Form in the Organ Symphonies of Edward Shippen Barnes (1887-1958)

A document submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Musical Arts

in the Keyboard Studies Division

of the College-Conservatory of Music

April 2015

Collin A. Richardson

B.A., Morehouse College, 2006 M.M., Emory University, 2008

Committee Chair: Michael Unger, DMA

Abstract

This document examines the two organ symphonies by American composer Edward Shippen

Barnes (1887-1958). The popularity of the works during his lifetime paints a picture of a composer that was revered by his contemporaries. These little known works lean heavily on the aesthetics and compositional practices of French symphonic organ literature. Analysis of the symphonies reveals that Barnes uses various formal approaches, particularly sonata form, in addition to ternary and free forms based on preexisting material. This document casts greater light on a scarcely known American composer whose organ symphonies have yet to assume a place in the organ repertory.

iii

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to his committee advisor and organ instructor, Dr. Michael Unger, for his patient and generous assistance in the preparation of this document. He is also grateful to Dr. John A. Deaver and Dr. Stephanie P. Schlagel for their invaluable contributions in the guidance and refining of this study.

Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgement ...... iv Chapters: I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 ii. Background ...... 3 iii. Barnes‘s Reception by His Peers ...... 7 iv. Barnes at the Schola Cantorum ...... 11 v. Barnes‘s Use of Sonata Form in the Organ Symphonies ...... 13 II. ANALYSIS OF SYMPHONIE POUR ORGUE, OPUS 18 ...... 16 III. ANALYSIS OF SECOND SYMPHONY FOR ORGAN, OPUS 37 ...... 74 IV. CONCLUSION ...... 130 V. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 133

I. INTRODUCTION

American composers in the early twentieth century were greatly impacted by the aesthetics of the Romantic period, and American organ repertoire in particular was influenced by fruitful and frequent instruction under European organists. This had a particularly profound influence on many Americans who were composing works in the French symphonic style. The existing and notable works from this period by Americans such as Dudley Buck, Charles Ives, and Leo Sowerby, while deserving, draws attention away from compositions of other contemporaries who contributed equally substantial organ compositions. American organist and composer Edward Shippen Barnes (1887-1958) is one such lesser-known figure, and his two organ symphonies, Symphonie pour orgue, Opus 18, composed in 1918, and the Second

Symphony for Organ, Opus 37, composed in 1923, are significant works written in this predominantly French genre. Recital programs and reviews of performances of movements from the symphonies points to their popularity as concert repertoire around the time they were composed, and indicate that Barnes was well-regarded by his contemporaries. Barnes‘s organ symphonies predate Sowerby‘s widely-respected Symphony in G Major (1930). However,

Barnes‘s works, unlike Sowerby‘s, did not prove to be a vehicle of sustainability for his reputation after his death and the works are now seldom heard.1

The emergence of the orchestral symphony during the Romantic period spurred on the developments of organ builders, most notably French builder Aristide Cavaillé-Coll (1811-

1899), to create instruments that evoke the effects of the orchestra‘s forces. The capabilities of these new instruments in tandem with composers‘ manipulation of structural models applied to orchestral symphonies gave birth to the organ symphony genre. Composers produced the most

1 Corliss Arnold, Organ Literature: A Comprehensive Survey, Volume I: Historical Survey, (Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2003), 298. 1 significant works in this genre between 1872 and 1930 beginning in France with Charles-Marie

Widor (1844-1937) and Louis Vierne, and ending with Leo Sowerby (1895-1968) in America.

The preceding generation of French composers directly influenced Barnes‘s works and these years include the time of composition of his two organ symphonies. Widor‘s ten organ symphonies were published between 1872 and 1900, and Vierne‘s six organ symphonies were published between 1899 and 1930. Sowerby‘s only symphony, Symphony in G Major composed in 1930, closes the period of focus for the present study though the composition of organ symphonies continued to flourish beyond 1930 particularly in France.

Generally, the formal approach to the orchestral symphony provided a model for organ symphonies. A formal analysis of Barnes‘s symphonies reveals that he not only varies his approach to form in the organ symphonies but also that his approach fits in the parameters of both the French symphonic tradition of organ composition and the innovations of music in the early twentieth century. Since the organ symphonies claim traits of both traditions, there are two elements at play with regard to formal structure. First, established formal plans, such as the frequently-adopted sonata form, occur in many organ symphonies. The use of this particular form and others in Barnes‘s works is expected and confirmed through analysis. Second, departure from or distortion of established forms in a given movement from the symphonies is not altogether odd. Experimentation with many elements including but not limited to melody, tonality, rhythm, harmony, and form, are hallmark innovations of this period. Barnes‘s works showcase the process of manipulating the form of a movement rather than a straightforward adherence to a formula. For instance, the return of primary themes in Barnes‘s sonata form movements is at times tonally distant from the initial statement of a first or second theme, and in many cases, Barnes finds other uses for the primary themes of movements, as he often recasts

2 initial themes as transitional passages, frequently compounding or linking previously-stated themes with new ones.

The organ symphonies of Barnes indeed employ a variety of structural plans, and there is no singular designation that can or should be made to describe his compositional tactics. The analysis of formal structures reveals a frequent use of sonata form, along with ternary form, free form based on preexisting material, binary form, and variation form. Even more, though all of

Barnes‘s works were composed in the early twentieth century, they are clearly tonal, with no hint of atonality, serialism or other avant-garde constructs of the time. Rather, Barnes‘s use of chromatic third relationships, customary, lengthy development of secondary themes, in addition to traditional closely-related key relationships supports the assertion that his works are aligned within the influence of both the nineteenth and twentieth-century tradition of French symphonic organ works.

ii. Background

Edward Shippen Barnes was born on September 14, 1887 in Seabright, New Jersey.

Under the instruction of Horatio Parker and Harry Benjamin Jepson, Barnes graduated from Yale

University. Following his time at Yale, Barnes studied under Louis Vierne, Vincent D‘Indy, and

Abel Decaux at the Schola Cantorum in Paris in 1911.2 The lack of biographical information on

Barnes is fortunately supplemented with two articles written by Barnes himself in consecutive monthly editions of The Diapason magazine in 1921.3 The candor of these firsthand accounts of

2 Edward Shippen Barnes, The Organ Symphonies of Edward Shippen Barnes, Simon Nieminksi (Pro Organo CD 7131, 2002).

3 Edward Shippen Barnes. ―An Organ Student in France: An Informal Talk.‖ The Diapason 12, no.1 (July, August 1921). 3 his studies at the Schola Cantorum are invaluable, and directly enliven the image of this little known composer and the musical influences on his works, particularly that of Vierne and Widor.

Also in 1921, Barnes authored an instructional organ method called The School of Organ

Playing based on his studies at the Schola Cantorum.4 This text recaptures many of the performance practices of French composers of the late nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries.

Barnes‘s method book contains sixteen works by Bach along with a total of seven works by

Merkel, Rheinberger and Lemmens combined. Reflecting his learning at the Schola Cantorum,

Barnes incorporates finger substitution, thumb glissandos, and legato playing into Bach‘s works.

Noted French organist and composer Marcel Dupré (1886-1971) similarly authored such editions of J. S. Bach‘s organ works. While much of Barnes‘s instructional information, as also Dupré‘s, has since been rendered historically inaccurate performance practice of Bach‘s music, The

School of Organ Playing is a significant indication of musical approaches to Bach‘s works during Barnes‘s life, and hearken back to Barnes‘s immersion into the French Romantic sensibilities in organ playing at the time.

Barnes is also known for his harmonization of the popular Christmas hymn ―Angels We

Have Heard On High,‖ sung to the tune ―Gloria,‖ found in many hymnals. In 1927, Barnes composed an original hymn tune titled ―Qui tenet‖ sung to the existing text ―O Christ, who holds the open gate.‖ This hymn is found only in The Book of Common Praise, being the Hymn Book of the Church of England in Canada which was revised in 1938.5

4 Edward Shippen Barnes, School of Organ Playing Op. 31, (Boston: The Boston Music Company, 1921).

5 Committee of the General Synod, The Book of Common Praise, being the Hymn Book of the Church of England in Canada, (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1938), 498.

Barnes served as organist at churches in New York, Philadelphia, and Santa Monica, in addition to serving on the editorial staff for the G. Schirmer Publishing Company in New York where he produced numerous editions of organ music by other composers, namely, Franck and J.

S. Bach. The relationship with Schirmer Publishing Company is significant in that most of

Barnes‘s organ works were published by this company. His experience here may also shed light on his connection with Durand Publishing Company, a notable publisher in Paris. Two of

Barnes‘s organ works, 2 Pieces for Organ, Op. 5 and Petite Suite, Op. 23, were published by

Durand. Perhaps Barnes cultivated this relationship during his studies at the Schola Cantorum. In the few years preceding and following Barnes‘s studies in Paris, members of the Durand

Publishing Company organized concerts to promote new works. This endeavor was coupled with the publishing works of nineteenth-century pianists Chopin, Mendelssohn, and Fauré.6 It is clear that the wave of new and old works being published extended to those of Barnes, and had this opportunity indeed presented itself, it could further explain his relationship with the Durand

Publishing Company.

Barnes spent his earliest working years in New England. The period preceding his relocation to Santa Monica, California, in 1938 was his most fruitful span of works for organ.

The most substantial of Barnes‘s organ works are two organ symphonies, Symphonie pour orgue, and the Second Symphony for Organ. Both works contain five movements, and are heavily influenced by Barnes‘s studies in France. In addition to two organ symphonies, he composed

6 Universal Music Publishing, ―Durand, History,‖ http://www.durand-salabert- eschig.com/english/historique1.php (accessed February 17, 2015). 5

other works for solo organ. Aside from these works for solo organ, he is primarily known for his

sacred works, particularly anthems.7 He died on February 14, 1958 in Idyllwild, California.

Table 1 below recounts Barnes‘s places of residency accompanied by the major works for

organ produced during the respective periods.

Table 1. Barnes‘s known organ works, dates of publication, and places of the residence

Opus Year of Publication Publisher Barnes’s City of Residence Scherzo in C Minor, 1910 G. Schirmer, New (predates known time in Op. 3 York New York and study in Paris) Deux Pièces for Organ, 1914 A. Durand, Paris New York Op. 5 Finale for Organ 1914 G. Schirmer, New New York York Solemn Prelude, Op. 24 1916 G. Schirmer, New New York York Petite Suite, Op. 23 1916 A. Durand, Paris New York

Suite No. 2 for Organ, 1917 Boston Music New York Op. 25 Company Symphonie pour orgue, 1918 G. Schirmer, New New York Op. 18 York 7 Sketches for Organ 1923 Boston Music New York Company Second Symphony for 1923 G. Schirmer, New New York Organ, Op. 37 York Third Suite for Organ, 1927 G. Schirmer, New Philadelphia Op. 39 York Toccatina 1932 Theodore Presser Co., Philadelphia Bryn Mawr, PA

7 Edward Shippen Barnes, The Organ Symphonies of Edward Shippen Barnes, Simon Nieminksi.

6 iii. Barnes‘s Reception by His Peers

Despite garnering many accolades, the incongruity between the popularity of Barnes‘s organ works during his lifetime and their virtual disappearance from the repertory today is odd.

This is indeed peculiar especially given that documented instances of Barnes‘s works being performed are often embedded with acclaim for the works themselves. That his works were not only performed but also well-regarded by his peers is evidenced in a review of a recital performed by organist Albert W. Snow in 1918. Reviewer Geo. A. Burdett of The American

Organist Magazine gives Barnes‘s organ symphony high praise when he states,

Mr. Snow at his last recital introduced to Boston an organ symphony by Edward Shippen Barnes. This is work is a very valuable addition to the recitalist‘s repertoire. It is highly distinguished, as noteworthy as any in the list of American compositions; indeed, quite worthy of place in the catalogue of general modern productions of serious purpose and workmanship for the organ. It is rich in resource of every kind; strong in subjects, full and free, yet well in hand as to development. Replete with harmonic beauty in great variety, it abounds in characteristic rhythmic invention; eloquent, vital: a human document; a composition cogent and coherent, with red blood and much grace. Mr. Barnes is greatly to be congratulated; and no less an honor is added to the record of American organ compositions.8

This recollection of the Boston premier of Barnes‘s work is a noteworthy compliment to

Barnes‘s refined compositional capabilities and highlights recognition the work received shortly after it was composed.

The craftsmanship of Barnes‘s work was also acknowledged by his peers. Lynnwood

Farnam (1885-1930) was one of America‘s premier organ recitalists in the twentieth century, and a contemporary of Barnes. His championing of Barnes‘s works further relays that the symphonies were a part of the performance repertoire at their time of composition. The image

8 Geo. A. Burdett, ―New England,‖ The American Organist 1, no. 5 (May 1918): 279.

7 below shows a recital program played by Farnam in which he performed Barnes‘s ―Toccata on a

Gregorian Theme,‖ the fifth movement from the first organ symphony.9

Figure 1. Lynwood Farnam Recital at Westminster Cathedral

Farnam also spoke favorably of Barnes and other American organists when he responded to the question, ―What of the American organ composer?‖ in an interview during a two-month stay in England:

9 ―Front Matter,‖ The Musical Times 64, no. 967 (September 1, 1923): 603.

I think we have a very live school coming along. Such men as Barnes, Bingham, Chadwick, Delemarter, James, Jepson, Sowerby, Yon and a few others, are turning out stuff well worth your attention on this side. So far as playing is concerned, we are well off too. We have a particularly good group of players at Boston—quite a little school of itself . . .10

Of the composers Farnam mentioned, only two composed organ symphonies: Barnes and

Sowerby. Farnam again recalls another instance of performing the Toccata by Barnes on his first trip to France:

M. [Henri] Mulet extended to me the courtesy of playing at a wedding there [at Saint-Phillippe-du-Roule]…Mulet played Widor‘s March Pontificale for the bridal march and when the bridal party went into the [sacristy] to sign the usual records and receive congratulations, as is the French custom, I played the Toccata from Barnes‘s First Symphony and when they came out again, the Widor ―Toccata.‖11

As a result of Farnam‘s overseas performances, Barnes‘s works were heard in a variety of international venues.

Equally as telling is the fact that Barnes was already a well-regarded composer prior to the composition of his two organ symphonies. Other works by Barnes were being performed as seen in Figure 2, an announcement of an April 1927 recital on which one of Barnes‘s works would be performed at Wellesley College.12

10 ―A Chat with Lynnwood Farnam,‖ The Musical Times 64, no. 966 (August 1, 1923): 544. 11 Lynwood Farnam, ―An American Organist in France,‖ The American Organist, (January 1924): 28-29.

12 Wellesley College, ―The Wellesley News, (1927), The Wellesley News, Book 757, http://repository.wellesley.edu/news/757.

