The Analysis of Three Impromptus for Piano Op

An Analysis of Three Impromptus for Piano Op. 68 by Lowell Liebermann

Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation

Authors Uchino, Tomoko

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 02/10/2021 22:39:25

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/195000 AN ANALYSIS OF THREE IMPROMPTUS FOR PIANO OP. 68 BY LOWELL LIEBERMANN

Tomoko Uchino

A Document Submitted to the Faculty of the

SCHOOL OF MUSIC

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

2007

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE

As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certify that we have read the document prepared by Tomoko Uchino entitled An Analysis of Three Impromptus for Piano Op. 68 by Lowell Liebermann and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the document requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Musical Arts.

Date: 6/15/07 Rex Woods

Date: 6/15/07 Paula Fan

Date: 6/15/07 Janet Sturman

Final approval and acceptance of this document is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the document to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this document prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the document requirement.

Date: 6/15/07 Document Director: Rex Woods STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR

This document has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this document are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copy right holder.

Signed:______Tomoko Uchino ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document could not have been made possible without those who assisted me over the course of research, writing and endless editing: Dr. Rex Woods, for his patience, guidance and expertise in critical writing; Dr. Paula Fan, for her advice and support during the years of my degree; and Dr. Janet Sturman who kindly stepped in at the last minute to fill in for Prof. Nicholas Zumbro. I am also greatly in debt to Academic Student adviser Lyneen Elmore who guided me through the process.

I thank the publishers who gave me permissions to use their music as examples in this document. Theodore Presser, G. Henle Verlag and Dover Editions. I would like to express my sincere gratitude towards Lowell Liebermann, David Korevaar and Antonio

Pompa-Baldi for taking their time to answer my questions regarding the Three

Impromptus and issues related to the work.

Finally and most importantly, special thanks to my family and especially to my husband Greg for his never-ending support and encouragement through the years of working on this project. 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 6

LIST OF TABLES ...... 11

ABSTRACT ...... 12

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION...... 13

CHAPTER II BACKGROUND INFORMATION A Brief Biography of Lowell Liebermann...... 16 Liebermann as Pianist...... 21

CHAPTER III A BRIEF HISTORY OF IMPROMPTUS Voříšek’s Impromptus...... 24 Schubert’s Impromptus...... 28 Later Composers’ Impromptus...... 34

CHAPTER IV AN ANALYSIS OF THREE IMPROMPTUS, Op. 68 Impromptu I...... 52 Impromptu II...... 64 Impromptu III...... 74

CHAPTER V SUMMARY...... 83

APPENDIX A INTERVIEW WITH LOWELL LIEBERMANN...... 86

APPENDIX B ONLINE INTERVIEW WITH DAVID KOREVAAR...... 93

APPENDIX C ONLINE INTERVIEW WITH ANTONIO POMPA-BALDI.. 95

REFERENCES ...... 97

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 3.1.1a Voříšek Impromptu in C major, Op. 7 No. 1, Bars 1-3...... 25

FIGURE 3.1.1b Voříšek Impromptu in G major, Op. 7 No. 2, Bars 1-3...... 25

FIGURE 3.1.1c Voříšek Impromptu in D major, Op. 7 No. 3, Bars 1-4...... 26

FIGURE 3.1.1d Voříšek Impromptu in A major, Op. 7 No. 4, Bars 1-4...... 26

FIGURE 3.1.1e Voříšek Impromptu in E major, Op. 7 No. 5, Bars 1-4...... 26

FIGURE 3.1.1f Voříšek Impromptu in B major, Op. 7 No. 6, Bars 1-6...... 26

FIGURE 3.2.1 Schubert Impromptu in C minor, D 899 No. 1, Bars 1-9...... 30

FIGURE 3.2.2 Reichardt Erlkönig, Bars 1-16...... 32

FIGURE 3.2.3 Schubert Erlkönig, Bars 123-125...... 33

FIGURE 3.2.4a Schubert Impromptu in E-flat major, D 899 No. 2, Bars 1-4...... 33

FIGURE 3.2.4b Schubert Impromptu in E-flat major, D 899 No. 2, Bars 83-86.. 34

FIGURE 3.3.1 Schumann Impromptus Op. 5, Theme, Bars 1-16...... 35

FIGURE 3.3.2a Schumann Impromptus Op. 5, Variation I, Bars 1-8...... 36

FIGURE 3.3.2b Schumann Impromptus Op. 5, Variation II, Bars 1-8...... 36

FIGURE 3.3.3 Schumann Impromptus Op. 5, Variation VII, Bars 1-4...... 37

FIGURE 3.3.4a Schumann Albumblätter Op. 124 No. 1, Bars 1-4...... 37

FIGURE 3.3.4b Schumann Albumblätter Op. 124 No. 9, Bars 1-4...... 38

FIGURE 3.3.5 Chopin Fantasy-Impromptu in C-sharp minor, Op. 66, Bars 1-8...... 39

FIGURE 3.3.6 Chopin Impromptu in A-flat major, Op. 29, Bars 1-4...... 40

LIST OF FIGURES – Continued

FIGURE 3.3.7a Chopin Impromptu in F-sharp major, Op. 36, Bars 1-4...... 40

FIGURE 3.3.7b Chopin Impromptu in A-flat major, Op. 29, Bars 35-40...... 41

FIGURE 3.3.8 Glazunov Impromptu in D-flat major, Op. 54 No. 1, Bars 1-7...... 42

FIGURE 3.3.9 Glazunov Impromptu Op. 54 No.2, Bars 49-57...... 43

FIGURE 3.3.10a Scriabin Impromptu, Op. 7 No. 1, Bars 1-6...... 43

FIGURE 3.3.10b Scriabin Impromptu, Op. 7 No. 2, Bars 1-12...... 44

FIGURE 3.3.10c Scriabin Impromptu, Op. 7 No. 2, Bars 37-41...... 44

FIGURE 3.3.11 Poulenc Impromptu II, Bars 1-16...... 45

FIGURE 3.3.12 Poulenc Le Dramadaire from Le Bestiaire, Bars 1-7...... 46

FIGURE 3.3.13 Poulenc La Carpe from Le Bestiaire, Bars 1-5...... 47

FIGURE 3.3.14a Fauré Impromptu No. 2 in F minor, Op. 31, Bars 1-10...... 48

FIGURE 3.3.14b Fauré Impromptu No. 2 in F minor, Op. 31, Bars 86-95...... 49

FIGURE 3.3.15 Fauré Impromptu No. 3 in A-flat major, Op. 34, Bars 1-10...... 49

FIGURE 4.1.1 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu I, Bars 1-7...... 53

FIGURE 4.1.2 Schubert Impromptu in G-flat major, D 899 No. 3, Bars 1-4..... 54

FIGURE 4.1.3 Schubert Impromptu in E-flat major, D 899 No. 2, Bars 1-9...... 55

FIGURE 4.1.4 Schubert Nacht und Träume, Bars 1-8...... 55

FIGURE 4.1.5 Fauré Impromptu No. 1 in E-flat major, Op. 25, Bars 35-37...... 57

LIST OF FIGURES – Continued

FIGURE 4.1.6 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu I Bars 23-30...... 58

FIGURE 4.1.7 Liebermann Variations on Theme by Anton Bruckner, Op. 19 Variation III, Bars 1-4...... 59

FIGURE 4.1.8 Prokofiev Violin Concerto No. 1 in D major, Op. 19 Violin Solo Line, Bars 1-6...... 59

FIGURE 4.1.9a Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu I Bars 36-38...... 60

FIGURE 4.1.9b Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu I Bars 43-50...... 61

FIGURE 4.1.10 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu I Bars 59-60...... 62

FIGURE 4.1.11 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu I Bars 63-65...... 63

FIGURE 4.1.12 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu I Bars 63-72...... 63

FIGURE 4.1.13 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu I Bars 63-78...... 63

FIGURE 4.2.1 Schumann Im wunderschönen Monat Mai from Dichterliebe Bars 23-26...... 65

FIGURE 4.2.2 Schumann Aus meinen Tränen spriessen from Dichterliebe Bars 1-3...... 65

FIGURE 4.2.3 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu II Bars 1-2...... 66

FIGURE 4.2.4 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu I and II Main Motives...... 66

LIST OF FIGURES – Continued

FIGURE 4.2.5 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu II Bars 7-10...... 68

FIGURE 4.2.6 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu II Bars 13-16...... 69

FIGURE 4.2.7 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu II Two Patterns from Section B...... 70

FIGURE 4.2.8 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu II Bars 17-20...... 70

FIGURE 4.2.9 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu II Bars 33-37...... 71

FIGURE 4.2.10 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu II Bars 51-53...... 73

FIGURE 4.3.1 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptus I and III Bars 1-2...... 74

FIGURE 4.3.2 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu III Melody Line, Bars 1-2...... 76

FIGURE 4.3.3a Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu III Melodic Fragments, Bars 1-2...... 76

FIGURE 4.3.3b Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu III Alternate Melody Line, Bars 1-2...... 77

FIGURE 4.3.4 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu III Bars 23-30...... 77

FIGURE 4.3.5 Liebermann Lullaby from Album for the Young Op. 43 Bars 1-12...... 78

FIGURE 4.3.6 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu III Bars 42-46...... 80

LIST OF FIGURES – Continued

FIGURE 4.3.7 Liebermann Nocturne No. 2 Op. 31 Bar 34...... 80

FIGURE 4.3.8 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu III Bars 79-102...... 81

FIGURE 4.3.9 Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68, Impromptu III Bars 62-64...... 82

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 3.1.1 Form of Voříšek Impromptu in C major, Op. 7 No. 1...... 27

TABLE 4.1.1 Form of Impromptu I: Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68...... 52

TABLE 4.2.1 Form of Impromptu II: Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68.... 67

TABLE 4.3.1 Bass Line of Impromptu III; Bars 23-53: Liebermann Three Impromptus Op. 68...... 79

ABSTRACT

American composer Lowell Liebermann (b. 1961) wrote his Three Impromptus

Op. 68 in 2000. They manifest his self-proclaimed intention to be a composer espousing

the traditions of Western music and aiming to be part of that continuum. Liebermann’s

Impromptus exhibit spontaneity and a sense of improvisation, the most pervasive aspect

of the antecedent Impromptus. His personal lyricism embraces tempo rubato, inventive

harmonies, distinctive textures, and dramatic gestures. Liebermann’s Impromptus,

however, are tightly organized works employing simple motives that unify individual

Impromptus within a basic tripartite template.

This study begins with a brief summary of Liebermann’s life and then examines

antecedent examples of Impromptus by Jan Vaclav Voříšek (1791-1825) and Franz

Schubert (1797-1828) as well as some of the prominent composers from the 19th and 20th centuries, including Gabriel Fauré. A thorough analysis of Liebermann’s Impromptus constitutes the body of the document. Appendices contain transcriptions of the author’s interview with the composer himself, as well Antonio Pompa-Baldi and David Korevaar who have performed and recorded the Impromptus. These contemporary commentators confirm the value of comparing Liebermann’s music to earlier models to better understand how he creates his unique sound environment.

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

American Composer, Lowell Liebermann (b. 1961) composed his Three

Impromptus Op. 68 in 2000 for the 100th anniversary commemoration of Yaddo, a

working community of writers, visual artists and composers in Saratoga Springs, New

York.1 The same year, the set of pieces was premiered by world-renowned pianist

Stephen Hough at Alice Tully Hall in New York City.2 In his review of the premiere

performance, the New York Times music critic said, “Lowell Liebermann’s Three

Impromptus pay homage to those of Schubert... Mr. Hough’s sensitive performance made

the most of the hazy tonal harmonies and seductive piano colors.”3 In 2001, the work

won the first American Composers Invitational Competition at the 11th Van Cliburn

International Piano Competition in Fort Worth, Texas.4 The silver medalist Antonio

Pompa-Baldi, who won a special award for his performance of the Impromptus, favors

the intimate and introspective nature of the work created by the predominantly tonal

language and sensitive keyboard writing.5 He also observes that the work has received

enthusiastic approval from various audiences and music critics alike.6

1 Yaddo was founded by Spencer Trask and his wife in 1900. Since its establishment, artists who have been involved with the colony have won 60 Pulitzer Prizes, 56 National Book Awards, a Nobel Prize, and countless other honors. Aaron Copland, Virgil Thompson, Ned Rorem, and David del Tredici are among the composers who have been in residence.

2 Lowell Liebermann, Three Impromptus for Piano (King of Prussia, PA: Theodore Presser Co., 2001), Preface. The work was premiered on May 4, 2000.

3 Anthony, Tommasini, Music Review: Celebrating Yaddo With Works It Helped Spawn (New York Times, 9 May 2000, late ed. sec. E, p. 5).

4 Lowell Liebermann, Three Impromptus for Piano, Preface.

Liebermann’s reputation had spread beyond the classical music world in 1998

when his Piano Concerto No. 2 received a Grammy Award nomination for Best

Contemporary Classical Composition.7 This achievement caught the attention of the

academic world and in 2003, a stylistic analysis of the concerto was written by a doctoral

piano student, Wei-Hui Yu, at the University of Northern Colorado.8 There have been a couple of others completed by doctoral students: Mayumi Kikuchi from the University of

Illinois wrote her doctoral dissertation on selected Liebermann piano works in 1999:

Gargoyles, op. 29 and Piano Sonata No. 2, op. 10; and Dean Alan Nichols, the University of Kentucky student, completed his on the composer’s keyboard works in 2000. The latter contains a thorough analysis of the composer’s most well-known piano work,

Gargoyles, as well as all of the other pieces for the instrument up to 1996.9 Therefore, no significant study of the Impromptus exists today.

