Reconsidering the Nineteenth-Century Potpourri: ’s Op. 94 for and

A document submitted to

The Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Musical Arts

in the Performance Studies Division of the College-Conservatory of Music

2018

by

Fan Yang

B. M., Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts, 2008 M. M., Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts, 2010 . M. . Candidacy, University of Cincinnati, 2013

Abstract

The Potpourri for Viola and Orchestra, Op. 94 by Johann Nepomuk Hummel is available in a heavily abridged edition, entitled Fantasy, which causes confusions and problems. To clarify this misperception and help performers choose between the two versions, this document identifies the timeline and sources that exist for Hummel’s Op. 94 and compares the two versions of this work, focusing on material from the Potpourri missing in the Fantasy, to determine in what ways it contributes to the original work. In addition, by examining historical definitions and composed examples of the genre as well as philosophical ideas about the faithfulness to a work—namely, idea of the early nineteenth-century work concept, Werktreue—as well as counter arguments, this research aims to rationalize the choice to perform the Fantasy or Potpourri according to varied situations and purposes, or even to suggest adopting or adapting the Potpourri into a new version. Consequently, a final goal is to spur a reconsideration of the potpourri genre, and encourage performers and audiences alike to include it in their learning and programming.

i

ii

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to all those who helped me complete this document. My special thanks go to my advisor Jonathan Kregor, as well as my readers

Samuel Y. Ng and Catharine Carroll Lees, for their stimulating and instructive guidance. My grateful thanks also go to Alyssa Mehnert. Without her assistance and suggestions, completion of this document and its proposal would not have been possible.

I am also grateful to Professor Stephanie P. Schlagel for her teaching at the College-

Conservatory of Music, University of Cincinnati, Professor Alicia Levin for her teaching at the University of Kansas, and I also wish to thank Dr. Shane Levesque, Dr. Su Yin Mak, and

Dr. Grace Yu for their teaching at the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts. The knowledge I learned from them about music history and writing served as the essential groundwork for this document. They also helped me choose my topic and structure the document.

On the performance side of my work, my sincere appreciation goes to Professor

Catharine Carroll Lees, Professor Masao Kawasaki, and Professor Wang Jia Yang for helping me improve as a violist.

Lastly I would like to thank my parents, my wife, and my parents-in-law for their constant support.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract i

Acknowledgements iii

Table of Contents iv

List of Examples v

I: Introduction 1

A. Historical background and sources for the two versions of Hummel’s Op. 94 3

B. Identification of borrowed themes and sections removed from the Potpourri 10

II: Comparison 29

A. Comparison to the philosophic ideologies 29

B. Comparison to the performance ideas in the treatise by Czerny 39

C. Comparison to string potpourris by other composers of the time 61

III: Conclusion 73

A. Performance suggestions 73

B. Reconsidering the potpourri genre 80

Bibliography 82

iv

List of Examples Example 1.1: 8-9 Checklists of Potpourris and Fantasias of Johann Nepomuk Hummel

Example 1.2: 11-12 Use of Existing Music in the Works of Charles Ives

Example 1.3: 14 Structure of Hummel’s Op. 94, Potpourri

Example 1.4: 14 Structure of Hummel’s Op. 94, Fantasy

Example 1.5: 16 mm. 29-36, Beginning of section

Example 1.6: 17 the original Ottavio’s aria “Il mio tesoro intanto” in Mozart Don Giovanni

Example 1.7: 20 mm. 208-227, Middle of Le Nozze di Figaro section

Example 1.8: 21 Beethoven “Se vuol ballare, signor contino” Variation VII

Example 1.9: 23 the original Osmin’s aria in Mozart Die Entführung aus dem Serail, act I

Example 1.10: 24 mm. 344–50, Beginning of Die Entführung aus dem Serail (act II) section

Example 1.11: 25 the original quartet in Mozart Die Entführung aus dem Serail, act II

Example 2.1: 48 mm. 1–7, Beginning of introduction

Example 2.2: 49 mm. 29–32, Beginning of Don Giovanni section

Example 2.3: 50 mm. 93–95, Beginning of Bolero section

v

Example 2.4: 50 mm. 157–62, Beginning of Le Nozze di Figaro section

Example 2.5: 51 mm. 252–7, Beginning of Die Entführung aus dem Serail (act I) section

Example 2.6: 51 mm. 271–7, Beginning of Fuga section

Example 2.7: 52 mm. 344–50, Beginning of Die Entführung aus dem Serail (act II) section

Example 2.8: 54 mm. 397–407, transition and Beginning of Tancredi section

Example 2.9: 54 mm. 541–46, Beginning of coda

Example 2.10: 56 Key, Meter, Tempo, and Characteristic Designs of the Potpourri

Example 2.11: 58 Key, Meter, Tempo, and Characteristic Designs of the Fantasy

Example 2.12: 64 Comparison of Hummel’s Op. 94, Fantasy to Weber’s Op. 20

Example 2.13: 67 Comparison of Hummel’s Op. 94, Fantasy to Bottesini’s sulla “La Sonnambula” di Bellini

Example 2.14: 68 Scene Structures in Rossini

Example 2.15: 70 Comparison with Rossini’s Scene Structures, Hummel’s Op. 94, Fantasy, Bottesini’s Fantasia sulla “La Sonnambula” di Bellini, and Weber’s Op. 20

Example 3.1: 75 A possible cut from mm. 160–401

Example 3.2: 76 A possible cut of Hummel’s Op. 94

vi

Example 3.3: 78 mm. 680–6, Ending

Example 3.4: 78 mm. 684–6, Suggested ending

vii

I: Introduction

When searching for Johann Nepomuk Hummel’s (1778–1837) Op. 94 for viola and orchestra and the later reduction, two titles can be found: Potpourri and Fantasy. A work having two versions is not surprising. Some works have different editions released by different editors and publishers. Some works have different versions because the composer made one or more revisions; or the composer did not finish the work, leaving its completion to a later arranger, editor, and performer. But Hummel’s Op. 94 has a more complicated situation. The two versions bear different titles, therefore, the confusion cannot be clarified by the arranger or editor’s version, or by the year of the version, and worse still, both versions are under the number Op. 94.

Many auditions and exams ask for the Fantasy. For example, the viola grade eight exam from the 2012–2015 syllabus of the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music provides the choice “Hummel: Andantino con moto and Allegro non troppo: 2nd and 3rd movts from Fantasie for Viola.”1 As a result, some violists who have only played the Fantasy may not even know about the existence of the Potpourri. But it is rare that the violists who have played the Potpourri do not know the existence of the Fantasy, because editions of the

Potpourri almost always have the Fantasy marked in brackets, and these publications of the

Potpourri provide indications for where to make changes in order to create the Fantasy.

In this document I will employ the following strategy: first, to clarify the timeline and

1 Bowed Strings Syllabus 2012–2015, Nigel Scaife, ed. (: ABRSM, 2011), 32. This is confusing, because the Fantasy and the Potpourri are both continuous single- movement compositions. The indication of movements here should be understood as sections instead of the separate movements typical of large scale works.

1

sources that exist for Hummel’s Op. 94. Second, to compare the borrowed materials to the original sources. Third, to compare the two versions of this work, and focus on the material in the Potpourri that was removed from the Fantasy to determine in what ways it contributed to

Hummel’s original version. Fourth, I will attempt to examine historical definitions and composed examples of the genre to see if the term “potpourri” is truly interchangeable with

“fantasy,” as seems to be the case today. Finally, two questions will guide performance issues:

Does the Fantasy or Potpourri better serve certain performance situations? Or can violists create their own adaptation of the Potpourri in the historical “spirit of the genre?”

2

Historical background and sources for the two versions of Hummel’s Op. 94

While no reliable resource about the provenance of the Fantasy exists, the existence of two versions not only causes confusion about the titles, but also furthers the problems of subsequent performance decisions. The most basic problem is the seemingly simple either/or choice: without exam requirements and time constraints, which version should be played when a violist is preparing a concert or recital? Since the Potpourri is Hummel’s original work, it seems that the Fantasy would be labelled unauthorized and fully abandoned.

Furthermore, it is possible that the Fantasy is the result of a pirated publication, as Hummel confronted serious copyright problems in his lifetime, and some publishers printed pirated editions eliminating part of Hummel’s works to keep the music on fewer printing plates.2

It is not difficult to find the differences between these two versions. Hummel entitled the original version “Potpourri.” Hummel’s autograph score is housed in Dresden (Sächsische

Landes- und Universitätsbibliothek, Musikabteilung, 4518-0-8).3 The extant autograph of the

Potpourri bears the date September 1820, and this version was first published in 1822 by .

F. Peters in Leipzig. Its performance takes about twenty minutes, and in addition to the solo viola it is orchestrated for flute, two oboes, two , two horns, two trumpets, two timpanis in D and in A, and strings. Hummel wrote this Potpourri for Anton Schmiedl, a violist and member of the Saxon Court Orchestra in Dresden. The composer designed the

2 Joel Sachs, “Hummel and the Pirates: the Struggle for Musical Copyright,” Musical Quarterly 59 (January 1, 1973): 38.

3 Norbert Gertsch and Johanna Steiner, comments to Potpourri, Op. 94 (“Fantasy”) for Viola and Orchestra, by Johann Nepomuk Hummel (München: . Henle, 2007), trans. Unknown, 31.

3

work for virtuosic display in large theaters, which may also explain its performance length.

The work was the only published potpourri of the time featuring a viola solo and was apparently a great success, as Hummel immediately transcribed the solo part to a version numbered Op. 95, dedicated to cellist Nikolaus Kraft.4 There is little value in studying the cello version to better understand the work, because the orchestral parts are exactly the same and the solo part is mostly an octave lower to match the octave difference between the two instruments. Its existence, however, provides a hint of the Potpourri’s popularity.

The Fantasy, a heavily abridged version of the Potpourri, was presumably not created by the composer. Nevertheless, this shortened version of the work remains popular among violists. The audition and exam requirements mentioned above might be one of the major reasons. Audition lists commonly require the Fantasy probably because its shorter length, which is about only eight minutes and thus better suits time constraints. Much information about the Fantasy’s origin is missing, including who arranged it and when and where it was created. There is no agreed date for the first appearance of the Fantasy, either. In his preface to the 2000 Kunzelmann edition, Franz Beyer suggests that it was first published in 1899 by

A. J. Benjamin in Hamburg.5 By contrast, in the 2007 Henle Edition preface, Norbert Gertsch and Johanna Steiner point to an early edition from one year later: that of A. . Fischer,

4 Gertsch and Steiner, V.

5 Franz Beyer, preface to Potpourri mit Fantasie für Viola und Orchester, Op.94, by Johann Nepomuk Hummel (Lottstetten: Edition Kunzelmann, 2000), 1.

4

Bremen, and Carl Fischer, published in New York in 1900.6 Both of these early editions of the abbreviated Fantasy have the same orchestration: only two and strings plus the solo viola.

Despite enjoying a reputation in some circles during the 1820s as Ludwig van

Beethoven’s equal, after his death Hummel and his works did not receive much attention until around the 1970s.7 Similarly, the fashionable nineteenth-century genres of potpourri and fantasy also withered to such an extent that the former took on negative connotations.8 And what had been important generic distinctions in the early part of the century became obscured by the latter part, such that “fantasy,” “potpourri,” “medley,” “quodlibet,” and other terms were frequently used interchangeably.9 The borrowed tunes in a potpourri are usually popular

6 Gertsch and Steiner, V.

7 Harold C. Schonberg, “Could a Revival of Hummel’s Music Be at Hand? Will Hummel’s Music Be Revived?” New York Times, April 25, 1982, accessed December 11, 2017, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/docview/121891117?pq- origsite=summon&accountid=2909.

8 Probably the literal translation, “rotten pot,” gives an uncomfortable first impression, but further explanation explains the negative connotation. The term “Potpourri” applies to “a similar hotch potch of tunes from a pre-existing source or sources,” and “the term is extended only in a somewhat derogatory sense to the technically more ambitious and artistically more meritorious fantasies.” During the nineteenth century, “selections from popular stage works were always in demand, and the task of producing them was often hack-work for the amateur or impoverished musician.” Andrew Lamb, “Potpourri,” Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/22189.

9 By the end of the nineteenth century, when the genre fell out of fashion, the fantasy’s application to “pieces based on a given theme or group of themes of a popular source,” or a “potpourri of themes” seems interchangeable with potpourri if one disregards the negative association of the potpourri. Even a Worldcat search will list some fantasy items when searching for “potpourri.” In addition to “fantasy” and “potpourri,” the terms medley and quodlibet are also seemingly interchangeable, but they refer to more lighthearted music.

5

tunes, often from folk songs, , or other well-known instrumental music. Opera composers also wrote such works on melodies from their operas to commercially advertise their opera productions, and virtuosic performers often used this genre as a medium to display their technical and improvisatory ability.10 Some potpourris with instrumentation settings were also performed domestically, providing an easy way to enjoy one’s favorite melodies at home.

