UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date:___________________ I, _________________________________________________________, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in: It is entitled: This work and its defense approved by: Chair: _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ Hugo Wolf’s Penthesilea: An Analysis Using Criteria from his own Music Criticism A thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF MUSIC in the Division of Composition, Musicology, and Theory of the College-Conservatory of Music 2007 by Jennifer Ann Griswold-Nickel B.A., University of Cincinnati, 2003 Committee Chair: Dr. Mary Sue Morrow ABSTRACT Hugo Wolf’s music criticism in the Wiener Salonblatt (1884–1887) was published while he was actively composing his own symphonic poem Penthesilea, based on the play by Heinrich von Kleist. This criticism, along with comments in his letters (1887–1897) to friend Melanie Köchert, reveals that Wolf placed a high regard on works exhibiting originality, proper orchestration, form and compositional technique. After briefly tracing the history of music criticism in late nineteenth-century Vienna, this thesis establishes Wolf’s compositional aesthetic derived from his critical opinions about instrumental music. A structural analysis of Wolf’s Penthesilea, his only complete programmatic instrumental work, concentrates on thematic material, form, and texture and orchestration and establishes the methods by which he composed his own music. A comparison of Wolf’s aesthetic criteria to his music shows that he adhered to his own compositional aesthetic in concept, but not always in execution. Copyright © 2007, Jennifer Ann Griswold-Nickel ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my advisor Dr. Mary Sue Morrow whose guidance, editing and patience was invaluable. I appreciate the helpful insights and comments from my readers Dr. Jeongwon Joe and Professor Kenneth Griffiths, whose enthusiasm about Wolf is inspiring. I am so grateful for all the love and support from my family (especially Mom) and friends who endured countless conversations about this project. I must also thank Haschi who has been there for me every step of the way and given me unwavering support and love. CONTENTS List of Tables iv List of Examples v Chapter 1. Introduction 1 Chapter 2. Music Criticism in Late Nineteenth-Century Vienna 7 Chapter 3. Hugo Wolf’s Criticism and Critical Opinions 21 Chapter 4. An Analysis of Penthesilea 57 Chapter 5. Conclusion 126 Bibliography 137 iii TABLES 3.1. Published Criticism in Wiener Salonblatt 35 3.2. Letters to Melanie Köchert 43 3.3. Summary of Critical Topics 45 3.4. Occurrences of Each Compositional Element in Both Sources 46 4.1. Musical Sections compared to sections of Penthesilea 99 4.2. Programmatic interpretations of Sections III–V 100 4.3. Phrasing of each individual theme 103 4.4. Thematic Elements 108 4.5. Map of Thematic Material in the Score 109 4.6. Structural Analysis 117 4.7. Orchestration for Penthesilea 120 5.1. Adherence to Aesthetic Categories 135 iv EXAMPLES 1. Theme I and Associated Motives 70–73 2. Theme II and Associated Motives 75–76 3. Theme III and Associated Motives 78–82 4. Theme IV and Associated Motives 84–89 5. Theme V and Associated Motives 92–97 v Chapter 1 Introduction Hugo Wolf was not only one of the most prominent composers of German Lieder of the late Romantic period, but was also one of its most vicious music critics. He was particularly well known for his attacks on other composers of the era, most notably Johannes Brahms. As a critic, Wolf participated in a very animated critical discourse in a Viennese newspaper that paralleled the French feuilleton in its style and depth. It was “largely non-technical, focusing on stylistic and aesthetic questions and emphasizing pithy evaluation rather than elucidation,”1 while also incorporating social and political commentary and concerns into the criticism of musical work. Margaret Notley has described this period as one of “sociopolitical upheaval” where “musical controversy grew more heated in the late 1880s, as political issues spilled over with greater frequency into the musical life of the city.”2 The artistic world was embroiled in two prominent aesthetic controversies at the time, the first involving absolute versus program music, and the second placing followers of Wagner against those that did not adhere to the Wagnerite principles. Because of the distinctly drawn “party lines,” a composer also writing as critic could promote particular composers, praise specific compositional genres, and propagate political views that were prominent in this musical climate. Moreover, Wolf’s dual role means that we can examine his criticism for aesthetic criteria that we can use in evaluating his compositions. 1 Glenn Stanley, “Criticism, §II, 1(ii)(b): Germany and Austria: 19th century: Newspaper criticism and feuilletons,” Grove Music Online (accessed 3 May 2006) <http://www.grovemusic.com>. 