Copyright

by

Michael David Ging

May 2018

ORCHESTRATIONS AND TRANSFORMATIONS: GUILMANT, WIDOR, AND THE EMERGENCE OF FOR ORGAN AND ORCHESTRA IN FRANCE

______

An Essay

Presented to the Faculty of the

Moores School of Music

Kathrine G. McGovern College of the Arts

University of Houston

______

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Musical Arts in Organ Performance

______

by

Michael David Ging

May 2018

ORCHESTRATIONS AND TRANSFORMATIONS: GUILMANT, WIDOR, AND THE EMERGENCE OF MUSIC FOR ORGAN AND ORCHESTRA IN FRANCE

______Michael David Ging

APPROVED:

______Matthew Dirst, Ph.D. Committee Chair

______Timothy Koozin, Ph.D.

______Daryl Robinson, M.M.

______Betsy Cook Weber, D.M.A.

______Andrew Davis, Ph.D. Dean, Kathrine G. McGovern College of the Arts

ORCHESTRATIONS AND TRANSFORMATIONS: GUILMANT, WIDOR, AND THE EMERGENCE OF MUSIC FOR ORGAN AND ORCHESTRA IN FRANCE

______

An Abstract of an Essay

Presented to the Faculty of the

Moores School of Music

Kathrine G. McGovern College of the Arts

University of Houston

______

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Musical Arts in Organ Performance

______

by

Michael David Ging

May 2018 Abstract

This essay traces the emergence of music for organ and orchestra in France. Félix-

Alexandre Guilmant and Charles-Marie Widor were the first two Frenchmen to compose and perform such works. Guilmant premiered his Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op.

42, in 1878. Widor’s Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42(bis), was first performed in 1882. The musical material of neither of these symphonies was originally conceived for organ and orchestra. Rather than create new musical works, both opted to re-work existing compositions for solo organ. Guilmant’s first symphony is an orchestration of Sonata I in D Minor, op. 42, while Widor’s symphony is based on one movement of his Symphonie II and two movements from his Symphonie VI. In addition to tracing the development of the genre, this document examines primary instrumentation texts that originated in France during the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries. Biographical information about the composers is also included. The concluding section of this essay focuses on salient compositional strategies the two composers employed as they orchestrated and transformed their solo organ works into symphonies for organ and orchestra.

v Acknowledgements

The completion of this essay marks the conclusion of an incredible journey. It is not possible for me to acknowledge all of the faculty, colleagues, family, and friends who have supported me along the way. There are, however, several individuals whose contributions to the completion of this essay deserve special recognition.

To my parents, Michael and Sherry Ging: Thank you for always pushing me to realize my dreams.

To my teacher, Robert Bates: Thank you for your patience and honesty as well as for elevating my musicianship, stylistic sense, and attention to detail. I cherish the many memories of the three years that I spent as your student.

To my committee chair, Matthew Dirst: Thank you for adopting me upon the retirement of Dr. Bates. I am grateful for the hours you spent reading the numerous drafts of this document. Your help and support were truly instrumental to the completion of this degree.

To my committee members Timothy Koozin, Daryl Robinson, and Betsy Cook

Weber: Thank you for supporting this project and for your time spent reviewing drafts of this document.

To my friend, Ryan Gagnon: Thank you for diligently preparing the examples found in the Appendix.

To my friend, Robert Gant: Thank you for your unique ability to always send perfectly timed messages of encouragement.

And finally, to my wife, Sarah: You are the center of my life. Thank you for your unwavering support and love.

vi Table of Contents

Abstract ...... v

Acknowledgements ...... vi

List of Musical Examples ...... viii

Essay ...... 1

Appendix ...... 29

Bibliography ...... 38

vii List of Musical Examples

1. Guilmant, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, mm. 1–2 ...... 32

2. Guilmant, Sonata I in D Minor, op. 42, mm. 1–2 ...... 32

3. Guilmant, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, mm. 20–44 ...... 33

4. Guilmant, Sonata I in D Minor, op. 42, mm. 46, 52, and 56 ...... 33

5. Guilmant, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, mm. 46, 54, 56, 58, and 60 .....34

6. Guilmant, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, mm. 135–148 ...... 35

7. Guilmant, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, mm. 237, 239–240 ...... 36

8. Guilmant, Sonata I in D Minor, op. 42, mm. 237, 239–240 ...... 36

9. Guilmant, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, mm. 253–260 ...... 37

10. Widor, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42(bis), mm. 16–17 ...... 38

11. Widor, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42(bis), mm. 91–110 ...... 39

12. Widor, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42(bis), mm. 230–232 ...... 40

viii Essay

Félix-Alexandre Guilmant’s Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, and

Charles-Marie Widor’s Symphonie pour orgue et orchestra, op. 42(bis), are tragically underappreciated. The same can be said of the genre, which, at least in my experience, tends not to be discussed in academic courses devoted to either the organ or symphonic literature. Producing performances of these works is a daunting task. Many orchestras with the resources to perform works with organ tend to favor later examples, such as the

Symphonie concertante by Joseph Jongen, Poulenc’s Concerto pour orgue, cordes et timbales or Samuel Barber’s rousing Toccata Festiva. As such, it is unlikely that you will ever hear a live performance of Guilmant and Widor’s compositions for organ and orchestra.

Guilmant (1837–1911) and Widor (1844–1937) were the first two composers to write and perform symphonies for organ and orchestra in France. Guilmant premiered his

Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre during the dedicatory concert series celebrating the installation of a large four-manual organ built by Aristide Cavaillé-Coll (1811–1899) in the Palais du Trocadéro in 1878. Widor’s Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre was premiered in 1882, also in the Trocadéro. Neither symphony’s musical material was originally conceived for organ and orchestra. Rather than create new musical works, both

Guilmant and Widor opted to re-work existing compositions for solo organ. Guilmant’s first symphony is an orchestration of his Sonata I in D Minor, op. 42, which he composed in 1874 and dedicated to the Belgian monarch, Leopold II. Widor’s Symphony for Organ and Orchestra is based on movements from two of his solo organ symphonies. The second movement is taken from his second solo organ symphony, composed in 1872,

1 while the first and third movements are the outermost of his famous Symphonie VI, which was also premiered as part of the 1878 dedicatory concert series at the Trocadéro.

What prompted these two composers to arrange pre-existing organ works for organ and orchestra? In the early decades of the twentieth century, organ/orchestral music experienced a comparatively meteoric rise in popularity in both Europe and the United

States. Why did it take until 1878 and 1882 for the first two large-scale compositions for organ and orchestra to be composed? Was there not a venue for this music to be performed? Did composers express an aversion to using the organ in orchestral works?