Example 1.1 shows that as was common in this time period, Hummel composed a number of potpourris and fantasies, including potpourris based on this own opera tunes, for virtuosic display and for chamber music groups. From the checklist, it is not difficult to notice the significance of Op. 94 and the value of studying it: besides the rare solo instrumentation and the relatively long duration, this is also Hummel’s only potpourri with orchestral accompaniment. There is another work for piano and orchestra from his later years about the same length, Op. 116, a fantasy based on ’s opera Oberon,

Denis Arnold and Lalage Cochrane, “Fantasia,” The Oxford Companion to Music, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t114/e2413; Christopher D.S. Field, et al, “Fantasia,” Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/40048; Polly Fallows, “Medley,” The Oxford Companion to Music, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t114/e4326; “Medley,” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2016, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/18254; and Maria Rika Maniates, et al, “Quodlibet,” Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/22748.

10 Arnold and Cochrane; Field, et al, “Fantasia.”

6

but this work is less surprising since Hummel was a virtuosic himself and most of his potpourris and fantasies feature the piano.

7

Example 1.1: Checklists of Potpourris and Fantasias of Johann Nepomuk Hummel11

Potpourri Opus Title Note Orchestration Key Date 1st Edition 47 Potpourri Include Piano Solo C 1st edition motives unknown. from Der Reprinted (?) Freischütz Schlesinger, Welsh & Hawkes, 1820's 53 Potpourri Piano and g Répertoire, circa 1810–14 58 Potpourri From Die Piano Solo c Répertoire, Eselshaut circa 1814–15 (Hummel) 59 Potpourri From Die Piano Solo C Répertoire, No. 2 Eselshaut circa 1814–15 (Hummel) 63 Sérénade Piano, , G Répertoire, en Guitar, or circa 1814–15 Potpourri Flute, and or Cello; also for Piano, Flute, and Cello; and for Piano, Violin, Clarinet, and Bassoon 79 Gr. Composed Piano and Guitar Mollo, circa potpourri jointly with 1818 national 94 Potpourri Viola and Orchestra g September Peters, circa 1820 1821–22 95 Potpourri Arranged Cello and Orchestra g Peters, circa from Op. 1821–22 94

11 These checklists are based on Joel Sachs, “A Checklist of the Works of Johann Nepomuk Hummel,” Notes Second Series, 30 (June 1974): 732–54. Unpublished works have been assigned new supplementary (S) numbers, and the “WoO” numbers from the thematic catalog, which do not reflect chronology, are given in parentheses.

8

Fantasia Opus Title Note Orchestration Key Date 1st Edition or Manuscript 18 Fantasie Piano Solo E Bureau flat d'Industrie, circa 1805 19 Rondo quasi Piano Solo E Contor delle una fantasia arti et d'Industria, circa 1806 116 “Oberons Fantasy Piano and e November Haslinger; Zauberhorn” Orchestra 1829 Farrenc; Cramer, Addison & Beale; October 1830 123 Fantasie On themes of Piano Solo g Haslinger; Neukomm Farrenc; and Hummel (Cramer etc. not verifiable); circa September 1833 124 Fantasina On themes Piano Solo C Haslinger; from Le Nozze Farrenc; di Figaro (publication in London not verifiable) circa September 1833 S 20 Fantasia Themes by Piano Solo c April Add. 32236 ff. Haydn and 1794 87–93 Mozart (1799?) S 27 Fantasia Piano Solo A circa 1799 Add. 32236 ff. flat 79–86' S 190 Fantasia Recollections Piano Solo C 1831? Cramer, (WoO of Paganini Addison & 8) Beale; Farrenc; July- October 1831. (Haslinger not verifiable.)

9

Identification of borrowed themes and sections removed from the Potpourri

Understanding the use of musical borrowings is essential to the study of potpourris and fantasies. In his essay “The Uses of Existing Music: Musical Borrowing as a Field,” J.

Peter Burkholder suggests that the term “quotation” is a narrow focus on only one method, and other terms are problematic, like “intertextuality,” which is too broad and evades questions of priority and derivation, so that “the use of existing music” and “musical borrowing” are preferred.12 Burkholder also provides motivating questions: First, analytical questions: for any individual piece, what is borrowed or used as a source? How is it used in the new work?

Second, interpretive or critical questions: why is this material borrowed and used in this way? What musical or extramusical functions does it serve?

Third, historical questions: where did the composer get the idea to do this? What is the history of the practice? Can one trace a development in the works of an individual composer, or in a musical tradition, in the ways existing material is borrowed and used?13 These questions provide a point of departure for the study and comparison of the Potpourri and Fantasy versions of Hummel’s Op. 94. Burkholder’s table, “Use of Existing Music in the

Works of Charles Ives,” reproduced in Example 1.2, might provide a framework to define

Hummel’s method of musical borrowing despite differing practices in different time periods and the terminological confusion mentioned above.

12 J. Peter Burkholder, “The Uses of Existing Music: Musical Borrowing as a Field,” Notes Second Series, 50 (March, 1994): 861–2.

13 Ibid., 864.

10

Example 1.2: Use of Existing Music in the Works of Charles Ives14 (1) Modeling a work or section on an existing piece, assuming its structure, incorporating part of its melodic material, imitating its form or procedures, or using it as a model in some other way;

(2) Variations on a given tune;

(3) Paraphrasing an existing tune to form a new melody, theme, or motive;

(4) Arranging a work for a new medium;

(5) Setting an existing tune with a new accompaniment;

(6) Cantus firmus, presenting a given tune in long notes against a more quickly moving texture;

(7) Medley, stating two or more existing tunes, relatively complete, one after another in a single movement;

(8) Quodlibet, combining two or more existing tunes or fragments of tunes in counterpoint or in quick succession, most often as a joke or technical tour de force;

(9) Stylistic allusion, alluding not to a specific work but to a general style or type of music;

(10) Cumulative setting, a complex form in which the theme, either a borrowed tune or a melody paraphrased from one or more existing tunes, is presented in its complete form only near the end of a movement, preceded by development of motives from the theme, fragmentary or altered presentation of the theme, and exposition of important countermelodies;

(11) Programmatic quotation, fulfilling an extramusical program or illustrating part of a text;

(12) Collage, in which a swirl of quoted and paraphrased tunes is added to a musical structure based on modeling, paraphrase, cumulative setting, or a narrative program;

14 Ibid., 854.

11

(13) Patchwork, in which fragments of two or more tunes are stitched together, sometimes elided through paraphrase and sometimes linked by Ives’s own interpolations; and

(14) Extended paraphrase, in which the melody for an entire work or section is paraphrased from an existing tune.

12

Besides one unidentifiable section, Hummel’s Potpourri contains five borrowed sections from four different operas by two composers. The last borrowed melody is from

Gioachino Rossini’s Tancredi, and the others are by , one each from Don Giovanni and Le Nozze di Figaro, and two from Die Entführung aus dem Serail.

Hummel connected these sections by adding his own transitions, and also composed an introduction which includes sections for both the orchestra and the soloist, a section in the middle, and the coda at the end (see Example 1.3). This generally fits Burkholder’s borrowing method (7) Medley, with Hummel’s newly composed sections interspersed. In contrast, the Fantasy is left with only one borrowed section in the middle from Mozart’s Don

Giovanni, and Hummel’s own introduction and final section (see Example 1.4). The cut makes the Fantasy a different classification of music borrowing, so the focus would become

(4) Arranging and it is essentially an (14) Extended paraphrase.

13

Example 1.3: Structure of Hummel’s Op. 94, Potpourri15

Measures Identified as such Original Composed only in the autograph 1-28 Hummel, Introduction 1820 29-88 Don Juan Mozart, Don Giovanni, act II, scene 10, Don 1787 Ottavio’s Aria “Il mio tesoro intanto” 89-93 Hummel, Transition 1820 94-158 It has not been possible to identify these measures superscribed Boleros in the autograph. 159 Hummel, Transition 1820 160-246 Figaro Mozart, Le Nozze di Figaro, act I, scene 2, 1785/86 Figaro’s Cavatina “Se vuol ballare signor Contino” 247-253 Hummel, Transition 1820 254-276 Entführung aus Mozart, Die Entführung aus dem Serail, act I, 1781/82 dem Serail scene 3, Osmin’s Aria “Solche hergelaufne Laffen,” M. 147 ff. “Erst geköpft, dann gehangen” 277-330 Hummel, Fugue 1820 331-344 Hummel, Transition 1820 345-371 Entführung Mozart, Die Entführung aus dem Serail, act II, 1781/82 scene 9, Quartetto “Ach Belmonte! ach mein Leben!,” M. 197 ff. “Wenn unsrer Ehre wegen” 372-401 Hummel, Transition 1820 402-540 Tancredi Rossini, Tancredi, act I, scene 5, Recitativo e 1812/13 Vacatina Tancredi “Di tanti palpiti” 541-686 Hummel, Coda 1820

Example 1.4: Structure of Hummel’s Op. 94, Fantasy

Measures Identified as such only Original Composed in the autograph 1-28 Hummel, Introduction 1820 29-88 Don Juan Mozart, Don Giovanni, act II, scene 10, 1787 Don Ottavio’s Aria “Il mio tesoro intanto” 89-93 Hummel, Transition 1820 541-686 Hummel, Coda 1820

15 Gertsch and Steiner, IV.

14

Indeed, the Fantasy is an abbreviated version of the complete Potpourri. The Fantasy is about twelve minutes shorter than the Potpourri, but more surprising is that the difference of actual contents in these two versions impacts the overall design and variety of borrowed themes. Considering the individual sections, mm. 29–88 constitute the borrowing from

Mozart’s Don Giovanni. This section is based on Anna’s husband, tenor Don Ottavio’s aria

“Il mio tesoro intanto” in act II, when he asks the others to watch over Anna while he avenges her.16 This aria’s orchestration includes two clarinets, which may explain the new orchestration of the Fantasy for strings and two clarinets, while the Potpourri’s orchestration has no clarinet but does include other wind instruments.17

Comparing this section in Hummel’s Op. 94 and Mozart’s original aria, the borrowing skips the seven-measure introduction, starting directly at Ottavio’s melody. The viola part is not exactly same as the source’s voice part. When the orchestra takes over the main melody from the vocal line, the viola plays the orchestral part to construct a continuously dominating melody. The rhythm and ornamental figures are not quite the same either, but the melody is still easily recognizable, suggesting that Hummel might have jotted it down either by ear or from memory instead of having the score of the aria on hand when composing this section.

Alternatively, he might have deliberately altered it. The latter seems less reasonable as there

16 Julian Rushton, “Don Giovanni (ii),” The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/O901351.

17 There are two authentic versions of Don Giovanni, one is of the 1787 Prague premiere, the other is of the 1788 revised production. In the 1788 Vienna version, this Ottavio’s aria “Il mio tesoro intanto” is removed and replaced with other music, but the substitution did not diminish this aria’s popularity.

15

is no obvious reason to modify it for either the audience or the players (see Examples 1.5 and

1.6).

Example 1.5: mm. 29–36, Beginning of Don Giovanni section

16

Example 1.6: the original Ottavio’s aria “Il mio tesoro intanto” in Mozart Don Giovanni

17

More interestingly, some passages are totally different from the aria. Only in comparison with the text would it become clear that Hummel keeps only the melody from the first four lines out of the repeated :18 Il mio tesoro intanto Meantime go and andate a consolar, console my dearest one, e del bel ciglio il pianto and seek to dry the tears cercate di asciugar. from her lovely eyes. Ditele che i suoi torti Tell her that I have gone a vendicar io vado; to avenge her wrongs; Che sol di stragi e morti and will return only as the messenger nunzio vogl'io tornar. of punishment and death. The first four lines ask the others to watch over Anna, while in the next four lines, Ottavio sings about avenging her. Hummel keeps the tender part of the aria but replaces the vengeance part with his own transitions, so the resulting structure becomes: melody to the first four lines—Hummel’s transition—melody to the first four lines—Hummel’s transition to the next section. Overall, this section can be classified as (1) Modeling and (3)

Paraphrasing.

There are more borrowed sections in the Potpourri. The section in mm. 94–158 does not have an identifiable source with which to compare. However, the next section, mm. 160–

246, is also a borrowing from a Mozart/Da Ponte work, Le Nozze di Figaro, which premiered at the Burgtheater in Vienna in 1786. The borrowed melody comes from bass Figaro’s cavatina “Se vuol ballare signor Contino” in Act I:19

18 Translation by Camila Argolo Freitas Batista, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.aria-database.com/search.php?individualAria=87.

19 Translation mine.

18

Se vuol ballare, signor contino, If you want to dance, Sir Count, il chitarrino le suonerò, I will play the guitar, se vuol ballare, signor contino, If you want to dance, Sir Count, il chitarrino le suonerò, sì, I will play the guitar, yes, le suonerò, sì, I will play it, yes, le suonerò. I will play it. Figaro, Count Almaviva’s valet, is singing that if the Count wants to dance, Figaro himself will play the little guitar for him. It is a determination to outwit the Count.20 This cavatina goes on and repeats this opening passage by the end, but Hummel only borrows these twenty measures to create a theme and variations. The first statement of the theme is played by the orchestra, and then the viola leads four variations. This should be classified as (2) Variations.

