Beethoven's Impact on the Sonatas for Piano and Cello by Mendelssohn and Chopin
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
James Madison University JMU Scholarly Commons Dissertations, 2020-current The Graduate School 12-18-2020 Influence and Innovation: Beethoven's Impact on the Sonatas for Piano and Cello by Mendelssohn and Chopin Patrick Bellah Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/diss202029 Part of the Musicology Commons, Music Performance Commons, and the Music Practice Commons Recommended Citation Bellah, Patrick, "Influence and Innovation: Beethoven's Impact on the Sonatas for Piano and Cello by Mendelssohn and Chopin" (2020). Dissertations, 2020-current. 29. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/diss202029/29 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, 2020-current by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Influence and Innovation: Beethoven’s Impact on the Sonatas for Piano and Cello by Mendelssohn and Chopin Patrick Thomas Bellah A Doctor of Musical Arts Document submitted to the Graduate Faculty of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Musical Arts School of Music December 2020 FACULTY COMMITTEE: Committee Chair: Carl Donakowski, DMA Committee Members: Jonathan Gibson, Ph.D. John Peterson, Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with any substantial scholarly work, this one did not happen in a vacuum and there are many people to whom I owe a great deal of thanks. To Dr. Jonathan Gibson, your steadfast support and mentorship in historical performance practice has been one of my fondest memories while at James Madison University, and certainly helped fuel my interest in this topic. To Dr. John Peterson, your theoretical expertise and unwavering insistence on accuracy were nothing less than vital to my efforts and eventual success in writing this paper. To Dr. Carl Donakowski, thank you for the guidance and wisdom which you have imparted to me over the past four years. I feel confident that, as a result, I have emerged not only a better musician and writer, but also a better human. To all three of you, I wish to convey my deepest gratitude. I would also like to acknowledge the people who have made up my familial support system. To my parents, Terry and Mary Bellah, thank you for making possible the life that I have chosen. I can thank a great many people for their scholarly advice, but none of it would have ever happened were it not for your encouragement from my most formative years in music to the present day. To my brothers, Alex and Griffin Bellah, thank you for keeping my spirits up and making me laugh, even during the most stressful moments of this journey, and for celebrating every one of my victories, large and small. Lastly, I would be utterly remiss if I did not give special mention to my dearest wife, Hannah. To you, the person who decided to pack up and leave everything you have ever known to join me in my quest for a terminal degree halfway across the country, I owe it all. It was you who saw me at my weakest points and refused to let me quit, and it is you whom I choose to celebrate at my strongest. You were there for all of it, and this ii document is as much a product of your ability to listen and empathize as it is my own research and scholarship. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………… ii TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………….………… iii ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………….………. iv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………… 1 CHAPTER 2: MENDELSSOHN……………………….……………………………. 15 Plausibility of Influence…………………………………...……………………. 15 Adhering to Beethoven’s Established Model………………………………..…. 23 Mendelssohn’s Progressive Voice…………………………..………………….. 33 CHAPTER 3: CHOPIN…..…………………………………………………………… 43 Plausibility of Influence…………………………………...……………………. 43 Form………………………………...…………………………………………... 54 Conversational Dialogue………………………………………...……………… 60 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………...……… 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………...………… 66 iv ABSTRACT The bulk of the scholarship in this paper centers around Beethoven’s five sonatas written for piano and cello and how he established a new normal within the genre. This is evidenced by what are arguably the two most noteworthy sonatas for the same instrumental medium, written by Mendelssohn and Chopin, following Beethoven’s death. I posit that the five sonatas written by Beethoven establish a series of models upon which the latter two works by his successors are based. Chapters two and three of this document are separated into subsections that detail the plausibility of Beethoven’s influence through circumstantial evidence, musical evidence (i.e. similarities in form, articulation, and melodic distribution), and even the ways in which Chopin and Mendelssohn sought to distance themselves from their illustrious predecessor. The key findings of my research are that Mendelssohn’s