This essay will answer these questions by first presenting a study of instrumentation texts that originated in France during the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries. A historical survey tracing the emergence of music for organ and orchestra will follow. The pieces central to this essay will be introduced at the conclusion of this section. An examination of the biography and catalog of the two composers will provide context for these symphonies and establish their place within their respective careers.

Despite the numerous similarities surrounding the creation of these two symphonies, Guilmant and Widor approached the orchestra’s inclusion in these works in very different ways. Guilmant rarely combined the organ and orchestra. This results in many more solo organ passages in Guilmant’s symphony than in Widor’s. Widor freely combines the organ and orchestra throughout most of his symphony. In fact, when compared with the solo organ version, the organ part of his symphony’s first movement is unchanged. The concluding section of this essay focuses on salient compositional

2 strategies Guilmant and Widor employed as they orchestrated and transformed their solo organ works into symphonies for organ and orchestra.

Orchestration style is generally categorized as structural or coloristic. Composers of the late Classical and early Romantic eras favored structural orchestration. Composers of these periods, such as Mozart and Haydn, often use scoring as a musical parameter – perhaps even as important as pitch and rhythm – to convey the structural aspects of their music. Coloristic orchestration, on the other hand, reveals the ’s desire to emphasize short-term affects of music. Rather than employ orchestration as a means to convey the larger structure of a work, a coloristic orchestrator channels an innate desire for contrast and variety. Throughout the nineteenth century the prevalence of coloristic orchestration led to an expansion of register, diverse textures, and frequent changes of scoring. A discussion of representative musical examples from Guilmant and Widor’s symphonies will reveal whether the respective composers embraced coloristic orchestration techniques or sought to define structural parameters through their instrumentation.

The earliest authors of French instrumentation treatises dedicate little, if any, attention to the organ in their writings. According to James Perone, Louis-Joseph

Francœur (1730–1804) published the first French treatise devoted to orchestration in

1772. Individual chapters were dedicated to the flute, oboe, clarinet, horn, bassoon, trumpet, serpent, and the voice. The organ is not mentioned. In 1813 Alexandre Choron

(1771–1834) expanded Francœur’s work to include descriptions of additional instruments. The treatise contains a single paragraph summarizing the basic mechanical characteristic of the organ. Jean-Georges Kastner (1810–1867) begins his discussion of

3 the organ in his Traité général d’instrumentation (1837) by hailing it the “largest, most complete, interesting and perfect instrument.”1 Kastner provides a description of various stops and registration possibilities while at the same time referring to the instrument in orchestral terms: in his view, the organ “possesses all good qualities of other orchestral instruments.”2

Orchestration texts from the mid-nineteenth century delve into further detail regarding the organ: however, these writings reveal an animus towards combining the instrument with orchestral forces except in certain situations. Hector Berlioz (1803–

1869), for example, published his monumental orchestration treatise, entitled Grand traité d’instrumentation et d’orchestration modernes, in 1844. Unlike Francœur, Choron, and Kastner, Berlioz includes a comparatively extensive discussion of the organ. He describes the combination of the organ with “various constituent groups of the orchestra” as a “strange degradation” of the instrument.3 He bluntly opines that the organ “never fully blends with individual orchestral timbres” and notes “a secret hostility between these two musical powers.” On the relationship between the organ and orchestra, Berlioz writes: “the organ and the orchestra are both kings; or rather, one is the Emperor and the other is Pope. Their missions are not the same, their interests are too wide and various to be interlocked.”4 In spite of these comments, Berlioz, in a letter sent to V.V. Stasov in

1847, wrote that the organ “can be put to good use in certain kinds of sacred music by

1 Patricia Jovanna Woodward, “Jean-Georges Kastner’s Traité général d’instrumentation: A Translation and Commentary” (MM thesis, University of North Texas, 2003), 123. 2 Woodward, “Kastner,” 123. 3 Hugh Macdonald, Berlioz’s Orchestration Treatise: A Translation and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 156. 4 Macdonald, Berlioz’s Orchestration, 156.

4 playing in dialogue with the orchestra. But I don’t think it can be effective if they are both employed simultaneously.”5

François-Auguste Gevaert (1828–1908), who succeeded Fétis at the Brussels

Conservatory, published his Traité general d’instrumentation in 1863. Gevaert, who began his career as an organist in Ghent, observes that composers rarely combine the organ with orchestra in the church as well as in the concert hall, stating that the instrument’s “great voice loves majestic solitude.”6 In his view, the organ and orchestra

“contradict each other,” describing such a combination as “displeasing and devoid of charm.”7 While he notes the recent trend of installing organs into new concert halls on the

European continent, Gevaert writes that the instruments are placed in these halls as a

“tribute to the art of the past” and that they “rarely mingle their tones with those of the modern orchestra.”8

However, Gevaert, who also had a stint as music director at the Opéra, discusses the organ’s ability to function as a dramatic element in staged works. Rather than include the organ as a member of the orchestra, Gevaert explicitly states that the organ should be scored exclusively in church scenes and should exist “on the stage…. when justified in this manner, the contrast of the two rival orchestras is highly effective; all the more so, because the organ retains its naïve and hieratic character.”9

The organ made its debut at the Opéra in Giacomo Meyerbeer’s Robert le diable, which premiered in 1831. In the four years immediately following its first performance,

5 Quoted in Macdonald, Berlioz’s Orchestration, 157. 6 François-Auguste Gevaert, A New Treatise on Instrumentation, trans. E.F.E. Suddard (Paris: Henry Lemoine & Co., 1906), 311. 7 Gevaert, Treatise, 313. 8 Gevaert, Treatise, 313. 9 Gevaert, Treatise, 313.

5 this Grand opéra received more than 170 performances in ten countries. 100 of these took place in Paris. Robert le diable received public and critical attention for its visual qualities – the sets, produced by Ciceri, were more expensive than the exuberant costumes – as well as the coloristic qualities of the score. The orchestration of this opera was the subject of an article published in the Revue et Gazette by Berlioz. The organ is not mentioned despite the primacy and dramatic effectiveness of the instrument’s two entrances in the fifth act.

The success of the organ’s use as a dramatic and musical element in Robert le diable inspired other composers to include the instrument in their operas. One such composer was Fromental Halévy, who calls for the organ in La juive. Like Robert le diable this opera, which premiered at the Opéra in 1835, received praise for its spectacle.