Notably, Beethoven composed twelve variations on the same melody for violin and piano in

1792–93, numbered WoO 40. There are quite a few similarities between the two works. For example, this section in Hummel’s Potpourri sounds like a concentrated version of

Beethoven’s variations on the same theme, and Hummel might have known Beethoven’s work through their complicated and fluctuating relationship (see Examples 1.7 and 1.8).21

20 Julian Rushton, “Nozze di Figaro, Le,” The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/O003136.

21 Joel Sachs and Mark Kroll, “Hummel, Johann Nepomuk,” Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/13548.

19

Example 1.7: mm. 208–227, Middle of Le Nozze di Figaro section

20

Example 1.8: Beethoven “Se vuol ballare, signor contino” Variation VII

21

The sections from mm. 254–276 and mm. 345–371 are both from Mozart’s Die

Entführung aus dem Serail. Mm. 254–276 section is from Act I after bass Osmin, the overseer of the Turkish country palace, fumes at Pedrillo about vagabond fops fit only to be hanged and lists terrifying ways to die. It is “a full binary exit aria, portentous and often contrapuntal,” and “it flies off the handle in the coda to which Mozart added ‘Turkish’ music for comic effect.”22 Erst geköpft, First beheaded, dann gehangen, then hanged, dann gespießt then impaled auf heiße Stangen; on red-hot spikes; dann vebrannt, then burned, dann gebunden, then bound, und getaucht, and drowned, zuletzt geschunden. finally flayed. This is a short aria with many repetitive measures from the crescendo to the furious end.

Hummel makes it less “Turkish” in the Potpourri by omitting the cymbals and tambourine and brings back phrase regularity by cutting the repetitive phrase extensions (see Example

1.9). Like in the Don Giovanni borrowing, it is not exactly the same as the original and should be classified as (1) Modeling and (3) Paraphrasing.

22 Julian Rushton, “Entführung aus dem Serail, Die,” The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/O006411. Translation by Camila Argolo Freitas Batista, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.aria- database.com/search.php?individualAria=290.

22

Example 1.9: the original Osmin’s aria in Mozart Die Entführung aus dem Serail, act I

23

After Hummel’s own Fugue, the section in mm. 345–371 is from Act II of Die

Entführung aus dem Serail, before the two pairs of lovers try to escape from Pasha’s palace, when the four voices “come together in mingled relief and regret”23 and the men sing about being suspicious of their beloveds: 24

Konstanze and Blonde: Belmonte and Pedrillo: Wenn unsrer Ehre wegen Sobald sich Weiber kränken, die Männer Argwohn hegen, daß wir sie untreu denken, verdächtig auf uns sehn, dann sind sie wahrhaft treu, das ist nicht auszustehn. von allem Vorwurf frei.

If for our honor As soon as women get sick, the men suspect, that we think them unfaithful, look suspiciously at us, then they are truly faithful, that is not to be missed. free of all reproach. It is not easy to recognize the six-eight time signature of Mozart’s original by listening to this section of the Potpourri, since the solo viola plays scalar and arpeggio figures while the borrowing is played by the orchestra in three-four time with few adjustments (see Examples

1.10 and 1.11). This section fits the description of (6) Cantus firmus.

Example 1.10: mm. 344–50, Beginning of Die Entführung aus dem Serail (act II) section

23 Ibid.

24 Translation mine.

24

Example 1.11: the original quartet in Mozart Die Entführung aus dem Serail, act II

The section at mm. 402–540 is based on Rossini’s Tancredi, which premiered at the

Teatro La Fenice of Venice in 1813, on the libretto by Gaetano Rossi after Voltaire’s

Tancrède.25 The plot is about the secret love between Syracusans Amenaide, Argirio’s daughter, and contralto Tancredi, an exiled knight, and interweaves the feuding and unity between the houses of Argirio and Orbazzano, and their strife against the enemy Saracen. In

Act I, the soon widely acclaimed cabaletta section “Di tanti palpiti” of the cavatina “Tu che accendi questo core” marks Tancredi’s covert arrival.26 “Di tanti palpiti” expresses Tancredi’s love, with happiness and pain, to Amenaide, before seeing her:27

25 There is another version for the Ferrara performance a month after the premiere, chiefly changing the happy ending back to Voltaire’s original tragedy, but this has no impact on the portion of the opera that Hummel borrowed.

26 Richard Osborne, “Tancredi,” The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/O005711.

27 Translation mine.

25

Di tanti palpiti, For all these heartbeats, di tante pene, for all these pains, da te mio bene, from you my love, spero mercè. I hope for mercy. Mi rivedrai . . . You will see me again . . . ti rivedrà . . . I will see you again . . . ne' tuoi bei rai mi pascerò. in your beautiful radiance I content. Deliri, Delusions, sospiri . . . sighs, accenti, voices, contenti! happy! Sarà felice, I will be glad, il cor mel dice, my heart tells me, il mio vicino a te. my destiny near you. “Di tanti palpiti” was so well received that, “For later generations the fame of Tancredi appeared to rest on the cavatina ‘Tu che accendi’, with its cabaletta ‘Di tanti palpiti.’”28 In this section of the Potpourri, Hummel maintains the convention of skipping the orchestral introduction and omits the last passage to make it in ABA form. In this borrowing, however, he makes the viola rest like the vocal part, giving the melody to the orchestra. Hummel also composed three variations following the theme. This is again an example of (2) Variations.

Niccolo Paganini also happened to compose a Theme and Variations on “I Palpiti”

Op. 13 with his own introduction in 1819, one year before Op. 94’s composition. Like

Hummel’s variations on the theme, Paganini’s theme precedes three variations, and is continuously played by the violin with few other changes. This illustrates that it was common practice in instrumental adaptations of vocal music for the viola to skip the orchestral introduction and play the orchestra melody during the vocal rest. Paganini also omits the final

28 Philip Gossett, “Rossini, Gioachino,” Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/23901pg3.

26

passage of the original source, transforming the ABAB form of the source material into an

ABA form. This again matches Hummel’s approach to the Don Giovanni borrowing.

At this point, I have answered the first analytical questions from Burkholder. Part of the second interpretive or critical questions can be answered too. The work carries no apparent continuity of musical meaning related to the plot, the background, or the libretto.

Hummel’s borrowing choices for the Potpourri show no continuity of language, voice part, opera, composer, time period, or mood.

Hummel achieved several goals by borrowing these varied themes from Mozart and

Rossini for the Potpourri. The public practically revered Mozart as a god, and Rossini was extremely popular during this time as well. That Hummel, Beethoven, and Paganini borrowed the same materials suggests the popularity of these arias during the period. Hummel extensively quoted and at the same time varied the borrowed melodies. Through the variations and newly composed sections, Hummel demonstrated that he was a talented and capable composer. At the same time, he followed the tradition of choosing well-known opera melodies by various composers to bundle a charming bouquet for the audience’s entertainment.29

Hummel’s ideal intention for this Potpourri further supports this conclusion. The historical record shows that the composer was a skillful marketer of his works. By the time he composed this Potpourri in 1820, he “was firmly established as in , on the way to world fame as a piano virtuoso, and tirelessly producing new works as a

29 Gertsch and Steiner, IV.

27

composer.”30 Indeed, as the Grand-Ducal Kapellmeister at the court of Weimar, Hummel had to serve two worlds: that of the connoisseur and that of the enthusiast. He had to divide his compositions between the established serious genres and the more popular and pleasing forms. As the Potpourri shows, he could do this even within a single composition, and was apparently quite proud of it. In his treatise Ausführliche theoretisch-practische Anweisung zum Piano-Forte-Spiel31 (A Complete Theoretical and Practical Course on the Art of

Pianoforte Playing), published in 1828, he writes: While I should have devoted my greatest effort to pleasing connoisseurs, I nevertheless sought to please non-connoisseurs as well. For there is no audience anywhere in the entire world that consists solely of connoisseurs […]; they would have to be very pedantic, obstinate connoisseurs who would never feel the occasional urge to enjoy something that appeals to a mixed community of music lovers; or very untalented, inept artists who are unable to design and execute music that could appeal to connoisseurs as well as to others,32 This ideal intention, however, is only kept in the original Potpourri. The cut from the

Potpourri to make the Fantasy amounts to a big loss, and it not only removes two thirds of the work’s duration, including the four borrowed themes and other sections as mentioned above, but also loses the meticulous design that both displays Hummel’s compositional ability and secured the popularity of the work.

30 Ibid.

31 Johann Nepomuk Hummel, Ausführliche theoretisch-practische Anweisung zum Piano-Forte-Spiel (Vienna: Haslinger, 1828).

32 Gertsch and Steiner, III–IV.

28

II: Comparison

Comparison to the philosophic ideologies

People might take it for granted that Hummel’s original ideas, all written in the

Potpourri’s score, should be followed exactly, as most players do to other works of other composers. However, virtuosic performers in the nineteenth century often used the potpourri genre as a medium to display their technical and improvisatory ability, which means its improvisational nature and use of operatic materials can invite modifications to the score. The impossibility and inappropriateness of performing the Potpourri exactly the same every time is similar to the reality of opera productions: “Their essentially fluid character . . . ensures that no performance guaranteed a faithful replica of its predecessor and . . . structural alterations were not merely permissible but desirable and even expected.”33

This example of opera production, along with jazz or flamenco being performed at a concert hall and chamber music being performed at symphonic halls, testifies the unavoidable loss of the original. 34 The loss would be more obvious when an idea from one time period were applied anachronistically to works from other historical periods. The idea of Werktreue, an authentic interpretation that requires the performer to respect the composer and thus follow the score exactly, was fully crystallized around the year 1800.35 It “emerged to capture

33 Lydia Goehr, The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy of Music, rev. ed. (Oxford University Press, 2007), 249–50.

34 Ibid.

35 Tiger C. Roholt, “Philosophy of Music,” Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/A2225335.

29

the new relation between work and performance as well as that between performer and composer. Performances and their performers were respectively subservient to works and their composers.”36 Lydia Goehr unpacks the concept of Werktreue in great detail, and her explanation informs this discussion over whether Hummel’s Potpourri can be cut or modified.

According to Goehr, this relation between performers and works is unnatural, and stems from the “conceptual imperialism” of the pervasive Werktreue: “the view of the musical world the romantic aesthetic originally provided has continued, since 1800, to be the dominant view.

This view is so entrenched in contemporary thought that its constitutive concepts are taken for granted.”37

One might assume that because the concept of Werktreue emerged before Hummel composed his Potpourri, it should apply to this work. The following discussion, however, will complicate this assumption. The actual practice and underlying ideology reflect various philosophies. The questions are: 1) Did Hummel agree with the concept of Werktreue? 2)

Does a performer have the right to alter the score? 3) Does the improvisational nature of the potpourri genre complicate the application of the work-concept?

The first challenge to apply Werktreue to the Potpourri is the appropriateness of playing the score exactly as written. Indeed, Werktreue was on its way to becoming the dominant ideology by the time Hummel had composed this Potpourri. However, this concept had not yet completely replaced previous ideologies.

36 Goehr, 231.

37 Ibid., 245.

30

One approach to reveal the concept’s influence indirectly is observing the attitude towards music of the past. It is possible that “there was another interest in reconstruction that was more influential,” that musicians and audiences “began to see musical masterpieces as transcending temporal and spatial barriers. . . . Works were not to be thought about as expressive or representative of concrete historical moments, but as valuable in their own right as transcending all considerations other than those of an aesthetic/spiritual nature.”38 When the extramusical values were peeled away, the attraction of music would not relate to the contemporary culture. Then the music of the past would have comparatively higher value as models for new music, and subsequently become classic. The focus on the music of the past would shift and eventually relocate from listening to live performance to reading the composed score on paper, because the score was viewed as a more reliable reference than the transformation into actual sound by contemporary musicians.

The reality was, as late as the 1840s most Viennese and Parisian audiences still did not believe that the music of the past might be the best, and it was not until the 1850s that the shift of public attitude began. However, professional musicians were believed to be more progressive than public audience. Eminent musicians are believed to have been convinced of the legitimacy of Werktreue as early as 1830s or before.39 Thus, the growing popularity of the idea occurred after 1820, the time Hummel composed his Op. 94. Even eminent musicians that valued the work concept probably subscribed to this idea a few years later or at about the

38 Ibid., 246.

39 Ibid.

31

same time.