Sonata for Piano and Cello in D Major, Op. 58 closely resembles the same strategy of equal distribution of melody that Beethoven employs in his Op. 5 and Op. 69 sonatas, and further expands the roles assumed by the pianist and cellist. Similarly, Chopin takes after the same improvisatory spirit utilized in Beethoven’s Op. 102 sonatas and uses an evolved style of conversational dialogue, which stems from Beethoven’s Op. 102, No. 2. v 1 INTRODUCTION The history of the violoncello as a solo instrument is noticeably shorter and follows a much different chronological trajectory than its higher-voiced counterparts. While a few well-known composers during the early and late Baroque era (i.e. Dominico Gabrielli and Johann Sebastian Bach) would write for the instrument in a soloistic capacity, this was mostly only in the context of unaccompanied suites or ricercares rather than accompanied by a supporting ensemble or keyboard accompaniment. Exceptions arise when we advance through the chronology of Western classical music and examine the work of composers and virtuosi such as Vivaldi, Boccherini, and Romberg. Such figures provide the cello with a wealth of accompanied solo repertoire from the Baroque and early Classical eras, but it was Ludwig van Beethoven who would cement the instrument’s status not only as a solo voice, but as a balanced collaborator. In this paper I will argue that, in writing his five sonatas for piano and cello (Op. 5, Op. 69, and Op. 102), Beethoven establishes a series of models that future composers of important cello sonatas would follow. I will use Felix Mendelssohn’s Sonata for Piano and Cello No. 2 in D-major, Op. 58 (1843), and Frédéric Chopin’s Sonata for Cello in G-minor Op. 65 (1846-1847) as representative examples. Both are products of their respective creators’ later output, and, as I will show, both are deeply rooted in the art of composing for piano and cello as established by Beethoven. Before delving into the analytical depths of scores and historical performance practice, this topic warrants a foreword about a primary characteristic of Beethoven’s piano and cello sonatas: melodic balance. By “melodic balance,” I mean the degree to which melodic material is divided between parts. Cellists often colloquially use the word 2 “balanced” as a catch-all descriptor for Beethoven’s sonatas for piano and violoncello. However, the reality is that the degree to which melodic material is equally distributed can vary. I will return to this issue below. Equal distribution of melody between keyboard and cello was not an approach that any composer had taken prior to Beethoven’s sonatas for the same medium. It was a natural occurrence that one instrument in any given cello sonata would take precedence while the other(s) played a supportive role in accompanying the principal voice. Even in his first two sonatas (op. 5), this is the norm for Beethoven. According to Robin Stowell, this texture arises not from the tradition of Baroque continuo playing, but from the accompanied sonata, in which the cello, or other bass instrument, acts as the accompanist.1 The continuo sonata is perhaps best illustrated in this case by Vivaldi’s Cello Sonata in A-minor, RV 43 (pub. 1740) (Example 1). A glance at the first page of the score reveals the same formula used throughout the rest of the sonata between the two (or three) performers. We can see from the outset of the first movement that the solo instrument (in this instance, the cello) is given melodic material, while the continuo part provides chordal accompaniment. It is not as if the continuo part is without any motivic material, but it is usually only a quick deviation from its supportive role to join the soloist in brief moments of unison. 1 Robin Stowell, “The Sonata.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Cello (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 121. 3 Example 1: Vivaldi Sonata for Cello in A-minor, RV 432 Luigi Boccherini’s compositional style also favors the solo cellist, but differently than Vivaldi. In terms of counterpoint and interplay between soloist and continuo, the parts are more interdependent and engaging, but still lacking in true melodic equality. A 1968 article by Eve Barsham notes the prevalence of Alberti bass beneath the solo cello and a maturity in how he develops thematic material, but no mention is made of equal treatment among parts.3 This is illustrated in Example 2, where it can be seen that the two parts in his Cello Sonata No. 3 in C-Major, G. 6 (c. 1768) do not share equal ownership of the melody. Boccherini’s sonatas were novel for their time, but they were clearly solo works for cello rather than an equally balanced effort between the two performers, thus exhibiting a total lack of melodic equality. It is worth mentioning that the accompaniment in Boccherini’s sonatas is not written for keyboard, but rather for cello obbligato. Still, it illustrates how unbalanced chamber music for cello was prior to Beethoven.