The organ first appears in La juive at the conclusion of the overture. The sound of the organ serves as a sonic prop by assisting in setting the scene of a Christian religious festival in a transition to the opening chorus, “Te deum laudamus.” The practice of incorporating the organ into operas as a dramatic musical element in church scenes continued through mid-century. Charles-François Gounod included the instrument in the third scene of Act IV of his opera Faust, which premiered at Paris’s Théâtre Lyrique in

1859. As in La juive, the organ accompanies motion on the stage. By accompanying the chorus in the cathedral scene, the organ displays its functional liturgical role as an element of dramatic rhetoric.

Widor begins his discussion of the organ, in his Technique de l’orchestre modern faisant suite au Traité d’instrumentation et d’orchestration de H. Berlioz (1904), by embarking on a step by step dismantlement of Berlioz’s discussion of the organ,

6 wondering who Berlioz consulted on the matter. In his own words: “On what organist did he unluckily stumble?”10 Of Berlioz’s unnamed informant, Widor writes that he: “must have been in the habit of serving up Bach’s music for Berlioz’s consumption with a spicy dressing of Bombardes and Trumpets,” an effect Widor compares with “a with all parts doubled by trumpets and trombones.”11

Widor makes comparisons between various collections of stops and their orchestral counterparts. For example, Widor describes the organ’s eight-foot foundation stops as the “backbone of organ music” and claims that they are to the organ what the string section is to the orchestra. Widor also, unsurprisingly when considering his oeuvre, refers to the organ in orchestral terms. Writing about the instruments of Aristide Cavaillé-

Coll, which combined progressive technical innovations while retaining the organo pleno, Widor states that composers have “found in them a genuine orchestra, varied, supple, and powerful, respectful of tradition, yet ready to welcome a new ideal.”12

However, Widor also notes that technological advances in organ building have not enabled composers to “embody any and every musical idea.” In his view, expression on the organ must not be sought at the expense of the “essential characteristics of the instrument,” which could result in the instrument’s conversion into a “pseudo-orchestra.”

To illustrate his point, Widor directs the reader to “those heavy, clumsy arrangements of symphonic pieces, overtures, marches, suites, etc…”13

10 Charles-Marie Widor, The Technique of the Modern Orchestra: A Manual of Practical Instrumentation, trans. Edward Suddard (London: Joseph Williams Limited, 1946), 140. 11 Widor, Technique, 141. 12 Widor, Technique, 142. 13 Widor, Technique, 143.

7 In his appendix to Widor’s text, British composer Gordon Jacob (1895–1984) provides two examples of the organ’s successful employment in orchestral scores. He writes that Gustav Holst’s application of the organ’s low pedal notes in The Hymn of

Jesus (1917) is especially effective because the organ strengthens “the weakness of the orchestral bass in sustaining long notes.”14 His concluding thoughts on the organ read:

“Thus, when used with real imagination by a truly poetical composer, the organ can take its place in the orchestra not as a competitor with it but as a means of expression. It should not be used simply to make more noise at a climax, and it should not be used at all unless a real and inescapable need for it is felt by the composer.”15

The earliest examples of concerted works composed specifically for organ and orchestra are the organ concertos composed by (1685–1759).

Immensely popular in England during his life, these concertos were first heard during performances of Handel’s oratorios Esther and Deborah. Given Handel’s employment of

Italian models throughout his career, it is not surprising that his fourteen organ concertos are stylistically similar to the concertos of Corelli and Vivaldi. Handel’s concertos influenced British composers and those from the continent, notably French organist, composer, and teacher, Michel Corrette (1707–1795). Corrette, who encountered

Handel’s works in London in 1739, published a collection of concertos in the Handelian mold in 1756.16

As a consequence of social and political revolution, the organ in France experienced a significant decline at the end of the eighteenth century. In 1793 the

14 Widor, Technique, 210. 15 Widor, Technique, 210-211. 16 Yves Jaffrès, “Preface,” in Michel Corrette: Organ Pieces in a New Style (Colfax, NC: Wayne Leupold Editions, 2006), 21.

8 government abolished Catholic services, leaving little use for the organ. As a result, the government seized and sold numerous organs “according to the conditions prescribed for the sale of national furniture.”17 Many organ pipes were melted for bullets. Despite government efforts in the 1820s to restore cathedral organs, the organ in France remained in this sad mutilated state throughout much of the first half of the nineteenth century. In

1832 Mendelssohn wrote: “I have just come from St. Sulpice, where the organist showed off his organ to me; it sounded like a full chorus of old women’s voices; but they maintain that it would be the finest organ in Europe if it were only put into proper order.”18

As organs across France fell into varying degrees of disrepair, the art of organ playing also experienced a simultaneous decline. In 1809 Guillaume Lasceux (1740–

1831) bemoaned the career prospects for organists in his post-Revolution homeland.19

Most organist positions were abolished; the few that remained yielded modest compensation. With such poor career prospects, students became a rarity and teaching positions were eliminated. Musical taste evolved as the operatic style came to dominate the musical sphere, resulting in organists replacing French Classical masterworks with theatrical improvisations on secular and patriotic themes such as “Ça ira.”20 Little demand for written organ music remained as organ composition nearly came to a halt.

17 Kimberly Marshall and William J. Peterson, “Evolutionary Schemes: Organists and Their Revolutionary Music,” in French Organ Music from the Revolution to Franck and Widor, ed. Lawrence Archbold and William J. Peterson (Rochester, NY: Rochester University Press, 1995), 4. 18 Fenner Douglass, Cavaillé-Coll and the French Romantic Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999), 8. 19 Orphe Ochse, Organists and Organ Playing in Nineteenth-Century France and Belgium (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 18. 20 Calvert Johnson, “The Organ Sonatas of Félix Alexandre Guilmant” (DM diss., Northwestern University, 1973), 18.

9 In 1833, opera superstar Gioacchino Rossini was conducting Robert le diable in

Toulouse, a production that used a harmonium built by Aristide Cavaillé-Coll for the organ part. Rossini was so impressed with the sound of the organ that he urged the ambitious organ builder to settle in Paris. Within days of his Parisian arrival, Cavaillé-

Coll won the contract to build a new organ for the church of Saint-Denis.21 By combining numerous technological innovations to classical elements of organ construction in the

Saint-Denis and subsequent instruments, Cavaillé-Coll fostered a new style of instrument that began to rival the expressive qualities of the orchestra. Among Cavaillé-Coll’s technological innovations is the use of the Barker Lever, a device that uses the organ’s wind to reduce the resistance of the keys. This allowed for a consistent key action throughout the manual compass and enabled organists to execute pianistic passages regardless of registration and manual coupling. Other notable innovations incorporated by Cavaillé-Coll include ventils, combination pedals, harmonic ranks, a move to the

German pedal board, an expressive Récit division, and graduated wind pressure.