The primary intention of this document is to introduce the Three Impromptus for

Piano to the reader by examining this work and exploring to what degree Liebermann

5 Pompa-Baldi, Antonio, Piano Instructor at Cleveland Institute of Music. Interview by author through e-mail correspondances on 13 January 2005.

6 Antonio Pompa-Baldi, “Three Impromptus by Liebermann: Music Performed in the 2001 Cliburn Competition,” Clavier 41 (September 2002): 26.

7 [http://www.lowellliebermann.com/biography/index.html], accessed on January 14, 2005.

8 Wei-Hui Yu, “A Stylistic Analysis of Piano Concerto No. 2 Op. 36 by Lowell Liebermann” (D.M.A. diss., University of Northern Colorado, 2003).

9 Mayumi Kikuchi, “The Piano Works of Lowell Liebermann: Compositional Aspects in Selected Works” (D.M.A. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1999); Dean Alan Nichols, “A Survey of the Piano Works of Lowell Liebermann” (D.M.A. diss., Lexington, University of Kentucky, 2000). In 2005, Aryo Wicksono, then an honors undergraduate pianist at the University of Arizona, wrote yet another analysis of Liebermann’s Gargoyles, Op. 29 for Solo Piano, augmenting and challenging aspects of Nichol’s analysis.

combines identifiable ideas from the past and the present to create his personal writing

style. This exploration begins with a concise history of the Impromptu form with a brief

survey of works bearing this title by composers in the past. It will be followed by in-

depth analysis of Liebermann’s use of the form, encompassing motivic development and

examining how the composer manipulates sound parameters to create his unique sound

environment.

The Impromptus of Schubert will serve as comparative and influential antecedents

to Liebermann’s Impromptus. In addition, we will also briefly review certain elements of

Fauré’s harmonic language as an important influence on Liebermann’s writing.10

Although one might suppose Chopin Impromptus, particularly Fantasy-Impromptu, would be important to this study, the composer was not thinking of them as the antecedent.11 Thus, Chopin Impromptus are discussed not as a comparison but only as part of the evolution of the genre. Also included in this document, are a current version of

Liebermann’s biography and a transcript of an interview with the composer on the piece as well as on his philosophy of composing and contemporary music, especially for the keyboard.

10 During the interview, Liebermann mentioned that Fauré was an important composer for him in terms of treatment of harmony and harmonic progression. The interview took place at his residence on 3 February 2005 in Weehawken, New Jersey. For a full transcript of the interview with the composer see Appendix below.

11 Ibid.

CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A Brief Biography of Lowell Liebermann

Lowell Liebermann was born in Forest Hills, New York on February 22, 1961.12

Although his parents, Edward and Nicole Liebermann, were not musicians, they enjoyed and appreciated music. Living just outside of Manhattan provided opportunities for the family to attend concerts and operas in a regular basis. When Lowell was six, his mother encouraged two of her sons to start taking piano lessons. She was of German heritage and strongly believed, like many of her forbearers in the great value of art. He continued his piano lessons all through his teenage years. One of his teachers was Ada Segal, a concert pianist at the turn of the century who once studied with Joseph Hoffman, Ignacy Jan

Paderewsky and Theodore Leschetitzky. As for his composition lessons, it was not until his family moved from Queens, New York, to Westchester, New York that Lowell started studying with Ruth Schonthal (1924-2006) who gave him formal instruction in composition in addition to his piano lessons.

Schonthal, also of German descent and a pupil of Paul Hindemith and Manuel

Ponce, may have had a great influence on young Lowell. Her approach to composing was to combine European musical tradition with contemporary language and to experiment

12 The biographical information was taken from several sources; Dean Alan Nichols, “A Survey of the Piano Works of Lowell Liebermann”; Mayumi Kikuchi, “The Piano Works of Lowell Liebermann: Compositional Aspects in Selected Works” (D.M.A. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1999); Nicholas Slonimsky, ed., Baker's biographical dictionary of twentieth-century classical musicians (New York : Schirmer Books, 1997); Lowell Liebermann, [http://www.lowellliebermann.com/biography/ body. html], accessed on August, 2006.

with structure and extended tonality.13 It was with her that Liebermann wrote his Piano

Sonata No. 1. In 1977, he gave the debut performance of this work at the Carnegie

Recital Hall at the age of fifteen. Liebermann won the First Prize at the National

Composition Contest sponsored by the Music Teachers National Association in 1978 and the Outstanding Composition Award from the Yamaha Music Foundation in 1982.14

This four-movement work (Adagio; Presto; Lento; Presto strepitoso) is a remarkably sophisticated work for a young composer and demonstrated creative promise, as well as being a showcase for Liebermann’s technical prowess at the keyboard although most of the work sounds contrived and academic.15 The slow movements exhibit one of

the most important characteristics of the composer’s music – lyricism. The use of

ostinato, mastery of counterpoint and texture, and many flavors of virtuosity in the faster movements are also Liebermann’s characteristics seen in his future pieces.16

In 1979, Liebermann was accepted at The Juilliard School to continue his studies

under composer David Diamond with whom he had already been taking lessons for a

year. During the time he spent at Juilliard in the 1980s, it was assumed that living

composers, especially those in musical academia, had a duty explore uncharted musical

terrain. Ironically, many academic composers, consequently, perpetuated styles which

had been considered avant-garde while ignoring trends outside of academy.

13 Who’s Who in American Music, s.v. “Schonthal (-Seckel), Ruth.”

14 Mayumi Kikuchi, 5; Nichols, 15.

15 Nichols, 15. His document includes a thorough analysis of Liebermann’s Piano Sonata No. 1.

16 Lowell Liebermann, “Piano Music, Vol. II,” Performed and Liner notes written by David Korevaar, (KOCH International Classics 3-7552-2 HI (CD), [2004]), 1.

Liebermann’s recollection of an incident describes such tendencies in a vivid way: during

his lessons, Diamond would not approve of tonal music and would insist that he put down

wrong notes in the music to make it sound “modern.”17 Liebermann eventually had to come to terms with the fact that he was not happy writing what the world of music critics and academics wanted to hear, but needed to write down what came out of his true creative “well.” This realization ultimately led him to decide to switch teachers from

Diamond to Vincent Persichetti. As a result, he found himself sharing a path several twentieth-century composers who did not fit into the tradition of American experimental music such as David Del Tredici, and William Bolcom. These composers were considered as “Post-Romantic,” “Post-Modern,” “Neo-Tonal,” or “Neo-Romantic” in contrast to more traditional composers of the twentieth-century American classical music such as Roger Sessions, Edgard Varèse, and Milton Babbitt.

Some critics categorize Liebermann’s compositions as “Neo-Romantic” or “Neo-

Tonal.”18 Some critics seem to view the composer’s style of writing as not as

contemporary or modern but as something old which does not fit into music of our time.

This label comes from his pieces being predominantly tonal, with an inventive use of rich

harmonic language from the Romantic and even the Impressionistic eras. Liebermann

declares his composing philosophy is to write pieces that follow the tradition of Western

Classical Music:

17 Nichols, 156-157.

18 Terry Teachout, “The New Tonalists,” Commentary 104, no. 6, (1997).

I am not one of those of composers who believe that important art is always a radical break with the past. I am interested in the traditions of Western music and am interested in working in that continuum, which is why I always named my pieces Sonatas and Concertos and what-not because I want to put forth a clear message that I am part of that tradition.19

This close connection to the Western European tradition is possibly attributable

to some of Schonthal’s values and influence.

Lowell Liebermann knew that he was going to become a composer, even before

he began his formal composition studies at the age of fourteen.20 He recalls his desire to put down some notes on a piece of paper to create music without comprehending what he was actually writing while he was taking his piano lessons, which started several years before composition lessons. He also recalls the time when his first composition teacher told him that being a professional composer was not going to be easy and “many self- claimed composers would have to make their living by teaching and would end up not having their pieces performed.”21 Despite this rather pessimistic view of the profession, he chose his dream to become a successful composer.

This dogged determination perhaps earned him his current status. Liebermann may be one of the most prolific and the most performed American contemporary

19 Lowell Liebermann, interview with the author, 3 February 2005.

20 Dean Alan Nichols, “A Survey of the Piano Works of Lowell Liebermann” (D.M.A. diss., Lexington, University of Kentucky, 2000): 155-156.

21 Yamaha Artist Services, “Natural Born Composer: Lowell Liebermann,” [http://www.yamaha. com/publications/accent/Accent402/09liebermann.html], accessed on June 6, 2005.

composers of his generation.22 His achievements so far include top awards from several national and international competitions such as the Delius International Composition

Contest, the Charles Ives Fellowship from the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters, Victor Herbert/ASCAP23 Awards, and the American Composers’ Invitational

Award at the Eleventh Van Cliburn Competition. At the age of forty-five, his œuvres

exceed opus 95.24 Since opus 23, Sonata for Flute and Piano, written for the Spoleto

Festival, every piece has been commissioned25 and his wide range of works include three piano concerti, two operas, two symphonies, several song cycles and instrumental and chamber works as well as a great number of piano solo works.

His Flute Concerto was commissioned by James Galway in 1992 and was given its premiere by the flutist on November 6th, 1992 with the Saint Louis Symphony. While

holding a position of a composer-in-residence at the Dallas Symphony Orchestra between

1998 and 2002, some of the large works were written; his Symphony No. 2 was

composed and premiered by the DSO and Chorus in February 2000 and a couple of

months later, the Concerto for Trumpet and Orchestra Op. 64 was given its first

performance by Philip Smith and the New York Philharmonic under the Kurt Mazur.

22 Walter Simmons, Review of Lowell Liebermann: Piano Music, Vol. 1 KOCH International Classics 7548 performed by David Korevaar, Fanfare 27 (Jan-Feb 2004): 145; Anne Midgette, “Classical Music Review; Inwardness and Showmanship in the Quirky and Familiar,” New York Times, 21 June 2003, Late Edition, 4.

23 ASCAP stands for American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Awards.

24 According to Liebermann’s official website, his latest composition is Piano Concerto No. 3 Op. 95. The concerto was commissioned by a consortium of eighteen orchestras and was premiered in May 2006. Accessed in August, 2006.

25 Nichols, 157.

Distinguished musicians throughout the world such as James Levine, Charles

Dutoit, Stephen Hough, Kurt Masur, James Galway, Joshua Bell and Jean-Yves

Thibaudet have performed his works. The New York Philharmonic, the Metropolitan

Opera Orchestra, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, the Dallas Symphony Orchestra, the

BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra and others have premiered his orchestral works.

L’Opéra de Monte-Carlo premiered Liebermann’s first opera The Picture of Dorian Gray in 1996, and the two-act opera Miss Lonelyhearts commissioned by The Juilliard School for its centennial celebration received its premiere by The Juilliard Opera Center in April of 2006. Many of his works have been recorded and are available via major labels including RCA Victor Red Seal, Hyperion, Albany, Koch and Centaur.

Currently Liebermann works as a full-time composer, residing in Weehawken, NJ, just across the Hudson River from Manhattan.

Liebermann as Pianist

Because of Liebermann’s close association with the flutist James Galway and the numerous recordings of Liebermann’s works for flute, the composer may be better known by flutists than pianists. Nonetheless, he has written a large number of pieces for piano, and his keyboard works have been performed by many pianists. His relationship with the instrument began early in life, and he considers the piano as his principal instrument.26 Pompa-Baldi, the Silver-Medalist of 2001 Van Cliburn International Piano

Competition, affirms that because Liebermann knows the keyboard as well as any other

skilled pianist, he is able to exploit the instrument to the fullest.27 During his studies at

The Juilliard School, he continued to take private lessons with Jacob Lateiner28 from

whom he gained valuable insights into the instrument, its literature and compositional

aspects of the vast piano repertoire that eventually formed the aesthetic of his current

writing.

Those who have played Liebermann’s piano music, including myself, have

expressed repeatedly that his works possess a favorable pianistic quality. Undoubtedly,

this is due to his familiarity with the instrument as a performer. In recent years, he has

become more active as a pianist, presenting other composers’ music as well as his own.29

In 2002, he debuted in Berlin, performing his Piano Quintet with the members of the

Berlin Philharmonic. The same year, he gave a premiere of his Cello Sonata No. 3 at an all-Liebermann concert presented by the Van Cliburn Foundation on his forty-fifth birthday.

26 Lowell Liebermann, interview with the author, 3 February 2005.

27 Antonio Pompa-Baldi, email interview with the author, 13 January 2005.

28 Jacob Lateiner is a renowned pianist, pedagogue and judicator. He has performed with the Philadelphia Orchestra, the New York Philharmonic, the Boston Symphony, the Chicago Symphony, the BBC Symphony, the Berlin Philharmonic and other orchestras under the baton of Leonard Bernstein, Serge Koussevitzky, Zubin Mehta, Georg Szell, Erich Leinsdorf, and Georg Solti. As a chamber musician, he collaborated frequently with Jascha Heifetz and Gregor Piatigorsky as well as with the Amadeus Quartet. Recordings include the premiere of the Carter Piano Concerto and Roger Sessions Piano Sonata No. 3. He also studied composition with Arnold Schoenberg. He has been a faculty member at Juilliard since 1966.