Figure 2. Recital Advertisement, Wellesley College News

The performance referenced in the image above dates four years after Barnes composed both of his organ symphonies. However, the ―Second Suite,‖ dedicated to Abel Decaux of the Schola

Cantorum, was composed in 1917, the year preceding the composition of the first organ symphony. Even after the publication of Barnes‘s two large-scale organ works, his earlier works were still in the performance repertoire of the day.

Praise of his first symphony continued to put Barnes on a pedestal amongst his contemporaries. Supremacy of organ symphonies by French composers put similar works by

Americans in the shadow of their European counterparts. T. Scott Buhrman, editor of the

American Organist magazine in 1919, responded to this sentiment when he attests that,

The reason we don‘t have American music is that we don‘t want it. The songs of Francis Hopkinson are just as good as any other written in that day and the Symphony of Edward Shippen Barnes surpasses even a Vierne, but Barnes is an American and we can‘t be expected to give his Symphony the sympathetic heart and hours of labor we lavish on Vierne in an effort to enjoy ourselves. And anyway, Barnes is such a simple name compared to Vierne. …Edward Shippen

Barnes‘ Symphony is more modern than Vierne, and, which is greater, it is packed full of that wonderful thing we call Americanism.13

Burhman‘s contention gives rise to one of the peculiarities of Barnes‘s organ works, their neglect over time. While it is clear that Barnes‘s works were celebrated during his lifetime, they have yet to assume any notable place in the vast organ repertory. Nonetheless, the works are important contributions to American organ repertoire.

iv. Barnes at the Schola Cantorum

In 1911, Barnes studied at the newly formed Paris Schola Cantorum. The Schola

Cantorum was founded in 1894 and opened in 1896 with Vincent d‘Indy serving as its director.

As an alternative to the opera-dominant studies at the Paris Conservatoire, the Schola Cantorum aimed at reviving interest in Gregorian chant and repertory from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Barnes expresses his partiality towards the Schola when he shares,

The Schola is a quaint, charming old building, formerly a monastery of Irish monks, and must be some 300 years old. For study of the organ, on account of the instructors it possesses, it is undoubtedly ahead of the Paris Conservatoire or of any school of which I have any knowledge.14

In addition to being a student of d‘Indy, Decaux, and Vierne at the Schola, Barnes gleaned much from the musical offerings of Widor at St. Sulpice, who Barnes observed on occasion.15 During

Barnes‘s studies at the Schola Cantorum, Widor served as professor of composition at the Paris

Conservatoire while Alexandre Guilmant was the professor of organ.

13 T. Scott Buhrman, ―Apple Trees,‖ The American Organist, 2, no. 8 (August 1919): 312-13.

14 Edward Shippen Barnes. ―An Organ Student in France: An Informal Talk,‖ 25.

15 Ibid., 25.

Structural models Barnes uses in his organ symphonies develop from his experiences at the Schola Cantorum. Understanding the formal structure of organ symphonies by composers active in the generation before Barnes provides context for his works. D‘Indy and Widor often incorporated the orchestral symphony into parts of the organ curriculum. Their pedagogical practices regarding formal structure is referenced by Vierne, who explains that,

Charles-Marie Widor dealt with the [orchestral] symphonies in his organ class, on the premise that students should learn the great masterworks of all genres, but on joining the faculty he of necessity confined his lessons to the competition genres [of fugues, short choral pieces required for the Prix de Rome].16

The orchestral symphony did have a presence in organ studies of this time, and like

Widor, D‘Indy also incorporated the orchestral symphony in his teaching. According to Alice

Gabéaud, a former pupil of d‘Indy, ―for d‘Indy, the successful [orchestral] symphony had three essential elements: formal coherence, tonal clarity and unified thematic argument. A well-made structure conveyed the content in a comprehensible manner.‖17 Though d‘Indy was not an organist, his principles have significant carryover for students he taught, which includes Barnes.

Vierne‘s teaching of form, particularly sonata form, is corroborated not only by Barnes‘s recollections, but also by records of Vierne‘s classroom teaching, as Vierne is known to have taught sonata form as a part of his improvisation class. Since the early nineteenth century, improvisation stood on equal footing with other aspects of organ instruction in the Parisian music curriculum. Developing skills of improvisation significantly influenced the approach to

16 Louis Vierne, ―Memoirs,‖Diapason 30 (January 1939): 9-10, quoted in Brian Hart, ―Vincent d‘Indy and the Development of the French Symphony,‖ Music & Letters 87, no. 2 (May 2006): 239.

17 Brian Hart, ―Vincent d‘Indy and the Development of the French Symphony, Music & Letters 87, no. 2 (May 2006): 243.

12 composition and aided the organization of these compositional ideas when applied to formal structures.18 There are significant notes from the students of these classes that communicate

Vierne‘s encouragement to use sonata form. For instance, Jean Bouvard, a pupil of Vierne in the

1920s shares personal notes from Vierne‘s class: ―Above all the rules, Vierne put ‗Music‘ first to a development of a perfect structure, but in which no personal or human note appeared, he preferred the free course of inspiration.‖19 Bouvard‘s notes continue with musical examples of

―Exposition‖ and ―Return of the Theme‖ under the larger heading, ―Particulars of the Proceeding

Plan‖ from Vierne‘s course.20 Bouvard‘s notes indicate that Vierne sought a formal structure to organize his musical ideas. Sonata form was often this model, the fruits of which shine through in Barnes‘s symphonies.

v. Barnes‘s Use of Sonata Form in the Organ Symphonies

Sonata form is the most prevalent structural plan Barnes applied to individual movements of his organ symphonies. Barnes‘s use of the form is rooted in his studies at the Schola Cantorum with D‘Indy, with the most impact stemming from his studies with Vierne. From Beethoven to

Bruckner, nineteenth-century composers often found sonata form to be a useful tool of extensive treatment of themes particularly in the exposition and development sections of their symphonic works. The resources of the orchestra, particularly different sonorities and timbres, enables thematic repetition and extension to blossom since a theme could be scored for a different

18 Rollin Smith, Louis Vierne: Organist of Notre-Dame Cathedral (Hillsdale, New York: Pendragon Press, 1999), 745.

19 Jean Bouvard, ―Louis Vierne‘s Improvisation Course: His Method of Harmonizing and Treating the Free Theme‖ in Smith, Louis Vierne: 745, 751.

20 Ibid., 745, 751.

13 instrument or combination of voices. This is idiomatically advantageous to symphonic organ works as a change of manuals or registration can efficiently mirror this effect.21 Many movements of organ symphonies employ sonata form, and this establishes groundwork for

Barnes‘s use of the form. Fourteen of the thirty-one symphony movements by Vierne use sonata form. Furthermore, Vierne uses the sonata design in one movement from his First Symphony, while the Second, Fourth and Fifth Symphonies use the form in two or more movements.22 More so than Widor, sonata form in Vierne‘s works is most compositionally influential on Barnes, evidenced by his personal accounts of Vierne. Barnes employs the form in five of the ten total movements—twice in the first symphony and three times in the second.

Barnes‘s use of formal models is squarely in line with the teachings of his instructors at the Schola Cantorum, primarily Vierne, and reflective of many of the liberties taken with formal structures in the twentieth century. With this in mind, the use of sonata form is not necessarily formulaic, but rather procedural. Even in the works of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, repetitions that one might expect in the recapitulation were never mechanical.23 Barnes falls evenly in bounds with this realization, counteracting the rigidity of formal pretenses. Sonata form can be better seen as an important guideline in which a composer orders his ideas with respect to generalized, not concrete expectations of the form.24 The establishment of this order overrides the concept that any one or number of elements of the form remains fixed. Barnes‘s organ

21 Page Caroll Long, ―Transformation of Harmony and Consistencies of Form in the Six Organ Symphonies of Louis Vierne‖ (A. Mus. D, University of Arizona, 1963), 50.

22 Ibid., 49.

23 James Hepokoski, ―Beyond the Sonata Principle,‖ Journal of the American Musicological Society 55, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 93.

24 Ibid., 96.

14 symphonies are reminders that in this tradition there are no dogmatic laws within genres, only norms with differing degrees of strength, and the overriding of these generic norms is the essence of sonata form deformation prevalent in these works.25 While Barnes uses sonata form as the foremost structural model in the symphonies, he also uses ternary form, free form based on preexisting material, binary form, and variation form in other movements.

25 Ibid., 140. 15

II. ANALYSIS OF SYMPHONIE POUR ORGUE, OPUS 18

Barnes composed Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18 in 1918 while serving as organist at

Rutgers Presbyterian Church. It is comprised of five movements, four of which are in the key of

G minor. More so than his second symphony, the first symphony shows direct influence from

Vierne and Widor, particularly with regard to the thematic material that governs specific movements. The first symphony features two movements in sonata form, two movements in ternary form and one movement in a freely-composed form based on preexisting material.

I. Prélude

Table 2. Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Prélude, Simple Ternary Form

Section Measure(s) Key Traits A 1-13 G minor Chromatic sequences with an ambiguous tonal area; cadence in G minor at m. 13 B 13-49 G minor 4-part fugal writing followed by a pair of sequences. Reiteration of fugal subject in m. 41 A 49-63 G minor Reiteration of opening chromatic sequences; Final cadence on G major

It is perhaps not a coincidence that Barnes opens his organ symphony with a movement titled ―Prélude.‖ Vierne‘s first organ symphony, Symphonie in D Major, Opus 14 from 1899, and his fourth symphony, Symphonie IV in G Minor, Opus 32 from 1914, both open with a movement titled ―Prélude.‖ Barnes‘s Prélude is in simple ternary form, ABA, without a coda, which is evidenced through a formal analysis of the work and supported with another of Barnes‘s memories of Vierne from his time at the Schola Cantorum.

Aside from the title of the work, Barnes‘s use of ternary form also has significant ties to

Vierne. Seven of Vierne‘s thirty-one symphony movements are also in simple ternary form. In the First Symphony alone, Vierne uses ternary form in the third, fourth and fifth movements, all three of these movements having a substantial amount of note-per-note literal repetition of the restatement of the A theme. Yet, in the remaining five symphonies, Vierne more carefully avoids the use of literal repetition, as does Barnes in later movements.1

The following firsthand recollection is unquestionably the most vivid and tangible of

Barnes‘s musical remembrances of Vierne, and precisely maps out the formal divisions of the opening Prélude based on Vierne‘s compositional methods of improvising. Barnes recalls,

I may truly say that, great as is his written music, his improvisations are equally great, and greater. He would often start with the most amazing dissonance, as for instance, a minor second, played with full organ high up on the keyboard—from which he would weave and blend the most intricate of harmonies, modern to a degree, but all with a firm, logical plan, and end up in a blaze of glory that just carried one up to heaven. I assure you that the description is not overdrawn.2

With this recollection, the opening Prélude of Barnes‘s symphony cannot be described more aptly than in the words of the composer himself.

As seen in the ascription at the top of Example 2.1, Barnes dedicated the work to Vierne.

The A section of Barnes‘s Prélude is shown below and begins with a tonally ambiguous harmony, an inverted dominant-seventh chord. The harmonies do not resolve as expected, and progress into a stream of dissonance in the same manner that Barnes describes in Vierne‘s music.

Barnes also starts the piece in an upper register of both the keyboard and the pedalboard, and

1 Page Caroll Long, ―Transformation of Harmony and Consistencies of Form in the Six Organ Symphonies of Louis Vierne‖ (A. Mus. D, University of Arizona, 1963), 55.

2 Edward Shippen Barnes. ―An Organ Student in France: An Informal Talk,‖ The Diapason 12, no.1 (July 1921): 25.

17 under the full power of the organ. Reference to registration is also highlighted in the example, as

Barnes includes both registrations in French and English, again tracing his studies back to the

French Romantic tradition.

Example 2.1. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Prélude, mm. 1-13

Measures 1-7 of Example 2.1 above also show the ―weaving‖ and ―blending‖ of the harmonies that Barnes praises in Vierne‘s playing. A closer look at the tortuous harmonies of the two opening sequences at mm. 1 and 5 encapsulates the harmonic ambiguity of the first A section. The piece opens with the grandeur of full organ with the first of two sequences starting on an F dominant-seventh chord in second inversion, and ending on the same chord in root position, Beginning in m. 4, following the fermata, another sequential pattern of dissonant harmonies extends the intense chromaticism of the opening. Barnes continues his harmonic navigation by increasing the thickness of the chords at the end of this second system. The second sequence abruptly begins on an F half-diminished chord, and cadences on an A-flat major triad before thrusting into a D dominant-seventh chord in second inversion, eventually leading to G minor. The latter chord built on D is the only inkling of the impending G minor cadence, but the voicing of the chord and its chromatic neighbor notes are unreliable tonal indications of a key center. Interestingly, the last cadence of the tonally ambiguous A section helps aurally establish the grounding of G minor for the following section. Tonally, this gives reprieve to the inability to assign any one key in particular to the A section as a unit. A reduction in sound then leads to the first clear cadence and establishment of the key of G minor in m. 13.

The cadential close to the A section prepares the formal digression to the B section. The outline of the B section is again referenced in his recollection of Vierne‘s playing, and further describes the framework of the opening Prélude. Barnes states,

Another type in which [Vierne] excelled was a smooth and flowing type of four or five-part composition with the mf registers of diapasons and flutes—very much like the beginning of his First Symphony or the second theme of the first movement of his Second Symphony.3

3 Edward Shippen Barnes, The Organ Symphonies of Edward Shippen Barnes, Simon Nieminksi (Pro Organo CD 7131, 2002). 19

The reduction of registration to ―montres‖ and ―flutes‖ follows Barnes‘s description of Vierne‘s improvisation, while simultaneously describing the B section of this opening movement. The B section begins in m. 13 with a four-voice fugal exposition that continues to align itself with the description of Vierne‘s playing. The fugal entries in the alto, tenor, soprano, and bass occurs every four measures, and are tonal rather than real answers. The beginning of the B section is shown below in Example 2.2.

Example 2.2. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Prélude, mm.9-30

In addition to the reduction in texture, the registration changes by disengaging the reed stops and shifting to the ―Fonds‖ or foundation stops. Even with the texture and registration of this section, the austerity of the movement is maintained.

Modulatory episodes begin in m. 31 following the final entry of the subject in the pedal.

These episodes are two pairs of sequences that function as points of modulation to a forthcoming, altered iteration of the subject in the latter half of m. 41. The two pairs of sequences are shown below (a) and (b), and (c) and (d).

Example 2.3. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Prélude, mm. 31-42 (a)

(b)

The first sequence, (a), has an antecedent/consequent structure with downward melodic motion while the second, (c), is an ascending figure beginning in the pedal underscored by two increases in registration, the addition of the ―Anches,‖ or reed stops. Unlike the unsettling chromatic motion of the A section, the cadences in these episodes give the B section are more tonally reposed. Both pairs of sequences lead to a homophonic presentation of the subject,

22 counterbalancing its polyphonic treatment earlier in the section. Barnes places the subject on a solo stop in the right hand shown below in m. 41.