The rise of this new style of organ building in France afforded organists and composers the ability to envision music for the instrument in a new orchestral-inspired idiom, evidenced by the oft-quoted remark made by César Franck after his encounter with Cavaillé-Coll’s display organ at the 1844 Paris Exposition: “my new organ? It is an orchestra!”22

21 Douglass, Cavaillé-Coll, 9–10. 22 Rollin Smith, Playing the Organ Works of César Franck (Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1997), 11.

10 While Cavaillé-Coll had revolutionized the French organ by mid-century, organ playing and composition did not necessarily progress. Writing in the Revue et Gazette de

Paris, Fétis offered his blunt view on contemporary organ performance:

The essential inferiority of French organists is precisely the result of their obsession with what they call improvisation…. Not one of them has what may be called an organist’s training. Not one of them could master the great compositions of Bach. All their attention is turned towards special effects, tonal contrasts… and ways to arouse and gratify sensual instincts.23

In an effort to combat this inferiority, Fétis, who also authored scathing articles on the decline of organ building, playing, and church music, hired his former composition student Jacques Nicolas Lemmens (1823–1881) to teach organ at the Brussels

Conservatory, a school Fétis had led since his move from France in 1833. Lemmens, who studied organ in Breslau with Adolf Hesse (1809–1863), would ultimately be considered one of the most influential organ teachers of all time. Many of his students would make significant contributions to their field, none more than Guilmant and Widor, whose impact to organ performance and composition would far surpass that of their teacher in

Brussels.

With Cavaillé-Coll sending promising young students to Brussels for organ study with Lemmens, the only significant void at the Brussels Conservatory was an instrument worthy of performance and study. In 1866, the firm of Merklin-Schütze completed the installation of a four-manual organ comprised of fifty-four stops in the Palais Ducal at the

Conservatory. 24 In Fétis’s view, the installation of this instrument was monumental, as it was the first organ placed in a concert hall on the continent. Armed with a large organ, an

23 Quoted in Douglass, Cavaillé-Coll, 106.

11 orchestra, and a first rate soloist in Lemmens, Fétis commemorated the completion of this instrument and the fiftieth anniversary of the Académie royale des beaux-arts by composing Fantaisie symphonique pour orgue et orchestra.

The Fantaisie symphonique is a unique work in the repertoire for many reasons.

To Fétis, the Fantaisie signaled the genesis of a new genre, that of a concerted work for organ and orchestra. In a letter appearing in the August 1866 edition of the Revue et

Gazette musicale, Fétis wrote that this work, unlike Handel’s concertos which Fétis described as solo organ works with a small role for orchestra, was conceived for two

“equal orchestras.”25 While this statement, like many of those made by Fétis in his writings throughout his life, is perhaps too strong, the sentiment is understandable as no examples of large-scale organ/orchestral works originated in France or Belgium from the concertos of Corrette until Fétis penned his Fantaisie.

Consisting of three movements – Allegro non troppo, Andante con variazioni, and

Allegro – Fantaisie symphonique evidences Fétis’s affinity for classical forms and his conservative use of musical parameters; his harmonic language is more akin to

Beethoven and Mendelssohn than to his contemporaries. Although the title implies a symphonic composition, the lack of a fourth movement and the circumstances surrounding its inspiration leads me to view the work as a concerto. The Fantaisie symphonique enjoyed fairly frequent performances in the years immediately following its premiere. It is known to have appeared multiple times in concerts throughout the nineteenth century at the Brussels Conservatory and was also performed outside of

25 Ochse, Organists, 167.

12 Belgium, notably in Amsterdam in 1876. Since that time, the work has become largely unknown, although it was performed in Round Lake, New York in 1990.

Given the state of instrument disrepair, the French focus on improvisation, and the lack of training available for organists, it is not surprising that authors of instrumentation treatises in France from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries spend little, if any, time discussing the organ. While Berlioz’s writing about the organ in his treatise is more extensive than other authors, he believed that the organ and orchestra existed as diametrically opposed musical forces that could not be successfully combined outside of specific instances. While initially surprising, further consideration of the aforementioned points, combined with the reality that no organs existed in concert halls in France or

Belgium until 1866, explains why composers in France didn’t compose works for organ and orchestra until the second half of the nineteenth century. Fétis is rarely given credit for his influence on the development of the symphonic tradition of organ composition, despite the fact that he revolutionized organ training and laid the foundation for Guilmant and Widor’s future experimentations combining the organ and orchestral forces in large- scale symphonic works.

Many details surrounding the early life and career of Guilmant and Widor are similar. Neither was born in Paris; Guilmant was born in the small coastal town of

Boulogne-sur-Mer in March 1837 and Widor in Lyon in 1844. Both of their fathers were organists as well as their first teachers. After considerable artistic accomplishments in their respective hometowns, both pursued further study in Brussels with Lemmens.

Widor’s time in Brussels also included composition study with Fétis. After studies in

Brussels, both Guilmant and Widor ultimately settled, with the help of Cavaillé-Coll, in

13 Paris where they would both exert enormous musical influence over their contemporaries and generations of students. Upon the death of Lefebure-Wély in 1870, Widor was appointed organist at Saint-Sulpice, a position he held for the next 64 years. Guilmant moved to Paris in 1871, when he was appointed successor to Alexis Chauvet at La

Trinité. In 1878 Guilmant was appointed to the highly visible post of resident organist at the Palais du Trocadéro, which housed an enormous four-manual organ by Cavaillé-Coll.

As a performer Guilmant enjoyed unparalleled success. His concert tours took him to Russia, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Italy, England, Canada, and the , where his performances included dozens of recitals at the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair on the organ that evolved into the famous instrument in Wannamaker’s department store in

Philadelphia. Widor was also an accomplished performer, himself making international tours to Russia, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Poland, and

Switzerland. Like Guilmant, Widor participated in inaugural concerts of Cavaillé-Coll’s instruments including Notre-Dame, the Trocadéro, and Saint-Ouen.