Even if we assume that the idea of Werktreue was well established by 1820, the second challenge is a question of a performer’s right to alter the score. While the Werktreue problem is all about a performer’s right to alter the score, nineteenth-century virtuosos like

Franz Liszt, Giovanni Bottesini, and Paganini were renowned for their own unique takes on published masterworks. These virtuosos were composers as well as performers of their own works. Additionally, they were also improvisers on their mastered instrument. The question of the appropriateness of altering a composer’s original work becomes a spectrum between performance and composition—the performer is the actual composer, and the composition might come from an improvisation of the actual performer. Liszt’s Après une lecture du

Dante: Fantasie quasi Sonata provides a clear example. David Trippett argues: Written between 1839 and 1858, the Sonata survives in three full manuscripts and four fragments and […] interweaves hours and hours of improvisation with a gradual process of revision on a more abstracted, conceptual level. As a piece born expressly from acts of performance, the Sonata appears not to be regulated exclusively by the idea that a work is an enduring, immutable product.40 In any case, the differentiation between improvisation and composition became a historic reality.41 The situation “presents a problem for the ideology of a work concept that separates Liszt hierarchically into pianist and composer. In contrast to contemporaries like

Felix Mendelssohn or , Liszt in his virtuosity continually challenges the

40 David Trippett, “Après une Lecture de Liszt: Virtuosity and Werktreue in the ‘Dante’ Sonata,” 19th-Century Music 32, no. 1 (Summer 2008): 54.

41 Ibid., 55.

32

aesthetic boundaries of composition, improvisation, and performance.”42

This complexity of composition and improvisation relates to Hummel’s Op. 94.

Chiefly remembered as a composer in modern times, Hummel was also a celebrated improviser during the period.43 Hummel did not compose Op. 94 for himself to play, nor did he improvise it on stage, and he did finalize it as a complete composition. Moreover,

Schmiedl was probably involved in revising the solo part until the last phase of the printing process.44 The involvement of Schmiedl, the dedicatee and intended player, complicates the assumption of whether a performer have the right to alter the score, although Schmiedl’s improvisatory ability is unknown as there is not much information about him available except that he was a violist and member of the Saxon court orchestra in Dresden.45

The third challenge is whether the concept of Werktreue should be applied to such a work, or if the work itself contradicts the idea by inviting alteration or mimicking

42 Ibid., 54.

43 “at the memorial concert, honoring Beethoven’s request, he improvised on themes from the dead composer’s works. . . . Hummel also gave Schubert great pleasure on one occasion by improvising on Der blinde Knabe . . . Hummel’s concert programmes followed the conventions of the day: . . . improvisation were the centerpieces. . . . Whereas accounts of Hummel’s interpretations often reflect the observers’ prejudices, comments on his improvising show almost unanimous enthusiasm. More at ease improvising than playing formal compositions, he particularly excelled at creating four- or five-part fugal variations.” See Joel Sachs and Mark Kroll, “Hummel, Johann Nepomuk.” His excellent four-or five-part fugal improvisation might explain the presence of “disconcerting” Fuga in the middle of Op. 94.

44 “It is possible that Anton Schmiedl (also written “Schmiedel” and Schmidl”, 1767- 1822), the dedicatee, was involved in this revision, which seems to have continued up into the last phase of the printing process.” See Gertsch and Steiner, IV.

45 Ibid.

33

improvisation. The potpourri genre “denoted an instrumental arrangement of opera tunes . . . the term is also sometimes used with reference to Liszt’s transcriptions for piano.”46

Regarding the conflation of potpourri and transcription, the concept of whether an arrangement or a transcription is considered to be original should be reexamined: We often disregard the conceptual differences between a work and an improvisation or those between a work and a transcription. Both improvisation and transcription emerged with their modern understanding as concepts sibling to the work-concept. They stand in an intimate relation to the latter, but it is not one of identity. It seems to be indeterminate. On occasion we refer to transcriptions as transcriptions; sometimes we speak of them as works in their own right. Similar indeterminacy obtains for improvisations.47 Despite of the ambiguity of whether a transcription or arrangement should be regarded as original, Hummel did not apply Werktreue when he used the borrowed materials.

As demonstrated in the introduction, Hummel modified the source materials to conform to the new instrumentation, and from them he also made variations. Considering that Hummel composed his own introduction, several transitions, the fugal section in the middle, and the coda, one cannot describe the work as a “transcription as transcription” or a “work in its own right.”48

Additionally, it is believed that Hummel did not have the idea of Werktreue in mind for this Potpourri, and he did not insist on it even if he happened to be aware of the idea: This fugue is strictly elaborated in four parts and most likely based on an original subject (M. 277–330). Perhaps it is this fugue which disconcerted the audience and the later publisher of the first edition, C. . Peters. The print

46 Jane Bellingham, “Potpourri,” The Oxford Companion to Music, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t114/e5310.

47 Goehr, 244.

48 Ibid.

34

indicates a cut from measure 268 to 331, which is explained by a footnote: “NB., should the fugue be eliminated for a public performance, one must skip from the first dal segno symbol to the next dal segno.”49 Even if we hypothesize that Hummel had the idea of Werktreue in mind, there is evidence that it was not the publisher’s unauthorized decision to add the alternative cut, because the composer was likely involved in the publishing process. Hummel knew about and agreed with the cut indication, even if he might have been reluctant: There are amazingly few errors in the print, a fact which gives rise to two conjectures: the first is that the parts used in performances served as models for the print. The second is that Hummel himself most probably corrected the proofs before the edition was published. The composer's involvement in the production of the print can already be inferred from the fact that the articulation of the solo part was completely revised before publication.50 Although this cut might have been included for commercial purposes, the practicality of allowing improvisation and alterations to one’s work was preferred at the time. For example, Weber, a composer and performer himself, both pianist and conductor, also allowed alterations to his works for practical purposes. Although he was “in principle a proponent of

‘Werktreue’ and a foe of intrusions (like inappropriate coloratura) that violate the spirit of a work, Weber was nevertheless also pragmatic enough to admit alternations that accommodated a piece to local tastes or modern audiences.”51 Examples of Weber’s alteration of music include the cuts that he made in Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf’s Doktor und

Apotheker, as well as his performances of the revised versions of Etienne Nicolas Méhul’s

49 Gertsch and Steiner, IV.

50 Ibid.

51 Paul Corneilson, et al, “Weber,” Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/40313pg9.

35

Joseph and André Ernest Modeste Grétry’s Raoul Barbe-bleue.52 Notably, all of these examples are operas. Even today, such large-scale works often require practical adjustment.

Absolute Werktreue is almost impossible to apply to operas, as Goehr ultimately admits:

“alterations were not merely permissible but desirable and even expected” in operas.53 Thus,

Hummel’s Op. 94, a Potpourri of operatic materials interweaved with his original passages, is truly a doubtful case for the application of a strict Werktreue interpretation.

The latter two challenges, which are the composer-performer’s right to alter the score, and whether the potpourri genre’s improvisational nature aligns with Werktreue at all, are more significant. Additionally, the challenge of defining improvisation and composition invites discussions about expectations created by generic titles indicating improvisational origin, such as “fantasy,” “prelude,” and “impromptu,” discussed at the international conference “ in the Age of Beethoven” held in Venice, 28–29

November 2014. There are problems defining the titles connoting improvisation, and whether improvisational elements might or might not be included in a composition given such names.54 Within these genres, there are real improvisations or compositions written down after improvising, and compositions that include improvisational elements ranging from very short improvisation moments to improvisation filling the majority of the parts. These titles

52 Ibid.

53 Goehr, 249–50.

54 Rohan H. Stewart-MacDonald, “Musical Improvisation in the Age of Beethoven and ‘Open Forms Fondazione Giorgio Cini, Isola Di San Giogio Maggiore, Venice, 28–29 November 2014,” Eighteenth-Century Music 12, no. 2 (2015): 283.

36

become ambiguous definitions sitting between improvisations and compositions, although those surviving in written form are certainly all compositions.

As the nineteenth century progressed, subsuming improvisation under the practice of composition became more popular among composers. For example, Mendelssohn complained about his own prepared, illusive, artificial extemporizing in public, which made him angry.55 Moreover, in his treatise Hummel’s mentioned the need “for live improvisations to conform to ‘compositional’ ideals of logic and coherence.”56 Many other music critics of the time also had the same idea.57

The question of the appropriateness of altering a composer’s original work cannot easily be answered, especially in the situation of Hummel’s Op. 94. On the one hand, the ideal Werktreue emerges at the time of its composition. On the other hand, other concepts and situations invite improvisations and alterations. As Goehr explains, Wonder can increase rather than be diminished despite a philosophical and historical understanding of these ideals. . . . In the end I hope to leave readers with the specific feeling that speaking about music in terms of works is neither an obvious nor a necessary mode of speech, despite the lack of ability we presently seem to have to speak about music in any other way.58 After realizing “the conceptual imperialism of the pervasive Werktreue,” today’s musical environment is shifting “from principles and ideals of unity, sameness and singularity towards plurality, difference and diversity, from the ideal of correct (Werktreue) or authentic

55 Trippett, 66–7.

56 Stewart-MacDonald, 283.

57 For further discussion, see Trippett, 60–7.

58 Goehr, 244.

37

interpretation towards that of multiple and diverse interpretations.”59 Thus, it is worth revisiting Hummel’s Potpourri, Op. 94, and its posthumous derivation as Fantasy along these porous lines of fidelity and intention, by comparing them to the accepted guidelines of the time.

59 Lydia Goehr, et al, “Philosophy of Music,” Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University Press, accessed December 11, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/52965pg5.

38

Comparison to the performance ideas in the treatise by Czerny

One way to examine the nature of the Potpourri and the possibility of editing this work is to compare it to treatises on improvisation by Hummel and Czerny. Hummel’s treatise is a comprehensive keyboard pedagogy with exercise suggestions. After the majority of technical discussion, at the very end of the third and last volume, Hummel uses limited pages to talk about improvisation. The content of this improvisation section is cursory and includes no examples. However, in the conclusion Hummel confesses that after acquiring the ability to improvise, he preferred improvising to composing, confirming his identity as a celebrated improviser.60

To some extent, improvising reveals a practical similarity between Hummel and Liszt.

Hummel’s treatise, along with his teaching, playing, and compositions, had great influence on and pianist-composers, including Czerny, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Chopin, and

Liszt.62 Liszt almost studied with Hummel.63 Czerny, who became Liszt’s teacher instead, also published a treatise, Systematische Anleitung zum Fantasieren auf dem Pianoforte, Op.

200 (A Systematic Introduction to Improvisation on the Pianoforte, Opus 200) in 1829, the year following Hummel’s.64 Because it was published soon after Hummel’s treatise and

60 Sun-Im Cho, “Johann Nepomuk Hummel’s Piano Etudes, Op. 125: A Pedagogical Analysis” (DMA diss., City University of New York, 2012), 20–21.

62 Mark Kroll, Johann Nepomuk Hummel: A Musician’s Life and World (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2007), 241–330; and Jarl Olaf Hulbert, “The Pedagogical Legacy of Johann Nepomuk Hummel” (PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park, 2006), 34–96.

63 Ibid., 14.

64 For the English translation, see , A Systematic Introduction to Improvisation on the Pianoforte, Opus 200, trans. and ed. Alice L. Mitchell (New York:

39

within a decade of the Potpourri, it also provides a text to compare to this work.

Czerny’s treatise is more suitable to compare to Hummel’s Op. 94 because it focuses exclusively on improvisation. Czerny instructs performers to improvise from easier to more complicated, higher levels, in the same strategy as Hummel’s treatise. In a way, these instructions elaborate the generic short discussion of improvisation in Hummel’s treatise.

Czerny provides numerous examples demonstrating his explanation of good improvisations, including his own works, and works of other composers. Hummel’s works are among the models. There is even a chapter concerning the potpourri in particular, which will be considered in more detail below.

In his treatise, Czerny constantly reminds the reader of the core position of the audience in an improvised performance. He emphasizes “the listener’s perception” that when an improviser possesses all the technical and emotional capabilities, these capabilities should be combined so that “the coherence can have the effect on the listener of an actual composition—this is what is called: Improvising or Extemporizing.”65

This attitude towards the audience is similar to Paganini’s. “[Paganini] seems to have viewed his public concert music as audience-directed,” as he declined ’s request to play a virtuoso piece because “his music was oriented to the public and not suited to private performance.” On the other hand, his twenty-four caprices fulfill the opposite role— they are “not intended for public performance, ‘to all professionals’ (ai artisti) suggests he

Longman, 1983).

65 Trippett, 63.

40

recognized a division between connoisseurs and public.”66

If the emphasis on the audience’s perception is not convincing enough to justify similarities between Czerny and Paganini, further explanation in Czerny’s treatise makes it clearer. In the potpourri chapter, Czerny writes: Apropos of improvising before a large audience, as in the theater for example . . . present the performer with twofold difficulties. First, the natural embarrassment inherent in a public performance and particularly the very destructive fear of boring the audience can have a detrimental effect on the artist’s concentration, inventiveness, inspiration and good spirits; then also, in dealing with a largely heterogeneous public, surly the majority by far will be entertained only by pleasant, familiar tunes and will be sustained in spirit by piquant and glittering performances.67 The care for the audience that Czerny expresses here parallels Paganini’s choice to perform works or playing styles according to types of audiences shown in Dana Gooley’s article. Other musicians of the period also expressed this attitude. Weber’s practice that

“accommodated a piece to local tastes or modern audiences”68 demonstrates the same idea.

