FORMAL AND HARMONIC CONSIDERATIONS IN CLARA SCHUMANN'S DREI ROMANZEN, OP. 21, NO. 1 Katie Lakner A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF MUSIC August 2015 Committee: Gregory Decker, Advisor Gene Trantham © 2015 Katie Lakner All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Gregory Decker, Advisor As one of her most mature works, Clara Schumann’s Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no. 1, composed in 1855, simultaneously encapsulates her musical preferences after half a lifetime of extensive musical study and reflects the strictures applied to “women’s music” at the time. During the Common Practice Period, music critics would deride music by women that sounded too “masculine” or at least not “feminine” enough. Women could not write more progressive music without risking a backlash from the music critics. However, Schumann’s music also had to earn the respect of her more progressive fellow composers. In this piece, she achieved that balance by employing a very Classical formal structure and a distinctly Romantic, if somewhat restrained, harmonic language. Her true artistic and compositional talents shine forth despite, and perhaps even due to, the limits in which her music had to reside. iv Dedicated to Dennis and Janet Lakner. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks the Gregory Decker and Gene Trantham for their incredible patience and guidance throughout the writing of this paper. Thanks to Dennis and Janet Lakner and Debra Unterreiner for their constant encouragement and mental and emotional support. Finally, special thanks to the baristas at the Barnes and Noble café in Fenton, MO, for providing the copious amounts of caffeine necessary for the completion of this paper. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………….…………………………………………..... 1 Women’s Roles in Nineteenth-Century Music………………………………………. 6 Barriers to Women’s Inclusion in the Canon……………………………………….. 13 Clara Schumann’s Aesthetics………………………………………………………. 17 Methodology……….……………………………………………………………….. 27 CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS OF CLARA SCHUMANN’S DREI ROMANZEN, OP. 21, NO.1………………………………………………………………… 31 Background…………………………………………………………………………. 31 Form………………………………………………………………………………… 34 Harmony….………………………………………………………………………… 48 CHAPTER 3: AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH…………..………………………. 63 Summary of Findings……………………………………………………………….. 63 Avenues of Future Research……………………..…………………………………. 64 Analytical Studies of Music by Women……………………………………………. 65 Conclusion………..………………………………………………………………… 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………… 70 APPENDIX A: SCORE OF CLARA SCHUMANN’S DREI ROMANZEN, OP. 21, NO. 1, WITH ANNOTATIONS………………………….………… 73 APPENDIX B: APPROVAL FOR THE USE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL…………………………………………………………………………………. 78 vii LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES Example Page 1 Romance varieé, op. 3, mm. 53–60, Midrange melody surrounded by arpeggios………………………………………………………………………... 20 2 Romance varieé, op. 3, mm. 143–152, Textural virtuosity………...………………… 20 3 Haydn, Piano Trio in C Major, Hob. XV:21, mvt. 2, mm. 34–42, Interior theme (mm. 35–40)………………….……………………………………… 36 4 Mozart, Piano Sonata in D Major, K. 576, mvt. 2, mm.15–41, Interior theme (mm. 17–40)………………….……………………………………… 36 5 Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no.1, mm. 1–26, Main theme….………...………………… 39 6 Haydn, Piano Sonata in G Major, Hob. XVI:40, mvt. 2, mm. 13–24, Recapitulation (mm. 15–24)………………….……………………………………… 44 7 Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no.1, mm. 5–21, Large-scale interpolation (mm. 9–10) and contrasting middle (mm. 11–18)………………………………….. 46 8 R. Schumann, Davidsbündlertänze, op. 6, no. 9, mm. 1–8………...………………… 50 9 R. Schumann, “Préambule,” Carnaval, op. 9, mm. 1–6…………...………………… 50 10 Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no.1, mm. 11–14, Interpolation (mm. 12–14)…………….. 51 11 Mendelssohn, Lieder ohne Worte, op.102, no. 6, mm. 26–33, Coda (mm. 28–33)…………………………………………………..……………… 53 12 Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no.1, mm. 5–8, A section’s exposition’s consequent...………………………………………………………………………..… 54 13 Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no.1, mm. 22–26, A section’s recapitulation’s consequent (mm. 23–26)………….………………………………………………..… 54 viii 14 Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no.1, mm. 95–98, Aʹ section’s recapitulation’s consequent…………………………………………………………………………… 55 15 Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no.1, mm. 48–53, Chromatic voice-leading and reharmonization………………………………………………………………..