Guilmant and Widor held prestigious academic posts in addition to their visible performance careers and church appointments. In 1894 Guilmant co-founded the Schola

Cantorum with and Vincent d’Indy to continue the tradition of Franck, who Widor replaced as organ professor at the Conservatoire in 1890. Upon Widor’s promotion to professor of composition in 1896, Guilmant assumed the chair of the organ class. Both were effective mentors for the next generation of organists and composers.

Guilmant instructed organists such as Marcel Dupré, , and Nadia

Boulanger while Widor instilled his conservative contrapuntal and formal views on

Arthur Honegger, Darius Milhaud, and Edgard Varèse.

14 Throughout his career, Guilmant immersed himself in the repertoire of all eras since the Renaissance. His publications Les Archives de Maîtres de l’Orgue des XVI,

XVII et XVIII Siécles served as the singular contemporary source for organ music from the French Classical period for nearly fifty years. He was one of the first to revive the music of Bruhns, Buxtehude, Walther, Krebs, Scheidt, Byrd, and Frescobaldi, and he frequently performed works by these composers both at the Trocadéro and on his concert tours. His dedication to music of the past did not interfere with his interest in the music of his contemporaries.

Guilmant’s compositional output consists mostly of works for solo organ, of which his eight sonatas are his most substantial addition to the repertoire. He also composed numerous functional liturgical works accessible to organists of all abilities.

There are no orchestral works in his catalog, but there are several examples of choral works, including the sacred cantata Balthazar composed in 1879 and scored for soloists, choir, and orchestra.

Guilmant returned to the organ and orchestra medium throughout his career, occasionally orchestrating other pre-existing organ works. Examples include his orchestration of his eighth organ sonata, which became his Symphonie 2 pour orgue et orchestre, op. 91, and Final alla Schumann, op. 83, which also exists in versions for harmonium and piano.

Widor is remembered today primarily for his contribution to the solo , despite his diverse compositional activity. By 1882, the year op. 42(bis) was premiered, Widor had composed his first and second orchestral symphonies, three concertos (for violin, piano, and cello, respectively), numerous songs and chamber music

15 works, and La Korrigane, a ballet in two acts which, despite rare performances today, cemented his stature among musical society in Paris.26 With such varied compositional activity across numerous genres, Widor was better suited than Guilmant to make a bolder statement with the transformation of his pre-existing solo organ works to the organ and orchestral medium.

Like Guilmant, Widor composed a handful of works for organ and orchestra. His third symphony features the organ, as does Saint-Saëns’s third symphony, as a member of the ensemble without any solo passages. Widor’s third symphony was performed frequently throughout Europe in the years following its premiere, which took place in the new Victoria Hall in Geneva. Since that time, the work has fallen out of favor, and rarely receives performances on the world’s orchestral stages. Widor’s last assimilation of the organ into an orchestral work is the Sinfonia Sacra, op. 81 (1907). He composed this work in gratitude for his acceptance to the Berlin Royal Academy of Fine Arts, which, at the time of his acceptance boasted only one other French member: Saint-Saëns.

According to John Near, German romantic influences are most evident in Sinfonia Sacra than any of Widor’s other compositions: its thematic material is derived from the

Lutheran chorale, Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland. The orchestral scoring (oboe, clarinet, trumpet, three trombones, and strings) is, moreover, more practical than his other orchestral works that include organ. And yet, the Sinfonia Sacra is rarely heard in performance today, despite its relatively low cost of production and initial popularity.

Like Widor’s other compositions for organ and orchestra, the Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre received acclaim in early performances only to fall out of favor in

26 John Richard Near, “The Life and Work of Charles-Marie Widor” (DMA diss., Boston University, 1985), 133.

16 subsequent years. To create this work Widor orchestrated preexisting movements of his symphonies after receiving an invitation from the future King Edward VII, who Widor came to know during rehearsals of La Korrigane, to perform at a festival in London. The

Parisian premiere of the Symphony for Organ and Orchestra occurred at the Trocadéro on

April 13, 1882. The London premiere was just over a month later, on May 20, 1882, in the Royal Albert Hall. Widor performed the organ part at both premieres and received excellent reviews as both composer and virtuoso. In 1904 Charles-Marie Courboin

(1884–1973), a recent graduate of the Brussels Conservatory, performed the symphony with the Société royale d’harmonie in Antwerp. Later that year, Courboin, who had been serving as organist at Antwerp Cathedral since 1902, relocated to Oswego, NY. Armed with the only existing copies of the full score and parts, Courboin performed the

American premiere of Widor’s symphony at Wannamaker’s department store in

Philadelphia on March 27, 1925 with the conducted by Leopold

Stokowski in front of an estimated audience of 12,000. The American premiere was just as, if not more, successful than the symphony’s European performances. This performance – which was hailed as a “perfect Niagara of sound”27 – is credited with sparking new desires for American compositions for organ and orchestra. Despite all the initial success this symphony received only a handful of performances in the 1920s, most notably Riemenschneider’s performance with the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra in

January 1928. Following this performance it was all but forgotten until the 1990s.28

27 Charles-Marie Widor, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre opus 42[bis], ed. John R. Near, Recent Researches in the Music of the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, vol. 33 (Madison: A-R Editions, 2002), xi. 28 Widor, introduction to opus 42[bis], xii.

17 Guilmant’s Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, is essentially a note-for- note transcription of his first organ sonata for organ and orchestra. The musical material is not extensively reworked beyond substituting the organ with orchestra in various passages. Guilmant appears to have heeded Berlioz’s advice as the music is either dominated by the organ or by the orchestra. Rarely do they sound simultaneously. Like the Fantaisie symphonique, Guilmant’s first symphony reflects the composer’s intimate knowledge of classical forms: both the first and third movements are cast in sonata- allegro form. The second movement, a Pastorale, is monothematic yet structured in rounded binary form. According to Sartorious, this symphony represents one of “the principal works of the French Romanticists wherein the organ is accorded its rightful place as a true concertizing instrument.”29

In the opening measures of the first movement, Guilmant accents the fourth beat of each measure with a hammer stroke chord for full orchestra as seen in Example 1.

(Musical examples may be found in the Appendix.) This effect was adopted in the solo organ version in subsequent publications of the Sonata. This is achieved on the organ by coupling an additional manual to the Grand Orgue on the corresponding beats, as seen in

Example 2. Whether seen in the score or heard in performance, this compositional decision, immediately from the beginning of the work, displays Guilmant’s tendency to avoid extended combination of the organ and orchestra. This type of rapid dialogue between the two – also heard in the opening measures of the Fantaisie symphonique of

Fétis – leads the listener to discern a duel between two separate but seemingly equal, sound sources; one reacts to the statements of the other.