Similarly, Italian audiences were “not notably fond of instrumental recitals” given by the

German violinist Spohr. He composed the Violin No. 8 in , Op. 47, a new concerto full of operatic idioms. The local Italian audience was unquestionably familiar with these vocal expressions, and they “welcomed him with open arms.”69 Hummel’s concern for

66 Dana Gooley, “La commedia del violino: Paganini’s Comic Strains,” The Musical Quarterly 88 (2005): 381.

67 Czerny, A Systematic, 86.

68 Corneilson, “Weber.”

69 Maiko Kawabata, “Violinists ‘Singing’: Paganini, Operatic Voices, and Virtuosity,” Ad Parnassum: A Journal of Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Instrumental Music 5, no. 9 (2007): 22–23.

41

both connoisseur and non-connoisseur audiences in his treatise mentioned before also reflects the same attitude.70

In his introduction, Czerny defines three categories of improvisation: first, ; second, Cadenzas and Fermatas; and these two, which “should also be regarded as initial preparation for and component of” the third, full-fledged fantasy-like improvisation. The third category is further broken down into six types: a. Working out a single theme in all the familiar forms of composition. b. Development and combination of several themes into a total work. c. Genuine potpourris, or the intertwining of favorite motives through modulations, passage-work, cadenzas, without particular development of any single one. d. Variations in all customary forms. e. Improvising in strict fugal style. f. Capriccios of the most free and unrestrained type.71 To clarify, Czerny uses Fantasieren, Improvisieren, and Extemporieren as synonyms, and most of the time he only uses the term Fantasieren. It should be understood as improvisation instead of confused with the genre fantasy from the English translation. The organization of content exactly follows these types and gradations and situates the potpourri as more advanced, although Hummel actually uses almost all of these types and gradations in

Op. 94.

Later in the century a similar idea appears in Ernst Pauer’s publication “Musical

Forms” from 1878, which provides a late nineteenth-century view of potpourri and fantasy, although it only briefly mentions these genres. Pauer lists “Fantasia” first under the single-

70 Gertsch and Steiner, III–IV.

71 Czerny, 2–3.

42

movement forms of instrumental music, and “Potpourri” last. He does not clearly explain the difference between a fantasy and a potpourri, but says that the potpourri has a larger design with more themes than a fantasy, which matches the two versions of Hummel’s Op. 94.

Nevertheless, Pauer’s description also reflects the genre’s negative connotations by the end of nineteenth century: “Although they are good vehicles for the display of technical brilliancy of execution and dashing and effective playing, they cannot claim any high value as compositions.”72

The provenance of Hummel’s Op. 94 fantasy might stay forever a mystery, but beside the pirated edition hypothesis, it may also have been created due to the negative connotations associated with potpourris. By the turn of the twentieth century, when the popularity of potpourri declined and even became an unwelcomed low-class genre of music, someone who knew and liked Hummel’s Op. 94 might have wanted it to remain in the repertoire. Hummel’s

Op. 94 could have been renamed from “Potpourri” to “Fantasy,” and the structure could have been cut to fulfill the understanding of the new title of the time. The existence of the earliest fantasy versions of Hummel’s Op. 94 match the time period. The new reduced orchestration cannot be explained, but might suit limited performance forces or match the smaller scale of the new version.

It is interesting that the structure or form is often issue concerning and defining improvisatory performance. Mendelssohn succeeded at improvising in public because he planned the formal design in advance, making his improvisations more like well-

72 Ernst Pauer, Musical Forms (London: Novello Ewer and Co., 1878), 140.

43

written compositions.73 The debate over Liszt and his “dédoublement” of improviser and composer also has much to do with form. Carl Gollmick complained about “the impossibility of comprehending improvised forms with reference to prior models” in Liszt’s improvisations: Give us golden unity in your performance, and the intellectual sympathy of any good composition, yet undestroyed, uninterrupted through bizarre, lugubrious passions of symptoms of world-weariness. Give us—since you are a pianist—once a free Fantasie with and elegant and securely performed fugal theme as our simple fathers did—but what do I hear! Nothing of these? And you’ve been playing for half an hour! For the sake of the book’s good contents I want to forgive you the long confused prelude. But at last give us something. Begin at long last my noble-minded artist. But how? You have already finished, wiping the sweat from your brow, and stand up exhausted.74 Like Gollmick, the audience had expectations of certain compositional conventions even when listening to an improvisation or free-form works. Liszt, however, had different a different attitude in his mind: However others may judge of these things, [my works] are for me the necessary development of my inner experiences, which have brought me to the conviction that invention and feeling are not so entirely evil in Art. Certainly you very rightly observe that the forms (which are too often changed by quite respectable people into formulas) “First Subject, Middle Subject, Closing Subject, etc., may very much grow into a habit, because they must be so thoroughly natural, primitive, and very easily intelligible.” Without making the slightest objection to this opinion, I only beg for permission to be allowed to decide upon the forms by the contents, and even should this permission be withheld from me from the side of the most commendable criticism, I shall nonetheless go on in my own modest way quite cheerfully.75 Trippett explains that “The fulcrum on which this comment pivots is the outward, or

73 Trippett, 66–67.

74 Ibid., 63.

75 Ibid., 62.

44

let us say readily perceivable, structures of music.”76 In his treatise, Czerny “explains that if a composed work may be compared to a symmetrical architectural edifice, an improvised fantasy is like an English garden: ‘seemingly irregular, but full of surprising variety, and executed . . . according to a plan.’”77 While Trippett uses this quotation by Czerny as support for Gollmick’s complaint, I argue that it supports Liszt’s writing instead. Czerny’s statement

“according to a plan” is exactly what Liszt meant by “decide upon the forms by the contents.”

As Trippett further explains, “Czerny’s emphasis is on the thematic invention of the moment rather than on any premediated design”: While Czerny explains methods practicing improvisation in different styles, with different types and numbers of themes, and even with different audiences in mind, he offers no discussion of formal organization except as it is determined by the themes and their strategically varied appearances… Of course, this resulted in formal organization of a kind, although “in a much freer form than a written work,” for Czerny emphasized the listener qua destination by insisting that an improvisation “must be fashioned into an organized totality [only] as far as is necessary to remain comprehensible and interesting.78 There is evidence that Czerny approached form similarly to Liszt in his own improvisations: “The powers of the imagination predominate over form so that . . . the artist

[Czerny] immediately lends form to ideas which his mood, enthusiasm and inventiveness have just inspired, and he only follows formal requirements in so far as they are essential for an artistic creation.”79

76 Ibid.

77 Ibid., 63.

78 Ibid., 64.

79 Ibid., 65.

45

Overall, Trippett summarizes the importance of form to improvisers during this period: We can deduce, first, that during the 1820s Improvisieren, while not understood to belong exclusively to genre-based musical categories, could conjure the formal traits of recognizable sonatas and other structures publicly accepted as musical “works,” and, second, that some contemporary musicians differentiated between different kinds of improvisation, the decisive criterion for which was the constructive element, that is, its form.80 This summary also supports the hypothesis about the creation of the fantasy version of

Hummel’s Op. 94. Nevertheless, verbal discussion of formal issues has its limit. It is worth comparing Op. 94 to other similar works of the time for the form after the comparison to

Czerny’s treatise, to reveal the value and impact of formal design.

After talking about the twofold difficulties of improvising before a large audience,

Czerny continues in the potpourri chapter of his treatise: “under these circumstances, the true potpourri, namely, an ingenious and interesting combination of such themes that are already favorites of the public, is indeed in place.”81 Again, although Hummel did not improvise his

Op. 94 on stage, it matches Czerny’s description. As mentioned before, Hummel chose operatic selections from Mozart and Rossini, thus meeting the expectations of “favorites of the public” perfectly.

With good choices of themes, Czerny explains the next step to creating a potpourri: Melodies of songs whose words are generally familiar can be fashioned into a pleasing or meaningful work through ingenious combinations. The unanticipated entrance into a new theme can reawaken flagging attentiveness. By continual alteration of new images, as in the visual domain, an improvisation of this kind can be spun out into a length that would otherwise

80 Ibid.

81 Czerny, A Systematic Introduction, 86.

46

be unsuccessful and tiresome in every other kind of artistic performance.82 One can see the value of constructing an improvisation that uses the “unanticipated entrance” of “new images” to entertain audiences. Moreover, Czerny also writes: “the themes succeeding each other must vary as much as possible in meter and tempo to avoid monotony.”83

Hummel’s choice of themes also conforms to Czerny’s instructions. Even within the opening section, the introduction, Hummel’s “new images” are attractive. The orchestra opens with short-long rhythms with dotted rests, a typical operatic beginning that also references Mozart’s overtures. The alternation of strong chords between strings and winds lasts only four measures, and the viola solo surprisingly enters with an aria-like lyrical, expressive, but introverted melody (see Example 2.1). The orchestra accompanies the sorrowful G-minor melody until the end of the introduction where the short-long chords return for only two measures.

82 Ibid., 86–7.

83 Ibid., 87.

47

Example 2.1: Hummel Op. 94, mm. 1–7, Beginning of introduction

The first borrowing from Don Giovanni creates a fresh departure from this opening.

The meter changes from three-four to four-four, and the tempo switches from Grave to

Andante con moto (see Example 2.2). Czerny does not mention key in his treatise, but

Hummel creates variety through a modulation to the relative major. Likewise, the mood switches immediately from darkness and sorrow to light tenderness, expressing Ottavio’s love for Anna.

48

Example 2.2: mm. 29–32, Beginning of Don Giovanni section

The introduction ends with a pause before entering the Don Giovanni section. By the end of the Don Giovanni section, Hummel adds a few measures of modulation, connecting to the next D-major section. The Andante con moto tempo again speeds up to Allegro con brio in the new section. The faster tempo and the new key gives this section a lively character that matches the rhythm and articulation figures (see Example 2.3). Although the meter remains the same in common time, the new section, with its much faster tempo, sounds closer to cut time. The faster tempo and the lively character together transition from the singing introduction and Don Giovanni section into this dance-like section, titled Boleros in the autograph.84

84 Gertsch and Steiner, IV.

49

Example 2.3: mm. 93–95, Beginning of Bolero section

The next section, which features the Le Nozze di Figaro borrowing, bears the tempo marking Un poco Allegretto, however, the suggested metronome beats per minute number is

$ = 132, faster than the Allegro of the Bolero section, which is $ = 120. This section is in three-four and in F major (see Example 2.4). Although this section comes from vocal music, the original comic sense and the male bass voice character are presented in a dance style instead of switching back to a lyrical singing style.

Example 2.4: mm. 157–62, Beginning of Le Nozze di Figaro section

The next section, which features the melody from Die Entführung aus dem Serail, is in A minor. This section is also in three-four time, but the tempo Allegro assai reaches D = 60

(see Example 2.5). This tempo matches the fury of Osmin, and the entire section is

50

exceptionally short, only twenty-two measures.

Example 2.5: mm. 252–7, Beginning of Die Entführung aus dem Serail (act I) section

Unexpectedly, the following section, Hummel’s newly composed Fugue, maintains the same tempo, meter, and key as the Entführung borrowing. The key is still in A minor, and it is still in three-four time, and there is no new tempo marking (see Example 2.6). However, this new section suddenly switches to the fugal texture of a , which is played by the viola soloist, the first and second violin principals, and the cello principal in the orchestral version (in the Op. 95 cello version the viola principal plays instead of the cello principal).

Thus, this texture change still creates an “unanticipated new image.”

Example 2.6: mm. 271–7, Beginning of Fuga section

The next section again borrows from Die Entführung aus dem Serail. The meter and

51

the tempo remain the same, but the key changes to the parallel major (see Example 2.7). This borrowing is also short. The twenty-six measures are only slightly longer than the previous

Die Entführung aus dem Serail section. After the singing and dancing sections, this section returns to the lyrical style after the previous furious Die Entführung aus dem Serail section.

The cantus firmus borrowing hidden in the orchestra part is originally in six-eight time, but a second borrowing from the same opera is unforeseen.

Example 2.7: mm. 344–50, Beginning of Die Entführung aus dem Serail (act II) section

It is possible that Hummel considered these three consecutive short sections as one united section. This hypothesis is easily convincing if one omits the fugue, which would unite the two different tunes from Die Entführung aus dem Serail. Additionally, one can view the fugue as a prologue to the second borrowing from Die Entführung aus dem Serail. The four solo strings playing contrapuntally could match “the four voices” of the four protagonists, which sing with “mingled relief and regret.” Moreover, the transition from the first Die

Entführung aus dem Serail borrowing to the fugue is not too surprising. There is no change in key, meter, or tempo, but the texture makes a striking yet feasible transition.