29 Yaddo, “ Yaddo Summer Benefit to feature a Piano Duo,” [http://www.yaddo.org/yaddo/ SaratogaBenefit2003.shtml], accessed in August 2006.

He also collaborated with tenor Robert White in a recording of his songs, released

on Arabesque in 2004.30 Many of the songs such as Six Songs on Poems of Henry W.

Longfellow Op. 57 demand refined and advanced technique and sensitive musicianship on the keyboard. Understanding the strength and weakness of the instrument as well as having in depth knowledge of the keyboard literature maximizes his creativity in composing for the keyboard.

30 Lowell Liebermann, [http://www.lowellliebermann.com/biography/body.html], accessed in August 2006.

CHAPTER III: A BRIEF HISTORY OF IMPROMPTUS

1) Voříšek’s Impromptus

According to The Harvard Concise Dictionary of Music and Musicians, an

Impromptu, “in the 19th century and since, is a composition, usually for piano, in an offhand or extemporized style or perhaps intended to suggest the result of sudden inspiration.”31 The title Impromptu is thought to have been used for the first time in 1817

in the music periodical Allegemeine musikalische Zeitung, as the name of a work in B-flat

major for piano by Jan Vaclav Voříšek (1791-1825).32 The Impromptus, Opus 7 were then

published in 1822 by Pietro Mechetti in Vienna, along with Heinrich Marschner’s

Impromptus Opp. 22 and 23.33

Vo říšek, also known as Van Hugo Worzischek, was born in 1791, the son of a school-master and music teacher in Bohemia (corresponds to the modern Czech

Republic). He received musical training from his father during his teenage years. In 1814, while a student in Prague, he was a frequent guest at musical soirées that included

Beethoven whom he greatly admired. Although his output was cut short due to his early death at the age of thirty-four, he successfully produced a number of piano works that

31 The Harvard Concise Dictionary of Music and Musician, 2nd ed., s.v. “Impromptus.”

32 Alan Ira Weiss, “The Impromptus, Op. 7, of Jan Václav Voříšek: A Transitional Work Linking Tomášak’s eglogues and Schubert’s Moments Musicaux and Impromptus” (D.M.A. diss., Juilliard School, April 1977): 1.

33 Ibid, 1.

appeared to have been popular at the time of their publications. According to some sources, Beethoven was among those who formed a favorable opinion on Voříšek’s music.34

The six Impromptus of Op. 7 are cheerful and charming pieces whose tempo indications – Allegro, Allegro Moderato or Allegretto – are strikingly uniform. (Examples

3.1.1a to 3.1.1f)35 The use of major keys also supports the consistency of the cheerful characters in this opus.

(Example 3.1.1a – Voříšek Impromptus Op. 7, No. 1 in C major) Bars 1-4

(Example 3.1.1b – Voříšek Impromptus Op. 7, No. 2 in G major) Bars 1-3

34 Ibid, 6.

35 The examples are taken from an edition by Export Artia in Prague. The date of publication is unknown. Although the author made attempts to get a hold of the publisher and its distributor, it seems to be that the music is no longer under copyright.

(Example 3.1.1c – Voříšek Impromptus Op. 7, No. 3 in D major) Bars 1-4

(Example 3.1.1d – Voříšek Impromptus Op. 7, No. 4 in A major) Bars 1-4

(Example 3.1.1e – Voříšek Impromptus Op. 7, No. 5 in E major) Bars 1-4

(Example 3.1.1f – Voříšek Impromptus Op. 7, No. 6 in B major) Bars 1-6

All of the Impromptus are in an expanded ABA form, each large section, housing at its center a contrasting sub-section in another key. One might argue, therefore, that a more accurate representation of the form is ABA-CDC-ABA.36 The A section begins in a major key, modulates to either its relative minor or dominant using the same theme, and returns to the tonic. The first Impromptu, for instance, begins in C major, modulates to G major and then back to C. (Table 3.1) The middle section of the Impromptus, CDC, is built on new thematic material though it is closely related to the outer sections. Vo říšek never wrote out the second ABA section, relying instead on repeat signs and the Da Capo sign.

(Table 3.1.1 - Voříšek Impromptus Op. 7, No. 1)

Section A B A C D C Key C G C a e a Sign repeat repeat/fine repeat repeat Da capo

The pieces are numbered in ascending order of difficulty and length. The first piece is set in C major and an extra sharp is added to the key signature as one goes onto the next piece. Perhaps Voříšek intended that pieces be studied in sequence so that the student would have a bigger challenge with each new piece. These pieces manifest an inherent improvisational quality in that each piece derives from a single musical idea.

Vo říšek studied the violin and composition under his father, and he also learned how to

36 Ibid, 8.

improvise at the keyboard.37 His improvisational skill may suggest that he wrote down what he “improvised” at the piano, or at least that he generated his principal material through improvisation. Regardless of how these pieces actually came to life, it is plausible that the reason he called them Impromptus may have been to encourage the performer to play in an extemporaneous manner.

2) Schubert’s Impromptus

Some of the most celebrated Impromptus of all time were composed by Franz

Schubert (1797-1828) relatively close to the time of Voříšek’s Opus 7. Schubert

composed a total of eight Impromptus. The first set of four Impromptus, D 899, Op. 90

was named by the publisher in 1827, a decade after Voříšek’s first publication. The

remaining four, however, were named by the composer.38 Although he did not conceive the earlier pieces as “Impromptus,” perhaps Schubert endorsed the publisher’s choice, leading him to subsequently adopt it himself. It is believed that Schubert conceived a second set, D 935, Op. post. 142, as a continuation of the first set, by numbering the four

Impromptus in the second volume Nos. 5 through 8.39 Although these numbers were eventually corrected by Schubert to Nos. 1 through 4, it may be appropriate that the

37 Ibid, 4.

38 Charles Fisk, Returning Cycles: Contexts for the Interpretation of Schubert’s Impromptus and Last Sonatas (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001):141-142.

39 Schubert Impromptus D 935, Op. post. 142, First edition, Critical Notes (Vienna: Wiener Urtext Edition, 1973): X.

Impromptus in both volumes can be played either singly or in smaller groups or as a set.

The Impromptus of Voříšek and Schubert bear some similarities and differences.

Both composers use the same overall Ternary Form. Voříšek’s Impromptus show an interesting kind of ABA form: Ternary Form within Ternary Form (ABA-CDC-ABA) whereas Schubert uses a similar structure in some of his eight Impromptus though they show far greater formal diversity and thematical and musical development. The A-flat major Impromptu may be one of the best examples. This comparatively short eighty-six measure piece, compared to the others written by the composer, some of which as long as five-hundred, has a beautiful theme embedded in a Sarabande rhythm. Beginning in A- flat major leads to a clear section break with a double-bar and a change of key signature.

The middle section is set in the subdominant key. Here, however, is one of the significant differences between Schubert and Voříšek works: the latter simply had a Fine marking sign at the end of the first section and Da Capo at the end of the middle section. Schubert, however, marks the middle section “Trio” instead, even though the piece is not marked

“Scherzo,” and still writes out the second A section. In fact, Schubert uses the same marking in the A-flat minor Impromptu.

The Trio section in both of Schubert’s pieces contrast more dramatically with the main sections than in parallel places in Voříšek’s Impromptus. The Bohemian composer seems to organize his pieces through one musical idea that is subtly developed in the middle section. He does not move far from the tonic but uses its dominant or relative key as a new key. Schubert, on the other hand, often modulates to a distant key; for example, the Trio section of the A-flat minor Impromptu is in C-sharp minor, using A-flat as the

pivot to the fifth scale degree of the new key. The material of the Trio is completely new.

As a result, the music conveys a different character not unlike the way a B section of a

Da Capo Aria introduces a new thought or emotion. It is also interesting that Schubert

writes out the return of A materials. He uses a bridge to make a smooth transition back to

the original music and never repeats verbatim what he did the first time. He often extends

the conclusion with a coda, some of which are long while others last only a few measures.

Schuber’s Impromptus manifest a wide variety of moods owning to a diversity

of forms, keys, and tempo indications. Perhaps he intended that his sets be played as a

group. Each set includes a through-composed piece, a Theme and Variations movement,

and a Ternary piece. For example, the first Impromptu of D. 899 is through-composed,

but permeated with the process of variations. This C minor piece could be the freest of all

Schubert Impromptus. It begins with a fanfare-like unison held for almost an entire measure before welcoming a somber theme. (Example 3.2.1)

(Example 3.2.1 – Schubert Impromptu D 899 No. 1 in C minor) Bars 1-9

As the music progresses, Schubert “improvises” on the theme, with different harmonizations and accompanimental figures. The “variations” are not so complex as one observes in an actual Theme and Variations form: it sounds, rather, like the composer is meandering over a theme almost without a goal of time or destination.

The themes in Schubert’s Impromptus encompass a striking range of moods and dramatic evocations when compared with Voříšek’s themes. Perhaps a wider range of keys contributes partially to the variety of the characters and moods. Schubert sets half of them in minor and the other half in major keys. A wider range of tempi reinforces the differences as well: in addition to Allegro and Allegretto, Schubert marks some with

Andante and Allegro scherzando. However, the most important contribution to variety of sound and expression in Schubert’s Impromptus may be the fact that he was one of the most influential and innovative song composers of the period with an impeccable sense of drama and lyricism.

Schubert’s version of Erlkönig, a poem taken from the Schauspiel called Die

Fischerin by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, is a great example of Schubert’s imaginative and narrative writing. Ludwig Spohr (1784-1859) and Johann Carl Gottfried Löwe (1796-

1869), Schubert’s contemporary composers, also wrote songs using this text though they were relatively simple.40 A contemporary of Goethe, Johann Friedrich Reichardt (1752-

40 The Ring of Words: An Anthology of Song Text, with an introduction by Philip L. Miller (Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1966), 26.

1814), a successful and well-known song composer during his lifetime, also set the poem to plain homophonic music. (Example 3.2.2)

(Example 3.2.2 – Reichardt Erlkönig,) Bars 1-16

It was a characteristic of the time for songs to be written with a simple melody and accompaniment so that an amateur could sing and play. Reichardt wrote the song in strophic setting which the poet actually preferred.

Schubert’s song, however, is much more dramatic and recalls the scope of an operatic scena. Each of the characters in the poem – the narrator, the father, the son and the Erlkönig – has a distinct melodic characteristic sung over a never-ending piano accompaniment reminiscent of horse’s galloping. The example 3.2.3 illustrates the climactic moment where the Son cries for help for the one last time. At bar 124, the voice part hits G-flat, creating a screeching minor second against the right hand of the accompaniment, and depicts the Son’s terrified emotion.

(Example 3.2.3 – Schubert Erlkönig,) Bars 123-125

Schubert’s Impromptus have a similar narrative quality and portray distinct and unique characters. For instance, the lyricism and dramatic writing seen in his songs such as Erlkönig is clearly displayed in his E-flat major Impromptu. The contrasting section of the E-flat Impromptu is set in the key of B minor which is a tri-tone away from the key of the piece. The modulation from E-flat major to B minor is as striking as the startling character change between the two themes. (Example 3.2.4a and 3.2.4b) The main theme seems to portray a stream or breeze and the other, a storm or harsh environment in the wilderness.

(Example 3.2.4a – Schubert Impromptu D 899 No. 2 in E-flat major) Bars 1-4

(Example 3.2.4b – Schubert Impromptu D 899 No. 2 in E-flat major) Bars 83-86

The way Schubert continues to build the drama in the Coda is especially intriguing. The last section based on material from the B section modulates back and forth between the keys of B and E-flat – a battle between the A and the B material – and the piece finally ends fortissimo in E-flat minor.

3) Later Composer’s Impromptus

There have been a number of works written bearing the title Impromptu since

Voříšek first used it for his piano pieces in the early 19th century. Some of them manifest

a literal attempt to musically reflect the word while others reflect its meaning only

loosely. Many composers favor the variation technique, one of the common musical

processes used in the 19th century. Others utilize Ternary form in order to create formal

unity in the presence of quasi-improvised material. Exemplary models from the 19th and

20th centuries include those composed by Robert Schumann (1810-1856), Frederic

Chopin (1810-1849), Alexander Glazunov (1865-1936), Alexander Scriabin (1872-1915),

Francis Poulenc (1899-1963) and Gabriel Fauré (1845-1924).

Robert Schumann’s Impromptu Opus 5, written in 1833, is a theme with

variations subtitled Impromptus über ein Thema von Clara Wieck. (Example 3.3.1) This

work is known to be based on a simple Passacaglia bass line, C-F-G-C, with Clara

Wieck’s melody taken from her Romance variée pour le piano, dédiée à Mons. Robert

Schumann, Œvre 3.41 Schumann later decided to revise it in 1850, and the work now

consists of ten variations.