29 Richard Henry Sartorious, “The Concerto for Organ and Orchestra” (PhD diss., University of Southern California, 1959), 139.

18 Guilmant’s orchestration alterations communicate the sonata allegro form of the remainder of the first movement. The primary theme is first stated in a virtuosic solo pedal line beginning at m. 20 (Example 3). The orchestra answers with a statement of the theme beginning in m. 44 and concluding on the downbeat of m. 68. Throughout this section Guilmant punctuates other musical parameters through orchestration. This is achieved by briefly incorporating the resources of one of the orchestras into a texture dominated by the other.

Guilmant’s structural orchestration approach is evident in the exposition of the first movement. In measures 46, 52, and 56 of the sonata (Example 4), ascending leaps in the pedal mark the conclusion of basic motivic ideas in the manuals. In the symphony,

Guilmant assigns the original pedal line of m. 46, for example, to the low strings, bassoons, trumpets, trombones, and timpani. However, for the other corresponding measures (Example 5), Guilmant opts not to continue with this same orchestration and replaces the timpani, trumpets, and trombones with the organ in measures 54, 56, 58, and

60. Interestingly these organ chords, which occur on the second and third beats of each measure, mark the structure of the two measure sub-phrase as well as reinforce the harmonic motion of the larger musical line.

Similar to Guilmant’s use of full organ chords to accentuate both small and large scale structures in the opening of the exposition, the composer uses various instrumentations to mark similar gestures in passages for solo organ. One example is the passage encompassing mm. 135-148 (Example 6). In this passage, the organ is stating the secondary theme on a reduced registration. While the registration indication is altered between the two versions, the notes and rhythms are identical. An examination of the

19 organ part reveals the function of the pedal; it provides a textural change to accent harmonic motion. Rather than leave this passage for solo organ in the Symphony,

Guilmant incorporates the orchestra. The strings double the chords on the corresponding beats using the pizzicato technique. The percussive nature of the plucked strings immediately draws the ear to the harmonic change driven by the pedal.

Guilmant uses percussive orchestral effects in the recapitulation to mark the harmonic structure. In measures 237, 239, and 240 (Example 7), Guilmant employs single-beat, fortissimo orchestral chords – assembled by the oboes, clarinets, bassoons, timpani, and strings – to reinforce the harmonic progression implied by the primary theme, heard in the pedals. The placement of these sharp orchestral chords creates a percussive accentuation to the organ’s even and sustaining tone quality. This enables an accent caused by a sudden dynamic shift. This effect is not possible to accomplish on the organ without a rapid addition or subtraction of stops. Guilmant attempts to achieve this type of accentuation in the Sonata by adding voices to the middle of the texture in the corresponding measures (Example 8). While Guilmant’s intention may have been to accent the harmonic progression by adding these voices in m. 237, the middle voice in m.

239 is obligatory as the notes are the roots of their respective chords. The brief, sudden dynamic accent created by the fortissimo orchestral chords conveys the harmony and meter of the music in a way complementary to the organ’s limited percussive capability.

This strategy conveys the larger structure in addition to accentuating cellular structural posts. In the recapitulation of the second theme, the material is transposed from

F major to the key of D major. An ascending sequence is built upon the head motive of the primary theme. This cultivates harmonic tension that resolves on the triumphant, D

20 major arrival of the second theme at m. 260. In the corresponding section of the

Symphony, mm. 253–260 (Example 9), the organ part is nearly unchanged; the left hand chords in measures 254, 256, and 258 are shortened from half note to quarter note value and the added right hand doublings on the downbeat of those measures are eliminated.

The ascending and sustained arpeggios create accents in the organ part on the downbeats of measures 253, 255, 257, and 259, as they do in the solo organ version. With the resources of the orchestra at hand, Guilmant accentuates this structural tension by providing near-tutti orchestral chords – only the trombones and timpani are excluded – on the second and third beats in measures 254, 256, and 258. Three orchestral sforzando chords on the off beats of m. 259 obstruct the rhythmic pattern to create metrical tension that resolves, like the harmonic tension, on the first beat of m. 260.

The relationship between organ and orchestra is most intimate in the symphony’s second movement. Guilmant’s skill at manipulating color is on full display throughout the Pastorale. The first twenty measures of the piece are nearly identical to the first twenty measures of the solo organ version. Interestingly, Guilmant alters the registration.

He opts for the Grand Orgue’s Flute harmonique over the Récit’s Hautbois-Basson, originally called for in the sonata. Guilmant reinforces the string bass by doubling organ to sustaining pedal points.

The organ serves as the accompaniment in the central section of the movement. In the sonata, the chorale-esque accompaniment is performed on the Récit and the organist is to draw the Vox humana, Bourdon, and Tremulant. The solo voice is played on the

Positif, first with the solo harmonic flute and then on the Clarinette. In the symphony, the organ accompanies the first violin section, who are gifted the melody. In order to

21 properly balance the accompanying and melodic voices, Guilmant changes the registration for the chorale to Founds doux of the Positif at sixteen-, eight-, and four-foot pitch.

Widor’s Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42(bis), unfolds three movements. The first and third are borrowed from the composer’s Symphonie VI.

Though composed prior to Widor’s famed Symphonie V, his sixth organ symphony was premiered at the inaugural concert series at the Trocadéro in 1878. The first movement is a theme and variations in the key of G minor. It is one of the most famous works in the repertoire from this period. The organ scores for the two versions of the first movement are identical; never does Widor substitute the orchestra for the organ. Instead, Widor uses the expressive dynamic capabilities of the orchestra to complement the organ’s qualities.

The last movement is a victorious Vivace in G Major. As in the first movement, the full resources of the orchestra are combined with the organ, although the organ part underwent some revisions.

Widor decided against orchestrating one of the three central movements of his sixth solo organ symphony. Rather, the second movement of Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42(bis), is based on the central movement from Widor’s Symphonie II, which was composed in 1872. For the Symphony for Organ and Orchestra, Widor arranged this movement for organ and strings. This combination is successful as the organ is able to function not only in its own idiom but also as the orchestra’s wind section. An Adagio in the key of B-flat major, this movement provides effective dynamic and textural contrast when compared to the other two movements. One can only speculate

22 the reasons why Widor opted to re-work the third movement of Symphonie II instead of the lush second movement of Symphonie VI, also an Adagio but rooted in B major.