The last borrowing from Rossini’s Tancredi varies significantly from the previous

52

section. It is in F major, two-four time, and Andante.85 The transition to this section, twenty- nine measures long, is the longest in the Potpourri. After the previous A-major section, the transition returns to A minor and via the third relation it modulates to F major. With fully diminished seventh chords and the flat-II of V, the transition creates a dark, ominous atmosphere, ending on the V7 of F major. Without foreshadowing, the Tancredi section suddenly begins in a light and bright mood with a new meter and tempo (see Example 2.8).

85 In the autograph this section is marked Andantino. The solo viola and first violin parts are changed to Andante while the other parts are presumed forgotten. However, the metronome marking better suits Andantino, according to Hummel’s description of the difference between Andante and Andantino. See Ibid., V.

53

Example 2.8: mm. 397–407, transition and Beginning of Tancredi section

Hummel’s own coda is the longest section in the entire Potpourri in terms of measure numbers, although it should be shorter in performance time compared to the slower Tancredi section. The coda is in D major and six-eight time, with the tempo marking Allegro non troppo (see Example 2.9). It again returns to the dancing style, pushing to an exciting ending.

Example 2.9: mm. 541–46, Beginning of coda

The design of all these sections matches Czerny’s instruction that, “By continual

54

alteration of new images […] an improvisation of this kind can be spun out into a length that would otherwise be unsuccessful and tiresome in every other kind of artistic performance.

[…] The themes succeeding each other must vary as much as possible in meter and tempo to avoid monotony”86 Hummel meticulously arranged every change to make the entire Potpourri continuously interesting to the audience (see Example 2.10).

86 Czerny, A Systematic Introduction to Improvisation, 86–7.

55

Example 2.10: Key, Meter, Tempo, and Characteristic Designs of the Potpourri

Measures Original Borrowing Key Meter Tempo Character Method 1-28 Hummel, Introduction G 3/4 Grave, % = 69 Vocal minor 29-88 Mozart, Don Giovanni Modeling B-flat C Andante con Paraphrasing major moto, $ = 88 89-93 Hummel, Transition 94-158 Boleros D C Allegro con Dance 159 Hummel, Transition major brio, $ = 120 160-246 Mozart, Le Nozze di Variations F major 3/4 Un poco Figaro Allegretto, $ = 247-253 Hummel, Transition 132 254-276 Mozart, Die Modeling A 3/4 Allegro assai, Entführung aus dem Paraphrasing minor D = 60 Serail (act I) 277-330 Hummel, Fugue 331-344 Hummel, Transition 345-371 Mozart, Die Cantus firmus A Entführung aus dem major Serail (act II) 372-401 Hummel, Transition A minor 402-540 Rossini, Tancredi Variations F major 2/4 Andante, $ = 56 Vocal 541-686 Hummel, Coda D 6/8 Allegro non Dance major troppo, F = 96

56

The Fantasy, reduced from the Potpourri, has only three main sections with a short transition. Nevertheless, the arrangement of the Fantasy sections also matches Czerny’s writing, because every new section has a different key, meter, tempo, and character. Czerny also says that “in no manner of improvisation other than this (continual alteration of new images) can the artist display with greater intensity the brilliant style of performing as well as refinement and grace.” 87 Compared to the Potpourri, the cut does not create any difficulty. In both versions, the B-flat major Don Giovanni section with transition connects to the following D major, the Boleros section of the Potpourri and the coda of the Fantasy (see

Example 2.11). The only minor problem appears in the work’s proportions. Either counting the measure numbers or calculating duration based on the metronome markings for the timing, one finds that the coda is the longest of the three sections. It has one hundred and forty-five measures and lasts slightly longer than three minutes. The introduction has twenty- eight measures and lasts a little less than three minutes. The middle section, Don Giovanni and the transition, has sixty-four measures. It is slightly shorter than three minutes, which is shorter than the coda and just a little longer than the introduction. As there is only one borrowing in the Fantasy, it is usually understood as the “Fantasy of Mozart’s Don

Giovanni”—yet this Don Giovanni section is out of proportion compared to the other sections of the piece.

87 Ibid., 87.

57

Example 2.11: Key, Meter, Tempo, and Characteristic Designs of the Fantasy

Measures Original Borrowing Key Meter Tempo Character Method 1-28 Hummel, G minor 3/4 Grave, % = 69 Lyrical Introduction 29-88 Mozart, Don Modeling B-flat C Andante con moto, Giovanni Paraphrasing major $ = 88 89-93 Hummel, Transition 541-686 Hummel, Coda D major 6/8 Allegro non Dance troppo, F = 96

In addition to the instruction to create contrast from section to section, Czerny also outlines certain rules of the overall design: With regard to the grouping, the performer must be guided by refined taste, an accurate sense for what fits together suitably, an awareness of the public for whom he is performing, and particularly that fine discretion by means of which he can discern whether and how soon the attention of the listeners must again be stimulated through a new motive, in order never to allow it to cool down.88 This confirms that a potpourri should be performed differently each time. However, an improvised potpourri and a composed potpourri might be philosophically and practically different from each other. Rearranging a written work would depend on key and thematic designs of each section and on transitions between sections. Nevertheless, the meter and tempo would be less problematic to change suddenly or gradually through transitions.

Besides avoiding monotony, the core value of a successful design comes from the thematic path, which should be logical, sensible, and attractive to the audience, and should lead the audience through contrasting moods to a final climax followed by enthusiastic and prolonged applause. Czerny notes that “if it is opportune to begin with a really pretty or very

88 Ibid.

58

popular one, then a similar one must be reserved towards the end also, thus leading to a splendid conclusion.”89

Hummel’s choice of Don Giovanni suits “a really pretty one,” if not the most popular melody from the opera. In the following sections, Boleros contributes the dancing character, and the Le Nozze di Figaro continues this dance although the tune is sung in the original opera. It is a comic bass aria, and it develops a set of variations. Then the section from Die

Entführung aus dem Serail continues the dancing character, in which the first Die Entführung aus dem Serail section from act I is also from a comic bass aria with the character closer to fierce dancing rather than singing. Hummel’s Fuga is decisive despite the smaller quartet texture, and the lyrical Die Entführung aus dem Serail aria from act II is buried in the accompaniment so that the section is still in the dancing character. Finally, “a similar one” in the lyrical style finally appears, and is “reserved towards the end:” the “too famous cavatina

‘Di tanti palpiti’”90 from Rossini’s Tancredi is undoubtedly “a really pretty one” and one of

“the most popular.” This borrowing from 1812–13, about seven years before the Op. 94, must have been the most popular compared to the other borrowings from 1781/82–1787.

Hummel’s coda, the six-eight D-major Allegro non troppo, restores the dancing character and is “leading to a splendid conclusion.”

In contrast to the Potpourri, the Fantasy has only one borrowing from Don Giovanni and thus does not match Czerny’s instructions regarding contrast, interest, and balance.

89 Ibid.

90 Philip Gossett, “Rossini, Gioachino.”

59

Nevertheless, its overall acceleration of tempo, from a lyrical style to a dancing tempo, has the same effect as the Potpourri, in that it attracts the audience and leads “to a splendid conclusion.”

The Potpourri better matches Czerny’s advice: “Slow tempos are most successful in the middle, least suitable towards the end however, since a rousing, dazzling conclusion becomes a necessity, particularly after long fantasies.”91 The complete Potpourri is truly a

“long fantasy” that can have a slow tempo section in the middle, while the Fantasy’s shorter length makes the tempo retreat unnecessary. Although the Tancredi section is not exactly in the middle of the entire Potpourri, the function of this section is not weakened. It provides the reduction of the tempo and a change of character. This section, immediately before the coda, prepares and provides a contrasting section for the final “rousing, dazzling conclusion” which is “a necessity . . . after a long fantasy.”

Czerny’s treatise, especially the Potpourri chapter, provides a corresponding primary source to compare to Hummel’s Potpourri. It illustrates how Hummel’s composed work in this improvisational genre matches the standard expectation of the time. In turn, the Fantasy is less balanced, but it also makes a good overall effect expected of this improvisational genre.

91 Czerny, 87.

60

Comparison to string potpourris by other composers of the time

From Czerny’s treatise, it is clear that although both potpourris and fantasies are often free in form, a common design informs these improvisational genres. In addition to comparing Op. 94 to the writings of the time, comparison to works from about the same time and the same region can also demonstrate conventions of the genre. For example, Gooley considers Paganini’s improvised piece to Mozart’s “Là ci darem la mano” from Don

Giovanni act I, scene 9: In the early 1800s, he [Paganini] impressed the court of Lucca by spontaneously improvising, at the request of Princess Elisa Bonaparte Baciocchi, a piece on two strings. He removed the middle strings and played an amorous dialogue with the remaining two, explicitly assigning the role of Adonis to the G-string and Venus to the E-string. The G-string, previously used in violin music as a purely functional bass line, is transformed into a singing male lover. On tour in Europe he often programmed this piece, or some reworking of it, as the Scène amoureuse, sometimes even substituting it for the slow movement of a Kreutzer concerto he played in Paris, Berlin, and other cities. Although the music has been lost (if it was ever written down), a contemporary described it as “a seduction, a small conflict, a reconciliation, and a pas de deux that lead to a brilliant coda.” After a series of phrases taken by the upper and lower strings in alternation, the mentioned pas de deux was executed by both strings sounding together in sweet thirds and sixths. Excepting the “brilliant coda,” this sequence of events parallels exactly that of Mozart’s “Là ci darem la mano,” a piece Paganini not only knew well but also performed in an arrangement for solo violin.92 Weber’s Grand Potpourri for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 20, J. 64 (1808) provides an ideal model to compare to Hummel’s Op. 94, because both pieces are from the same region and time period. Weber’s Grand Potpourri, dedicated to his friend Graff, “an excellent, accomplished artist on the violoncello,” was first published in 1822. It was also titled

“Fantasy” before the composer added the second borrowed theme and renamed the work a

92 Dana Gooley, “La commedia del violino: Paganini’s Comic Strains,” 382.

61

Potpourri. This demonstrates that the difference between these two titles is largely based on the number of borrowed themes.

The origin of these borrowed themes cannot be identified today. Editor Beyer explains in the preface of the Eulenburg publication of this work that “Also according to Jähns the change to ‘Grand Potpourri’ is explained by the use of two different themes which presumably were known to the audiences of those days.”93 These two themes are the second movement Andante theme and the opening theme of the Finale. The Andante theme appears in two other works by Weber, Andante con Variazioni from the Six Piècen für Pfte. à 4 mains,

Op. 10 and the unpublished Cello-variations, Op. posth. No. 9. The opening theme of the

Finale is by Franz Danzi (1763-1826), who was formerly also a cellist and went to about the same time as Weber.94 Although the original themes are not identifiable, it is still possible to identify the borrowing method (2) Variations on the Andante theme and (14)

Extended paraphrase (in which the melody for an entire work or section is paraphrased from an existing tune) of the Danzi theme, which appears as the rondo’s main theme.

Weber’s Op. 20 also bears the title “concerto.” It has four separate movements like some normal . Its first movement is marked Maestoso in four-four, the second movement is a slow Andante con Variationi, the third movement is in ternary ABA form in three-four with contrasting tempo and key change to relative minor in the middle section, and the Finale is a seven-part rondo, marked Allegro in two-four. This movement structure is

93 Carl Maria von Weber, Concerto (Fantasie), for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 20, ed. Franz Beyer (London: Ernst Eulenburg, 1969), IV.

94 Ibid.

62

typical for concertos. One can also understand the work’s structure as a three-movement concerto if the beginning Maestoso is considered an introduction to the Andante. The

Maestoso’s short length, a little more than three minutes out of around twenty-two minutes of the whole work, supports this interpretation. All the movements of this concerto are played continuously without break, making the structure closer to a potpourri than a concerto.

Indeed, Beyer concludes that “The formal structure (Maestoso – Andante con variationi –

Adagio. Allegro. Adagio. – Finale. Allegro) is well chosen for the work as a whole.”95

As an opera composer himself, Weber’s potpourri is full of operatic features. It opens with the alternation between orchestral tutti and strings with bassoons, making dynamic and timbre contrasts, which is exactly what Hummel does at the beginning of Op. 94, in a different alternation between strings and woodwinds. Weber’s potpourri also contains recitative-like solo passages as transitions between sections.

Both Hummel’s Op. 94 and Weber’s Op. 20 demonstrate similar harmonic plans.

Comparing the Fantasy of Hummel’s Op. 94 to Weber’s Op. 20, Hummel’s Fantasy opens in

G minor, modulates to B-flat major in the middle section from Don Giovanni, and modulates to D major at the coda. Weber’s Op. 20 opens in D major in the first movement and ends the final movement in the same key. The middle movements are in F major and B-flat major with its relative G minor. Both works go through the same keys B-flat major and G minor, and end in D Major. The only exception is F Major, which appears in Weber’s Op. 20 but not in

Hummel’s Fantasy of Op. 94 (see Example 2.12).