(Example 3.3.1 – Schumann Impromptus Op. 5) Theme

(Used by permission of Dover)

41 Robert Schumann, Impromptus Opus 5 For Piano (Leipzig: Edition Peters, 1981), Concluding Remarks.

Schumann retains the original bass line instead of the melody in the first two variations.

(Examples 3.3.2a & 3.3.2b)

(Example 3.3.2a – Schumann Impromptus Op. 5) Variation I

(Used by permission of Dover)

(Example 3.3.2b – Schumann Impromptus Op. 5) Variation II

(Used by permission of Dover)

The bass line is more audible throughout the work and the only time the melody is used again is in the seventh variation where Schumann uses the original melody as a new bass line. (Example 3.3.3)

(Example 3.3.3 – Schumann Impromptus Op. 5) Variation VII

(Used by permission of Dover)

Although it may be less popular than some of better-known works such as

Davidsbündlertänze, Op. 6, Carnaval, Op. 9, Fantasiestücke, Op. 12, and Fantasie, Op.

17, the piece may exemplify an experimental side of his music making.

It is interesting that Schumann gave this particular title to a rather strict set of variations. Perhaps this choice aligns with his tendency to assign more poetic names to his creations: Papillions, Op. 2; Kinderszenen, Op. 15, and Novelletten, Op. 21 are some of his unconventionally named pieces. Albumblätter Op. 124 also has a poetic title and two out of the twenty character pieces happen to be named Impromptus. (Examples

3.3.4a & 3.3.4b)

(Example 3.3.4a– Schumann Albumblätter Op. 124 No. 1) Bars 1-4

(Example 3.3.4b – Schumann Albumblätter Op. 124 No. 9) Bars 1-4

(Used by permission of Dover)

These two little character pieces have the poetic sense of “improvisation” though they are tightly organized motivically. The first one clearly spins off from a four sixteenth-note motive in the right hand which is then imitated in the left hand. The motive repeats, working as a motor until the end of the piece. It is as if Schumann had a quick thought that came and went like a gust of the wind. If this music is suggestive of the mischievous “Florestan,” the ninth piece of Op. 124, might well evoke a vision of the delicate “Eusebius.” It is slower and set in compound meter. In addition, Schumann cleverly manipulates time and rhythm, setting the piece in simple triple time though grouping the eight notes as if in compound duple. A skilled pianist would deliver a subtle rhythmic displacement by minimizing the second and the third beats yielding a supple and elegant quality.

Between 1835 and 1842, Frederic Chopin also wrote four Impromptus. Like the

Ballades, though on a smaller and simpler scale, the works demonstrate his excellent

poetic and pianistic writing. These Impromptus share similar material, and it is indeed

plausible that Chopin was inspired by Schubert’s popular works.42 The Fantasy-

Impromptu, Op. 66, which was written first and published posthumously, begins with a declamatory octave chord and spins off from there. (See Examples 3.2.2 & 3.3.5)

(Example 3.3.5 – Chopin Fantasy-Impromptu in C-sharp minor, Op. 66) Bars 1-8

42 Jim Samson, The Music of Chopin (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 98.

This most popular C-sharp minor Impromptu has the simplest construction. It has a clear

ABA form with a coda. The main scheme, after the left-hand introduction, at mm. 5 and 8 has a tripartite construction, 1-1-2 bars, which is closely related to Op. 29. (Example

3.3.6) The contour of the melody as well as the overall form seems to be modeled after the Op. 66.

(Example 3.3.6 – Chopin Impromptu in A-flat major, Op. 29) Bars 1-4

It is not surprising that Chopin did not publish the C-sharp minor Impromptu as he might have considered it a “trial” piece to the A-flat major Impromptu. Op. 36 in F-sharp major seems to start out with material taken from the middle section of Op. 29. (Examples

3.3.7a & 3.3.7b)

(Example 3.3.7a – Chopin Impromptu in F-sharp major, Op. 36) Bars 1-4

(Example 3.3.7b – Chopin Impromptu in A-flat major, Op. 29) Bars 35-40

The upper voice of the contrapuntal lines in Example 3.3.7a seems to be a retrograde version of Example 3.3.7b. This F-sharp major Impromptu is more developed and more interesting than the first two. The B section uses an ostinato figure which Chopin later used for his Barcarolle Op. 60 and the return of the A is not a mere repeat of it, but varied twice; once with a triple left-hand accompaniment and the other time with duple accompaniment that is decorated by the right-hand obligato line.

The impact of Chopin’s music in Russia has been so great that his pieces have been studied by generations of pianists. Alexander Glazunov grew up in that tradition and became one of the significant late Romantic Russian composers and influential teachers.

He never became a pianist/composer, like Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, or Shostakovich, even

though he had the capability of a concert pianist. His contribution to the keyboard repertoire is relatively small for an accomplished pianist but his works written for the instrument show a grandiose Russian style with a lyricism influenced by Chopinesque pianism and his set of two Impromptus Op. 54 clearly shows this quality. Although they are set in simple Ternary Form and have the Chopinesque quality, their phrasings are very unique. The first one in D-flat major, for instance, which is reminiscent of Chopin’s

A-flat major Impromptu, has an interesting seven-bar phrase: 1-1-2-3. (Example 3.3.8)

(Example 3.3.8 – Glazunov Impromptu in D-flat major, Op. 54 No.1) Bars 1-7

(Used by permission of Kalmus)

The second Impromptu in A-flat major, also having an irregular phrasing based on a three-note motive, is composed in a larger structure. The form again is conventional

ternary form though it is made more unique by the outer bodies having a varied section which is based on the main materials from the first Impromptu. (Example 3.3.9) It is reasonable to conclude that Glazunov wrote these two pieces as an item.

(Example 3.3.9 – Glazunov Impromptu Op. 54 No.2) Bars 49-57

(Used by permission of Kalmus)

The fact that the section shown above is rhythmically displaced and is indicated to be quicker makes it sound like an improvisation.

Chopin’s influence was also apparent in Scriabin’s works. Alexander Scriabin mainly composed for the piano and among his large œuvre there are several Impromptus.

In his early work written in 1891/1892, for example, there are two beautiful pieces that are greatly influenced by Chopin’s music. (Examples 3.3.10a & 3.3.10b)

(Example 3.3.10a – Scriabin Impromptu Op. 7 No. 1) Bars 1-6

(Used by permission of Dover)

It is remarkable that these Impromptus remind us of Chopin’s Waltzes and Mazurkas.

(Example 3.3.10b – Scriabin Impromptu Op. 7 No. 2) Bars 1-12

(Used by permission of Dover)

Like many of his early compositions, there is nothing very complex about these pieces but the piano writing is beautiful and rich. However, it is worth pointing out that there is evidence of his penchant for rhythmic experimentation and complexity in the second

Impromptu which he later used extensively in his piano sonatas and etudes. (Example

3.3.10c)

(Example 3.3.10c – Scriabin Impromptu Op. 7 No. 2)

Bars 37-41

(Used by permission of Dover) In the late 19th and the early 20th century France, Gabriel Fauré and Francis

Poulenc established their own unique languages that differ from the characteristics of

Impressionism. Poulenc, connected to Les Six, wrote his a set of five Impromptus in 1921.

These miniature pieces share many characteristics with his other compositions written in his twenties which show his love for French Vaudeville. They have an essence of his charming wit and unpretentiousness that one sees in his songs and chamber music. The second Impromptu is a great example for his overall light-hearted character with short phrases in various moods. (Example 3.3.11)

(Example 3.3.11 – Poulenc Impromptu II) Bars 1-16

His set of songs called Le Bestiaire also exemplifies this characteristic. The songs as well

as the Impromptus last less than a minute each and yet capture a vivid image and mood

instantly. For instance, the piano introduction for Le Dramadaire captures the awkward physical motion of the Dromedary Camel. (Example 3.3.12)

(Example 3.3.12 – Poulenc Le Dramadaire from Le Bestiaire) Bars 1-7

Poulenc delivers the tranquil atmosphere of La Carpe in the piano accompaniment and

use of marking such as sans nuances, très triste and très lent. (Example 3.3.13)

(Example 3.3.13 – Poulenc La Carpe from Le Bestiaire) Bars 1-5

Although Poulenc’s compositions have certain lightness and charm which some criticize as a lack of seriousness, he has succeeded in writing pieces in an unmistakably individual style.

Like Poulenc, Fauré also gained his status as one of the most influential and innovative composers around the turn of the last century. However, he stayed closer to the traditional realm of the keyboard language by writing many of his piano pieces with titles such as Barcarolle, Nocturne, Prelude, and Impromptu. It is clear that he was greatly influenced by Chopin’s music. Although his music has Chopinesque qualities, his originality is evident through his unique counterpoint and harmony. He often breaks away from the 17th and 18th century voice-leading practice and focuses more on linear and chromatic relationship.

Fauré wrote thirteen Nocturnes over four decades and some of them are well-

known among his piano pieces, but he also wrote five Impromptus;43 three in 1883 and the other two in 1904 and 1906. The Impromptu No. 2 in F minor has been one of the

most popular Fauré pieces44 although Alfred Cortot and Marguerite Long considered the

third Impromptu to be the best of all.45 Fauré used overall ABA form for all of his

Impromptus. The A section of the F minor has the vitality of Scherzo and the character of

Capriccio set by running eighth-notes and accompanied by a brisk and steady pulse.

(Example 3.3.14a) One may see a great influence of Chopin throughout the piece. The contrasting middle section has a luscious quality created by the Chopinesque left-hand accompaniment and the use of two-against-three rhythm. (Example 3.3.14b)

(Example 3.3.14a – Fauré Impromptu No. 2 in F minor Op. 31) Bars 1-10

43 Some sources indicate that Fauré wrote six Impromptus. However, the last one is a piano transcription of the work originally written for the harp in 1903.

44 Maurice Hinson, Guide to the Pianist’s Repertoire, 3rd ed, s.v. “Gabriel Fauré.”

45 Alfred Cortot, French Piano Music, trans. by Hilda Andrews (London: Oxford University Press): 117-120. Marguerite Long, At the Piano with Fauré, trans. by Olive Senior-Ellis (New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1981): 91-93.

(Used by permission of Dover)

(Example 3.3.14b – Fauré Impromptu No. 2 in F minor Op. 31) Bars 86-95

(Used by permission of Dover)

Although the second and third Impromptus were written in the same year, the latter shows more of his unique harmonic characteristics. For example, Impromptu No. 3 begins in A-flat major with the left-hand accompaniment seemingly alternating between the tonic and the subdominant chord. (Example 3.3.15) After the ascending A-flat major arpeggio in the accompaniment, the second half of the measure begins with an F. Here,

Fauré succeeds in creating ambiguous and subtle harmonic progression by an

unconventional voice-leading.

(Example 3.3.15 – Fauré Impromptu No. 3 in A-flat major, Op. 34) Bars 1-16

(Copyright Dover. Printed by permission)

The second half of the measure seems to establish a D-flat major chord, creating

I-IV progression. One might have simply outlined the subdominant chord by arpeggiating it. However, Fauré does not do so, but he moves the D-flat to a B-flat at the third sixteenth of the beat. It then forms a B-flat 6/4 chord, the supertonic. This chord short-

lives when the B-flat seems to resolve down to an A-flat at the last sixteenth note of the beat, functioning as an appoggiatura. Because this upper neighbor is placed on a relatively strong beat, it creates an interesting and ambiguous harmony for the second half of the bar.

A survey of Impromptus written for piano by these composers from the past reveals that impromptus are generally relatively short pieces. Since Voříšek’s work,

Impromptus have evolved to be more than just simple and cheerful works. Each composer has used his imagination and skill to craft these jewels that, in one way or another, are a product of sudden inspiration. In his eight Impromptus, Schubert shows more formal variety whereas Schumann consistently utilizes variation technique. He also maximizes his lyricism with a use of extreme drama. The works of Glazunov and

Scriabin demonstrate their unique harmonic and rhythmic invention while showing

Chopinesque quality. Poulenc’s extremely short and witty Impromptus influenced by

French Vaudeville possess the true extemporaneous sense of the word Impromptu.

Although Fauré’s works are aligned with traditional formal ideas associate with impromptus and pay homage to Chopin’s musical language, they diverge because of his uniquely rich and subtle harmonic language.

Next Chapter, the author will examine how directly and indirectly Liebermann’s

Impromptus follow the trends of the past. An influence of Schubert Impromptus and a trace of the harmonic tendency and the musical nuance that Fauré successfully created in his music will be observed in the works of Liebermann.46 Combining the rich harmonic

language and the formal treatment of the Romantic and Impressionistic periods with his own lyricism, craftsmanship and his interpretation of “Impromptu”, his work successfully creates his elegant, beautiful and yet intense qualities for which the composer is well- known.

46 For discussion on Fauré’s influence with the composer see Appendix below.

CHAPTER IV: AN ANALYSIS OF THREE IMPROMPTUS, OP. 68

1) Analysis of Impromptu I

Liebermann uses an overall traditional ABA form for this piece and seems to let the music follow the form not as strictly but to let the “improvisational” aspect of the piece take its course within the structure. (Table 4.1.1) By means of different tonal centers – F from the A section and D from the B section – he defines the strong formal divisions. Additionally, the characteristic textures of the sections are distinct. The A section is rather chordal whereas the B section is contrapuntal. It is interesting to compare the beginning and the reprise of A at m. 59, Liebermann combines both textures to heighten the intensity of the moment.

