A Stylistic Assessment of the Viennese Symphony, 1790-1825
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A Stylistic Assessment of the Viennese Symphony, 1790-1825 A dissertation submitted to the Division of Graduate Studies and Research of the University of Cincinnati In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the division of Composition, Musicology, and Theory of the College-Conservatory of Music 2017 By John Stine BMEd University of Southern Mississippi, 1998 MMEd Ithaca College, 2000 MFA Indiana University, 2004 Committee Chair: Mary Sue Morrow ABSTRACT Our understanding of the Viennese symphony at the turn of the eighteenth century relies heavily on the symphonies of Franz Joseph Haydn and Ludwig van Beethoven. While these works are deserving of praise and scholarship, limiting the repertoire studied to two composers cannot allow for a complete understanding of the Viennese symphony from this time. For this study, I researched and examined symphonies by six contemporaries of Haydn and Beethoven in order to attain a greater stylistic assessment of the genre from this time. Five of these composers- --Anton Eberl (1765-1807), Adalbert Gyrowetz (1763-1850), Antoine Reicha (1770-1836), Ferdinand Ries (1784-1838), and Paul Wranitzky (1756-1808)---were highly regarded as performers and composers during their lifetimes, but their reputations and works quickly fell into obscurity following their deaths. Franz Schubert (1797-1828), the sixth composer in this study, has received considerable scholarly attention for his symphonies, but I included him in this study to focus on his earlier symphonies, which have not received much attention. An examination of the roughly seventy symphonies among these six composers provide a larger pool of works to assess the stylistic characteristics of the Viennese symphony during the time of Haydn and Beethoven. Through a combination of formal and stylistic analysis, I examine the formal approaches to the movements of the symphonies and the stylistic approaches to the use of the orchestra by each composer. With the information and analysis gained from this study, I place the symphonies of these composers in historical context and challenge the historical narrative constructed around the symphonies of Haydn and Beethoven. ii iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my colleagues, friends, and family for their constant support throughout my research. Their encouragement and belief in my efforts helped me see this study to completion. I am grateful for the assistance I received from Daniel Bernhardsson. His interest and passion for the music of Wranitzky took him to numerous libraries across Europe to examine manuscripts and score the symphonies of Wranitzky from parts. His willingness and generosity to share his work with me is greatly appreciated. I thank Dr. Steven Cahn and Dr. Jonathan Kregor for serving on my committee and providing me with helpful and constructive feedback and suggestions. Finally, I especially thank my advisor, Dr. Mary Sue Morrow, who assisted and guided me from the conception of my topic to the completion of this study. Her dedication and commitment as my advisor was a tremendous help in the development and end result of my dissertation. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER TWO: FIRST MOVEMENTS 1. Slow Introduction 2. Exposition 3. Development 4. Recapitulations; False and Real CHAPTER THREE: MOVEMENTS BEYOND THE FIRST 1. Second Movements 2. The Minuet in Metamorphosis 3. Final Movements CHAPTER FOUR: INSTRUMENTATION 1. The “Classical” Orchestra 2. The Trombone 3. Accessory Instruments CHAPTER FIVE: ORCHESTRATION 1. Wind Instruments v 2. Trumpets and Horns 3. Turkish Music and Battlefields 4. Wranitzky and the Novelty of Orchestration 5. Conclusion BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX: MUSICAL EXAMPLES vi LIST OF TABLES 1.1. Newbould’s Chapter Descriptions for Schubert’s Symphonies 2.1. Symphonies with and without Slow Introductions 2.2. Size and Scope of Slow Introductions 2.3. Structure of Introduction to Schubert’s Ninth Symphony 2.4. Structure of Introduction to Wranitzky’s Op. 33, No. 3 (P34) 2.5. Development Proportions 2.6. False Recapitulations in Wranitzky Symphonies 3.1. Dominant and Subdominant Key Relationships between First and Second Movements 3.2. Mediant and Submediant Key Relationships between First and Second Movements 3.3. Form of Second Movements in Ries and Schubert Symphonies 3.4. Form of Second Movement (March funèbre) of Ries’s First Symphony 3.5. Subject and Answers in the Development of Reicha’s Symphony No. 3 in F Major 3.6. Unifying Tonal Plan in Wranitzky’s Symphony in A Major (P45) 4.1. Instrumentation of Symphonies 4.2. Symphonies with Trombones 4.3. Movements to