95 Ibid., V.

63

Example 2.12: Comparison of Hummel’s Op. 94 Fantasy to Weber’s Op. 20

Hummel Op. 94, Fantasy Weber Op. 20 Grave, 3/4 (mm. 1–28, G minor, Hummel) Movement I, Maestoso, 4/4 (mm. 1–67, D major) Andante con moto, 4/4 (mm. 29–88, B-flat Movement II, Andante con Variationi, 4/4 (mm. 68–152, F major, Mozart, Don Giovanni) + transition major, borrowed theme) (mm. 88–93, Hummel) Movement III, Adagio, 3/4 (mm. 153–170, B-flat major) + Allegro, 3/4 (mm. 171–217, G minor) + Adagio, 3/4 (mm. 218–241, B–flat major) Allegro non troppo, 6/8 (mm. 541–686, D Movement IV, Rondo, Finale. Allegro, 2/4 (mm. 242–499, major, Hummel) D major, opening theme borrowed from Danzi)

The cello and the viola have the same tuning one octave apart, so these key choices should have same effect and present the same performance challenges on both instruments.

Hummel’s publication of the cello version of the Potpourri as Op. 95 further supports this observation.

The Potpourri of Hummel’s Op. 94 has quite a few more sections. These sections go through F major and other keys, including A minor and A major, that do not appear in

Weber’s Op. 20. Because Hummel presents all these borrowed tunes in their original keys, to some extent the key plan might have affected the choice of using particular borrowed tunes, which illustrates again how meticulously Hummel designed the overall structure.

Bottesini’s Fantasia sulla “La Sonnambula” di Bellini for and

Orchestra, debuted in 1849, provides another useful contextual example. Compared to Op.

94, Bottesini’s La Sonnambula Fantasy is about the same length as the Fantasy, at slightly over eight minutes. Bottesini transposed all the borrowed tunes to A major, and kept the entire

Fantasy in the same , although he wrote proper modulations between sections.

As a performer of his own compositions, Bottesini probably transposed melodies to A major for the ease of virtuosic display, as his three-string double bass of the time was typically

64

tuned A D G, from low to high, and matching the key to the open strings can provide better resonance of the instrument and more opportunities for harmonics. Bottesini also cut some repetitions and made slight changes to suit performance on the double bass, and added short improvisational figures at appropriate points. Although Hummel did not add any improvisational passages or leave any fermatas for improvisation in Op. 94, he cut extra repetitions and modified tunes slightly to agree with instrumental playing.

Bottesini’s Fantasy on La Sonnambula borrows three themes from ’s original opera “the Sleepwalker,” libretto by Felice Romani. The first Andante cantabile in twelve-eight, “D’un pensiero e d’un accento” comes from the end of act I, scene 2, which is sung by Amina who is trying to explain her innocence after the misunderstanding. Bottesini employs the borrowing methods (1) Modeling and (3) Paraphrasing. The second Allegro in four-four, “Ah! non giunge uman pensiero” comes from the finale, the very end of the opera from act II, scene 2, again sung by Amina expressing her happiness after the misunderstanding was resolved. The borrowing method is mainly (2) Variations while the melody of the theme uses modeling and paraphrasing. Although Bottesini composed a transition leading to the main theme of this Allegro section, the passage before “Ah! non giunge uman pensiero” in the original opera must be Bottesini’s inspiration because the string parts contain similar figures. The third Allegretto in six-eight, “Tutto, ah! tutto in quest'istante” is from early in act I, scene 1, and features Elvino expressing his joy of love and the confirmation of his marriage to Amina. Bottesini only uses the tune at the beginning through modeling and paraphrasing before turning the double bass solo part into a virtuosic display leading to the climactic ending, although the melody briefly returns in the orchestral

65

part. Bottesini did not present these themes in the original order. Rather, he created a coherent individual composition by rearranging the order and adding his own introductions and transitions.

Comparison to the Fantasy of Hummel’s Op. 94 reveals similarities in the structural design and tempo selections (see Example 2.13).

66

Example 2.13: Comparison of Hummel’s Op. 94, Fantasy to Bottesini’s Fantasia sulla “La Sonnambula” di Bellini

Hummel Bottesini Orchestral Introduction, Grave, 3/4 (mm. 1–4, Orchestral Introduction, Allegro vivo, 6/8 (mm. Hummel) 1-15, Bottesini) Viola Introduction, Grave, 3/4 (mm. 5–28, Hummel) Double Bass Introduction, “a piacere,” 4/4 (mm. 16-26, Bottesini) Andante con moto, 4/4 (mm. 29–88, Mozart, Don Andante Cantabile, 12/8 (mm. 27-51, Bellini, La Giovanni) + transition (mm. 88–93, Hummel) Sonnambula, act I, scene 2)

Allegro, 4/4 (mm. 52-136, Bellini, La Sonnambula, act II, scene 2)

Allegro non troppo, 6/8 (mm. 541–686, Hummel) Allegretto, 6/8 (mm. 137-210, Bellini, La Sonnambula, act I, scene 1)

As an opera composer and conductor, Bottesini was famous for his lyrical manner of playing the double bass, and took every effort to make the instrument “sing,” including proposing playing technique improvements and his design of a work using borrowed tunes.

In addition to borrowing operatic material, both of these examples seem also to borrow a dominating operatic formal structure from the nineteenth century: the eminent

Rossini opera scene structure. To improve the dramatically static arias and the dryly dialogic recitatives where the action is confined, “in his serious operas and some parts of comic operas

Rossini and his librettists developed a scene structure that distributed the story more evenly and integrated new plot developments or changes of mood within an aria or ensemble.”96

Composers developed large-scale multi-movement symphonic works to better unite all movements in this period, and in concertos the orchestral part played a heavier role as the solo parts became more characteristic and virtuosic. The Rossini structure shows the same

96 J. Peter Burkholder, Donald Jay Grout, and Claude V. Palisca, A History of Western Music, ninth edition (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2014), 658–9.

67

development trend and seems suitable for symphonic works with soloists too: “A continuous succession of orchestrally accompanied recitatives, solo arias, duets, ensembles, and choruses all contributed to advancing the plot, with both orchestra and chorus playing more significant roles than they had in previous Italian operas.” This kind of aria typically proceeds as

Orchestral Introduction – Scena – Cantabile – Tempo di mezzo – Cabaletta (see Example

2.14).97

Example 2.14: Scene Structures in Rossini Operas98

A. Aria (Solo or with Chorus) Orchestral Scena Cantabile Tempo di mezzo Cabaletta Introduction (middle section) recitative usually changes tempo, usually slow modulates; may be fast transition, ensemble, or chorus B. Duet or Ensemble Orchestral Scena Tempo d’attacco Cantabile Tempo di mezzo Cabaletta Introduction (opening section)

Donald Jay Grout, J. Peter Burkholder, and Claude V. Palisca further explain the use of this structure: A typical scene begins with an instrumental introduction and a recitative section (called a scena, Italian for “scene”) that is accompanied by the orchestra. The ensuing aria has two main sections, a slow, lyrical cantabile and a lively and brilliant cabaletta. The cantabile expresses relatively calm moods such as pensiveness, sadness, or hope, and the cabaletta more active feelings such as anger or joy. Part or all of the cabaletta is repeated, perhaps with improvised embellishments. Some arias . . . have these two sections only, but in most arias, we also find a middle section between the cantabile and the

97 Ibid., 659.

98 Ibid.

68

cabaletta called the tempo di mezzo (middle movement), which is usually some kind of transition or interruption by other characters and in which something happens to alter the situation or the character’s mood. A duet or ensemble has a similar form . . . but the cantabile is usually preceded by an opening section (called tempo d’attacco) in which the characters trade melodic phrases.99 This opera scene structure design also accords with Czerny’s writing in the potpourri chapter about the overall design that “the themes succeeding each other must vary as much as possible in meter and tempo to avoid monotony . . . leading to a splendid conclusion” and

“slow tempos are most successful in the middle . . . a rousing, dazzling conclusion becomes a necessity.” The following description shows how Rossini’s scene structure matches Czerny’s writing in both coherence and variety: Rossini’s basic format could be flexibly applied to suit almost any dramatic situation, and his structure created a dramatic progression from one mood or idea to another while allowing more than two contrasting moods to be presented within a coherent form. In line with the continued role of Italian an opportunity to show a wide range of emotions and vocal effects, from lyric beauty to sparkling pyrotechnics.100 Comparison of Czerny’s writing, Rossini’s scene structure design, and the selected fantasies and potpourris demonstrates that they share the same aesthetic, despite the fantasy and potpourri genres’ free-form associations (see Example 2.15).

99 Ibid.

100 Ibid.

69

Example 2.15: Comparison with Rossini’s Scene Structures, Hummel’s Op. 94 Fantasy, Bottesini’s Fantasia sulla “La Sonnambula” di Bellini, and Weber’s Op. 20

Rossini Scene Hummel, Op. 94, Bottesini, Fantasy on La Sonnambula Weber, Op. 20 Structure Fantasy (A major) Orchestral Orchestral Orchestral Introduction, Allegro vivo, Movement I, Maestoso, Introduction Introduction, 6/8 (mm. 1–15, Bottesini) 4/4 (mm. 1–67, D major) Grave, 3/4 (mm. 1–4, G minor, Hummel) Scena Viola Introduction, Double Bass Introduction, “a Recitative Grave, 3/4 (mm. piacere,” 4/4 (mm. 16–26, Bottesini) 5–28, G minor, Hummel) Cantabile Andante con moto, Andante Cantabile, 12/8 (mm. 27– Movement II, Andante 4/4 (mm. 29–88, 51, Bellini, La Sonnambula, act I, con Variationi, 4/4 (mm. B-flat major, scene 2) 68–152, F major, Mozart, Don borrowed theme) Giovanni) + transition (mm. 88–93, Hummel) Tempo di Theme and two Variations, Allegro, Movement III, Adagio, mezzo 4/4 (mm. 52–136, Bellini, La 3/4 (mm. 153–170, B- Sonnambula, act II, scene 2) flat major) + Allegro, 3/4 (mm. 171–217, G minor) + Adagio, 3/4 (mm. 218– 241, B-flat major) Cabaletta Coda, Allegro non Allegretto, 6/8 (mm. 137–210, Movement IV, Finale. troppo, 6/8 (mm. Bellini, La Sonnambula, act I, scene Allegro, 2/4 (mm. 242– 541–686, D major, 1) 499, D major, opening Hummel) theme borrowed from Franz Danzi)

The only difference is the missing middle tempo di mezzo part in the Fantasy of

Hummel’s Op. 94. However, the cut sections from the Potpourri can easily fill in this part.

These sections, with their varieties, embody the description “usually some kind of transition or interruption by other characters and in which something happens to alter the situation or the character’s mood” of the tempo di mezzo in the scene structure.

Although “in most arias, we also find a middle section between the cantabile and the cabaletta called the tempo di mezzo (middle movement)” as the complete design illustrates,

“some arias . . . have these two sections only.” This means that the structural design of the

70

Fantasy of Hummel’s Op. 94 is not only acceptable, and there are also similar designs in opera scene structures. The complete design contains abundant sections with more varieties in key, meter, tempo, character, and mood. The circuitous path from the usually slow and sad beginning to the climactic exciting end is most prominent; this typically has another slow part in the middle before pushing to the fast ending once more. The two-section formal design with cantabile and cabaletta has a more direct path from beginning to end without slowing down in the middle, while the other varieties might also be limited as those varieties should be included in tempo di mezzo section.

Although Bottesini’s La Sonnambula Fantasy has a middle section, it does not have a circuitous slow section in the middle, but instead accelerates to the end. One explanation might be the “Fantasy” title. The structural pacing is the same as the Fantasy of Hummel’s

Op. 94. However, the more rational explanation might be the shorter length of the work, and more notably, Bottesini’s performer identity which makes the design of his Fantasy different from Hummel’s Op. 94 Potpourri and Weber’s Op. 20. These latter two works were composed for others to perform.

At the beginning of Bottesini’s La Sonnambula Fantasy, the orchestral introduction is rather direct, in contrast with the orchestral introductions of Hummel’s Op. 94 and Weber’s

Op. 20 which have dynamic contrasts and dialog between different instrument groups. The entry of the solo double bass in Bottesini’s Fantasy is highly virtuosic and improvisational in the operatic manner, which recalls an opera diva’s entry with highly ornamented recitative. In each of the following sections except the theme and variations, Bottesini makes small solo improvisational phrases to reassert the diva role of the solo double bass. In the theme and

71

variation section, the fermatas between variations are reserved for appropriate Eingänge.

In contrast, Hummel does not add any improvisational passages or leave any fermatas for improvisation in Op. 94. His virtuosic writing for the solo viola occurs in the written-out fast passages, especially in the variations on the borrowed themes, namely the Le Nozze di

Figaro and Tancredi sections, as well as the coda. There are some phrases using scales and arpeggios in the slow sections. These phrases are quite operatic, but because they are in a slow tempo and restricted in the metered accompaniment, these phrases cannot be defined as virtuosic.