(Table 4.1.1 – Form of Impromptu I)

A B A Bar # 1 8 17 25 36 43 47 51 55 59 74 78 85 Bass Line F A F D D Eb Eb F D F D Key Center F: D: F: Texture Chordal Contrapuntal Transition Chordal+ Coda Contrap

The main theme of A is a seven-bar phrase; it is broken down into 2, 2 and 3 measures. (See Example 4.1.1) The irregularity of the phrase and the meter change at m.

7 make this main theme very supple and distinctive. Moreover, an elegant swaying affect is created by the shortening of bars at mm. 2, 4 and 6 and speeding up of the pulse in m. 7 with an indication of sostenuto. Although Liebermann’s approach to composition is

traditional enough to employ a key or tonal center, he uses a more modern approach to notation in that most of his scores do not include a key signature. The piece definitely begins with an F tonal center which is eventually confirmed as the key of the piece.

(Example 4.1.1 – Three Impromptus, Movement I) Bars 1-7

This theme manifests stylistic elements essential for understanding the meaning of the entire piece. First, the interval of a minor-second is a pervasive unifying element. A minor-second interval and a tremolo figuration hold the whole piece together thematically. The interval of the minor-second in the first bar of the melody is one of the most components of the first impromptu and also for the rest of the set. By manipulating this interval, Liebermann develops and unifies the entire work.

Second, there is a continuous oscillating accompaniment pattern underneath the melody. This obsessive motoric pattern certainly links Liebermann’s work to

Schubert’s.47 For instance, as shown in the example below, one of the beloved Schubert

Impromptus is woven together with sextuplets. In this warm and exquisite G-flat major

Impromptu, Schubert uses the perpetually rotating rhythmic figure in the inner voice with a delicacy suggestive of an Aeolian harp.

(Example 4.1.2 – Schubert Impromptu D 899 No. 3 in G-flat major) Bars 1-4

His E-flat major Impromptu also features a continuous rhythmic pattern. This time, the perpetual triplets are a melody in the soprano. (Example 4.1.3)

47 See the interview with the composer in Appendix below.

(Example 4.1.3 – Schubert Impromptu D 899 No. 2 in E-flat major) Bars 1-9

This continuous movement can be seen in almost all Schubert Impromptus. In many of his songs, this technique is also used to depict a physical object, certain scenery or mood. For instance, the piano accompaniment of one of the most famous Schubert

Lieder Nacht und Träume portrays the quietness of a holy night. (Example 4.1.4) Sehr langsam and pianissimo instruct the pianist to play the accompaniment in the calmest manner.

(Example 4.1.4 – Schubert Nacht und Träume) Bars 1-8

(Used by permission of C.F. Peters Corporation)

Without a doubt, one can clearly see a similar consistent rhythmic motion in

Liebermann’s first Impromptu in Example 4.1.1

The consistent sixteenth notes in Liebermann’s Impromptu stimulate uneasiness or anxiety. This restlessness combined with ambiguous harmonic movement instantly creates an elusive atmosphere. As the melody moves from C to D-flat, it is harmonized by a D-flat major first inversion chord and then returns to an F major triad. Nothing is out of the ordinary so far, but the I-VI-I progression is made in the first measure. What is interesting here is what follows after the second F major chord in the second measure.

While the soprano moves back to D-flat, making for a nice and easily sing-able melody, the bass line unexpectedly descends by step-wise motion to F-flat, creating a D-flat minor chord. Furthermore, this minor chord does not resolve into another chord but instead functions as a resolution itself within a sub-phrase. The juxtaposition of major and minor

sonorities may leave the listener suspended and insecure. The rocking between an F

major chord and D-flat minor sonorities undermines the listeners’ anticipation of

progression. The sub-phrase is then repeated and at m. 5, the line moves by a third-

relation from the D-flat minor chord (enharmonically spelled C-sharp) to the E major

chord, using the two common notes, F-flat/E and A-flat/G-sharp.

The harmonic alternations created by the mobility of the 3rd are typical of Fauré.48

According to Liebermann, Fauré is an important influence on his own harmonic processes. Indeed, a harmonic similarity may be drawn between both composers’ works.

For instance, the middle section of Fauré’s Impromptu No. 1 in E-flat major includes a lowered 3rd degree in the chord in m. 37. (Example 4.1.5) This section of the piece is centered at A-flat, the sub-dominant to the key of the piece. However, Fauré avoids an expected D-flat major chord familiar to the 19th century ears in favor of the modal D-flat

minor chord. This creates a curious sense of release, arising from his avoidance of a

tonic-dominant tonal axis. It is then enharmonically spelled in the following measure and

a series of modulations ensues.

(Example 4.1.5 – Fauré Impromptu No. 1 in E-flat major Op. 25) Bars 35-37

(Used by permission of Dover)

48 The New GroveDictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd ed., s.v. “Fauré.” In the interview with the author, Liebermann expressed an influence of Fauré on his music and the importance of Fauré’s “sliding kind of harmonic change” in his music. For the complete transcript of the interview see the Appendix below.

The B section begins at m. 25 in D major and is prepared by the D major chord

established clearly in the preceding two measures. (Example 4.1.6) The transition from

the end of the previous section to this section is seamless because of the uninterrupted

tremolos in the accompaniment. It is also important to observe the pedal marking at m. 24

that is carried over for the next five measures. This is significant and crucial because the

effect one could have with holding versus clearing the pedal.49

(Example 4.1.6 – Three Impromptus, Movement I) Bars 23-30

It is also important to point out that the melody in this section is derived from the minor-second motive that we saw at the beginning of the movement. Although the contour of the melody does not have a neighboring motion but rather a descending three-

49 Liebermann expressed his frustration regarding pianists who disregard the pedal markings that he has put in. For a transcript of the interview with the composer see Appendix below.

note motion, it consists of a minor second and a major second combined together linearly.

(See Example 4.1.4, m. 25). It is interesting to see that the melodic line here may have

been inspired by one of his earlier works, Variations on a Theme by Anton Bruckner, Op.

19. (Example 4.1.7) The melody from the third variation has a similar contour and

rhythm.

(Example 4.1.7 – Liebermann Variations on a Theme by Anton Bruckner, Op. 19) Variation III: Bars 1-4

The phrase containing a turn-like figure also seems to be reminiscent of Prokofiev’s lyricism demonstrated in his first Violin Concerto. (Example 4.1.8) The main theme of the Concerto, for instance, uses an augmented third while a major second is used by

Liebermann. The turn at the end of the first bar has the function of a leading tone to the dominant in the following measure.

(Example 4.1.8 – Prokofiev Violin Concerto No. 1 in D major, Op. 19) Violin Solo Line: Bars 1-6

The intervals and their functions differ, and yet they both enjoy an exotic quality created

by the chromaticism and floating impression of the theme. They have similar sound

qualities that are predominantly produced by the way they use chromaticism and

extremes of instruments. Perhaps, for this reason, Nichols suggests an influence of

Prokofiev on Liebermann’s music.50

One of the interesting aspects of the middle section is the way Liebermann organizes it contrapuntally. This section uses more polyphony whereas at the beginning of the piece, we see a clear homophonic texture. The composer utilizes a kind of variation

technique here: he takes the antecedent of the theme, mm. 25 to 28, and reiterates it

throughout the section. An extra voice, for example, is added in the lower register at m.

36 as a new statement of the motive: a new bass line plays a diminution-like fragment which increases the density of the texture. (Example 4.1.9a) In addition, the eleven-bar phrase at the beginning of the section is shortened here to a seven-bar phrase. This shortening of the phrase continues as the next entrance of the theme is diminished even further to four bars at bar 43. (Examples 4.1.9a & 4.1.9b)

(Example 4.1.9a – Three Impromptus, Movement I) Bars 36-38

50 Nichols, 161.

(Example 4.1.9b – Three Impromptus, Movement I) Bars 43-50

In the variation at m. 43, an even a thicker texture is formed as two lower voices which are an augmented version of the theme create a stretto at a quarter apart. (Example

4.1.9b) Four measures later, the next and last variation, marked ff, with the doubled tremolo in the inner voice enters as the B section culminates.

The return of the A section at m. 59 is well-prepared by a transitional section where the composer succeeds in increasing intensity and anticipation by manipulating dynamics, rhythm, and time signature. The theme’s clear arrival into the tonic proves the recapitulation although this time it is transformed from an elegant and comfortable character at the beginning of the piece into an agitated and explosive one with rhythmic vitality. (Example 4.1.10)

(Example 4.1.10 – Three Impromptus, Movement I) Bars 59-60

First, the dynamics and register of the theme are raised significantly. The theme is no longer stated in its full length, but only its first couple of measures are restated twice and further developed in this section. Secondly, the obsessively running sixteenth-note figure, which ties the whole piece together, is transformed from duplets into triplets in the transitional section. It increases the pace of subdivision within the motor which then creates more tension with the surrounding voices leading up to the climax.

The inner triplets at m. 63 are juxtaposed with the homophonic texture from the beginning of the piece. The contrapuntal line is made to become more interesting and unique by the use of octave displacement. (Example 4.1.11)

(Example 4.1.11 – Three Impromptus, Movement I) Bars 63-65

The soprano line, once organized into a close register shown in Example 4.1.12, is fluid even though it is extremely chromatic. Example 4.9.13 shows an overall slow descent in the bass line made over the following ten bars, moving down from F-sharp to E-flat and then reaching F-sharp again at m. 73 and continuing its line to get to the tonic at m. 78.

(Example 4.1.12 – Three Impromptus, Movement I) Soprano line of Bars 63-72

(Example 4.1.13 – Three Impromptus, Movement I) Bass line reduction of Bars 63-78

Liebermann’s brilliant keyboard writing, Liszt-like pianism, is exemplified at the

climax of the piece where there is a succession of blocked chord alternating between the

hands and a huge arpeggio moving up and down, played by both hands in contrary

motion. Liebermann, who is a skilled pianist, follows in the tradition of pianist-

composers who wrote idiomatically for the instrument in spite of solely evolving musical

vocabulary.

To conclude this movement, Liebermann brings back the exact music from the

beginning of the piece. However, the meaning of the theme seems to have transformed

after a dramatic cascade of sound collected into the low A with a fermata at m. 77.

Liebermann however does not repeat the material like a replica but adds a contrapuntal

line which leads to the final D major chord which does not resolve until the following

Impromptu.

2) Analysis of Impromptu II

The second Impromptu begins with a D major chord in the second inversion tied over from the end of the previous Impromptu. By directing the performer to move straight into the second Impromptu with attacca marked at the double-bar, Liebermann impels the listener also to go forward without a break. For Liebermann, the continuing motion is so important that the suspension created by the lingering 6/4 chord has to broken by another motion without losing momentum. This suspension technique has been done by composers in the past, such as Robert Schumann in his song cycle Dichterliebe

Op. 48 where the first song Im wunderschönen Monat Mai ending in dominant seventh chord resolves at the beginning of the following song Aus meinen Tränen spriessen.

(Examples 4.2.1 and 4.2.2)

(Example 4.2.1 – Im wunderschönen Monat Mai from Dichterliebe by Schumann) Last four bars

(Example 4.2.2 – Aus meinen Tränen spriessen from Dichterliebe by Schumann) Bars 1-3

The musical suspension created by the delay of the cadence successfully reflects the text and emotion expressed by the poet; his confession for the beloved that has not been answered. In Liebermann’s Impromptu, with an absence of text, the decision to avoid the

resolution from the first to the second is purely for a structural reason or to indicate his

intention that these Impromptu pieces be performed as a set.

The chord held in the treble is now accompanied by an ostinato figure in the

lower voice, an initial note of which is taken from the third of the triad. The F-sharp, the

tonal center of the piece, is the first note of a three-note motive, F-sharp-G-sharp-A.

(Example 4.2.3)

(Example 4.2.3 – Three Impromptus, Impromptu II) Bars 1-2

The motive derives from the minor-second interval that we examined at the beginning of the first Impromptu; as a matter of fact, the motive here is closely related to the theme of its middle section. Example 4.2.4 shows how the motive from the first movement is inverted and used as a new motive in this movement to achieve a greater unity as a set.

(Example 4.2.4 – Motives from Impromptus I and II)

Section B Motive Main Motive Impromptu No. 1 Impromptu No. 2

The three-note motive works in exactly the same manner as the unvarying sixteenth-notes

in the first Impromptu. Its function here, however, is not only as a rhythmic motor, but

also as a determiner of the mode.

The form of this movement is much simpler than the previous Impromptu though

both Impromptus are in ternary form. The three-note motive that holds the entire piece

together determines the tonal center of each section. As one can see in Table 4.2.1, the

only significant difference between the motives in Sections A and B is their third pitch.

(Table 4.2.1 – Three Impromptus, Impromptu II)

[Bar Number] 1 18 51 [Section] A B A [Motive] F#-G#-A F#-G#-A# F#-G#-A [Mode] F# Minor F# Major F# Minor

By raising the last note of the motive, the intervals between the three notes change from a

major-second and a minor-second to two major-seconds, and consequently this alteration

switches the mode of the sections from minor to major.