Example 2.4. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Prélude, mm. 39-46

Here, the subject sounds in the key of D major, the dominant of the previously established G minor and forthcoming G major. Following this statement in D major, a sequence resembling the first of the previous two pairs leads directly back into the tonally abstruse A section. Aside from a few minor changes in chord voicings, the opening material returns with its full chromatic mystique, concluding the work in the key of G major, and incorporating the sequential transition borrowed from the B section seen in ―(a)‖ and ―(b)‖ of Example 2.3.

In the opening Prélude, Barnes translates Vierne‘s formal ideas into a balanced, tripartite piece stemming from Vierne‘s use of the form in his own works and Barnes‘s account of

Vierne‘s improvisation. Additionally, it is clear that Vierne‘s use of the simple ABA form in his organ symphonies inspired Barnes‘s imitative use of it as well. Barnes‘s ability to breathe musical life into his memories of Vierne in the Prélude is the first of many important links between Barnes‘s words and Vierne‘s playing, and guides the compositional and formal direction of Barnes‘s approach to the remaining movements of the symphony.

II. Allegro

Table 3. Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, Sonata Form

Section Measure(s) Key Traits Exposition 1-50 G minor First theme begins in m. 5 in key of G minor. Second theme begins in m. 24 in key of B-flat major. Development 50-114 G minor (many tonal Harmonic fluctuation areas) and fragmentation of the exposition themes. Abrupt preparation for recapitulation at m. 114 Recapitulation 115-173 G minor First theme returns in m. 115, second theme returns in m. 137. Slight modifications in accompaniment and harmonic presentation of themes.

The second movement, Allegro, marks the first of Barnes‘s many uses of sonata form in his organ symphonies. The thematic material for each of the three sections of the Allegro is firmly pronounced in each individual portion, beginning with the first theme of the exposition.

The opening four measures actually function as an introduction to the first and second themes of the exposition. This introductory passage is shown below in Example 2.5.

Example 2.5. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm. 1-4

Following the four measure introduction, the first theme sounds in the upper part of the right hand, shown in the bracketed portion of Example 2.6 below.

Example 2.6. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm. 3-9

Colored by slight chromaticism particularly in the pedal and left hand, the first theme remains in the tonic key of the movement, G minor. The first theme is in the soprano range of a four-voice texture, and each succeeding phrase of the melody never extends beyond the interval of a fifth. The conclusion of the first theme transitions back into the material from the four- measure introduction and sets up the beginning of the second theme. The harmony at the end of the introductory measures is slightly altered, preparing the shift to the relative key of B-flat major.

The second theme is in the key of B-flat major and is twice as long as the first theme. The first theme is roughly nine measures, the second approximately eighteen with consideration to

26 the anacruses of both themes. The second theme is divided into two motives with the second portion of the theme being in the dominant key of D major and contrasting the chromatic third- related key of B-flat major. Shown below are the beginnings of both the first phrase of the second theme in B-flat major at m. 24 (a) in Example 2.7, and the second portion of the second theme in D major at m. 38 (b) in Example 2.8.

Example 2.7. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm. 22-29

(a)

Example 2.8. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm. 38-41

(b)

Barnes voices the B-flat phrase of the second theme similarly to the first theme in the soprano of a four-voice texture. By contrast, Barnes places the more homophonically-conceived melody of the D major phrase of the theme in the left hand of a five-part texture. An increase in the density of contrapuntal interplay between the voices of the B-flat portion articulates the two portions of this second theme. Though separated harmonically by thirds, the two disparate parts of the second theme are motivically unified in their melodic similarities. The phrases in the soprano voice of the theme in B-flat are similar to those in the tenor range of the phrases of the theme in D major. This unity is enhanced by Barnes‘s affinity for chromatic third relationships and the return of this theme in its entirety in the recapitulation.

Harmonic fluctuation, fragmentation, and registration changes are the primary techniques of thematic transformation in the development section. Though the development is intensely chromatic, its harmonic instability often contrasts with a clear, diatonic statement of one of the themes throughout this section. However, before the development begins, Barnes twice inserts a variant of the fugal subject of the B section of the preceding Prélude. Shown below are the beginning of the fugal subject of the Prélude in m. 13, the first variant of the subject in m. 50 of the development section of the Allegro (a), and its second variant in D major in m. 80, also in the

Allegro (b). Though not a direct quotation, it is unmistakably a borrowing from the Prélude‘s B section.

Example 2.9. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Prélude, mm. 9-18

Example 2.10. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm. 50-53

(a)

Example 2.11. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, 78-85

(b)

Barnes‘s insertion of a theme from one movement into the following movement intimates the possibility that the movements of the symphony are thematically linked, and further suggests a cyclical relationship for the work. Considering the compelling use of cyclic technique by

Augustin Barié (1883-1915), a Parisian organist and contemporary of Barnes, use of the technique in the organ symphony is not entirely surprising. Barié also studied organ with Vierne at the National Institute for Blind Children and later went on to study with Alexandre Guilmant at the Paris Conservatoire. Barié‘s only organ symphony, Symphonie, Op. 5 was composed in

1907 but not published until 1911.4 The work contains a unifying theme that is present throughout the five movements that comprise the symphony. The year of its publication also aligns perfectly with Barnes‘s studies in Paris. It is quite possible that the freshness of Barié‘s work and his use of cyclical technique had some impact on Barnes‘s compositional approach.

The precedence for sharing themes between movements of orchestral works is also rich with numerous examples as seen in Mendelssohn‘s Piano Concerto in G minor and Beethoven‘s

Violin Concerto in D, Op. 61, Schubert‘s Wanderer Fantasy, Op. 15, Beethoven‘s Fifth

Symphony, and Schumann‘s Piano Quintet in E-Flat, Op. 44 for piano and strings, to name only a few. French composers in the mid and late nineteenth century, namely Berlioz and Franck, composed orchestral symphonies applying this method, as did Debussy and Ravel in their string quartets.5 Franck‘s use of shared themes in his only organ symphony is most pertinent to

Barnes‘s use of shared themes in his first organ symphony. Published in 1868, Franck‘s Grand

Pièce Symphonique, the pioneering work in the organ symphony genre, employs the cyclic technique in which previously stated themes return before the end of the piece. Use of the cyclical technique in Franck‘s work, more so than Barié‘s, help highlight its appearance in

Barnes‘s. Use of the technique further points to the influence of the orchestral symphony on organ composers as Beethoven‘s Ninth Symphony, Op. 125 from 1824 also employs cyclic technique and predates Franck‘s Grand Pièce Symphonique. However, the remaining works from

Barne‘s symphony contain no evidence of cyclic technique or shared themes. Beyond the shared

4 Gilles Cantagrel, ―Augustin (Charles) Barié,‖ Grove Music Online, Oxford University Press, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/42579 (accessed February 18, 2015).

5 Wallace Berry, Form in Music 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986), 149-50. 31 theme between the first and second movements, there is no evidence to suggest that the movements of the symphony are cyclically organized. Though the Allegro does reference material from the opening movement, there is little evidence to assert a cyclic approach to

Barnes‘s symphony.

The development section proceeds with its transformation of expositional themes, one of the clearest presentations being in the pedal. The pedal contains the first theme shown below in m. 62 (a), and is immediately followed by the second theme in m. 69 (b). Addition of the ―Great to pedal‖ coupler or ―Ped. GPR‖ accentuates the presentation of the theme as it emerges from the rest of the texture. The appearance of the second theme in the pedal marks the beginning of its transformations. The example below also shows a fragmented statement of the second theme in the right hand of m. 71, (c). Other instances of fragmentation of the second theme are shown in mm. 82-90 of Example 2.13.

Example 2.12. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm. 62-73

(a)

(b)

(c)

Example 2.13. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm. 82-90

Harmonically, the development section is expectedly adventurous. Various tonal areas are reached though not firmly grounded. The bulk of chromaticism in the exposition affords Barnes an adequate segue into the following tonal area and ultimately to the next section of the piece.

The immensity of chromaticism in the development section offsets the preparation for recapitulation, adding variety to Barnes‘s manipulation of the form. The path to the recapitulation is both circuitous and compositionally strategic for Barnes. Sequential material used earlier in the movement signals a sudden transition to the recapitulation with the reappearance of the introductory measures of the opening. A portion of this transitional material is shown below in Example 2.14, m. 47, and Example 2.15, m. 78. In these two instances, this material leads to the presentation of the fugal subject quoted from the Prélude. In a third

34 instance, shown in Example 2.16, Barnes inverts and extends the pattern as the beginning of transition to recapitulation.

Example 2.14. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm. 46-49

Example 2.15. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm. 78-81

Example 2.16. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm. 99-102

It is the pronounced arrival at the recapitulation that signals Barnes‘s use of sonata form for this movement. This return is not weakened by the absence of lengthy preparation of the dominant but rather it is achieved through a sudden increase in chromaticism.

On the whole, both themes from the recapitulation are harmonically and rhythmically the same as in the exposition. This is somewhat peculiar as there is no transposition of the secondary themes to the tonic, but rather they stay in their original key. The first theme of the recapitulation appears virtually unaltered. It is only distinguished from the initial iteration by placement of the melody from the soprano to the tenor range. This shift in register is shown in Example 2.17 beginning in m. 124. The accompaniment is also identical to that of the exposition. Movement of the melody to the left hand also underlines Barnes‘s advantageous use of the resources of the organ. The melody, now displaced from the soprano to the tenor range, emerges more prominently as its supporting accompaniment in the right hand moves to a softer manual, the

Choir.

Example 2.17. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm. 121-128

In the recapitulation, the second expositional theme in B-flat major sounds in the soprano range of a four-voice texture, but now supported by flowing eighth-notes in stepwise motion in the accompanying voices. The examples below compare two passages from the exposition, mm.

32-33, with the analogous measures from the recapitulation, mm. 141-142, including a sequence in mm. 143-144.

Example 2.18. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm. 30-33

Example 2.19. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, 141-144

Presented again in D major, the second portion of the second theme is identical to its previous statement in the exposition.

The last portion of the recapitulation continues with the statement of the fugal subject from the Prélude. Shown below, the subject sounds in the soprano above continuous eighth notes in m. 154 (a); this is followed by the fugal subject in the pedal at a different tonal level in m. 158

(b).

Example 2.20. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm. 154-162 (a)

(b)

Under the full power of the organ, the triumphant sound of the second theme in B-flat major sets up a majestic finale to the recapitulated themes. Barnes foils this expectation however, by sequentially presenting the subject in B-flat minor before an astounding and aurally eerie shift to the chromatic third-related key of G minor in the final measures of the piece as shown below.

With a defiant and declamatory harmonic turn, Barnes returns to the home key as a final gesture, rounding out the sonata form.

Example 2.21. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Allegro, mm.167-173

The use of sonata form in the Allegro differs from the ternary structure of the previous movement, and though its divisions may hint at another use of ternary form, the Allegro‘s development section is too harmonically and thematically expansive to suggest the tonal stability of a B section in a ternary form. Also, the explicit divisions defined by cadences between the sections of the Prélude further support the use of a different form for the Allegro. The recurrence of the opening four measures throughout the piece could indicate a rondo structure. But this is also unfounded as these four measures are not seen in isolation from the repeated material that consistently follows them, nor can the divisions of rondo form, particularly the C of an ABACA model, be recognized to any degree in this movement. Barnes‘s use of the Vierne-influenced ternary structure in the Prélude suggests other formal possibilities for succeeding movements, and his use of sonata form in the Allegro is deliberate and assertive.

III. Scherzo

Table 4. Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Scherzo, Sonata Form

Section Measure(s) Key Traits Exposition 1-40 G Major, E Major First theme in mm. 1-8, second theme in mm. 32-40. Governed by periodicity (antecedent/consequent phrases) Development 41-55 E minor, G Major Development of first theme (mm. 41-44) followed by sequential material first heard in exposition (mm. 44-50); transition to recapitulation (mm. 51-54) Recapitulation 55-89 G major Reappearance of first theme (mm. 55-62) and second theme (mm.70-77).

Similar to the Allegro, the third movement, Scherzo, is also in sonata form. Periodicity balances the themes and their developments in this work, and both the exposition and recapitulation are largely straightforward tonally and thematically. Unlike the previous movement in which the development section was the most harmonically imaginative, the exposition of the Scherzo is the most harmonically adventurous with its two themes being in two tonally distant keys. The witty character of the work shapes the simplicity of Barnes‘s use of the overall form. This is complemented by an added element of organization provided by the periodic phrase structure throughout. In the Scherzo, Barnes is quite direct in presenting themes and their developments in addition to being more tonally consistent, as this is the first movement that begins and ends in a major key thus far.

The exposition contains two themes. The first theme, mm. 1-8, is Classical in nature with a clear antecedent-consequent phrase structure. The second theme, in mm. 32-40 is similarly periodic, though harmonically distant from the tonic. The first theme is clearly divisible into

41 antecedent and consequent phrases. The first half of this eight-measure period is in G major while the second half is in the relative minor, E. A portion of the first theme, with its two divisions is separated by a brief, pivoting cadence on the note ―B‖ at the end of m 4. See

Example 2.22.

Example 2.22. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Scherzo, mm. 1-8

After its first iteration, the first theme is extended, shown below in mm. 8-10.

Harmonically, the left hand outlines a G dominant-seventh chord while the right hand (bracketed portion) preserves the melodic contour of the theme. The placement of this passage immediately after the cadence on E minor harkens back to Barnes‘s favoring of chromatic third relationships, and highlights one of many instances of third relationships in this piece.

Example 2.23. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Scherzo, mm. 8-10

The two succeeding measures that follow, mm.11-12, are again extensions of the first theme, shaped by the upper neighbor notes of the theme, shown below. This is a curtailed sequential treatment of the first theme, and more importantly, a foreshadowing of Barnes‘s approach to development to be utilized further throughout this movement.

Example 2.24. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Scherzo, mm. 11-13

Measures 11-13 accomplish two important tasks for Barnes. First, at a rate of one harmony per beat, the harmonic rhythm is accelerated almost to a point of instability. Even more, the harmony of m. 11 alone progresses from a B-flat dominant-seventh chord to E-flat major to

B dominant-seventh to E minor. This propulsion in the harmony is unexpected, but not necessarily offsetting due to the balance provided by it periodicity, an element Barnes previously establishes with the first theme. Second, on the whole, the quick instance of sequential development of this theme lays out an important precept of the form that Barnes will continue to exploit—development is not confined to the section of the piece labeled ―development‖ in prescribing this movement as being in sonata form. Though harmonically driven, the richness that this brief sequential material adds to the exposition is more rhythmically effectual than it is harmonically functional. The first exposition theme is quickly abandoned however, in favor of two sequential passages that bridge the first theme to the second.