Although Weber provides the solo cello a few moments without any accompaniment in his Op. 20, this work is closer to Hummel’s Op. 94 rather than Bottesini’s La Sonnambula

Fantasy. The virtuosic passages mostly appear in the variations of the Andante theme, the

Allegro section between the two Adagio sections, and some passages in the Finale Allegro.

The beginning entrance of the solo cello is free like a recitative, but it is too simple to qualify as virtuosity. The following passage before the Andante section is similar to Hummel’s Op.

94. The solo cello’s scales and arpeggios are restricted in the metered accompaniment and display very limited virtuosity. There are two fermatas between sections, but even at these two possible spots virtuosic display is discouraged: No original cadenzas for this work have been preserved. At the fermatas (bars 152 and 477) the soloist would be well advised not to attempt to insert cadenzas of great virtuosity and bravura, but rather to try and find a link which fits in with the style and mood of the music, paying particular heed to the prevailing harmonic feel of an implied dominant-seventh chord and six-four chord respectively.101

101 Weber, Concerto (Fantasie), for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 20, VI.

72

III: Conclusion

Performance suggestions

After comparison with philosophic trends, primary sources, and similar works for string instruments from the same time period, it is hard to argue against the rearrangement of the original Potpourri of Hummel’s Op. 94 into the Fantasy. The Fantasy can also create an attractive and exciting effect that agrees with the aesthetics of the time. The simple, straightforward design—from a slow beginning to a climactic ending—is more suitable for shorter works, while longer ones would lose the artistic value of the original meticulous design and enriched content. For an academic event or formal performance, the original

Potpourri is preferred, as the complete work gives the audience a complete experience of

Hummel’s ambition to entertain both the connoisseur and the enthusiast, the abundant charming melodies, and his meticulous design of the entire work. For a casual or informal performance, the Fantasy is suitable if the timing better fits the situation. Nevertheless, it is preferable to explain the existence of the original complete work and the abbreviated version to the audience through program notes, concert talks, audio-visual materials, or any other possible method. This will aid the excitement of a successful performance, and it is the responsibility of both scholars and performers to rectify the misconception of the Fantasy as an authentic original or even the only version of Hummel’s Op. 94.

Regarding the performance decision to cut portions of the work, the Fantasy is the shortest acceptable length for the work. While it is technically possible to cut even more material from the Fantasy, such an additional reduction in material would destroy the pace of the work from the slow introduction to final exciting ending and conflict with traditional

73

expectations and aesthetics.

At the same time, the complete Potpourri has a quite complicated, lengthy middle section, which requires a more advanced interpretation to transition from the beginning to the end for an audience to enjoy. It is a great challenge to handle the complete Potpourri, which requires comprehensive study of the borrowed themes, overall structures, tempo changes, key plans, and moods of every section, and the transitions between them.

This comparison suggests another possibility: a performer could conceivably cut some parts from the Potpourri’s middle section and still maintain a nice pacing from the beginning to the end. The variety of possible abbreviations between the full Potpourri and the short

Fantasy is thus the performer’s choice according to the specific performance situation.

However, the possibilities of making other cuts are limited because of the connecting transitions unless new transitions are composed. There is a version without the optional fugue from the first edition. Another possible cut from measures 160 to 401 would skip three other

Mozart sections but keep the Don Giovanni section, Rossini’s Tancredi section, and the

Boleros section (see Example 3.1).

74

Example 3.1: A possible cut from mm. 160–401

This cut makes the total length a little more than fifteen minutes. This is a good choice if the timing is suitable. It retains the essence of borrowing several themes from different composers, variety of borrowing methods, and constant changes of key, meter, tempo while also retaining the overall design of pacing (see Example 3.2).

75

Example 3.2: The organization of Hummel’s Op. 94 after cutting mm. 160–401

Measures Original Borrowing Key Meter Tempo Character Method 1-28 Hummel, Introduction, 1820 G 3/4 Grave, Vocal minor % = 69 29-88 Mozart, Don Giovanni, act Modeling B-flat C Andante II, scene 10, Don Ottavio’s Paraphrasing major con moto, Aria Il mio tesoro intanto, $ = 88 1787 89-93 Hummel, Transition, 1820 94-158 It has not been possible to D C Allegro con Dance identify these measures major brio, superscribed Boleros in the $ = 120 autograph. 159 Hummel, Transition, 1820 402-540 Rossini, Tancredi, act I, Variations F 2/4 Andante, Vocal scene 5, Recitativo e major $ = 56 Vacatina Tancredi Di tanti palpiti, 1812/13 541-686 Hummel, Coda, 1820 D 6/8 Allegro non Dance major troppo, F = 96

As the comparison of Hummel’s Op. 94 with Bottesini’s La Sonnambula Fantasy and

Weber’s Op. 20 demonstrates, different composers have different focus in their works.

Hummel and Weber paid more attention to the compositional details. They made contrasting dialogues between different instrument groups in the orchestral introduction, and a circuitous path from the beginning to the end as in a complicated opera plot. In this way, their instrumental works embody operatic features which make them attractive as popular opera works. As a performer of his own work, Bottesini paid more attention to the solo part and its virtuosity. In the orchestral introduction and the overall path, he chose a more direct and effective plan. He provided more space for the solo double bass part to display extravagant virtuosity. It is the responsibility of the solo double bass part to display the operatic essence of the work, including the recitative-like solo passages and the lyrical playing style.

76

As a result, other than the rearrangement of the sections, there are possible alterations of other aspects to consider. The solo viola part of Hummel’s Op. 94 can be played closer to the bravura style of Paganini or Bottesini, the “Paganini of the Double Bass.” For example, at the very end, after the passage of sixteenth notes with stretto in the rhythmic pattern, the solo viola restates three tonic chords before the final resolution to the tonic. The music’s harmonic progression appears in the bass line of the orchestra (see Example 3.3). The chords in the solo viola part recall the end of Beethoven’s No. 5. Except for the second trombone, the numerous tonic chords remain exactly the same, but Beethoven adds extra rests before and after the final chord. The final chord is distinguished from the previous ones and the following long tonic. This effect can be naturally applied in Hummel’s Op. 94. In the last three measures, the acceleration can continue the stretto effect of the solo viola sixteenth notes to boost the excitement, and right before the last chord, an allargando would significantly increase the sense of resolution. At the end of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 1, the penultimate tonic chord before the final tonic is in an inversion so that the top note makes a large leap to the low final tonic. Weber also does this in the orchestral part of Op. 20, where the solo cello part ends a few measures earlier. In the Fantasy on La Sonnambula, the solo double bass plays a high C-sharp, the third scale degree of the tonic, before landing on the final long tonic. This is a better effect to emphasize the sense of ending and reassert the soloist’s role for the last time. In the solo viola part of Hummel’s Op. 94, simply reversing the upper two notes will create this effect while also allowing the open D string to resonate more on the tonic. When accompanied by a pianist, the last chord can be played as a tremolo to maintain the exciting crescendo to the end (see Example 3.4).

77

Example 3.3: mm. 680–86, Ending

Example 3.4: mm. 684–86, Suggested ending

On the one hand, the relatively less virtuosic solo writing in Hummel’s Op. 94 and

Weber’s Op. 20, compared to Bottesini’s La Sonnambula Fantasy, can be understood as the differentiation between soloist and composer. On the other hand, the time period might be the reason for the difference in writing style. Although Paganini began concertizing in 1810, he did not leave Italy until 1828 when he was forty-seven.102 There was no reason for Hummel

102 Gooley, “La commedia del violino: Paganini’s Comic Strains,” 374.

78

and Weber to reject Paganini’s bravura style in their virtuosic works. Rather, Paganini’s style had not yet come into fashion.

79

Reconsidering the potpourri genre

In the 1969 publication of Weber’s Op. 20, the editor writes: “It would appear that it was the title ‘Potpourri’, a word which has tended in the course of time to become a term of disparagement, which proved an obstacle to both publication and general interest, and the present edition is therefore the first publication of the work in score form.”103 As it continues, the bold speculation about provenance of Hummel’s Op. 94 Fantasy has a similar situation: It has already been said that the change of title (which at the time was made in conformity with the usages of the day) subsequently proved an obstacle to the work becoming more widely known. In view of the fact that the very word ‘Potpourri’ might continue to impede the work’s progress, the editor considers himself justified in reverting to the original title ‘Fantasia’ for the present edition – all the more so as the formal concept of the work is in every respect in accordance with this description.104 As it mirrors improvisational work, written down potpourris might not accurately represent the improvised genre in the nineteenth century. Despite today’s stigma against works entitled

“Potpourri,” this document reveals the value of Hummel’s Potpourri, Op. 94, and untangles the misunderstanding of the term. The precisely planned overall design, paired with

Hummel’s inclusion of a fugal section, further supports the reevaluation of his Potpourri as a viable, serious work instead of a mere patchwork.

Historical evidence demonstrates the high value accorded to the potpourri genre. It was respected both as an improvised and as a composed form, and subsequently had its philosophical value in the discussion of the necessity of following the music faithfully. As many eminent composers have composed potpourris, the value of similar potpourri works

103 Weber, Concerto (Fantasie), for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 20, III.

104 Ibid., VII.

80

should be further examined to reevaluate the term’s status.

More broadly, these observations also suggest that performers and scholars should reevaluate the potpourri genre as an object of serious study, and consider it in their learning and programming.

81

Bibliography Burkholder, J. Peter. “The Uses of Existing Music: Musical Borrowing as a Field.” Notes Second Series, 50 (March 1994): 851–70.

______, Donald Jay Grout, and Claude V. Palisca, A History of Western Music, ninth edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2014.

Cho, Sun-Im. “Johann Nepomuk Hummel’s Piano Etudes, Op. 125: A Pedagogical Analysis.” DMA dissertation, City University of New York, 2012.

Czerny, Carl. A Systematic Introduction to Improvisation on the Pianoforte: Opus 200. Translated and edited Alice L. Mitchell. New York: Longman, 1983.

Goehr, Lydia. The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy of Music, revised edition. Oxford University Press, 2007.

Gooley, Dana. “La commedia del violino: Paganini's Comic Strains.” The Musical Quarterly 88, no. 3 (2005): 370–427.

Hulbert, Jarl Olaf. “The Pedagogical Legacy of Johann Nepomuk Hummel.” PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, 2006.

Hummel, Johann Nepomuk. Ausführliche theoretisch-practische Anweisung zum Piano- Forte-Spiel. Vienna: Haslinger, 1828.

______. Potpourri mit Fantasie für Viola und Orchester, Op.94. Lottstetten: Edition Kunzelmann, 2000.

______. Potpourri, Op.94, (“Fantasie”) für Viola und Orchester. München: G. Henle, 2007.

Kam, Cheok Weng. “Fantasy Style and Generic Mixture in Hummel’s Keyboard Music: Towards a Reappraisal of a Neglected Musician’s Contribution to the Development of Nineteenth-Century Musical Style.” PhD thesis, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2011.

Kawabata, Maiko. “Violinists ‘Singing’: Paganini, Operatic Voices, and Virtuosity.” Ad Parnassum: A Journal of Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Instrumental Music 5, no. 9 (2007): 7–39.

Kroll, Mark. Johann Nepomuk Hummel: A Musician’s Life and World. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2007.

82

Pauer, Ernst. Musical Forms. London: Novello Ewer and Co., 1878.

Ramírez-Castilla, Jaime. “Musical Borrowings in the Music for Double Bass by Giovanni Bottesini: A Reconsideration Beyond the Operatic Paraphrases.” DMA document, University of Cincinnati, 2007.

Sachs, Joel. “A Checklist of the Works of Johann Nepomuk Hummel.” Notes Second Series, 30 (June 1974): 732–54.

______. “Hummel and the Pirates: The Struggle for Musical Copyright.” Musical Quarterly 59, no. 1 (1973): 31-60.

______. Kapellmeister Hummel in England and France. Detroit: Information Coordinators, 1977.

Schorr, Timothy Brian. “The Romantic Piano Fantasia: An Historical Survey of the Classifications, Composers, and Repertory ca. 1800-1850.” DMA thesis, University of Cincinnati, 1997.

Steward-MacDonald, Rohan H. “Musical Improvisation in the Age of Beethoven and “Open” Forms Fondazione Giorgio Cini, Isola di San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice 28-29 November 2014.” Eighteenth-Century Music 12, no. 2 (2015): 282–5.

Trippet, David. “Après une Lecture de Liszt: Virtuosity and Werktreue in the ‘Dante’ Sonata.” 19th-Century Music 32, no. 1 (2008): 52–93.

Weber, Carl Maria von. Concerto (Fantasie), for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 20. Edited by Franz Beyer. London: Ernst Eulenburg, 1969.

______. Writing on Music. Translated by Martin Cooper. Edited and introduced by John Warrack. Cambridge University Press, 1981.

83