The interval of seconds, the essential components of the lower voice, is also

important in the soprano line. As shown in Example 4.2.1, the treble line starts out with

b2 and cascades down in a succession of seconds. Some notes support the harmony implied by the bass line while others simply create a dissonance against it. As the music continues, the intervals in the treble line become larger from a second to a ninth, and the line eventually covers more than a span of five octaves. It moves so fast in thirty-second

notes that the dissonances blend into the larger harmonic progression. The soprano acts

like an obligato line, moving as if a bird flying up and down in his free manner, as high

3 as g in mm. 7-8 and as low as C2 in m. 10. (Example 4.2.5) This spontaneous and flexible soprano line symbolizes the true essence of the title Impromptu.

(Example 4.2.5 – Three Impromptus, Impromptu II) Bars 7-10

This use of the outer limit of the keyboard range is one of Liebermann’s trademarks. For instance, the last note of the movement ends with the highest note of the keyboard whereas the climax of the first movement explodes at the lowest pitch of the instrument. In her dissertation, Mayumi Kikuchi points out this aspect as well as the extreme use of a wide dynamic range in many of the composer’s piano works and gives

an example of the Nocturne No. 3.51 Liebermann obviously experiments with a wide

range of the keyboard, especially the highest and the lowest registers, and create various

timbres.

The texture thickens when another voice enters at m. 10. It is interesting to see in

the Example 4.2.5 how the new voice is introduced while the stable three-note motive

continues without interruption. It seems like this voice is a new obligato-like line added on the top as the original treble line finishes with the C2. The new voice takes over the

role of the soprano as the original soprano line then moves up to tenor at m. 11. This

tenor voice, then, plays a contrapuntal line against the ongoing motive for two bars, and

at m. 12 an octave F-sharps is established for the end of the first section.

The outer two voices begin to move inward through the transition to the middle

section, using counterpoint against each other. As you can see in Example 4.2.6, the bass,

which enters after an eighth rest, moves by perfect-fourths while the soprano descends by

perfect-fifths making hemiola against the bass line. Meanwhile, the three-note motive

does not budge until it starts to intermingle with the soprano at m. 16.

(Example 4.2.6 – Three Impromptus, Impromptu II) Bars 13-16

51 Mayumi Kikuchi, “The Piano Works of Lowell Liebermann: Compositional Aspects in Selected Works” (D.M.A. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1999): 38.

The mode transforms through the transitional section, and the third note of the

motive is now raised from an A to an A-sharp. The change of the note determines the

mode of the new section as a major. In addition, the motive is expanded from a three-note

to a five-note pattern that keeps playing throughout the section. (Example 4.2.7)

(Example 4.2.7 – Two Patterns from B section of Impromptu II) Five-Note Pattern Four-Note Pattern

(Example 4.2.8 – Three Impromptus, Movement II) Bars 17-20

This pattern is juxtaposed with another counter-pattern that has four notes derived from the seconds. These two patterns playing sixteenth-note off of each other make a kaleidoscope effect. (Example 4.2.8)

The middle section moves quickly as a dotted quarter becomes the fundamental pulse whereas an eighth note keeps the steady beat at the beginning of the movement.

This section has a thicker texture with two outer voices moving together, framing the running sixteenth-notes. A sustained C-sharp pedal, lacked in the beginning of the

movement, provides a harmonic stability. The presence of ostinati in an environment of independent yet interlocking parts recalls the impression of Gamelan music.52 The mm.

18 and 19 in Example 4.2.8 shows the soprano line, F-sharp - E-sharp - D-sharp, derives from the main three-note motive. It is inverted and augmented. It may be more appropriate to say that the soprano line is taken from the B section of the first Impromptu.

Shown in Example 4.2.4, the shape and the intervals of the motive are the same as the beginning of the soprano line of this section.

The middle section has an interesting moment where one of the Liebermann’s characteristics is demonstrated. In the example below, at m. 34, the comforting kaleidoscope music is ambushed by a loud bass line, marked fortissimo and pesante, bursting in without warning.

(Example 4.2.9 – Three Impromptus, Impromptu II) Bars 33-37

52 Gamelan music is a term used for various types of Indonesian instrumental ensembles that vary in size, function, musical style and instrumentation. Instruments in a gamelon include sets of tuned single bronze gongs, gon-chimes, single- and multi- octave metallophones, drums, flutes, bowed and plucked chordophones, a xylophone, small cymbals. A gamelan sometimes includes singers. Gamelon music features ostinati and a musical fabric formed from individual parts in interlocking style where different groups of player sound short melodic and rhythmic patterns simultaneously.

The materials for this abrupt and aggressive music between mm. 34 and 36 are not new but taken from the A section. The walking three-note motive in the bass is doubled in ninths and the falling gesture of the soprano line is also doubled in octaves. The contrast

from the previous music is maximized by the use of accents that guarantee the percussive

effect of the keyboard.

The sudden burst of energy and virtuosity is present in some of Liebermann’s

piano works. For example, the same kind of sudden dynamic change can be observed in

his Nocturne No. 2. The piece begins in pp and remains in the range of pp and ppp. This

quiet nocturnal song is disturbed at m. 22 by ff which is prepared without crescendo. The

loud music made by the juxtaposition of the materials from the previous section lasts only

for two measures and returns to pp. Although the soft music resumes, it is now

transformed to new music, retaining the musical materials from those two bars of

outburst. In the second Impromptu, the outburst is inserted as a kind of mishap; the

lighter soothing ostinato music resumes as if nothing happened.

The bass line in the B section works almost like a pedal point though it moves

between C-sharp and D. However, after the pesante section, the bass finally moves up to

E-flat at m. 47, releasing a tension, and then leading back to F-sharp. The reprise of the A

at m. 51 is marked by the return of the three-note motive in the lower voice. (Example

4.2.10)

(Example 4.2.10 – Three Impromptus, Impromptu II) Bars 51-53

The music at mm. 51-52 is quite similar to mm. 10-12; both have a function of transitional music between A and B sections. The three-note motive at m. 51 is, however, accompanied by a contrapuntal inner line which eventually blends into the bass line after hitting an octave at the down beat of m. 53.

It is interesting to compare the differences between the beginning of the movement and the reprise of A. The first significant difference is an added line in treble.

The soprano line is now doubled at the thirds, sometimes expanding to doubling at the fifths. This extra voice increases both musical and technical demand for the pianist. It requires a fine technique to maneuver these thirds in pp and to create a smooth line in spite of awkward fingerings, repetitions and topographical complexities. The last duet

played by fluttering two notes flies higher and quietly ends with the highest pitch of the

piano in unison at the last bars of the piece.

3) Analysis of Impromptu III

The Impromptu No.3 also exemplifies a conventional ternary form. The

boundaries of the sections are obvious because of contrasting music and tempo changes.

Although this Impromptu shares many thematic and musical materials heard in both the

first and second Impromptus, it seems to have a more direct connection with the first.

This relationship may be traced to the genesis of the work: Liebermann reports that these

first sketches became the ultimate germs for the first and third Impromptus.53 Both the first and last Impromptus demonstrate a similar swaying, a hypnotic effect generated and sustained by the use of compound meters. (Example 4.3.1) The quarter-and-eighth rhythmic motive is prominent in both themes.

(Example 4.3.1 – Three Impromptus, Impromptus Nos. 1 and 3) Opening

Impromptu I Impromptu III

53 For a transcript of the interview with the composer see Appendix below.

The second bar of both pieces is truncated, and the movement relaxes in sostenuto or

ritardando. The harmonic oscillation between a major and a minor further reinforces the elusive character in both themes.

The first and the third Impromptus share a homophonic texture by contrast with the middle Impromptu that is more contrapuntal throughout the piece. They begin with blocked chords in root position, creating a feeling of stability. The chordal texture continues supporting the dependant melodic line in the soprano. This vertical stability

seems to be reinforced by the use of clear phrasing. For instance, the A section of the last

Impromptu proceeds in regular eight-bar phrases. The main theme, mm. 1 to 8, comprises

a four-bar antecedent and a four-bar consequent sub-phrase. The antecedent includes a

gentle dissonance; the consequent is considerably dissonant due to the consistent use of

major sevenths. The theme is then repeated although this time the antecedent takes a

different path to get to the following phrase that begins at m. 17. Liebermann treats the

pivot chord at m. 14 with a special care, instructing the performer to play dolcissimo. The

third phrase made of the same materials as the main theme now begins more slowly, più

lento, with a C major triad and concludes the A section.

Although the third Impromptu does not have an obvious rhythmic pattern, as

opposed to the first two pieces, that is prominent throughout the piece, one can argue that

steady eighth beats function just as an unvaried rhythmic pattern that Schubert and

Liebermann share. In the first measure, for example, the left hand initiates a pattern

consisting of eighth notes and quarter notes. (See Impromptu III in Example 4.3.1) That

by itself would make the third beat of the first dotted quarter absent. However, the right

hand that has a pattern of a quarter and an eighth plays the missing third eighth note

instead. Thus, the eighth note pulse present from the beginning to the end of the piece

serves a continuous rhythmic pattern in this Impromptu.

Another important point that may be raised is the motivic connection used

between the Impromptus. In the previous section of the analysis of the Impromptu II, we

have examined the relationship between the first and the second movements and how the

three-note motive was used and tied the pieces together. Here, this motive is again

manipulated and expanded to make a longer phrase. The melody on the top line in the

first two bars consists of five notes: G – E – F – D – E-flat. (Example 4.3.2)

(Example 4.3.2 – Three Impromptus, Impromptu III) Melodic Line in Bars 1-2

Example 4.3.3a below shows the line is made of two sets of seconds, G – F – E-flat and E

– D, superimposed and interlocked with each other.

(Example 4.3.3a – Three Impromptus, Impromptu III) Melodic Fragment in Bars 1-2

plus

An alternate interpretation on the construction of the melody could be that the

order of notes is slightly altered so that the line moves by thirds. (Example 4.3.3b)

Instead of a direct linear movement, the melody makes a nice lilt proceeding in a wavy

direction. The melody is simple and chant-like, and yet the harmonization makes it sound richer and mysterious.

(Example 4.3.3b – Three Impromptus, Impromptu III) Alternate Melodic Line in Bars 1-2

Regardless of how Liebermann crafted the theme, we can see how the interval of seconds

is very important in this Impromptu as well as the first two. The melody is very simple,

and yet the harmonization based on the third-relation makes it sound richer. The use of

suspension and chromaticism created at the fourth beat in the first measure also makes it

natural to have the flattened third in the following chord in the second bar.

The B section begins at m. 23 with a tempo indication, a tempo (poch. movendo)

and a clear textural change. (Example 4.3.4) The accompaniment figure in the left-hand

picks up the tempo with the steady and comfortable upward motion after eighth rests.

(Example 4.3.4 – Three Impromptus, Impromptu III) Bars 23-30

Although Liebermann could have easily been set the accompaniment from the downbeat,

he put the left-hand three-note pattern beginning at the third beat of the measure.

Because the third of the chord is never played by the left-hand, there is a modal ambiguity even though the motion between B-flat to E-flat makes a perfect V-I pick-up.

If the pianist, however, is not careful with this execution, an unintended accent on the third beat would be created. The hollowness of the accompaniment is filled when the initial note of the soprano line enters. The establishment of E-flat minor chord does not last long as the soprano line moves up by a step at m. 27. This reaffirms the modal ambiguity, which we have seen often in the previous Impromptus.

The similar Barcarolle rhythm is utilized in his earlier piece Lullaby from his

Album for the Young Op. 43. (Example 4.3.5)

(Example 4.3.5 – Lullaby from Album for the Young Op. 43) Bars 1-12

Although in this little piece, the third beat of the three-note motion functions as a melodic line as well as a part of the motive, it still conveys a comparable rowing effect. This piece may also be a good example for one of his characteristic use of chromatic harmony. The music progresses from G major at the beginning, traveling through chromatically downwards, to m. 12 where G major 6/4 chord complete s a phrase.

From mm. 23 to 53, the B-flat in the left-hand works as pedal point. In the

Example 4.3.4, the E-flat at the downbeats changes to a D at the downbeat of m. 29. This change on the strong beat continues all the way to m. 53, making a chromatic descending line. (Table 4.3.1) However, the overall chord does not change from E-flat due to third of the three-note accompaniment. At m. 54, the pedal switches from B-flat to E-flat, making a tri-tone relation.

(Table 4.3.1 – Three Impromptus, Impromptu III) Bars 23-53

Bar # 23 29 33 35 37 41 45 49 51 53 Downbeat Eb D Db C B F E D Db C Pedal Point Bb

Another interesting characteristic of Liebermann that is seen his music also appears in this section; a “bird call,” a rhythmic pattern that decorates and embellishes in the high register. It is an added voice to the original theme at the beginning of B at m. 23.

(Example 4.3.6) This little figure marked ppp makes the simple soprano line more interesting and unique. This bell-like figure appears in Liebermann’s second Nocturne.

