The Symphonies of Louise Farrenc (1804-1875): a Comparative Examination
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Symphonies of Louise Farrenc (1804-1875): A Comparative Examination By J. Cameron Stephenson July, 2021 Director of Thesis: Dr. Kevin N. Moll Major Department: Theory/Composition/Musicology Abstract This study examines the three symphonies of Louise Farrenc. The entirety of Symphony No. 2 in D major, op. 35 is discussed, with the finale movements of symphonies 1 and 3 being provided to compare form, tonality, and orchestration. Each analysis is supplemented by formal charts and an appendix of relevant musical examples. The first section supplies biographical information on Louise Farrenc, followed by a list of her compositions. The second section discusses scholarship available on Farrenc, including contemporaneous primary sources and recent dissertations, books, and articles. The third section presents an overview of the three symphonies and the historical context surrounding each. The fourth section provides analyses for the first three movements of Symphony No. 2, which is followed by analyses of each symphony’s finale movements in section five. This thesis aims to account for current scholarship available of Louise Farrenc and her music, assimilate relevant primary and secondary sources, and present a comprehensive study on her symphonies through analysis of representative movements. The Symphonies of Louise Farrenc (1804-1875): A Comparative Examination A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Music Theory, Composition, and Musicology East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree Master of Music With concentrations in Music Theory and Music History and Literature J. Cameron Stephenson July, 2021 i © 2021 by J. Cameron Stephenson All Rights Reserved ii The Symphonies of Louise Farrenc (1804-1875): A Comparative Examination By J. Cameron Stephenson iii Acknowledgements I am indebted to the assistance of my mentors at East Carolina University, all of whom have helped to shape the direction of this study. Dr. Kevin N. Moll has devoted many hours to guide me through every stage of this thesis, to which I am extremely grateful. His expertise, patience, and guidance have been invaluable to me throughout the years I have spent as his student. I would also like to thank Dr. Mark Richardson and Dr. Amy Carr-Richardson for their insight and encouragement. Finally, I wish to thank my family, friends, and colleagues for their continued support. iv Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 I. Biographical Sketch ............................................................................................................................................. 3 A. Daughter, Student, Wife, Mother ....................................................................................................................... 3 B. Composer and Professor ................................................................................................................................... 6 C. Widow, Collaborator, and Scholar ................................................................................................................ 10 D. List of Compositions ...................................................................................................................................... 12 II. Summary of Primary and Secondary Scholarship ............................................................................................ 15 A. Secondary sources ........................................................................................................................................... 15 B. Primary Sources ............................................................................................................................................... 20 III. Overview of the Works in their Entirety ............................................................................................................... 22 A. Context of Programming and Reception of the Symphony in Paris from 1820-1850 ................................... 22 B. Compositional and Performance History .................................................................................................. 25 C. Symphony No. 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 28 D. Symphony No. 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 30 E. Symphony No. 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 32 IV. Examination of Symphony No. 2 .......................................................................................................................... 35 A. Movement 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 35 B. Movement 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 40 C. Movement 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 44 V. Comparative Examination of Finales .................................................................................................................... 49 A. Symphony No. 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 50 B. Symphony No. 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 62 C. Symphony No. 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 68 D. Comparisons ........................................................................................................................... 72 VI. Concluding Remarks ...................................................................................................................... 76 Works Cited ....................................................................................................................................... 80 Appendix: Musical Examples ................................................................................................................ 83 v Louise Farrenc (Portrait by Luigi Rubio - 1835) Introduction Louise Farrenc (1804-1875) was an eminent figure in the Parisian musical society of the 19th century. Throughout her career, she served as a scholar of early keyboard music, professor of piano at the prestigious Paris Conservatoire, and a composer whose chamber, orchestral, vocal, and solo piano works were heard throughout the concert halls of Paris. Despite the success of her chamber music and the favorable critical reception of some of the era’s most prominent critics, Farrenc’s orchestral works, particularly her three symphonies, failed to receive substantial or long-lasting recognition from Parisian audiences. These symphonies, while conservative in nature, display a level of craft that one would expect to find in a mature composer well versed in the studies of orchestration, counterpoint, and form. In line with the heightened interest in women composers that has over the last few decades, Farrenc’s music has been the subject of recent scholarship. In addition, there are now 1 The Symphonies of Louise Farrenc recordings of all of her completed orchestral and chamber works, as well as a large portion of her music for solo piano.1 While her symphonies or overtures have only just begun to be performed by major orchestras, they have been programmed by various ensembles in both Europe and North America in recent years, including the Aurora Orchestra and the Philadelphia Orchestra. The aim of this study is to provide a close inspection of selected movements from the symphonies of Louise Farrenc. This will be achieved in four parts. The first will be a biographical sketch, including a catalogue of works by the composer to orient the reader to the circumstances and musical world in which Farrenc found herself during the conception and execution of the symphonies. Second will be an account of the scholarship presently available on Louise Farrenc, comprising mainly secondary source material. Next will be a generalized examination of the three symphonies and their adherence to the classical sonata process, which will include discussion of the compositional and performance history of the symphonies. The final section will provide a detailed account of representative movements of each symphony (including the entirety of the second symphony in D major, Op. 35). This analysis is not intended to present a fine-scale examination of each individual movement; rather, a comparative approach will be taken to view each movement and symphony in relation to each other. It is important to note that a comparative first-movement analysis of the three symphonies has already been undertaken by notable Farrenc scholar Christin Heitmann, and thus such an approach could prove superfluous. Therefore, the lens of focus will be shifted towards the finale movements of each symphony. While this thesis is indebted to the efforts