In the first movement of the Symphony for Organ and Orchestra, Widor exploits orchestral resources to provide instant dynamic contrast to the organ part, which is virtually unchanged from its solo organ version, the opening movement of Symphonie VI.

The work begins in an identical manner as the original version, with the organ presenting a chorale-like theme on full organ until the arrival of a half cadence at m. 16. In the solo organ version, this measure is filled by three-beats of a static chord followed by one beat of rest. This composed breath permits the relocation of the hands for the continuation of the thematic material. With no registration or manual alteration, the result is a continuation of the same dynamic level and overall texture. With the full resources of the orchestra at hand, Widor instructs a crescendo through m. 16 beginning with the entrance of the four horns, timpani, violins, and violas on the second beat of the measure, as seen in Example 10. Culminating with the entrance of the full orchestra doubling the organ part at the downbeat of m. 17, this crescendo is attained in the strings through an ascending two-octave dominant scale over the final two beats of the measure. This string passage provides an increased dynamic level and a sense of textural motion not achieved in the version for solo organ. The crescendo is manipulated through a fortepiano indication in the timpani on the second beat of m. 16, which signals the entrance of the orchestra. It also supports the succeeding crescendo in the horns into m. 17.

The strings assist the organ in shaping the musical line by providing dynamic and timbral contrast. In mm. 91–110 in the original version, the only shift of dynamic in the organ occurs by way of manual change. In mm. 91–98, a fragment of the theme is played

23 and harmonized on the Récit division with the shutters completely closed. This is accompanied by a single-voice staccato gesture played by the left hand on the Grand

Orgue with the Positif and enclosed Récit coupled. At the downbeat of measure 99, a crescendo is attained as this fragment develops into an extraordinarily lush harmonic progression. The section concludes by repeating an ascending major sixth leap that sustains over no fewer than three beats in measures 106, 107, and 108.

In the corresponding measures of the orchestrated version (Example 11), Widor doubles the thematic material heard in mm. 91–94 in the clarinet and first violins. The second violins, violas, cellos, and double basses provide harmonic support. The crescendo increases the musical tension as the harmony begins to ascend. This crescendo is aided by the addition of the second clarinet and bassoons in m. 93, which after entering at piano immediately join the crescendo carried by the strings. This crescendo reaches its apex at the fourth beat of m. 94, at which point a dramatic reduction in dynamic level is attained by subtraction of the aforementioned winds and a fortepiano indication in the string parts. As the phrase concludes over the following four measures, Widor continues to shape the static organ part by doubling the strings. The dynamic ability of these instruments creates tension before resolving to the piano dynamic level at the conclusion of the phrase.

The following phrase, beginning with the upbeat to m. 99, features the organ, first as a five-measure solo. This is followed by seven measures that include the string orchestra. The organ part is exactly the same as the original, organ only, version. The addition of the full string complement changes the texture of the music. Each of the string entrances across mm. 104–109 is met with distinct dynamic motion. In measures 104 and

24 106, each string part crescendos through to the rests at the conclusion of each sub-phrase.

The two-beat string chords occurring in the following measures are all marked sforzando and double the exact chord that the organ sounds one beat earlier. The placement of this sudden emphasis a beat after the organ has stated it allows for a shaping of the dynamic, as well as the overall musical phrase, an effect otherwise impossible if scored for organ alone.

The downbeat of measure 232 is the climactic moment of the first movement. In the solo organ symphony, Widor instructs that this final statement of the theme be performed agitato. The preceding measures highlight Widor’s ability to create musical tension over several bars. Parallel thirds in the hands bridge the secondary theme – stated in unison octaves between the hands and feet – to the arrival of the final statement of the first theme. These eighth-note triplets in the manuals are performed in a detached style, as indicated in the score. The musical gesture is anchored by a descending, step-wise, and legato pedal line that moves from the fifth scale degree to the tonic.

In the orchestrated version, Widor prepares the arrival of the full orchestra at measure 232 by creating a crescendo spanning two measures (Example 12). The horns and cornets enter on the second beat at the dynamic indication piano. The strings, sans double basses, immediately reduce from the fortissimo indication to pianissimo on the corresponding beat after doubling the octaves in the organ part in the preceding measures.

Likewise, the timpani’s dynamic indication is reduced to piano on the second beat. This dramatic reduction in dynamic is accented by the sforzando in the timpani part on the downbeat of this measure. The brass and timpani crescendo over the following two measures before reaching the fortissimo indication at the arrival of the theme on the

25 downbeat of m. 232. The triplet rhythmic pattern is retained in the strings and the articulation is grouped into two-note pairs. At the entrance of the pedal, doubled by the cellos and basses, on the second beat of m. 231, the strings join the crescendo and attain fortissimo at the downbeat of m. 232.

In the Symphony for Organ and Orchestra, op. 42(bis), Widor combined the organ and orchestra as one collective unit. Instead of a battle between rival powers, Widor used the two in harmony oftentimes using the natural qualities of one to enhance the other. The musical results include more opportunities to exploit instantaneous dynamic flexibility and textural variety than in the original, organ only versions of the symphony’s movements. Widor freely makes changes to the scoring of the music. These alterations are made for expressive, coloristic reasons rather than to convey structural posts.

Guilmant’s Symphonie 1 pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42 and Widor’s Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42(bis) were the first symphonies for organ and orchestra performed in France. Both works are intimately connected to the Cavaillé-Coll organ in the Palais du Trocadéro. Both works are based on pre-existing compositions for solo organ. Though many of the details surrounding these two works are similar, the composers charted different courses in orchestrating their solo organ works.

Guilmant treats the organ primarily as a solo instrument throughout most of his first symphony. While there are examples of the organ and orchestra sounding simultaneously, the texture tends to be dominated by one of the large sound masses or the other. Following Berlioz’s suggestion in his monumental orchestration treatise, Guilmant treates the organ and orchestra as dueling sound forces. The only exception occurs in the middle section of the second movement. Guilmant’s symphony is also more classically

26 inspired, both formally and in relation to orchestration style. The composer’s scoring changes coincide with major structural posts of the music.

Widor, on the other hand, writes not a concerto-like symphony for solo organ with orchestra, but rather a symphony for organ and orchestra. While polite stage etiquette would likely lead an organist performing this symphony to be treated as a soloist, the organ functions not as a solo instrument but as a constituent instrument of the orchestra, no more or less important than any of the other parts. This results in frequent combination of groups of orchestral instruments with the organ throughout the entirety of the symphony. This approach to assimilating organ into the orchestral palate afforded

Widor the opportunity to enhance the nineteenth century organ’s expressive capabilities by exploiting the full musical capabilities of individual orchestral instruments.