Its basic function is the same as the Impromptu; however, it is not as flexible as these quintuplets. (Example 4.3.7)

(Example 4.3.6 – Three Impromptus, Impromptu III) Bars 42-46

(Example 4.3.7 – Lowell Liebermann: Nocturne No. 2) Bar 34

The reprise of A begins at m. 79. (Example 4.3.8) The repeat of the theme at m.

87 then takes a different path to end the piece.

(Example 4.3.8 – Three Impromptus, Impromptu III) Bars 79-102: A Reprise

From m. 88 to the end seems to be codetta where the right-hand theme gradually becomes shorter as the end approaches, becoming increasingly fragmented and interrupted by the accompaniment from the B section. (Example 4.3.9)

(Example 4.3.9 – Three Impromptus, Impromptu III) Bars 62-64

The idea of cyclic form is strongly present in these three Impromptus. They all come from a single motive that unites them as one composition, and the placement of vigorous second piece set between two less agile pieces presents a well-balanced architecture. This design may suggest that the performer should conclude the last

Impromptu with the similar melancholic character that the first Impromptu possesses.

CHAPTER V: SUMMARY

Impromptus for piano – though not as numerous as preludes, etudes, and sonatas

– appear regularly in the lists of works of important composers for the piano. Schubert wrote his first set of celebrated Impromptus less than ten years after Jan Vaclav Voříšek's early examples of this genre published in 1817. Schubert imaginatively expanded the scale of Voříšek’s charming but simpler models introducing more complex musical materials and compositional techniques. In subsequent generations, composers followed the general patterns Schubert adopted while embracing the flexibility and freedom inherently suggested by the title.

A couple of centuries later, Lowell Liebermann’s Impromptus take their place in this tradition. Liebermann’s Impromptus advance with a “spur-of-the-moment” character, governed by an overarching ternary form. Precise musical motives and distinct textures, often manifesting inspiration from Schubert’s musical language, unify the work and are compositional elements Liebermann shares with Schubert, the master Lied composer.

Both composers treat a constant rhythmic motion as an essential vehicle in the pieces.

Liebermann uses this continuous motion and a three-note motive to unite the three

Impromptus. A tight formal and motivic organization that great Classical composers such as Beethoven were eminently famous for is apparent in this particular piece. The influence of Fauré’s harmonic treatment is evident, especially in the way subtle musical colors devolve from modal melodic and harmonic choices and flexible counterpoint technique.

Some critics label Liebermann as a “Neo-Romantic” or “New-Tonal” composer.

His music sounds traditional and romantic at times, and yet there is always something new. By synthesizing conventional and unconventional materials, juxtaposing textures and blending tonal, modal and chromatic harmonies, Liebermann’s works sound fresh and progressive. David Korevaar, Pianist who has recorded most of Liebermann keyboard works, describes Liebermann’s achievement in the Impromptus in this way:

[The work] encapsulate a lot of what Lowell's piano writing style has been about in my opinion, especially the often strange juxtapositions of dissonance and consonance -- the constant references to common practice tonality that actually never are common practice tonality, de- contextualized use of triads, the mix of homophonic and contrapuntal textures (first impromptu especially) in a pianistically complex manner, and the use of virtuosity as an intrinsic but not very showy element (the second piece, especially, but also the first).54

The Three Impromptus written by a pianist-composer whose pianism inherent in

Romantic idiom, and the writing is idiomatic and compares in that way with the great keyboard-composers in the past such as Liszt and Chopin. Even though particular sections of the Impromptus exemplify a more assertive and adventurous side of

Liebermann’s writing, the introspective and intimate nature prevails. As for playing his work, one must find the most beautiful quality of sound, transparency, the ability to create different levels of dynamics to render the subtle polyphony, masterful pedaling, and a feel for appropriate tempo rubato.55 The piece also requires a certain

54 See the E-mail interview with David Korevaar in Appendix below.

55 The author’s E-mail interview with Antonio Pompa-Baldi.

improvisatory feeling as the title suggests that Liebermann’s artistry combines spontaneity within a classical form and pianism that satisfies and challenges pianists.

Pianist Antonio Pompa-Baldi, a champion of this work, argues that the labels such as “New-Romantic” composer could never encompass a single composer’s production and describes the style of the Impromptus as ‘21st-Century Lyricism’.56 The lyricism is created by incorporation of musical techniques and languages from the Western musical tradition and the 20th century. This lyricism combined with the extemporaneous character makes Liebermann’s Three Impromptus a significant work in its genre, and it is worth claiming its part in the standard keyboard repertoire of the 21st century.

56 See the E-mail interview with Antonio Pompa-Baldi in Appendix below.

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW WITH LOWELL LIEBERMANN

I conducted an interview with Lowell Liebermann at his home in Weehawken, New Jersey on Thursday February 3, 2005. After chatting about the latest composition project of his opera Miss Lonelyheart over a cup of tea, we sat down and had an interview.

TU: What was the genesis of [the Three Impromptus]? I know that you wrote the pieces for that Yaddo (mistakenly pronounced here as “ya-dū).

LL: “Ya-dow.”

TU: Ya-dō.

LL: Yá-dow. [It] rhymes with “shadow.”

TU: I did not know that. Who named that?

LL: Supposedly, the children of the people who started it. But this is a little bit of, you know, a disagreement on that. [As for the genesis of the piece] Well, I actually started them on my own. I sometimes get an idea for a piece and sketch it and then wait for an opportunity to finish it.

TU: It was like the children [pieces].57

LL: You did your research! [laugh]

TU: I did my research! [laugh]

LL: So, I had the sketch for, I think, two of the pieces, the first and the last of the beginning sketches, and Yaddo was having a big centennial celebration and they wanted to have premiers by certain composers to celebrate it. And through me we arranged [that] Stephen Hough would do a recital to celebrate Yaddo and I would write the piece for that occasion. I’m trying to remember what he did. I think he did [the] Copland Variations.

TU: All American, I think, and there was a review.

LL: A half American and the second half was Liszt. And [it] got in fact an extremely

57 The author meant Lieberman’s earlier work Album for the Young, Op. 43 composed in 1993.

stupid review from Anthony Tommasini, because I remember he said that Mr. Hough was not up to the technical requirements of the Liszt which is the most ridiculous thing. I mean it was a phenomenal performance technically, and they don’t know what they are listening to. So, anyway, I wrote it for that occasion. It was premiered and then about a year later, I think, they started this thing, a new competition for the Van Cliburn. I was invited to submit a piece, and according to the guidelines, this was the piece I could submit. I almost didn’t enter it.

TU: Why not?

LL: I thought it was a strange competition. The way it was set up, the winning piece would not be chosen on its merits, but [by] how many pianists decided they liked it. I found that to be a rather strange thing. And also you get to a certain point [where] you just don’t want to enter competitions and be judged. Then I thought I have the piece and might as well send it in, who cares if I don’t get to.

TU: One person said on Internet. This guy must’ve been a pianist. He said that you might as well just have turned in the Gargoyles.

LL: I thought of that.

TU: Because it was OK to do that.

LL: Yeah, it would’ve been OK and it’s very unfair as a competition because there easily could have been pianists who play the Gargoyles already. I know there were pianists in the competition who played the Gargoyles. But I served for the next round, and there was a big discussion about the whole procedure and everything. So, they are changing, they are making it more logical.

TU: Competition this year, isn’t it?

LL: Yeah, but you know the guidelines that they used for this year were still the old ones, so these changes that we suggested won’t go into effect until the next one. The other reason why I almost didn’t enter the competition was because Van Cliburn used to commission a piece for the competition instead. I thought it was a bad signal to send for a major competition and a major organization that was commissioning works to stop commissioning works. I kind of was against that morally because serious music needs its support of getting people to create pieces and [at] this competition people get money only if they win the competition not for creating the music, so kind of diluting the whole idea of patronage and support for new music. So, I still have problems with the competition, but I won, so I can’t complain, really. [laugh]

TU: [laugh] Was there a good outcome, like somebody commissioned you because of

this?

LL: Not specifically, no. But at this point, I’m busy full-time with commissions, so it’s hard to separate what exactly. I suppose it doesn’t hurt (for) my reputation. I certainly got a lot of exposure. I don’t know how many of the pianists [who] played it actually performed it after the competition. I know Antonio Pompa-Baldi did but, I’m not sure any of the others did.

TU: Another question: why Impromptus?

LL: Let me preface that by saying that I am not one of those of composers who believes that important art is always a radical break with the past. I am interested in the traditions of Western music and am interested in working in that continuum, which is why I always named my pieces Sonatas and Concertos and what-not because I want to put forth a clear message that I am part of that tradition. And the Impromptus actually are a “kind-of”- reference to Schubert because they were not directly inspired by Schubert or any particular Schubert piece. Schubert has gotten to be a more and more important influence to me or at least, he is a composer that is more and more important to me personally. If I want to sit down and listen to a piece of music, it will often be Schubert or Mozart. It’s funny because those are two composers who, as a Juilliard student, I had no use of. And the Impromptus do have one rather superficial thing in common with Schubert Impromptus which is rhythm. That primarily deals with unvaried, pretty unvaried rhythm, you know. That’s also something that interests me, not in a minimalist’s sense, but I’m always interested in making the most out of a restricted amount of materials. I think if there is too much variety and too much material, then you just lose track of where you are. You know, and it’s funny because you get beyond a certain point of complexity, things just refer back to randomness in a way. And randomness doesn’t interest me. I’m very interested in organizing things tightly.

TU: I’m analyzing your pieces and I see that very much so. Then, another question is how those three pieces are related. Pompa-Baldi published an article in the Clavier [about the Impromptus] and only the third Impromptu was printed in that article.

LL: In the issue, that’s a purely business consideration for my publisher because no publisher would give permission to reprint the entire piece.

TU: Ok, so, it’s not like one can play [only] the third. So, it’s a set.

LL: Yeah, yeah. They’re meant to be played together. They are really not meant to be played separately. They are related loosely in the thematic way that they all have a three-note motive and a lot of the harmonic relationships are on thirds. And that’s another thing that they have in common with Schubert, actually, the third

relationships. So, it’s kind of like a spirit of Schubert is hovering.

TU: Why not [a] Nocturne, then? Well, of course, Schubert didn’t write nocturnes.

LL: He did, actually. One nocturne for Piano trio in E-flat [singing the tune].

TU: Oh, I did not realize.

LL: It’s a beautiful piece. That’s the only Schubert Nocturne I know of. But I definitely meant Schubert rather than Chopin.

TU: Or Fauré.

LL: Fauré is a composer also rather important to me, but I was thinking of Schubert when I made those pieces. But I do think Fauré is a composer who’s had a subtle influence on me in the way his harmonies shift by just one note at a time, and sliding kind of harmonic change.

TU: His songs are so hard to play. You really have to know [what is happening] because one note changes and then everything changes.

LL: Yeah, it’s very subtle and changes the whole balance and atmosphere with just one note, and you have to be very attuned to it, and people who don’t listen actively to Fauré, [they] just say it’s pretty. In fact a critic in Philadelphia, who’s constantly attacking me, David Patrick Sterns, who actually paid me one of the biggest compliments, back handed compliments, when he said something like, this was in [the] review; he said, “When music is too beautiful, the mind wanders like in all those Fauré songs or Lowell Liebermann pieces.” So, I was very happy to have my name linked with Fauré. It was meant as an absolute criticism, negative criticism.

TU: What’s wrong with Fauré?

LL: He is a very subtle composer and a lot people don’t know how to listen to [his music.] [They] don’t listen to it carefully enough because you really have to be following every note to get to those shifts. If you let it wash over you, then, it’s this…

TU: “What was that?” sort of. The late pieces of his are like that.

LL: It’s like listening to [a] Shakespeare play. It’s like speed reading Shakespeare. [If] you don’t pay attention to every word, you can’t possibly get the sense. It’s so concentrated and tight. I would like to think that my music does that, at least that’s what I’m trying to achieve.

TU: Many of your pieces have that nocturnal, night-like shimmer. Is that something you are really fascinated with or [do] you love that sound quality?

LL: I think so, and that’s a personality thing. It’s funny because sometimes, changing the criterion if you are a living composer as opposed to a dead composer and I get criticized by some critics for a lot of my music sounding too similar, for using the same harmonic [materials] which first of all I don’t feel is accurate. With a dead composer’s, they say that’s a style.

TU: Personality or Individuality or something.

LL: And at the same time, the same critics don’t have a problem with somebody you know, every piece they’re writing being based on one chord, so you know it’s very funny.

TU: [Giggling]

LL: But I would say, yeah, that’s a big aspect of my emotional makeup, but also I think there is a lot of variety. When one starts out writing a series of nocturnes like I did, and I intend to write twelve of them, that means that a big proportion of your piano works are nocturnes, [and that] automatically makes it look like you are preoccupied with that. Maybe I could’ve just as easily decided to write a series of twelve Scherzos and then, maybe people would’ve had a totally different impression of my piano music when in fact it is the same composer. So, the thing is especially early on, since piano is my instrument, I think I often save a lot of the more private kind of solitary music for that. It’s just a very natural thing. And I think in the other music, if one looks at the music written at the same time, you see a variety in other pieces. But if you just look at the piano music, and that was the problem when the very first disk of my music was released which was on Music Heritage Society with David Korevaar, and it was some of the pieces that were re-released on the Koch recordings. Most of these pieces were slow and nocturnal. So, I think the impression given to a lot of people was a limited emotional span. Whereas in fact, if they knew my other pieces, [they would probably get a different impression]. It’s a funny thing with a recording, these critics, with a recording five different pieces on it as if the composer intended these pieces all to be listened to at the same time, which is totally stupid. I never listen to more than one piece at that time on a recording unless [it is] a recording of a song recital or something.

