁複與嚴肅的複音音樂風格（在富克斯於一七二五年出版的《Gradus ad Parnassum》中有為其編寫辭條），此帝國風格也包括一種禮拜儀式的慶典風格，使用音色明亮的高音小喇叭吹奏。卡爾達拉在他抵達維也納之前並未寫作太多此類型的作品，但是他為了符合委任的要求，很快的將此音樂風格「本地化」，促進了維也納宮廷音樂中的義大利特色並且增強之。這個音樂的發展蘊含了廣大的歷史關連性，因為在十八世紀早期哈理斯堡帝國首都，是以普遍的威權作為文化－－意識型態的典範，這個典範尤其與奧地利十八世紀晚期聯想的自由與自治啟蒙思想形成對比。
本研究將指出卡爾達拉適應維也納音樂風格的作法，仍對他一七三六年過世之後的長期影響有重要貢獻，而經常被視為一個「自由年代」的十八世紀晚期，可將視為兩種不同價值觀的競爭：社會－－政治秩序與個人自主性的辯證關係。

The preeminence and prevalence of Italian musicians in non-Italian locales is a well-known circumstance of several centuries of European music history. This essay examines a multifaceted and complex instance of cultural interaction involving Antonio Caldara, Vice-Kapellmeister at the Habsburg imperial court in Vienna from 1716 to 1736, which will serve to underscore the dynamic, competitive, and appropriative aspects of at least some situations of musical exchange. Not simply an importer of the stylistic idioms of his native land, Caldara obtained the post to which he had long aspired only one year after the appointment as Kapellmeister of the Austrian Johann Joseph Fux, which broke a century-long succession of Italians who had held the position. Together, these two figures centrally forged a musical Reichstil over the course of the next two decades, of an Italianate orientation yet inflected by the ideological dimensions of the Austrian imperial context, and musically featuring a weighty contrapuntal manner (codified in Fux’s Gradus ad Parnassum of 1725) as well as a ceremonial liturgical idiom marked by the bright timbre of clarino trumpets. Caldara had written few works of such a cast prior to his arrival in Vienna, yet he rapidly “indigenized” in order to meet the requirements of his new post, clearly aided by the already deeply Italian character of the Viennese court which he certainly helped to perpetuate and enhance further. The implications of this development have a broad historical relevance, for the Habsburg imperial capital in the early eighteenth century epitomized a cultural-ideological paradigm of universal authority which contrasts notably with Enlightenment ideals of freedom and autonomy associated with the Austria of just a few decades later. This paper argues that Caldara’s stylistic adaptation contributed crucially to promoting his influence and legacy well beyond his death in 1736, and that the latter part of the century may be viewed less as an “age of freedom” than as one of an especially intensive dialectic between competing values of socio-political order and individual autonomy.