These two symphonies sparked interest in works for organ and orchestra in France as well as abroad. Despite enjoying initial popularity in the early twentieth century, works for organ and orchestra are infrequently performed in the United States today. This is due not to a lack of repertoire, but otherwise for reasons similar to those encountered by composers in the nineteenth century. Most American orchestras perform in halls that do not have an organ. Some of these orchestras do own electronic instruments for use in performances of bastions of the orchestral repertoire that include the organ, such as

Mahler’s “Resurrection” Symphony or Respighi’s Pini di Roma. Though possible, the performance of Guilmant or Widor’s symphonies for organ and orchestra under these conditions would be disappointing at best. Orchestras that are fortunate to have their homes graced by beautiful organs – such as those in Boston, Cleveland, Dallas,

Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, among others – tend to program twentieth

27 century organ concertos that can be performed on a concert’s first half, rather than dedicate the plat principal to a large-scale symphony with organ. The same is true of

American conservatories and schools of music that house organs in their orchestral performance spaces.

Despite rare opportunities for performance, these symphonies by Guilmant and

Widor are worthy of further study. Since they are based on solo organ compositions, these symphonies deserve study by any organist interpreting the original versions of these works. This essay includes a historical survey focused on the emergence of this genre.

Further research focused on the development of music for organ and orchestra – including examples from other countries of origin – through the twentieth century will continue this narrative and is planned for the future.

By reading this essay, you have been introduced to these deserving, yet obscure, symphonies for organ and orchestra. It is my sincere hope that my work will foster a greater appreciation for this often ignored genre.

28 Appendix

Example 1: Guilmant, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, mm. 1–2.

Example 2: Guilmant, Sonata I in D Minor, op. 42, mm. 1–2.

29

Example 3: Guilmant, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, mm. 20–44.

Example 4: Guilmant, Sonata I in D Minor, op. 42, mm. 46, 52, and 56.

30 Example 5: Guilmant, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, mm. 46, 54, 56, 58, and 60.

31 Example 6: Guilmant, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, mm. 135–148.

32 Example 7: Guilmant, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, mm. 237, 239–240.

Example 8: Guilmant, Sonata I in D Minor, op. 42, mm. 237, 239–240.

33 Example 9: Guilmant, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42, mm. 253–260.

34 Example 10: Widor, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42(bis), mm. 16–17.

35

Example 11: Widor, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42(bis), mm. 91–110.

36 Example 12: Widor, Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, op. 42(bis), mm. 230–232.

37 Bibliography

Blackburn, George. “The Relationship of the Organs of Aristide Cavaillé-Coll to the French Classical Tradition.” MM thesis, Yale University, 1967.

Brooks, Gerard. “French and Belgian Organ Music after 1800.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Organ, edited by Nicholas Thistlewaite and Geoffrey Webber, 263-78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

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

———. The Language of the Classical French Organ: A Musical Tradition Before 1800. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Eschbach, Jesse. Aristide Cavaillé-Coll: A Compendium of Known Stoplists. Paderborn: Verlag Peter Ewers, 2003.

Eschbach, Jesse E. and Lawrence Archbold. “Aristide Cavaillé-Coll: Master of Masters.” In The Organ as a Mirror of its Time, edited by Kerala J. Snyder, 230-241. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Fétis, François-Joseph. Fantaisie symphonique pour orgue et orchestre. Veurne, Belgium: Documentatiecentrum voor orgel, 1983.

Francœur, Louis-Joseph. Diapason général de tous les instruments à vent. Paris, 1772.

Gevaert, François-Auguste. A New Treatise on Instrumentation. Translated by E.F.E. Suddard. Paris: Henry Lemoine & Co., 1906.

Gudger, William Dillard. “The Organ Concertos of G.F. Handel: A Study Based on the Primary Sources.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1973.

Guilmant, Alexandre. Première symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, Op. 42. Mainz: Schott, 1879.

———. Selected Organ Works: Sonatas 1–4. Kassel: Bärenreiter-Verlag, 2001.

Hill Jr., Samuel S. “An English Translation of Father R. Delestre’s L’Œuvre de Marcel Dupré,” DM diss., Northwestern University, 1976.

Jaffrès, Yves. “Preface.” In Michel Corrette: Organ Pieces in a New Style. Colfax, NC: Wayne Leupold Editions, 2006.

38 Johnson, Calvert. “The Organ Sonatas of Félix Alexandre Guilmant.” DM diss., Northwestern University, 1973.

Macdonald, Hugh. Berlioz’s Orchestration Treatise: A Translation and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Marshall, Kimberly and William J. Peterson. “Evolutionary Schemes: Organists and Their Revolutionary Music.” In French Organ Music from the Revolution to Franck and Widor, edited by Lawrence Archbold and William J. Peterson, 3-18. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 1995.

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

Near, John Richard. “The Life and Work of Charles-Marie Widor.” DMA diss., Boston University, 1985.

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

Perone, James E. Orchestration Theory: A Bibliography. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1996.

Saint-Saëns, Camille. Troisième symphonie en ut mineur, Op. 78. Paris: Durand, 1886.

Satorius, Richard Henry. “The Concerto for Organ and Orchestra.” PhD diss., University of Southern California, 1959.

Smith, Rollin. Playing the Organ Works of César Franck. Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1997.

———. Towards an Authentic Interpretation of the Organ Works of César Franck. Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1983.

Widor, Charles-Marie. The Technique of the Modern Orchestra: A Manual for Practical Instrumentation. Translated by Edward Suddard. London: Joseph Williams Limited, 1946.

———. Sinfonia Sacra pour orgue et orchestre, Op. 81. Paris: J. Hamelle, 1908.

———. Symphonie pour orgue et orchestre, opus 42[bis]. Edited by John R. Near. Recent Researches in the Music of the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, vol. 33. Middleton: A-R Editions, 2002.

39 ———. Symphonie II. Edited by John R. Near. Recent Researches in the Music of the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, vol. 12. Middleton: A-R Editions, 2008.

———. Symphonie VI. Edited by John R. Near. Recent Researches in the Music of the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, vol. 16. Middleton: A-R Editions, 2004.

Woodward, Patricia Jovanna. “Jean-Georges Kastner’s Traité général d’instrumentation: A Translation and Commentary.” MM thesis, University of North Texas, 2003.

40