Barnes transitions from the first theme to second with two chromatic third-related sequences. Because of the high degree of tonal contrast the second theme has with the first theme, the use of these consecutive sequences harmonically prepares for the shift to the key of the second theme, E major. The first sequence, seen below in m. 17 (a) of Example 2.25, is a 44 descending line centering roughly on an E dominant-seventh sonority. It is immediately followed by a similarly treated sequence in m. 20 (b) on a C-sharp dominant-seventh harmony followed again by the E dominant-seventh harmony in m. 25 (c), another instance of chromatic third relationships. The harmonic fluctuations between tonal areas abruptly land at the exposition‘s second theme in the key of E major shortly hereafter in m. 32.

Example 2.25. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Scherzo, mm. 17-25

(a)

(b)

(c)

The second theme of the exposition, in E major, is the most tonally settled of the entire piece. The theme is shown below beginning in m. 32 and steadied with a slightly slower tempo,

―Un poco meno mosso,‖ change of meter, and change of registration on a different manual.

Barnes vacates the key of E major almost as abruptly as he arrives there as seen at the end of m.

40, marking the return to E minor and the start of the development section.

Example 2.26. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Scherzo, mm. 32-40

The development section begins at m. 41 with a shift to the parallel key of E minor and features a return to the opening tempo and its opening registration. Interestingly, however, the material used for development is not new, but rather fragmented restatements of the first expositional theme. The second half of the opening eight measures of the piece (mm. 5-8) appear here in the development almost identically, though slightly displaced between different manuals.

While the first theme initially cadenced on E minor, its iteration here cadences in G major. Also as before, the extension of the first theme again outlines a dominant harmony followed by two similar measures of harmonically accelerated material. It is at this point that the preparation for the recapitulation occurs and the sequential material first pitched on E and C-sharp dominant seventh chords, seen in Example 2.25, is used as the catalyst for this transition. Now pitched on a

D dominant-seventh chord, the use of this sequence is the strongest indication of harmonic expectation thus far in the work, and fulfills the formal anticipation that a return to the opening motive in G major is imminent. Below, m. 51 shows the dominant preparation on ―D.‖

Example 2.27. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Scherzo, mm. 50-55

Measure 55 of the above example marks the start of the recapitulation with a literal restatement of the first four measures of the first theme. After this restatement, Barnes redistributes the extension of the first theme below its accompaniment whereas before it is found above it. Example 2.28 below shows this extended portion of the first theme in the left hand beginning at the end of m. 58. Barnes‘s placement of this theme here is noteworthy as it is the final reference of the exposition‘s first theme. Not only is the theme more pronounced in the middle range of the keyboard, but it is also emphasized by the principal stop on the Great manual.

Example 2.28. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Scherzo, mm. 56-63

Oddly, Barnes elects not to develop the second theme along with the first theme in the development section. However, the peculiar second expositional theme in E major, shown in the excerpt below, reappears briefly in both the E major and E minor modes before shifting back to the tonic key of G major to conclude the piece. Its placement here, more as a coda, creates a cohesive, harmonic resolution to its initial tonal contrast in the exposition. The juxtaposition of the major and minor modes serves the dual purpose of recalling the lyricism of the theme itself

49 and the harmonic function of returning to tonic as E minor transitions effortlessly and conventionally to G major. Inserting the E major theme at this point of the piece also finalizes the thematic transformations applied to the various themes of the piece. This final statement in m. 70 affirms Barnes‘s choice to develop all of the themes to their full extent. In doing so, every theme introduced in the piece has a role in the outcome of the movement, and each idea is dealt with directly. The rounding out of these thematic developments fits within the structural expectations of the form he chooses.6

Example 2.29. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Scherzo, mm. 70-76

6 James Hepokoski, ―Beyond the Sonata Principle,‖ Journal of the America Musicological Society 55, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 103. 50

It is important to highlight that like the first movement, Prélude, Barnes‘s Scherzo owes much to his study with Vierne, who also included a movement titled ―Scherzo‖ in his Symphonie

II in E minor, Opus 20 (1903).7 Barnes composed his symphony with its Scherzo movement in

1918. It is therefore quite likely that Barnes used Vierne‘s Scherzo from his second symphony as a model for his own. Vierne‘s influence can be further supported by noting the similarities in motives and key relationships used in Barnes‘s work. First, though Barnes‘s movement is clearly in G major, the most lyrical and melodic portion of the piece is written in E major, which happens to be the same key of Vierne‘s E major Scherzo. Vierne‘s also puts its most lyrical material in G major. The use of chromatic third motion by both composers allows the lyricism in these works to be prominent, and it is likely that Barnes incorporated this shift based on its precedence in Vierne‘s work.

Chromatic motion in Barnes‘s Scherzo is also reminiscent of similar treatment in

Vierne‘s Scherzo. The chromatic melodic decent in Vierne‘s Scherzo at mm. 17 and 21 in

Example 2.30 (below beginning on the upper note ―E‖ and later ―B‖) is comparable, though slightly altered, in Barnes‘s movement excerpted in Examples 2.31 and 2.32. Later in his piece,

Barnes gives this descending line the structural function of outlining the dominant harmony of a

D dominant-seventh chord before the recapitulation. In these two instances, as well as the aforementioned modulation to E major, can be argued that Barnes used Vierne‘s work as a model, and that Barnes is again doing very little to hide his intent of using the works of his teacher as a prototype for his own works.

7 Vierne‘s Symphonie V in A minor, Opus 47 (1924) and Symphonie VI in B Major, Opus 59 (1930) which also include ―Scherzo‖ movements had not yet been composed when Barnes‘s work was composed. 51

Example 2.30. Vierne, Symphonie II in E Minor, Opus 20, mm. 15-24

Example 2.31. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Scherzo, mm.17-19

Example 2.32. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Scherzo, mm. 23-28

IV. Andante

Table 5. Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Andante, Compound Ternary Form

Section Measure(s) Key Traits A 1-47 E-Flat Major Three musical ideas introduced: primary theme (mm. 1-31), first motive (m. 31), and second motive (m. 38) B 47-79 E-Flat (A-Flat Major New theme introduced (mm. tonicized) 47-52). Sequential transformation of new theme and two motives from A section (mm. 47-79) A 79-99 E-Flat Major Return of first theme (m.79), allusion to theme from B section (mm. 79-82 and mm. 87-90), second motive from A section appears at m. 95

Barnes returns to ternary form, specifically compound ternary form, in the fourth movement of the symphony, Andante. Differing from the use of simple ternary form in the opening Prélude, a greater degree of variance, harmonic contrast and motivic development characterizes compound ternary form. Use of the form in the Andante movement unites the unfolding of themes and motives with registration changes, often highlighting a new treatment of a previously stated idea. Also, employing this form for this movement again echoes his experiences at the Schola Cantorum, as it was a popular medium for piano works by Chopin,

Brahms, Schumann, Schubert and Beethoven. In addition, the common use of compound ternary form in slow movements of orchestral symphonies often provided the contrast to scherzo and minuet movements that may precede or follow them.8

8 Berry, Form in Music, 69.

Extending from the use of the form in orchestral works is its use in the organ symphony genre. Vierne used the ABA design for seven of his thirty-one symphony movements. Of these seven movements, six are slow movements: Pastorale and Andante from Symphonie I, Opus 14,

Cantilène and Adagio from Symphonie III, Opus 28, Romance from Symphonie IV, Opus 32, and

Larghetto from Symphonie V, Opus 47.9 The prevalence of this form for slow movements of orchestral and organ symphonies further aligns Barnes in the French Romantic tradition of organ compositions.

Set in the key of E-flat major, the Andante is the first departure from the tonal center on

G minor for the work as a whole. Also, the key of E-flat, the use of the double pedal (a common occurrence in the French Romantic repertoire), registration, and cantabile melody create an affeckt reminiscent of the second movement, ―Andante sostenuto‖ of Widor‘s Symphonie

Gothique, Opus 70. However, Barnes‘s work has a much larger arch in dynamics than Widor‘s.

The A section is comprised of one theme and two motives. The first theme is both expressive and syncopated, in the right hand of m. 2 in the example below. Throughout this section the sustaining of notes across the bar line often creates suspension as well as an accent on the second beat of a given measure.

9 Long, ―Transformation of Harmony,‖ 62. 55

Example 2.33. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Andante, mm. 1-8

By contrast, the first motive, first appearing in m. 31, is shorter and made up of only four notes, shown below in its second iteration at m. 35 (a). This motive assumes a more prominent role in the development section. Amidst the statements of the first motive is a second motive of three repeated, accented quarter notes, seen in m. 38 (b) and m. 40 (c). This second motive assumes additional functionality in the development section.

Example 2.34. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Andante, mm. 32-43

(a)

(b)

(c)

In this first A section, both motives are of secondary importance. Initially both ideas may appear to be transitional material leading to the next section or to another appearance of the first theme. However, Barnes‘s development of these two motives in the B section, in addition to a

57 new, second theme, gives all of the themes and motives presented in this piece a structural function.

Following a brief transition from the exposition, the B section introduces a second theme in the, tonicized, related key of A-flat major at m. 42. As a whole, the B section is shaped first by the development of this theme, and second, by the transformation of the two motives from the A section. The new theme in A-flat major sounds in the right hand of m. 46, shown below in

Example 2.35. The development of the second theme is primarily through transformation at different tonal areas, the most important of which is the climax of the piece later at m. 71.

Example 2.35. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Andante, mm. 44-52

This new theme occurs five times, concurrent with increases in registration each time. Its remaining four occurrences are shown in portions of Examples 2.35 and 2.36 below, (a)-(d).

Also shown below in the same examples is the return of the second motive from the A section

(e)-(i). These quarter notes function as rhythmic digressions from the moving eighth notes that both precede and follow them, and prepare the next iteration of the melodic transformation of the

B section‘s second theme.

Example 2.36. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Andante, mm. 57-65

(a) (f)

(e)

(b) (g)

Example 2.37. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Andante, mm. 66-73

(h) (c)

(d) (i)

Beginning at m. 52, thematic transformation of the A section‘s first motive is augmented by an expansion in organ registration. This four-note descending motive reappears in canon between the soprano and bass while adding layers of sound to the registration. These two instances are both shown below in Examples 2.38 and 2.39 beginning in mm. 52 and 65 respectively, each calling for the addition of ―Anches‖ or reed stops on separate divisions of the organ, first the Swell (―Anches R‖), then the Great (―Anches G‖).

Example 2.38. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Andante, mm. 49-56

Example 2.39. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Andante, mm. 62-69

Throughout the piece, Barnes constantly manipulates the registrations. These subtle changes in timbre combine with the development of themes and motives to enrich the orchestral texture of the piece. The manipulation of the complete orchestral fabric in this movement is noteworthy as the layers of sound that enter and leave the texture elicits the effects of the symphony orchestra. Barnes‘s use of colorful orchestral registrations in the Andante accents his command of motivic development quite strongly in this movement, and perhaps best represents a complete synthesis of his studies in Paris. Perhaps Barnes recalls his lessons in organ registration when he inscribes at the bottom of the score, ―Cette deuxième registration s‘applique surtout aux orgues anglaises ou américaines,‖ translated, ―This second registration [given at the start of the piece] applies mainly to English and American organs.‖

The rise and fall in dynamic of the B section flows directly back to the A section, prepared quickly by the dominant of the tonic key of E-flat major. Whereas the melody is in the right hand in the exposition, Barnes shifts the melody to the left hand of m. 79 in the recapitulation. The accompaniment to the first theme sounds in the lower notes of the left hand while the right hand contains ornamental notes based on the second theme. This is shown in

Example 2.40 below in the recapitulated melody in the top notes of the left hand, (a), with the beginning notes of the second theme on different, softer stops in the right hand, (b). The reappearance of double pedal writing echoes the opening notes of theme from the B section in the upper notes in the pedal shown below in m. 87 of Example 2.40 (c). Barnes concludes the piece rather simply with one last and even softer statement of the first theme on the Choir manual in m. 87.

Example 2.40. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Andante, mm. 78-90

(b)

(a)

(c)

Barnes‘s use of compound ternary form in the Andante presents a more complex use of the form than that of the opening Prélude. This variation of ternary form is more conducive to the sequential fluctuations that occur between the A and B sections. The development of motives from both sections heightens the level of intricacy as the work continues to unfold. The varying degree to which Barnes makes his compositional decisions within the same formal boundaries of the Prélude and Andante is fascinating to observe and musically engaging.

V. Toccata sur en thème grégorienne

Table 6. Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Toccata, Freely Composed Form

Section Measure(s) Key Traits -- 1-17 G minor First incipit (6 notes) of ―Kyrie‖ placed in tenor range with ascending, arpeggiated figurations

-- 17-32 G minor ―Kyrie‖ incipit in soprano

-- 33-48 G minor (C minor is Incipit in bass using tonicized) double pedal followed by free material where chant is either not present or fragmented (mm.49-77)

-- 78-113 G minor Incipit returns in canon between soprano and bass with descending, arpeggiated figurations

-- 114-128 G minor (C minor Incipit sounds in bass tonicized) voice with double pedal

-- 129-154 G minor Chromatic, descending bass notes dictate harmonies of arpeggiated figurations; fragmentation of incipit occurs using only its first two pitches

In only two cases in his organ symphonies, Barnes uses preexisting melodic material as the basis for movements. Here in the first organ symphony, Barnes employs Gregorian chant as the thematic foundation. The Toccata is the only case from all ten movements where Barnes applies a sacred theme to the largely secular genre of the organ symphony. Also, in choosing to write a ―toccata‖ as the final movement of the symphony, Barnes continues to follow the

65 compositional practices of the French Romantic tradition where organ symphonies often ended with toccata movements. The French symphonic organ repertoire is rich with many such examples in works by Widor and Vierne, who concluded some of their symphonies with toccatas. Whether a toccata in name, as in the famous Toccata from Widor‘s Fifth Symphony,

Opus 42, or in the clear compositional style of figuration-supported homophonic writing, as found in the Final from Vierne‘s Third Symphony, Opus 28, a concluding toccata is not altogether uncommon. In the final movements of his First, Third, Fifth, Sixth Symphonies, and first movement of the Sixth Symphony, Vierne combines the pervading toccata figuration with the sonata form of a movement.10 The precedence of other composers writing in the mold of a figuration-accompanied melody again has unmistakable ties to and influences on Barnes‘s work as well as in the final movement of his second organ symphony. In his second symphony, Barnes turns to a movement from one of Vierne‘s organ symphonies as the model of a concluding toccata. Both of Barnes‘s works are found in the final movements his two symphonies: the

Toccata sur en thème grégorienne from the first symphony, and Final from the second symphony to be discussed at length later.