TU: What are the challenges and joys of writing piano music?

LL: Well, it’s my instrument, so it’s a very natural thing. I don’t know how much pleasure there is in writing it because it’s difficult. It’s much more fun when that’s

done and you can go hear other people play, and then it’s not so much hearing other people playing but it’s dinner afterwards or party or whatever, you know.

TU: [Laugh]

LL: It’s a very funny process. There is a brief period where you are actually happy to hear your own music. That’s like right when it’s done in the first couple of times and after that, you don’t need to hear it again. You know, it’s one of those things I don’t know how much real pleasure a composer ever gets out of his own music.

TU: I’m sure some composers would.

LL: Oh yeah well, I could name a few names [Laugh].

TU: [Laugh] Well, I could, too, actually.

[Pause]

TU: How much of the performer’s interpretation do you allow? I don’t want to say “allow,” but there is a certain thing on a piece of paper, interpreted by that performer.

LL: That actually can differ slightly depending on a piece and a type of piece. I studied piano at Juilliard with Jacob Lateiner.58 I’ve been writing music and taking composition lessons and it was really the first time that somebody opened my eyes clearly to understand that the dots and the slurs and the dynamic markings were just as important and intentional as the notes. It’s very funny because I kind of have been brought up sloppily with the attitude that the notes are sacred but the performer’s interpretation just changes the dynamics. I think that affected the way I approach writing music for a while, but more and more, studying piano with Lateiner, especially going through Beethoven, analyzing Beethoven, and seeing that everything was interconnected, I really became more and more specific. At this point, what I write down, I intend. That certainly doesn’t mean that a performer should approach a piece with rigidity; I mean they should approach no differently than if they were playing a Beethoven Sonata. Within a composer being very specific about what he wants, there’s still a lot of room for a performer’s personality to come through, it can’t help come through. I mean if you take two different pianists and tell them that they have to play everything exactly as written, it’ll still be totally different performances and that’s what makes us human. But I tend to be more and more specific to the point where now, I’m putting pedal markings in because I realize how what you think is

58 For his brief biography, refer the footnote in Chapter I.

obvious and should be the only way to pedal is, [but] pedaling is the most misunderstood.

TU: David Korevaar said [that] you said, “More pedal” at certain places, specifically, on Impromptus. Maybe he is in general the kind of pianist who doesn’t use as much pedal?

LL: Yeah, I think so, but I tend to use a lot of long pedal effects in my piano music where I want like…

TU: Like French.

LL: Yeah, like aura. Actually Ravel and Debussy used very little pedal when they played themselves. It’s kind of a cliché about French. I bet, Saint-Saëns, I’ve been playing Saint-Saëns recently, and you can tell from the music that he used almost no pedal when played. You can tell from the way it’s written. And I bet Fauré used [it] very sparingly.

TU: Very shallow. Maybe they are putting it down a little bit, just to have just a little bit of [pedal effect].

LL: But I find pedaling is very misunderstood by a lot of pianists and even when I will mark very specific long pedal or something; ninety percent of the time, they’ll ignore that or play something else. Sometimes, it really makes a difference what’s coming out. It’ll change the piece. I actually had to fight with my publisher about putting pedal markings in and before, they wouldn’t because they had an attitude, a sloppy attitude of “Oh, pianists do their own pedalings.” [The] same thing as they put fingerings in. I always have to fight with them if there’s a very specific fingering, which sometimes affects musically in performance, you know.

TU: Of course! Because stresses and [what-not]. That’s strange that they say such a thing. Cost more to put things in?

LL: No, no, no, no but they think that a mid-western piano teacher is going to tell the student how to pedal the piece or something. They don’t want to see other people’s. Pedalings are generally thought of something that the performer adds. That’s not an integrated part of the piece.

TU: I thought that wasn’t the case any more.

[We started to chat about miscellaneous things and the conversation diverted to him giving me questions about portraits of composers in his living room. At the end of the tea, I thanked him for his time.]

APPENDIX B: ONLINE INTERVIEW WITH DAVID KOREVAAR

January 8, 2005

TU: What is your view on the piece?

DK: The Impromptus encapsulate a lot of what Lowell's piano writing style has been about in my opinion, especially the often strange juxtapositions of dissonance and consonance -- the constant references to common practice tonality that actually never are common practice tonality, de-contextualized use of triads, the mix of homophonic and contrapuntal textures (first impromptu especially) in a pianistically complex manner, and the use of virtuosity as an intrinsic but not very showy element (the second piece, especially, but also the first).

TU: According to some of the articles on the piece, it is said that Schubert's impromptus were the inspiration for the Liebermann's piece. What connections do you see in the piece?

DK: The Schubert mentions come from Lowell's own program note on the the piece. I think that they are more of spirit than of substance; perhaps the use of obsessive accompanimental figures is "Schubertian," also the focus on beauty of texture and clear and lyrical phrase structures.

TU: What are the challenges you have had or you see one might have?

DK: The rubato (indicated to some extent) in the first movement is elusive, especially in the context of the flowing sixteenths. The first movement also needs to flow in a way that often defies the writing (the canons are particularly hard to keep in the flow/tempo of the movement because of the wide spacings). The second movement is just hard (the thirds are particularly nasty). The third movement is very difficult to bring off: the simplicity of the textures and the sparseness of the writing (compared to what came before) create their own problems.

TU: I read in an interview with Liebermann that he worked on your recording project. How much involvement did you have? Any interpretation suggestions by him?

DK: Lots of involvement in the Impromptus in particular. He was very hard to satisfy on the rubato in the first movement (I'm not necessarily satisfied myself), as well as on the dynamics: he really wanted the pp's to be pp (imagine!). Pedaling suggestions, also (for _more_ pedal most of the time!). It was interesting because I learned the pieces off of an earlier version of the score than the published version, and there were some changes in the markings that I had to adjust to in the

recording process; Lowell was very active in making sure that I was aware of these changes. He was in the booth for the sessions, and essentially produced as well as offered numerous interpretative suggestions on the Impromptus.

TU: You have known him and have played his piano music. What can you say about his writing in your opinion?

DK: I like his writing for piano: I appreciate the compositional power that he brings to it, the balance of intellectual concept and emotional projection, and his ability to make the instrument sound.

APPENDIX C: ONLINE INTERVIEW WITH ANTONIO POMPA-BALDI

January 13, 2005

TU: You said you played the piece many times by now. What do you like about it? What is your view on the piece?

APB: I love the intimate and introspective nature of this work, so evocative of beautiful colors and atmospheres. I also like the idea that good music can still be composed using tonal language. The language and the pianistic patterns may be the same that were in vogue in the last 300 hundred years or so, but Liebermann creates his own style within it.

TU: According to some of the articles on the piece, it is said that Schubert's Impromptus were the inspiration for the Liebermann's piece. What connections do you see in the piece? Do you see a connection between movements?

APB: The connection is in the fact that both Schubert and Liebermann use an unvaried rhythmic pattern for each impromptu. A second common denominator is the absence of a program, the fact that both Schubert and Liebermann wrote pure music. This is also the connecting factor among the 3 Liebermann Impromptus, as it unifies the work.

TU: If you were to categorize the work into a certain style, what would that be? Liebermann's writing style has been called "Neo-Romantic" or "New-Tonal."

APB: I guess both "Neo-Romantic" and "New-Tonal" would be appropriate. Although I don't think that a word, or a slogan, could encompass the production of a prolific talented composer, I understand the usefulness of it. I would describe the style of the Impromptus as "21st-Century Lyricism".

TU: What are the challenges you have had or you see one might have?

APB: One must find the most beautiful quality of sound, transparency, the ability to create different levels of dynamics to render the subtle polyphony, masterful pedaling, and a feel for the right rubatos. The technical challenges of the Impromptus are not so evident at first, but one needs good technique to play them.

TU: Have you had a chance to talk to Liebermann?

APB: Not until after I played the Impromptus at the Van Cliburn Competition, and even then only briefly. He's a very interesting person, and deserves the success he has.

TU: What can you say about his writing in your opinion?

APB: I have read through several of his compositions for piano. The first thing one notices is that every piece is different from the others, the composer being able to create the appropriate sounds depending on what he's trying to express. That is the mark of a very talented composer. Also, he knows the piano and the keyboard extremely well, and that enables him to exploit the instrument to the fullest.

REFERENCES

Campbell, Cheryl. An Interview with Lowell Liebermann. http://www.classicalbuffet. com/composers/liebermann/interviewpage1.htm. Accessed on December 21, 2004.

Corporation of Yaddo. Yaddo. http://yaddo.org/yaddo/index6.shtml. Accessed on January 22, 2005.

Corporation of Yaddo. Yaddo Composer Lowell Libermann Wins Inaugural Composers Invitational. http://www.yaddo.org/yaddo/Liebermann2.shtml. Accessed on December 21, 2004.

Cortot, Alfred. French Piano Music. Translated by Hilda Andrews. London: Oxford University Press, 1932.

Fisk, Charles. Returning Cycles: Contexts of the Interpretation of Schubert’s Impromptus and Las Sonatas. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001.

Gay, Wayne Lee. “U.S. Composers to Share Spotlight at Cliburn Event,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 6 April, 2001.

Kevles, Barbara. Review of Lowell Liebermann: Piano Music, Vol. 1 KOCH International Classics 7548 performed by David Korevaar. Fanfare 27 (Jan-Feb 2004): 143-5.

Kikuchi, Mayumi. “The Piano Works of Lowell Liebermann: Compositional Aspects in Selected Works.” D.M.A. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1999.

Liebermann, Lowell. Three Impromptus, Op. 68. Philadelphia: Theodore Presser Co., 2001.

Liebermann, Lowell. Lowell Liebermann. http://www.lowellliebermann.com. Accessed on December 10, 2004.

Long, Marguerite. At the Piano with Fauré. Translated by Olive Senior-Ellis. New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1891.

Midgette, Anne. “Classical Music Review: Inwardness and Showmanship in the Quirky and Familiar,” New York Times, 21 July 2003, Late Edition, Sec. E, p. 4.

Nectoux, Jean-Michel. Gabriel Fauré: a Musical Life. Translated by Roger Nichols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Nichols, Dean Alan. “A Survey of the Piano Works of Lowell Liebermann.” D.M.A. diss., Lexington, University of Kentucky, 2000.

Pompa-Baldi, Antonio. “Three Impromptus by Liebermann: Music Performed in the 2001 Cliburn Competition,” Clavier Magazine 41, no. 7 (September 2002): 26.

Schubert, Franz. Impromptus D 899 (Op. 90) and Impromptus D 935 (Op. post. 142). Edited from the autograph and first edition and provided with fingering by Paul Badura-Skoda. Vienna, Austria: Wiener Urtext Edition, 1985.

Schwarz, K. Robert. “Bringing Tonality, and Fans, to Contemporary Music.” New York Times, 31 January 1999, Sec. II, p. 28.

Simmons, Walter. “Review of Lowell Liebermann: Piano Music, Vol. 1 KOCH International Classics 7548 performed by David Korevaar.,” Fanfare 27 (2004): 145.

Spiller, William T. “Review of Lowell Liebermann: Keyboard Music,” Notes 60 (June 2004): 1034-1039.

Struble, John Warthen. The History of American Classical Music: MacDowell through Minimalism. New York: Facts On File, Inc, 1995.

Teachout, Terry. “The New Tonalists,” Commentary 104, no. 6 (December 1997): 53-57.

_____. “Back to the Future,” Time 6 March 2000: 75.

Tommasini, Anthony. Music Review: Celebrating Yaddo With Works It Helped Spawn. New York Times, 9 May 2000, late ed. sec. E, p. 5.

Voříšek, J. H. Impromptus, Op. 7. Edited and forwarded by Dr. Vladimír Helfert. Reprint of Prague: Artia, 1957.

Young, John Bell. On Watch at the Van Cliburn Competition. http://www.mvdaily.com/articles/2001/06/cliburn4.htm>. Fort Worth, TX: 2001.

Yu, Wei-Hui. “A Stylistic Analysis of Piano Concerto No. 2 Op. 36 by Lowell Liebermann.” D.M.A. diss., University of Northern Colorado, 2003.

100

Interviews

Korevaar, David, Assistant Professor of Piano at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Interviewed by author through e-mail correspondences on 8 January 2005.

Liebermann, Lowell. Interviewed by author in Weehawken, New Jersey on 3 February 2005.

Pompa-Baldi, Antonio, Piano Instructor at Cleveland Institute of Music. Interviewed by author through e-mail correspondences on 13 January 2005.

Recording

Liebermann, Lowell. Piano Music, Vol. I. Performed by David Korevaar. KOCH International Classics 3-7548-2 HI, 2003. Compact Disc.

Liebermann, Lowell. Piano Music, Vol. II. Performed by David Korevaar. KOCH International Classics 3-7552-2 HI, 2004. Compact Disc.