Wranitzky’s Quodlibet Symphony 5.1. Symphonies Incorporating a Turkish Topic vii 5.2. Form to the Finale of Wranitzky’s P15, P19, and P20 5.3. Form to the Finale of Wranitzky’s Symphony in D Major (P22) viii LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES 2.1. Wranitzky, Symphony in A Major, Op. 51 (P44), Mvt. 1, mm. 1-5 2.2. Wranitzky, Symphony in D Major (P22), Mvt. 1, mm. 4-9 2.3. Ries, Symphony No. 4 in F Minor, Op. 110, Mvt. 1, mm. 23-28 2.4. Ries, Symphony No. 6 in D Major, Op. 146, Mvt. 1, mm. 30-35 3.1. Wranitzky, Symphony in F Major, Op. 33, No. 3 (P34), Mvt. 2, mm. 79-81 3.2: Ries, Symphony No. 1 in D Major, Op. 23, Mvt. 2, mm. 10-14 3.3: Eberl, Symphony in E-Flat Major, Op. 33, Mvt. 2, mm. 16-24 3.4: Wranitzky, Symphony in C Major (P6), Mvt. 3, mm. 59-65 3.5: Wranitzky, Symphony in D Major (P22), Mvt. 3, mm. 16-22 3.6: Ries, Symphony No. 6 in D Major, Op. 146, Mvt. 3, mm. 46-53 3.7a: Wranitzky, Symphony in F Major, Op. 33, No. 3 (P34), Mvt. 3, mm. 41-8 3.7b: Wranitzky, Symphony in D Major (P22), Mvt. 4, mm. 249-51 3.8: Ries, Symphony in E-Flat Major, WoO 30, Mvt. 3, mm. 1-6 3.9: Ries, Symphony No. 4 in F Minor, Op. 110, Mvt. 3, mm. 2-16 3.10: Eberl, Symphony in E-Flat Major, Op. 33, Mvt. 3, mm. 180-95 3.11: Reicha, Symphony No. 3 in F Major, Mvt. 4, mm. 198-213 3.12a: Wranitzky, Symphony in E-Flat Major (P31), Mvt. 1, mm. 19-26 ix 3.12b: Wranitzky, Symphony in E-flat Major (P31), Mvt. 4, mm. 1-6 3.13a: Gyrowetz, Symphony in D Major, Mvt. 1, mm. 205-08 3.13b: Gyrowetz, Symphony in D Major, Mvt. 4, mm. 1-4 4.1: Schubert, Symphony No. 9 “Great” in C Major D.944, Mvt. 1, mm. 199-240 (trombone parts) 5.1: Wranitzky, Symphony in D Major (P20), Mvt. 4, mm. 111-19 5.2: Ries, Symphony No. 1 in D Major, Op. 23, Mvt. 1, mm. 32-37 (Horns and Trumpets) 5.3: Wranitzky, Symphony in D Major, Op. 36 (P18), Mvt. 1, mm. 342-48 (Trumpet fanfare) 5.4: Eberl, Symphony in E-Flat Major, Op. 33, Mvt. 1, mm. 333-40 (Trumpet fanfare) 5.5 a-c: Turkish Percussion Examples 5.6: Wranitzky, Symphony in D Major (P20), Mvt. 4, mm. 165-71 5.7: Wranitzky, Symphony in D Major (P27), Mvt. 4, mm. 165-70 (end of piano solo) 5.8: Wranitzky, Symphony in D Major (P22), Mvt. 4, mm. 216-28 (horn solos) 5.9: Wranitzky, Symphony in D Major (P22), Mvt. 4, mm. 279-91 (bass solo) 5.10: Wranitzky, Symphony in D Major (P22), Mvt. 4, mm. 303-12 (timpani solo) 5.11: Wranitzky, Symphony in G Major (P38), Mvt. 1, mm. 1-6 5.12: Wranitzky, Symphony in G Minor (P42), Mvt. 2, mm. 27-33 x Chapter 1 Introduction Scholarship on the Viennese symphony at the turn of the eighteenth century has focused largely on the triumvirate of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Given their output and contributions to the genre, there is little doubt the symphonies of these three composers have justly had thorough investigation, inquiry, and analysis. The vast amount of scholarship devoted to this repertoire initially concentrated on issues of authenticity and formal analysis, and later on issues of historical context of composition and performance and their lasting impact in the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries. However, with such a dominant presence in musicological research and scholarship, the lives and symphonies of their contemporaries has been seemingly swept under the musicological rug. My study examines six symphonic contemporaries of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven whose compositions date from the 1790s to the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The composers discussed include: Anton Eberl (1765-1807), Adalbert Gyrowetz (1763-1850), Antoine Reicha (1770-1836), Ferdinand Ries (1784-1838), Franz Schubert (1797-1828), and Paul Wranitzky (1756-1808).1 These composers were highly respected as composers and performers during their lifetimes, but, with the exception of Schubert, quickly forgotten following their deaths. It is not my intention to compare their symphonies with those of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, but rather to discuss their symphonic output analytically and contextually so that they may stand on their own.2 As the twenty-first century approached, only 1 A brief biography of each composer and my reason for selecting these composers is provided later in this chapter. 2 My methodology for doing this is discussed later in this chapter. 1 Schubert had garnered significant scholarly attention.3 With the beginning of the twenty-first century, the other five composers began receiving scholarly attention, and recordings of some of their symphonies were made. It is my ultimate goal with this study to discuss these composers and their symphonies in a manner that builds off of initial research while approaching their symphonies from a different perspective.