The Toccata is also another occasion where Barnes carefully maps out the structure of this work in the context of another illustrative recollection, this time of Widor. Remembering a performance by Widor, Barnes states,

Widor, at St. Sulpice, I heard play only Bach, his own work and improvisations. All three he does beautifully. The only extended form I heard him do was the toccata form – something like his famous Toccata in F. He always brought the music to two climaxes of power during the piece, and I could never describe to you the thrill of those mixtures and the smooth 32-foot reed–and he ended softly. He usually employed a Gregorian theme from the liturgy of the mass.11

10 Ibid., 53.

11 Barnes, ―An Organ Student in France,‖ 25. 66

Like the Prélude, the form of the Toccata stems from Barnes‘s encounters with his teachers, and adds evidence of his immersion in the French Romanic aesthetic.

The Gregorian theme used for Barnes‘s Toccata is an incipit of the Kyrie from the plainsong mass ―Orbis Factor,‖ shown below.12

Example 2.41. Plainsong, Orbis Factor

Throughout the Toccata only an incipit of chant, the first six pitches, is used. The chant fragment is consistently placed in either the uppermost or lowest voice of the texture in each of its iterations. The toccata as a genre has no specific formal plan and is free in its construction. Now infused with a sacred element, Barnes‘s incorporation of chant within the freely-formed toccata elevates the piece from an improvisatory work to one containing thematic continuity. Barnes

12 The Music Makers, ―Seven Plainsong Masses in Modern Notation,‖ http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/uploads/FileUpload/34/13371a2beadbfb7fdf863bb0d84b11. pdf (accessed October 18, 2014). 67 follows the form he observed in Widor‘s playing quite literally for his own work, even concluding with the soft ending as did Widor. The excerpt below, beginning in m. 135, shows the ending of Barnes‘s Toccata, a rare conclusion for this type of piece.

Example 2.42, Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Toccata, mm. 135-142

Due to its improvisatory and freely formed construction, the Toccata is devoid of the sectional divisions that govern other movements from Barnes‘s symphonies, and noticeable formal pillars are not at play in this movement. Barnes crafts the work after the incipit of the chant, fragmenting it in addition to canonic treatment of its phrases.

Similar to its ending, the movement begins softly with the incipit of the chant in the tenor range with accompanying figurations. The figurations in the manuals are harmonically governed by the notes of the chant and primarily diatonic to the key of G minor. The opening measures of the work are shown in Example 2.43 below.

Example 2.43. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Toccata, mm. 1-5

Though the key of the piece is G minor, there are presentations of the chant incipit in C minor beginning at m. 33 and again at m.114. This is shown in the two examples below.

Example 2.44. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Toccata, mm. 33-35

Example 2.45. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Toccata, mm. 114-116

Also, as mentioned before, Barnes does not use the entire chant, but rather only the first six notes of it, frequently presenting this incipit twice consecutively each time it is heard. These straightforward presentations of the chant are followed by more canonic entries of the same fragmented incipit. After these utterances of the chant melody, there are eight measures of freely- composed material that do not contain the chant. One might imagine that the absence of the chant in this material could recall the alternatim praxis of playing organ versets between the verses of the chant melody in the liturgical setting.

There is little change in the accompanying manual figurations throughout the work. The pattern of ascending, arpeggiated figurations remain constant until m. 66 when direction of the figurations shifts to a descending pattern. This can be seen below in Example 2.46. Attention is therefore drawn to canonic treatments of the chant and increases in registration as the varying thematic elements of this piece. Canonic imitation is the primary means of thematic variance and the chant does not undergo any other extensive transformation. Beginning in m. 68 shown below, the canon between the soprano, dux, and beginning of the pedal passage, comes, is later presented in reversed roles with the bass as dux and soprano as comes.

Example 2.46. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Toccata, mm. 66-68

As the piece draws to a close, a chromatic descent from B-flat to D in the pedal dictates the harmonies of its accompanying figurations. This is illustrated in Example 2.47 below.

Example 2.47. Barnes, Symphonie pour orgue, Op. 18, Toccata, mm. 129-136

On the whole, the skeleton of the form for this movement is laid out by Barnes‘s recollection of Widor‘s playing. There is little that musically strays from the memory of Widor recalled by Barnes. Given the instances of the performances of the work particularly by

Lynwood Farnam, the appeal of the Toccata for contemporary organists presumably superseded that of the other movements from the symphony at that time.

III. ANALYSIS OF SECOND SYMPHONY FOR ORGAN, OPUS 37

Barnes composed the Second Symphony for Organ, Opus 37 in 1923, while still serving as organist at Rutgers Presbyterian Church. The work is dedicated to Harry Benjamin Jepson, with whom Barnes studied organ while at Yale University. Jepson served as the first University

Organist at Yale, and also spent time studying in Paris with Widor and Vierne. During the time elapsed between the two organ symphonies, Barnes only slightly adapted his approach to the organ symphony primarily shown by much less frequent use of double-pedaling in the second symphony compared to in the first symphony, and the exclusion of French registration indications in favor of only English. This could perhaps signal a directed aim to produce more

Americanized works for organ. Otherwise the work is, like the first symphony, completely in the vein of the French Romantic practices and symphonic organ repertoire of the time.

I. Allegro

Table 7. Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, Sonata Form

Section Measure(s) Key Traits Exposition 1-39 F major First theme presented in mm. 1-5, second theme begins at m. 17 tonicizing E-Flat major, transition to develop section begins at m. 28 Development 39-123 F major (many tonal New theme is areas: D minor, G introduced (m. 39), minor, E-flat major, G transformation and major) sequencing of the second theme from exposition beginning at m. 55. Continuous compounding and fragmentation of second theme from exposition and new

development theme. Recapitulation 124-186 F major and D major Exposition theme presented in D major (m. 124), return to tonic key of F major at m. 133, further compounding and fragmenting of themes (mm. 148-169)

The Second Symphony opens with a brilliant Allegro movement in sonata form. Of the ten movements that comprise the two organ symphonies, this movement most directly demonstrates the malleability of the form juxtaposed with a twentieth-century approach to its constructs. Barnes, as expected, takes many liberties in his application of sonata form in this movement, the peak of which is a recapitulation unexpectedly distinguished by key and rhythmic alterations, foiling the expected return to themes of the exposition and development.

The first theme is built on a C dominant-seventh chord, though Barnes never ends this theme with a clear cadence in the home key of F major, consistently evading the tonic.

Circumvention of the tonic is generally prevalent in this particular movement. Barnes often prolongs the function of the dominant harmony as a harmonic link to other tonal areas in both related and unrelated keys. However, because this and any dominant harmony has such a strong aural tendency toward its tonic, the key of the piece, F major is clear. The examples below show a portion of the first theme followed by its second iteration presented more prominently on a larger registration in m. 9.

Example 3.1. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, 1-4

Example 3.2. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, 8-11

The prominent C‘s in the pedal of the C dominant-seventh chord seen above in Example

3.2, and the later arrival in E-flat major recall Barnes‘s extensive use of chromatic third relationships. To this end, the sustaining of the dominant harmony functions as a harmonic link to the second theme in E-flat major beginning in m. 17. Chromaticism governs the path to the key of the second theme in E-flat major excerpted below. In the few measures preceding the arrival at the new key, the harmonies on the second beats of mm. 14-16 intimate the newly

76 established E-flat sonority. This can be seen below at (a), (b), (c), and (d) before the start of the second theme in m. 17.

Example 3.3. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, mm. 12-23 (a)

(b) (c)

(d)

Oddly, particularly in sonata form, the second theme is equal to the rhythmic vitality of the first theme. Barnes immediately takes advantage of this peculiarity by merging the two themes together with C, as a common key between the two. The merging of the themes, seen below in mm. 28-29 in the manuals, first theme (a), second theme (b), signals the end of the exposition and the beginning of transition to the development section. The texture of both themes

77 is thick; the second theme in particular is written in more pianistic octaves and emerges even more audibly against the first theme. The repetition of the sixteenth note figure of the first theme propels it to the downbeat of each measure; this is metrically deceptive as the strongest accent is on beat two of the measure. The effect of combining the themes, however, is a sustained, rhythmic intensity throughout the work.

Example 3.4. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, mm. 28-31

(a)

(b)

It does not appear that material for the second theme is derived from the first theme in any way. The second theme contrasts with the first melodically rather than rhythmically in its repetition. Simplified, the second theme is made up of two notes separated by an ornamental upper neighbor. After deconstructing these two themes, it is clear that combining them creates a brief moment of rhythmic-melodic development and appropriate transition into the development section that follows.

Prior to developing themes from the exposition, Barnes inserts a third, melodically-driven theme that is distinguished not only by its dissimilarity from the previous two themes, but also by a softer registration. The theme is shown below in the bracketed portion of m. 39.

Example 3.5. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, mm. 36-44

Also above on the second beat of m. 39 is a dominant-seventh harmony on A, leading to the statement of the third theme in D minor. This third theme is by far the most vocal in quality and is more lyrical than either of the two themes of the exposition. It is presented in its entirety twice, including its initial statement at the beginning of the development section. Also, unlike the first theme, the metric accent of the third theme is more conventionally on the downbeat. At this point, with the aid of a less active pedal part at the beginning of the development, triple meter is most clearly solidified for the first time in the piece. While earlier the pedal was not only harmonically important but more rhythmically active, it becomes subordinate with the third theme of the development.

The material that shapes the development comes from two sources: the aforementioned third theme, newly introduced at the beginning of this section, and the second theme from the exposition. Where the first presentation of the third theme is in the key of D minor, the relative

79 of the key of the movement, the second statement is in the parallel major to the first statement, D major shown below in m. 89.

Example 3.6. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, mm. 88-94

The minor to major shift in the third theme is significant with respect to the frequent moves into different tonal areas of the development section occurring later. This is not altogether curious considering that the development section usually has the least tonal stability in a sonata form. However, this modal parallelism is developed further. Both statements call for softer registrations and both are interrupted by a manual change leading to crescendos. In the first instance, the key of D minor is chromatically highlighted with the presence of both, C-naturals and C-sharps, F naturals and F-sharps. The same can be said of the second statement, which also incorporates both sets of these accidentals. However, the most significant difference between the

80 two is the harmonic accompaniment in the right hand and the pedal notes, which individually imply different harmonies. Each of the themes ends on the same harmonies, their dominant, A major. Though starkly similar and in parallel keys, these two themes occur roughly thirty measures apart from one another, and are separated by extensive development of the second theme from the exposition.

The exposition‘s second theme also undergoes many transformations in the development section. Its development is even more pronounced and intricate than that of the third theme.

There are four rather uniform presentations of this theme and all are patterned after the same type of treatment of a toccata-like figure in the right hand, and a fragmented portion of the theme in the left hand. These four instances are shown below. The treatments of this theme are not necessarily sequential, as they do not occur consecutively in the piece and are not in sequentially-related keys; one iteration is actually a duplicate of a previous statement. The respective key areas of these thematic treatments are G minor, G minor repeated, E-Flat major, and G minor again.

Example 3.7. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, mm. 55-57

Example 3.8. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, mm. 64-66

Example 3.9. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, mm. 76-78

Example 3.10. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, mm. 105-108

These four instances of development of the exposition‘s second theme are all rhythmic permutations of the same motive, and are important links to other developmental statements of the theme.1 The first is in G minor placed over the fifth, D, in the pedal. Harmonically, the D as the dominant of G minor, prepares the arrival in the key of G minor this being the second example in G minor, Example 2.8, shown above. Following this second passage in G minor, there is a brilliant shift in mode and registration to the parallel major, G major, in m. 70. This is shown below in Example 3.11.

Example 3.11. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, mm.64-75

1 Wallace Berry, Form in Music 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986), 156. 83

The presentation of the theme in G major, seen above, is the fifth transformation of this motive in this section, and presents six measures of material whereas in the previous four examples

Barnes presents approximately only two. The development of the theme in E-Flat major is preceded by a tonally abrupt B dominant-seventh chord, another distant key, and also a reminder of Barnes‘s affinity for enharmonic chromatic third relationships. The fourth instance of development resembles the first as seen in the above examples, and marks the beginning of transitional material leading to the recapitulation.

The transition from the development to the recapitulation is harmonically adventurous.

Barnes seems to reserve drastic harmonic changes for the Allegro movements of his symphonies, as this occurs similarly in the Allegro of the first symphony. This is not altogether surprising however, when considering abrupt harmonic shifts in orchestral symphonies. In an orchestral work, the first movement frequently carries the most compositional weight. Therefore, the

84 occurrence of unexpected harmonies in Barnes‘s work is then a logical translation of the orchestral idiom to the organ symphony.

The recapitulation in this movement is harmonically altered with the initial theme presented in the key of D major rather than the tonic, F major. The preparation for the recapitulation is transparently presented with a pedal point on B-flat, insinuating that the return will occur in E-flat major, again avoiding the tonic key of F major and further drawing on a chromatic third relation between D and B-flat. The example below illustrates three important preparatory elements leading to the recapitulation. First, the B-flat in both the soprano and the pedal at m. 115 (a), again anticipates the key of E-flat while, second, the bottom part of the right hand, also in measure 115 (b), clearly references the impending return to the first theme of the exposition. But even the return to E-flat is thwarted with a startling A dominant-seventh chord

(c) with an added major ninth in m. 123 that brings the piece to a literal standstill. Third, reference to the second theme in the top part of the right hand of m. 119 all point to the prepared return (d).

Example 3.12. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, mm. 115-124

(b)

(a)

(d)

(c)

The absence of a transitional connection to the next section is as dramatic as it is peculiar.

It is virtually impossible to generalize a transition based solely on its harmony, texture, rhythm,

tempo, or other musical components. These elements never trump the function of the transition

86 as a shift to something new, and in this case unexpected.2 Recalling that the initial theme from the exposition is built on a dominant seventh chord, the reappearance of the A dominant-seventh chord restates the initial theme in the key of D major. This is combined with an increase in registration and thicker harmonic texture, both hands essentially having the same material. The theme in D major illustrates an important exception to the pillars of the form born out of the abnormal tonal and thematic design of the recapitulation in this movement.3

While Barnes‘s use of the B-flat pedal point does not lead to the expected tonal area, the theme from the development fills the role of returning to the tonic key with a pedal point on C, the dominant to the home key of F major. Barnes extends the prominent pedal point on C as preparation for F major in two specific ways. Example 3.13 shows the first use of a pedal point on C as a rhythmic emphasis of the downbeat beginning at m. 133; in Example 3.14 Barnes compounds the rhythmic function of the pedal point with a harmonic component, combining themes in the manuals at m. 147, thus increasing the rhythmic intensity and motion, a feat also achieved earlier in the work.