2 Margaret Notley, “Brahms as Liberal: Genre, Style, and Politics in Late Nineteenth-Century Vienna,” 19th-Century Music 17 (1993): 109. 1 The relationship between Wolf’s criticism and his lieder has been thoroughly explored by scholars such as Eric Sams, Heather Platt, Sandra McColl, Amanda Glauert, and Susan Youens.3 Many of these scholars have observed a contradiction between what Wolf said in his criticism and what he wrote in his compositions. Eric Sams has noted similar characteristics in both Wolf’s and Brahms’s lieder, characteristics that Wolf himself observed and consequently criticized. For example, in a letter to his friend Melanie Köchert, Wolf comments about the folk- song qualities of Brahms’s Keller settings (Op. 69) “in its well-known noble popular-song style” after referring to Brahms as “a master…of the bagpipes and concertina.”4 In Brahms’s setting of Op. 69, no. 8 “Salome,”5 Brahms does use established techniques, such as repeating the last line of each stanza for emphasis and using a balanced ABABA′ form. The piano accompaniment is very unassuming and consists of light chords with a dance-like quality; the lilting melodic line retains the light mood established by the accompaniment. Wolf’s setting of the same text in his Alte Weisen, sechs Gedichte von Keller, “Singt mein Schatz wie ein Fink,”6 is very chromatic and dark, with a declamatory vocal line that sounds almost angry; the accompaniment is strangely sporadic at the onset and then evolves into persistent eighth-note chords that emphasize semi-tone movement. It seems that Wolf was trying to recreate the sentiments of the text in the music while Brahms was more concerned with the overall atmospheric setting. The only obvious similarities between the two settings are the persistent chords in the accompaniment 3 Eric Sams, The Songs of Johannes Brahms (London: Yale University Press, 2000); Heather Platt, “Jenner versus Wolf: The Critical Reception of Brahms’s Songs,” The Journal of Musicology 33 (1995): 377–403; Sandra McColl, “Karl Kraus and Music Criticism: The Case of Max Kalbeck,” The Musical Quarterly 82 (1998): 279–308; Amanda Glauert, Hugo Wolf and the Wagnerian Inheritance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Susan Youens, Hugo Wolf: The Vocal Music (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). 4 Sams, The Songs of Johannes Brahms, 221–222. 5 Johannes Brahms, Lieder für eine Sinstimme mit Klavierbegleitung Volume IV (Frankfurt: C. F. Peters, n.d.). 6 Hugo Wolf, Lieder nach verschiedenen Dichtern für eine Singstimme und Klavier Volume I (Frankfurt: C. F. Peters, n.d.). 2 (although completely different in sound) and the concluding music by the piano that summarily ended the songs. Sams draws the conclusion that while Wolf was angry about the musical similarities, his “scathing critique” demonstrates that he correctly heard what Brahms was trying to convey.7 Wolf’s critical commentary also seems to reveal that he was angry simply because he had composed music, apparently before he heard Brahms’s music, which bore resemblance to that of the composer to whom he was most openly hostile. Though the songs do have a similar overall structure, their conception and the music itself is quite different. Heather Platt has concluded that Wolf not only admired Brahms’s compositions, but used critical commentary to conceal his hidden respect for the composer;8 this might better explain Wolf’s hostility towards Brahms’s songs: perhaps Wolf recognized that Brahms created a more appropriate atmosphere for the text. In much the same vein, Sandra McColl and Amanda Glauert have looked at Wolf’s criticism in the context of anti-Brahms sentiment propagated by the Wagnerians,9 concluding that although Wolf was a self-proclaimed Wagnerite, his criticism was not always negative towards composers outside the Wagner tradition. It does seem that at times, Wolf was not concerned with pleasing his supporters (mostly the members of the Wagner Society) but truly writing his own opinion. An in-depth reading of Wolf’s criticism not only reveals some inconsistencies in his outward opinions and allegiances, but also of compositional practices and musical taste. Most of this scholarship has, however, dealt only with Wolf’s vocal compositions and has not addressed the relationship of his criticism to his instrumental works. Wolf did not always adhere to his critical precepts in his Lieder composition, so it would be plausible that the same 7 Sams, The Songs of Johannes Brahms, 222. 8 Platt, 377–403. 9 McColl, “Karl Kraus and Music Criticism,” 279–308; Glauert. 3 inconsistency would also appear in his instrumental composition. As a paid critic for the Wiener Salonblatt from 20 January 1884 to 24 April 1889, Wolf did address many issues surrounding instrumental music. While much of his writing centered on opera and Viennese patronage, he paid considerable attention to instrumental works.