2 Ibid., 158.

3 James Hepokoski, ―Beyond the Sonata Principle,‖ Journal of the American Musicological Society 55, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 96. 87

Example 3.13. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, mm. 133-138

Example 3.14. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Allegro, mm. 146-150

In one final thematic twist, though the C as a dominant pedal signals the return of the initial theme in the key of F major, the return never happens as expected. Rather than stating it directly, Barnes alludes to the first theme in the pedal with an ascending line traveling up the pedalboard. Here, the theme is presented in a fanfare, even cadenza-like manner. At this point, the accompaniment in the manuals is the same with both hands playing major or minor thirds.

The recapitulation concludes with the final statement of the theme from the development section, and is grounded by a C dominant pedal that finally leads to the tonic note, F. The preference for ending with the theme from the development over themes from the exposition is a logistical one.

The repertoire of this period is primarily melodically driven and the development‘s theme is clearly the most vocal of all themes from this movement. Particularly in its final statement, this theme soars majestically above its accompaniment while contrasting the faster-moving rhythmic motive that opens the piece.

Furthermore, Barnes‘s use of sonata form in the Allegro demonstrates his learned use of shaping formal structures to serve his aims of thematic development. For Barnes, the form provides the ideal framework for themes to be manipulated fully. Understanding this helps clarify the unusual harmonic shifts that occur in the movement and the seemingly suppressed recapitulation. This is by no means unique to Barnes, and there is certainly precedence in earlier uses of the form particularly from the Classical period. While both the preparation for the return and the return itself are harmonically at odds in Barnes‘s work, this level of formal instability between these two elements is not unchartered territory. For instance, in Beethoven‘s Second

Symphony, first movement, the tonic key of D major is referenced one measure prior to the recapitulation. Likewise, in the first movement of Haydn‘s String Quartet in C, Op. 33, no. 3, the establishment of the key of C is delayed in favor of the recapitulation of the first exposition theme and thus lacks preparation for the return.4 These brief examples support the malleability of sonata form demonstrated by Barnes‘s harmonic redressing of the recapitulation of the Allegro.

The use of a non-resolving recapitulation again links him with twentieth-century compositional practices with regard to formal approaches, and keeps his works parallel with the French

Romantic tradition of organ composition.5

4 Berry, Form in Music, 171.

5 Hepokoski, ―Beyond the Sonata Principle,‖ 150. 89

II. Cantilène

Table 8. Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Cantilène, Rounded Binary Form

Section Measure(s) Key Traits A 1-46 E-Flat major Primary melody presented in tonic key, cadence in A minor (m. 30) followed by first interlude in A minor (mm.31-38) and second interlude in F-sharp minor (mm. 38-46) B 46-98 A minor, B-Flat major Melody from A section presented in A minor (m. 46) and fragmented in key of B-Flat major (m. 64), harmonic alteration in accompaniment throughout section before recalling material from A section

The second movement, Cantilène, is a work in rounded binary form as material from A is recalled at the conclusion of B. The Cantilène proposes a textual component not only with its vocally-suggestive title, but also with phrase markings denoting short, singable phrases, and

Barnes‘s indication of ―ben cantando‖ at the beginning of the work. The vocal element is apparent and idiomatic to the solo capabilities of the organ. The three excerpts shown below support the vocal designation with stop indications of ―Solo‖ on a separate manual each of the three times the melody is stated in measures 1, 47 and 83 respectively.

Example 3.15. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Cantilène, mm. 1-3

Example 3.16. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Cantilène, mm. 43-47

Example 3.17. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Cantilène, mm. 81-84

By contrast, sections of the piece that do not contain the melody have equally discernible registration changes indicating texture shifts that are harmonically rather than melodically focused. The example below demonstrates this fully with its shift to F-sharp minor, change in registration, and consequently its mood, aiming to induce an ―echo effect‖ at m. 38.

Example 3.18. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Cantilène, mm. 37-42

The A section comprises two units of melodic material. The piece begins with the melody plainly presented in the soprano range immediately followed by a second voice echoing the same material at unison pitch. The synchronicity of the two voices in the same register gives the vocal illusion of the first soprano acting as a descant for the second soprano. The end of the second soprano‘s melody marks the close of the duet-like texture, returning the melodic focus to the right hand. While the first presentation of the melody is expanded by the addition of a voice in the same range, the registration of the second melody distinguishes it from the first. Barnes calls for the second voice to be played on a different manual and ―thumbed down‖ if possible. This is not an unusual indication, as thumbing down is also required in the Widor‘s Symphonie V in F

Minor, Op. 42, No.1, second movement, Allegro cantabile. Also, except for one lone A-natural, the opening melody and its accompanying duet voice is entirely diatonic. Chromaticism is not introduced into the work until the second melody appears in the right hand. 92

The increase in chromaticism drives the transition to the B section. However, the tonal area of the B section, A minor, is surprising given that it is the most distant tonality from the tonic, E-flat. This tritone relationship further undercuts the tonal direction of the work with two interludes that have no harmonic relationship to the tonic or the newly established A minor. The start of the first interlude suggests both A minor and F minor, but cadences on a D dominant- seventh chord before proceeding to a tonicization of F-sharp minor. The passage linking the two interludes is shown below with the aforementioned D dominant-seventh chord seen in m. 38.

Example 3.19. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Cantilène, mm. 37-39

The second interlude abruptly begins in F-sharp minor and cadences on an F dominant-seventh chord. Barnes‘s insertion of these interludes is indicative of the shift of the vocal element in this work. The texture of the interludes is four-voice writing, and the change in registration to create an ―echo effect‖ varies with previous, clear statements of the melody on solo stops.

Following the cadence on the F dominant-seventh chord in m. 46, the B section commences in m. 47, presenting the initial melody in the key of A minor. As with the initial iteration of the melody, a solo stop elevates it from the accompanying figure assigned to the right hand. As can be seen in Example 3.16, above, the melody is now in the tenor range, with broken-

93 chord accompaniment in the right hand. Also akin to the initial melody, a second voice joins as a harmonic complement. Up to this point, the B section is thematically the same as the A section.

The use of the melody in a new mode with an additional voice is also similar to the treatment of the initial melody. From the standpoint of formal structure, this is expected because much of the material in the B section derives from A.6 However, the inclusion of another harmonic shift differentiates B from A.

In addition to the presentation of the primary melody in the key of A minor, the fragmenting of the melody defines the thematic division of the A and B sections. The first example, beginning in m. 64 and now in the key of B-flat major, shows the fragmented melody in a three-voiced texture on the diapason stops of the organ. This brief instance of thematic transformation is, again, harmonically distant from the melody in A minor, and obstructs a complete rendering of the melody, which has been presented in its entirety up to this point in the work. The layering of the voices recalls the vocal quality of the work, but this impression is not a lasting one. Based on what follows it, this material is both developmental and transitional. In the second example, beginning in m. 70, the prevailing melodic texture of the piece returns to the right hand with a new, two-phrase melody not yet heard in the work.

6 Berry, Form in Music, 34. 94

Example 3.20. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Cantilène, mm. 62-71

Example 3.21. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Cantilène, mm. 67-76

The melody in Example 3.21 above has no thematic relation to anything presented in the

Cantilène thus far. Based on this, its placement here is peculiar with particular regard to the melodic continuity of the movement. Interestingly however, this new melody in the Cantilène is heard again in the final movement, Final, in which Barnes recasts this melody as a significant thematic component of the work‘s structure. The sharing of themes also occurs in the first symphony and again puts forward the idea of thematic borrowing between movements.

As stated earlier, the conclusion of the B section recalls material from the A section.

Example 3.22 shows the beginning of this material at the anacrusis to m. 83. The melody is again assigned to the right hand, highlighted with a solo stop. Increased chromaticism in the left hand and pedal minimally affect the melody in an unaltered presentation as heard at the beginning of the movement. Simple and vocally phrased, the piece ends just as delicately as it begins.

Example 3.22. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Cantilène, mm. 81-84

In using binary form only once, perhaps Barnes is again drawing from Vierne, who employs a sectionalized variation form in the second movement, Choral, of his Second

Symphony, the only use of this form in all of his six symphonies.7 Also like Vierne, the insertion

7 Page Caroll Long, ―Transformation of Harmony and Consistencies of Form in the Six Organ Symphonies of Louis Vierne‖ (A. Mus. D, University of Arizona, 1963), 59.

96 of a movement titled Cantilène is noteworthy in that Vierne‘s Cantilène is also the second movement from his Third Symphony, Op. 28. Vierne himself describes the structure of his work as being, ―…in the form of the second movement of a sonata, ending with a variation on the first theme, and a coda on the second.‖8 This is starkly similar to the structure of Barnes‘s work, particularly in the B section which may correspond easily with the second section of sonata form.

However, the melody in Barnes‘s piece, appearing in the key of A minor, is not developed or varied as described in Vierne‘s work, but rather simply transposed. Also, the interludes in

Barnes‘s Cantilène help clearly divide the work into two distinct halves, and the degree of reaffirming the home key in the final bars does not function as a coda as in Vierne‘s work. Yet, the influence of Vierne is certainly present.

The singular use of binary structure for the Cantilène separates it from the heavier use of sonata form in other movements from either of the symphonies. Binary construction has an intrinsic ternary attribute, the opening and closing of the work in the tonic, but the segmenting of the thematic ideas leading back to the tonic in this movement do not fit the design of the tripartite pillars of what would anticipate a sonata form. The label of a ―B‖ section typically denotes a considerable change in character as expected in binary form. More common, and as in the case in the Cantilène, is a reshuffling of ideas from the A section managed by the same rhythmic pace with a higher degree of tonal fluctuation.9 This is of course, a more classical description of the structure, though its principles clearly relates to Barnes‘s use of the form in this movement. Also, more practically, the recurrence of the melody at the end of the B section represents the danger

8 Rollin Smith, Louis Vierne: Organist of Notre-Dame Cathedral (Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 1999), 525.

9 Ibid., 34-5.

97 of mistaking its reappearance as a recapitulation. The same can be said of the opening Prélude from the first symphony, which implies sonata form, but clearly is not. The use of binary form in the Cantilène is a short-lived formal excursion in the symphony as a whole, however, as Barnes returns to sonata form in the movement that follows.

III. Intermezzo

Table 9. Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Intermezzo, Sonata-Rondo Form (7 part)

Section Measure(s) Key Traits A 1-4 C minor Rondo theme presented

B 8-19 C minor Episodic rather than developmental material A 19-23 C minor Following the rondo theme, sequential material acts as transition to C section (mm.23-27) C 27-34 C minor (G minor Hints of the A and B tonicized) themes (mm. 27-33) A 35-39 C minor Rondo theme presented followed by chromatic sequences and episodes leading to second B section (mm.40-56) B 56-75 C minor (E-flat minor Rondo theme is further is tonicized) developed and presented in key of E-flat minor (mm. 56 and 64) A 75-79 C minor Rondo theme returns and followed by chromatic transition to coda (mm. 79-87) Coda 88-101 C major Significant increase in registration and fanfare- like character

Like the first symphony, the middle, third movement of the second symphony is a sonatina in sonata-rondo form, characterized by a modest development section. While the small proportions of the work appropriately deem it a sonatina, analysis further reveals an ABACABA, or seven-part rondo structure with abbreviated instances of development suitable to the brevity of the work. Following the final statement of the rondo theme is an extensive coda. While codas commonly occur in sonata-rondo form, the registration of this coda contrasts and even conflicts with the character of the piece.10 Nevertheless, the designation of sonata-rondo form is most accurate as the rondo theme unifies this rather flighty work.

The rondo theme, or A part of the form, has four clearly-stated iterations in the piece.

Aurally, and seen in the final measures of each example (Examples 3.23-3.26) the rondo is unmistakable and fairly uniform in its notation excluding the enharmonic spellings of the G- sharps and A-flats which alter the harmonies only slightly. Shown below are the openings of the four presentations of the rondo theme. The first cadences in G minor, the second on a D dominant-seventh chord in third inversion again suggesting G minor, the third again on G minor, and the last, preceding the coda, on a B-flat dominant-seventh chord. Different accompaniment supports the rondo theme in each of its appearances, but its melodic contour remains unchanged.

The frequent return to the key of the piece, C minor, often relieves the fast-paced chromaticism prevalent in the digressions from the rondo theme and other transitional material.

10 Ibid., 204. 99

Example 3.23. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Intermezzo, mm. 1-4

Example 3.24. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Intermezzo, mm. 18-23

Example 3.25. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Intermezzo, mm. 35-39

100

Example 3.26. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Intermezzo, mm. 74-78

Of the ten movements that comprise both symphonies, the Intermezzo is the shortest.

Because the movement as a whole is succinct, its dimensions are consequently short as well.

This manifests particularly in the development sections, B, being altogether more episodic than developmental. Restricted development not only aids in identifying the form, but also explains the incongruous ideas characteristic of a sonatina.11 Absence of thematic development is simply a result of the work‘s condensed size, and Barnes‘s Intermezzo fits squarely in line with this framework. With this in mind, both B sections are different, unbalanced not only in length, but also in the degree of development. The beginning of the first B section begins in m. 8, shown below. It clearly acts more as a brief interlude than as a theme that is subject to development; the passage is brief, harmonically unstable, and quickly recapitulates back to the rondo theme.

11 Ibid., 197. 101

Example 3.27. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Intermezzo, mm. 5-13

Even more, the inclusion of an episode here, and in general, is best described by theorist James

Hepokoski as, ―not merely audible variants of the expositionally established melodies; instead their point is to impress us as something fresh—the onset of a new turn of events. (Hence the standard term for them: episodes.)‖12 The case is similar in the B section of the Prélude from the first symphony which also contains episodes in its fugal section. As such, the absence of a clear theme does not translate to lack of substance as seen in the episodes of the Intermezzo.

The second presentation of B is similarly brief, but with a heightened degree of development. Because the leanness of the work leaves limited options for development, Barnes uses the rondo theme as his source for developmental material. After transitioning to the relative

12 Hepokoski, ―Beyond the Sonata Principle,‖108.

102 major, E-flat, Barnes presents the rondo theme in this key and its parallel minor, E-flat minor.

Both are shown below in the right hand of Examples 3.28 and 3.29 in mm. 56 and 64 respectively. In presenting the rondo theme in two parallel keys, the use of the theme as a developmental subject is then memorably assigned to a non-tonic area, and an aural signaling of development.13 With themes already at a premium in this piece, the rondo theme presents the best, if not the only, possibility for thematic transformation.

Example 3.28. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Intermezzo, mm. 54-58

13 Ibid., 116. 103

Example 3.29. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Intermezzo, mm. 59-69

Though unequal to each other in length, the B sections of this work present significant thematic digressions from the rondo theme. The first is episodic, while the second is more thematically expansive. The disparity between these two B sections is another testament to the pliability of sonata form in the hands of twentieth-century composers aside from the organization that the form provides for their compositional ideas.

The trimmed C section, shown below, is in the key of G minor, and fits the character of the piece, a whimsical chromatic transition back to the rondo theme. However, in this brief passage, particularly mm. 27-33, there is a hint of both the rondo theme, and B, though the passage is far too short to be developmentally substantive to any extent. The material of section

C, or the second digression, is again more episodic than developmental. It is also the least

104 harmonically adventurous portion of the piece. These two factors draw more attention to the amplified development of the second B section that follows it.

Example 3.30. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Intermezzo, mm. 24-34

With the seven parts now presented, Barnes concludes the work with a coda that is not only at odds with the piece harmonically, but also with the overall character of the Intermezzo.

The coda, shown below, begins at m. 88 in the parallel key of C major, and features a drastic change in texture and registration. It is shaped by a combination of fast, toccata-like figurations in the right hand, and rhythmically irregular, accented chords in the left hand.

105

Example 3.31. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Intermezzo, mm. 85-101

Juxtaposing the perpetual motion of the right hand with the rhythmic and harmonic interest of the left hand chords creates the effect of a fanfare-like ending under the full tonal resources and strength of the organ. Barnes‘s ending to the movement is also surprising when considering that he never calls for a registration close to this volume up to this point. However, the somewhat impulsive change of dynamic ironically fits the capricious nature of the Intermezzo.

106

IV. Rhapsodie

Table 10. Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Rhapsodie, Variation Form

Section Measure(s) Key Traits 1st Iteration 1-8 F-sharp minor Melody in soprano

2nd Iteration 9-14 F-sharp minor (D Melody in tenor major tonicized) 3rd Iteration 15-22 F-sharp minor Melody in tenor

4th Iteration 23-28 F-sharp minor (D Melody in soprano major tonicized followed by chromatic episode (mm. 29-30) 5th Iteration 31-34 F-sharp minor (C- Fragmentation and sharp minor and G- imitative entrances of the sharp minor tonicized) melody followed by interlude where melody is not present (mm. 35-42) 6th Iteration 43-59 F-sharp minor, E-Flat Melody returns to soprano major, F-sharp major followed by fragmentation of the melody in pedal in E-flat major (mm. 51-55) and F-sharp major (mm. 56-59)

The fourth movement, Rhapsodie, is a monothematic work in variation form. In contrast to the free-flowing spontaneity of a rhapsody in general, the use of melody and harmony as the primary elements of formal structure provides stability to this movement. In this type of variation, the melody and harmony remain largely unchanged. The variety within the work is then dependent upon alteration of elements derived from the theme, including mode, rhythm, fragmentation, imitative treatment and a host of other compositional techniques.14 The

Rhapsodie is conceived instrumentally and contrasts with the obvious vocal nature of the

Cantilène two movements prior. The slow tempo, ―Andante quasi adagio,‖ and frequent changes

14 Berry, Form in Music, 295. 107 in the timbre of the theme via different stops throughout the entire piece make its instrumental undertone more pronounced.

Barnes utilizes three approaches to vary the theme in this work: registration, mode, and imitation with fragmentation. First, variances in range, registration and texture are the clearest and most direct way that Barnes provides contrast for the iteration of the theme. Of the six iterations of the theme, five are presented in its entirety. Each theme sounds using a different registration, seen below. The first iteration of the theme calls for a ―Solo stop (Solo or Sw.) trem‖ requiring a solo sonority with the undulating effect of the tremulant stop.

Example 3.32. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Rhapsodie, mm. 1-3

In the second iteration, the theme is in a lower register with an increased dynamic and requiring an ―8‘Reed‖ stop at m. 9.

108

Example 3.33. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Rhapsodie, mm. 7-9

The third iteration again requires the resources of the Swell manual at m. 15 while the fourth returns to the Great manual, calling for the ―Trumpet‖ in m. 23.

Example 3.34. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Rhapsodie, mm. 13-15

109

Example 3.35. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Rhapsodie, mm. 22-24

The fifth iteration of the theme features a reduction in sound from the previous iteration.

Example 3.36. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Rhapsodie, m. 31

110

The sixth and final iteration returns to the initial registration.

Example 3.37. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Rhapsodie, mm. 41-44

The effect of different registrations for the theme provides both unity and contrast as the melodic and harmonic elements remain unchanged and aurally unmistakable to the listener.

Second, the consistency achieved with fixed melody and harmony works quite well with simple, easily recognizable modal changes for five of the six variations. This is governed primarily in shifting from major to minor modes and vice versa. The first and third iterations of the theme are in the same key of F-sharp minor and are supported with identical accompaniments. The only subtle difference between these two cases is the placing of the accompaniment with respect to where Barnes assigns the theme. The two iterations may be compared in Examples 3.31 and 3.33 above. First, the theme is in the soprano range with the accompaniment in the left hand on a separate manual. Identical melody and accompaniment is present in the third iteration of the theme. However, the theme is now in the tenor range with accompaniment in the right hand, again on separate manuals. Barnes duplicates the same practice with the second and fourth iterations which are both in the key of D major. Both presentations of the melody and harmony are similar, each with a change in register also shown in the examples above. The chromatic third relationship between F-sharp and D major is by no means surprising

111 considering the frequent appearance of this relationship in other movements from the symphonies.

Lastly, Barnes distinguishes the fifth iteration by compounding the use of registration changes and modal shifts with imitation and fragmentation of the theme. The fifth iteration begins at m. 31 and is shown below. The theme is imitated at the interval of a fifth in the tonal areas of C-sharp minor followed by G-sharp minor.

Example 3.38. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Rhapsodie, mm. 31-34

This imitation is brief and is not developed to any great extent. This textural change announces that a harmonic twist is near. The expectation of an impending shift is magnified even more when considering that each of the previous iterations of the subject is grounded by its tonic in the pedal. For instance, an F-sharp pedal accompanies the beginning of the theme in F-sharp minor.

112

In this variation, however, the melody in C-sharp minor is accompanied by a G-sharp in the pedal as part of a descending line, whereas the previous variations contain an accompanying ascending pedal line. Also, the left hand contains only one full measure of the complete eight- measure theme. As a whole, this passage is a part of a modulatory transition leading back to the presentation of the theme in the major mode; the measures that follow feature a meter change, drastic increase in registration and homogenous chordal texture not yet seen in the piece. This brief passage is the first departure from the theme as the primary element of the work and its material is not derived from the theme. It is also at this point that the theme is absent for nine and one-half measures before reappearing in the key of F-sharp major for the final iteration.

The sixth and final variation presents the theme in the parallel major key of F-sharp major beginning at m. 43, and is succeeded by a coda. The theme returns to the right hand with accompaniment in the left hand as found at the beginning of the piece. Despite the establishment of the major key, Barnes retains the key signature for F-sharp minor, supplementing the necessary accidentals to secure the major mode. The coda that follows in m. 51 is thematically and tonally unexpected, and shifts to the key of E-flat major before returning to F-sharp major, again outlining a chromatic third relationship when enharmonically spelled. The coda is shaped by the first four notes of the theme which are unmistakably heard throughout the piece. The repetitions in the pedal, shown below, recall the theme while the accompaniment in the manuals is not derived from the theme or its accompaniment.

113

Example 3.39. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Rhapsodie, mm. 51-55

From all perspectives, Barnes‘s Rhapsodie has a unique construction in the midst of the other movements of either symphony. Because the original theme appears three times, twice in minor and once in major, the ―variation‖ element of this movement is conservative with regard to melodic and harmonic possibilities. The element of variation in this work is achieved primarily through the resources of the organ. Though it would be easy to deem the work uneventful and even monotonous, its structure is compositionally economical and inherently artistic.

One last observation concerns the codas of the Rhapsodie and preceding Intermezzo.

Regarding codas, Hepokoski describes,

Nor should one overlook the obvious: since the generic function of codas, when existed at all, was to demonstrate the security of the tonic key finally fully attained in the proceeding sonata form—even when, as often in Beethoven, they began with a temporary shift towards another key—one would expect that longer codas that reflect on events in the preceding structure would accomplish many of those backward glances at the tonic.15

15 Hepokoski, ―Beyond the Sonata Principle,‖ 112. 114

Though the description is perhaps most applicable to composers in Classical and Romantic traditions, harmonic shifts in the codas of the Rhapsodie and Intermezzo and even the Scherzo from the first symphony, are strong arguments for the flexibility of form at the disposal for twentieth-century composers. Barnes uses the codas in these three movements as opportune places to glance rather than stare at the tonic at the conclusion of each of these pieces, and provides an additional example of twentieth-century innovation amidst traditional formal structures.

V. Final

Table 11. Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Final, Sonata Form

Section Measure(s) Key Traits Exposition 1-36 F minor (Cminor is First theme is presented and tonicized) imitated at the dominant (mm. 1-30), first theme is treated canonically, second theme is alluded to in accompaniment Development 36-93 F minor, A-Flat major Second theme stated in its entirety (m. 36), development of first and second themes throughout, harmonic sequences and fragmentation of themes, modulation to F major (mm74-78) in preparation for recapitulation Recapitulation 93-122 F major Canonic treatment of first theme from exposition beginning at m. 93 and combines with frequent fragmentation of second theme

115

Barnes returns to sonata form in the Final, the concluding movement of the Second

Symphony for Organ. While the movement employs sonata form quite clearly, Barnes‘s Final owes an even greater debt again to Vierne, after whom Barnes models it. The ever-fruitful relationship between Vierne and Barnes is at play once more with Barnes recalling the work by

Vierne that inspired the fifth movement, Final. Barnes reflects,

I believe that the Vierne Third Symphony is the most concise and forceful example of sonata form—one might even say of sonatina form, so brief are its divisions—that I have ever heard, certainly in organ music. I recommend the first and last movements as among the high points of Vierne‘s work.16

In this recollection, Barnes reveals much about his approach to the last movement of his second symphony. First, though Barnes references the first and final movements of Vierne‘s Symphony

No. 3, it is evident that the last movement of Vierne‘s work, also called Final, served as the model for Barnes‘s Final. Also, sonata form dangles like low-hanging fruit for Barnes after acknowledging Vierne‘s use of the form in two movements of his symphony. With another of

Barnes‘s vivid recollections of Vierne in mind, it is obvious that the Final from Barnes‘s symphony derives from the last movement from Vierne‘s Symphony No. 3 in F-sharp minor.

The Final is essentially a toccata in which the primary melody is supported by arpeggiated figures that rhythmically drive the piece throughout. The description of a toccata does not, and never has, denoted a musical form in itself but rather a technique, similar to the procedure of composing a fugue.17 As mentioned earlier, the inclusion of a toccata as the final movement in an organ symphony is not uncommon. The precedence of other composers writing in the mold of a figuration-accompanied melody again has unmistakable ties to and influences on

16 Barnes, ―An Organ Student in France,‖ 25.

17 Page Carroll Long, ―Transformation of Harmony and Consistencies of Form in the Six Organ Symphonies of Louis Vierne,‖ (A. Mus. D, University of Arizona, 1963), 52.

116

Barnes‘s work as he is simply drawing upon the tradition of inserting a toccata as the final movement. In addition to the use of sonata form, the close proximity in key scheme and adaption of the toccata figuration also specifically calls attention to the similarity of Barnes‘s work to

Vierne‘s Final from Symphony No. 3.

Barnes‘s movement is in the key of F minor and it is the only time that Barnes uses this key in either of his symphonies. The use of the minor mode does have symmetrical value, however, when compared with the key of the opening Allegro in the parallel key of F major.

Though the piece begins in a minor mode, Barnes modulates to the major mode to end the Final.

Vierne‘s movement is in the key of F-sharp minor, a spatially closer key to that of Barnes‘s but tonally quite distant. Similarly, the first movement of Vierne‘s symphony, Allegro Maëstoso, begins in F-sharp minor and ends in the parallel key of F-sharp major. Brimming with resemblance between the two movements, Barnes‘s use of a toccata in the Final is the first indication of Vierne‘s influence on the piece.

The two examples below compare the openings of Barnes‘s and Vierne‘s works, and underscore three distinct similarities. First, Barnes‘s spans the octave, on C‘s, for its accompanying figuration (marked ―(a)‖ in Ex. 3.40). This is similar to Vierne‘s spanning the octave for the accompanying figuration on C-sharps. Second, the initial leap in the melody in

Barnes‘s work (marked ―(b)‖ in Example 3.40) is also found in Vierne‘s. In both cases, and archetypal of French Romantic toccatas, the accompanying figurations quickly become secondary and accentuate the rhythmic interest of the melody. As such, the homogeneity of the figurations often affords the melody to be stated more prominently. Third, the introduction of the pedal in Barnes‘s work (marked ―(c)‖ in Example 3.40) also echoes Vierne‘s placement of pedal notes particularly on the weak beats of measures and at the beginning of the work.

117

Example 3.40. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Final, mm. 1-8

(a)

(b)

(c)

118

Example 3.41. Vierne, 3ème Symphonie pour Orgue, Op. 28, Final, mm. 1-14

Barnes‘s Final employs sonata form with a much clearer method than found in the first movement, Allegro. Also unlike the Allegro, the exposition of the Final has a tonal scheme that is more conventionally circular. For instance, within the first thirty measures of the work, Barnes

119 sequentially moves from the key of F minor to A-flat major to C minor to E-flat major. The use of chromatic thirds is again present but travels on the more beaten path of closely related tonal areas. The first theme, shaped like that of Vierne‘s first theme, quickly takes on the double role as developmental and transitional material leading to the second expositional theme. As seen in the two examples below, the first theme of the exposition is presented canonically in m. 20, (a) and (b), in the key of C minor in preparation for the second theme in the key of E-flat major.

This stretto creates the effect of acceleration and contrasts with the less active second theme that follows in m. 31, (c).

Example 3.42. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Final, mm. 18-23

(a)

(b)

120

Example 3.43. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Final, mm. 30-38

(c)

The gentler melodic contour of this second theme is quite different from the dotted rhythms of the aggressive first theme. Also, the augmentation of the note values from the sixteenth to eighth-note level provides rhythmic reprieve from the perpetual intensity of the opening. Though the second theme is not stated completely until m. 31, it is foreshadowed in the top notes of the right hand and the pedal in the fashion of an echo beginning at m. 11. This is shown below in Example 3.44.

121

Example 3.44. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Final, mm. 9-17

As mentioned in the analysis of the Cantilène, Barnes again borrows a theme from one movement and inserts it in another. Here, the second theme of the Final is first heard in the

Cantilène. The first phrase of both themes is shown below. Such borrowing also occurs in the first symphony where the fugal subject of the Prélude is used in the development section of its following movement, Allegro.

122

Example 3.45. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Cantilène, mm. 67-76

Example 3.46. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Final, mm. 30-33

Thematic borrowing between these movements again raises the possibility that other movements of this symphony are thematically linked or that it is perhaps cyclic. But as before, this is not the case. There is no other evidence of the sharing of this or any other theme in the

123 other three movements of the symphony. Also, the extent to which Barnes shares themes between movements, though suggestive of cyclic technique, is simply not strong enough.

Franck‘s Grand Pièce Symphonique again provides the prototypical instance of this technique.

But considering the lesser degree of its use than found in Barié‘s work, it is safer to label

Barnes‘s sharing of themes between movements as more of a melodic quotation rather than significant thematic development in more than one movement.

Of note, however, is the clarity with which Barnes brings attention to the use of the themes in more than one movement. In the first symphony, the fugal subject of the Prélude is heard alone, unencumbered by additional voices that might detract from the ability to later recognize it in succeeding voices. Its second appearance in the Allegro puts the subject with accompaniment, though still prominently heard and distinguishable. In the second symphony, the

Cantilène‘s theme is presented plainly on a solo registration. Its later appearance in the Final is then noticeable as the second principal theme of the movement. In both symphonies, the theme in question is presented distinctly in its reappearance in a later movement. The deliberate manner that Barnes presents these themes in different movements is so obvious that recognizing them would be apparent if they were indeed present in every movement. Here in Barnes‘s second symphony, the theme is not in adjacent movements. Also, the inconsistency in placement of the reappearing themes—in the first and second movements from the first symphony, and the second and fifth movements from the second symphony—takes away from the possibility that the movements are cyclically linked. In the latter instance, the theme in the Cantilène is presented only once and without any hint of further development. Compositionally, Barnes is simply borrowing from an earlier movement.

124

The Final‘s development section begins at m. 31, and is characterized more by its tonal excursions than its transformations of expositional themes. As expected, the development section is the least tonally stable and traverses several keys areas. Interestingly, Barnes is quite judicious in his establishment of key areas particularly at the beginning of this section. Though the cadence leading into the development is on a B-flat dominant seventh chord found on the first beat of m.

36, the established key area is A-flat major, the relative key of the opening F minor tonality.

Seen below, the start of the development in the key of A-flat in m. 39 places the first phrase of the second theme above an E-flat pedal, while the second phrase centers above an A-flat pedal in m. 42.

Example 3.47. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Final, mm. 39-44

125

Throughout the development section the second theme is presented straightforwardly with very little alteration. Oftentimes the rhythmic shape of the first theme is used as complementary material to the second theme. Below is an example of how the first theme is used as free material between iterations of the second theme.

Example 3.48. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Final, mm. 45-47

As a whole, the development is rather brief and because the second theme is in a major mode, the approach to the recapitulation is equally conducive to modulating to F major as it is returning to F minor. The second theme serves as the vehicle to navigate seamlessly to the key of

F major, which is achieved ornately with a trill in the uppermost voice of m. 74. Shown below is the use of the second theme leading to the modulation to F major undergirded by the dominant pedal, C, and decorated with the aforementioned trill. This also parallels mm. 115-119 of the first movement, Allegro also from the second symphony.

126

Example 3.49. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Final, mm. 74-78

The recapitulation is unabashed in its appearance as well. The theme returns canonically with the pedal as dux, and the right hand as the comes. The figuration that accompanies the canon is the same as that of the beginning of the movement. See Example 3.49 in m. 94. Barnes further separates the use of sonata form here from the opening Allegro by prioritizing the restatement of the first theme only and not the second theme.

127

Example 3.50. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Final, mm. 91-99

The coda to this work, shown below beginning in m. 113, is shaped by repetitions of a portion of the first theme supported by thick, accented chords in the left hand. Barnes even accelerates the toccata figuration in the left hand dividing the beat into six notes at m. 118.

128

Example 3.51. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Final, mm. 112-114

Example 3.52. Barnes, Second Symphony for Organ, Op. 37, Final, mm. 118-119

Barnes‘s orthodox approach to sonata form in the Final balances the more curious use of the form in the opening Allegro. As the bookend pieces to this symphony, both works demonstrate Barnes‘s ability to work within the parameters of formal expectations, and impose unanticipated twists onto the constructs of the form. In all, it is fitting that Barnes ends this symphony in a manner similar to the first with homage to a teacher, in this case Vierne, who had an indelible impact on his musical maturation and compositional versatility.

129

IV. CONCLUSION

Formal structure in the organ symphonies of Edward Shippen Barnes is an amalgam of compositional practices of the late Romantic and early twentieth-century eras applied to the organ symphony genre. The forms Barnes uses owe much to his studies with Vierne, particularly in the frequent use of sonata form. The various forms used in the symphonies are summarized in the table below.

Table 12. Summary of forms used in Barnes‘s organ symphonies

Opus Movement Key Form Symphonie pour i. Prélude G minor Simple Ternary orgue, Op. 18, ii. Allegro G minor Sonata (1918) iii. Scherzo G major Sonata iv. Andante E-Flat Major Compound Ternary v. Toccata G minor Freely composed Second Symphony i. Allegro F major Sonata for Organ, ii. Cantilène E-Flat Major Rounded Binary Op. 37, (1923) iii. Intermezzo C minor Sonata-rondo iv. Rhapsodie F-sharp (Melodic/Harmonic Fixed) minor Variation v. Final F minor Sonata

Barnes‘s first symphony shows a heavy use of sonata form whereas the second symphony is not only more formally diverse but also more varied in key scheme. Also, based on the formal analysis, the second symphony shows a significantly greater amount of divergence in the expected pillars of formal structure than the first symphony. It is, again, ever-critical to keep in mind that the deformations in formal expectations do not, and should not take away from the overall integrity of the form, but rather heighten the value of compositional ingenuity infused within the forms. This creative approach to his compositions individualizes them in the vast body of organ repertory.

130

Barnes‘s works are undoubtedly rich with the compositional interests of the time. Active in the early twentieth century, he wrote works in the French Romantic organ tradition of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The insertion of French compositional practice into his organ symphonies is derivative of both the impact of the tradition on the genre as a whole, and the saturation of these elements as found in his works. The concentrated doses of chromatic thirds and adoption of certain formal structures in the symphonies apparently comes from his studies with Vierne, d‘Indy, and Decaux at the Schola Cantorum. His use of the organ and its orchestral resources are indebted in part to his memories of Vierne and Widor. His experimental uses of form and his orchestral approach to organ registration are the clearest indications of his encounters with French organists and these pedagogical exchanges prove to have been beneficial to his compositions. Despite the unfortunate reality that his works did little to cement his legacy in the scope of the vast organ repertoire, his organ symphonies are representations of the depth of his studies with French composers and important contributions to the body of organ literature by

Americans composers.

In sum, Barnes‘s organ symphonies are certainly a high point of his learning, and capture his command of motivic development, and sense of order and structure. His approach to form in the organ symphonies is varied though still shaped by the experimental treatment of structural models for works in this genre. The influence of the French tradition is evident and Barnes‘s works are a significant parcel in the continuation of works composed after those by his predecessors. Barnes achieves originality in the organ symphonies, and the dichotomy of tradition and innovation captures his approach to formal structure in the organ symphonies. He masterfully abides by the principles of the forms he employs without being bound by many of

131 their structural expectations. As such, these works unfold as the narrative of his studies in a manner that is simultaneously French and American.

132

V. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Literature:

Anderson, Christopher S., ed. Twentieth-Century Organ Music. New York: Routledge, 2012.

―A Chat with Lynnwood Farnam.‖ The Musical Times 64, no. 966 (August 1, 1923): 543-5.

Archbold, Lawrence Peterson and William J. Peterson, ed. French Organ Music: From the Revolution to Franck and Widor. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 1995.

Arnold, Corliss Richard. Organ Literature: A Comprehensive Survey. 3rd ed. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1995.

Barnes, Edward Shippen. ―An Organ Student in France: An Informal Talk.‖ The Diapason 12, no. 1 (July 1921): 25.

Berry, Wallace. Form in Music. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986.

Bonavia-Hunt, Noel Aubrey. The Church Organ: An Introduction to the Study of Modern Organ-Building. London: W. Reeves, 1967.

Buhrman, T. Scott. ―Apple Trees.‖ The American Organist 2, no. 8 (August 1919): 312-13.

Farnam, Lynnwood. ―An American Organist in France.‖ The American Organist (January 1924): 28-9.

______. ―Rambling Remarks on an Organist‘s Sojourn in Paris.‖ The Diapason 29 (November 1937): 22.

Fitz-James, B. de Miramon and Thomas A. Russell. ―Competitive Examinations in Organ- Playing Formerly and To-Day.‖ The Musical Times 78, no. 1134 (August 1937): 727-9.

―Front Matter.‖ The Musical Times 64, no. 967 (September 1, 1923): 593-604.

Descendants of Thomas Barnes. ―Ancestry.‖ Family Tree Maker‘s Genealogy, http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/b/a/r/Rose-A-Barnes/ODT25-0001.html (accessed October 10, 2013).

Douglas, Fenner. Cavaillé-Coll and the French Romantic Tradition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999.

Goodrich, Wallace. The Organ in France: A Study of its Mechanical Construction, Tonal Characteristics, and Literature, with Suggestions for the Registration of French Organ Music upon American Instruments. Boston: Boston Music Company, 1917.

133

Grace, Harvey. ―Modern French Organ Music (Continued).‖ The Musical Times 58, no. 890 (April 1, 1917): 154-6.

Hart, Brian. ―Vincent D‘Indy and the Development of the French Symphony.‖ Music & Letters 87, no. 1 (May 2006): 237-261.

Heaton, Charles Huddleston. Review of The Organ Symphonies of Edward Shippen Barnes by Simon Nieminski (organ). The Diapason 99, no. 3 (March 2008): 20.

Hepokoski, James. ―Beyond the Sonata Principle.‖ Journal of the American Musicological Society 55, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 91-154.

______and Warren Darcy. Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Hettinger, Sharon. American Organ Music of the Twentieth Century: An Annotated Bibliography of Composers. Warren, MI: Harmonie Park Press, 1997.

Hinton, John William. Organ Construction. Buren, The Netherlands: F. Knuf, 1992.

Howat, Roy. Debussy in Proportion: A Musical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Hull, Arthur Eaglefield. Organ Playing, Its Technique and Expression. Boston: Boston Music, 1911.

Jones, Celia Grasty. ―The French Organ Symphony from Franck to Langlais.‖ DMA diss., University of Rochester, 1979.

Kasouf, Edward J. ―Louis Vierne and His Six Organ Symphonies: In Honor of His Centennial.‖ The American Organist, November 1970, 20-6.

Laukvik, John. Historical Performance Practice in Organ Playing: Part 2, The Romantic Period. Stuttgart: Carus, 1996.

Long, Page Carroll. ―Transformations of Harmony and Consistencies of Form in the Six Organ Symphonies of Louis Vierne.‖ A. Mus. D., University of Arizona, 1963. http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/284469/1/azu_td_6306725_si p1_m.pdf (accessed March 17, 2014).

―The Louis Vierne Fund.‖ The Musical Times 64. No. 965 (July 1, 1923): 489.

L., O. W. ―The Summer School of Church Music.‖ The Musical Times 64, no. 968 (October 1, 1923): 719-22.

134

Madden, Charles. Fractals in Music: Introductory Mathematics for Musical Analysis. Salt Lake City: High Art Press, 1999.

Murray, Christopher John. Encyclopedia of the Romantic Era, 1760-1850. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Murray, Michael. French Masters of the Organ: Saint-Saëns, Franck, Widor, Vierne, Dupré, Langlais, Messiaen. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.

______. Marcel Dupré: The Work of a Master Organist. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1985.

―Musical Notes from Abroad.‖ The Musical Times 78, no. 1130 (April 1937): 376-70.

Near, John Richard. Widor: A Life Beyond the Toccata. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2011.

Ochse, Orpha. Organists and Organ Playing in Nineteenth-century France and Belgium. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994.

______. The History of the Organ in the United States. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975.

Pasler, Jan. ―Deconstructing d‘Indy, or the Problem of a Composer‘s Reputation.‖ 19th-Century Music 30, no. 3 (Spring 2007): 230-256.

Rosen, Charles. Sonata Forms. New York: W. W. Norton, 1988.

Runion, Garth. S. The Golden Section. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour Publications, 1990.

Schmidt-Beste, Thomas. The Sonata. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Slonimsky, Nicolas. Music Since 1900. New York: W. W. Norton, 1938.

______. Baker’s Biographical Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Classical Musicians. New York: Schirmer, 1997.

Smith, Rollin. Louis Vierne: Organist of Notre-Dame Cathedral. Hillsdale, New York: Pendragon Press, 1999.

Stein, Leon. Structure and Style: The Study and Analysis of Musical Forms. Miami: Summy- Birchard Music, 1979.

Stiven, Frederick B. In the Organ Lofts of Paris. Boston: Stratford Company, 1923.

135

St. Stephen‘s Church - Philadelphia – History, http://www.ststephensphl.org/history.html (accessed November 11, 2013).

Tannenbaum, Peter. ―Spiral Growth in Nature: Fibonacci Numbers and the Golden Ratio.‖ In Excursions in Mathematics, ed. 5, 359-376. Fresno: California State University, 2004.

Tuthill, Burnet C. ―Leo Sowerby.‖ The Musical Times 24, no. 3 (July 1938): 249-64.

Vierne, Louis. ―Memoirs.‖Diapason 30, no. 1 (January 1939): 9-10.

Webster, J. H. Douglas. ―Golden-Mean Form in Music.‖ Music and Letters 31, no. 3 (July 1950): 238-248.

Wellesley College, ―The Wellesley News (1927-04-14)‖ (1927). The Wellesley News. Book 757. http://repository.wellesley.edu/news/757.

Willis, Henry. ―An Organ-Builder in Paris.‖ The Musical Times 78, no. 1131 (May 1937): 439- 40.

Wills, Arthur. Organ. Yehudi Menuhin Music Guides. New York: Schirmer, 1984.

Winspus, Ian and C. B. Wynn Parry. The Musician’s Hand: A Clinical Guide. Taylor and Francis Group: Abingdon, 1998.

Scores & Recordings:

Barnes, Edward Shippen. School of Organ Playing, Op. 31. Boston: The Boston Music Company, 1921.

______. Second Symphony for Organ. New York: G. Schimer, 1923.

______. Symphonie Pour Orgue, Op. 18. New York: G. Schirmer, 1918.

______. The Organ Symphonies of Edward Shippen Barnes. Simon Nieminksi. Pro Organo CD 7131. 2002.

Decaux, Abel. Clairs de Lune. Paris: S. Chapelier, 1913.

Güneyman, Murel. The Piano Music of Bridge, Decaux and Webern. New York: Finnadar. Atlantic Recording Company, 1981.

Hamelin, Marc-André. Piano Sonata in E-Flat Minor: Dukas, Clairs de lune, Decaux. London: Hyperion, 2006.

136

Vierne, Boëllmann, Langlais, Messiaen. Cathédrales. Gérard Loismant. Skarbo DSK 1021. 2001.

Vierne, Louis. Les Pièces de fantasie. Pierre Labric. Solstice. SOCD 290-91. 2012.

137