… 58 16 Beethoven, Sonata in A Major, op. 2, no. 2, mm. 61–75……..…...………………… 58 17 Berlioz, Symphonie fantastique, mvt. 2, mm. 1–37…..…………...………………… 59 18 Smetana, The Bartered Bride, Overture, Beginning of coda……...………………… 61 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no. 1, mm. 1–4, Score and voice- leading graph .............................................................................................................. 42 2 Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no. 1, mm. 42–50, Score and voice- leading graph of interior theme’s contrasting middle (mm. 43–50)………………… 45 3 Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no. 1, mm. 95–105, Score and voice- leading graph………………………………………………………………………… 48 4 Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no. 1, mm. 63–72, Score and voice- leading graph………………………………………………………………………… 52 5 Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no. 1, mm. 27–31, Score and voice- leading graph .............................................................................................................. 56 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION As a female composer in the nineteenth century, the pianist and composer Clara Schumann (1819–1896) faced many pressures from music critics and society in general. Music critics could meticulously scrutinize nearly every aspect of a piece of music composed by a woman during the Common Practice Period (ca. 1600–1900 CE), including its genre, instrumentation, form, use of harmony, and even its overall sound. Women could not write more progressive music without risking a backlash from the music critics. Schumann’s music, therefore, had to maintain a delicate balance in order to gain the approval of both the music critics and her more progressive fellow composers. As one of her most mature works, the musical structure in her Drei Romanzen, op. 21, no. 1, written in 1855,1 simultaneously encapsulates her musical preferences after half a lifetime of extensive musical study and reflects the strictures applied to “women’s music” at the time. It adheres closely to the large ternary form described in William E. Caplin’s Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven (originally published in 1998), and employs a distinctly Romantic, if somewhat restrained, harmonic language. In this piece, her true artistic and compositional talents shine forth despite, and perhaps even due to, the limits in which her music had to reside. The status of music composed by women has been a contentious topic throughout the Classical and Romantic Eras (ca. 1750–1900 CE). Before 1800, women who wanted to be professional musicians usually could only be performers. They certainly could not publish their own music.2 Even after 1800, female composers faced societal challenges. Fanny Hensel’s father 1 Nancy B. Reich, Clara Schumann: The Artist and the Woman, rev. ed. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 233. 2 Marcia J. Citron, “Gender, Professionalism and the Musical Canon,” The Journal of Musicology 8, no. 1 (Winter 1990): 106, doi: 10.2307/763525. 2 strongly discouraged any thoughts she might have had of pursuing a career as a professional composer, although he encouraged such professional pursuits for her brother, Felix Mendelssohn.3 Largely, the hesitation to give music by women the respect and objective consideration it deserves has been the result of Western society’s view of women, their “proper” roles, and the “pervasive philosophical bias against women as creators.”4 Martha J. Citron understands this situation as arising from the pervasive cultural association of women with the private sphere: Musicological culture of the last fifty years [1950–2000] has tacitly reinforced the hierarchical dualism, at least for music after 1800. This has come mainly in the disciplinary emphasis on public structures and the de-emphasis, and in many cases wholesale dismissal, of private structures. To put it another way, musicology has paid attention to canonic works and paradigms, and in turn affirmed their value. As said many times, the public arena has been privileged, and its activities have been chronicled, preserved, and praised. Often removed from written scrutiny, the private has been given much less attention. Perhaps this results from the fact that the dynamics of the private call for different questions to be asked, and until fairly recently they were not posed.… Particularly injurious is the retention of the feminine with the “lower” private and the masculine with the “higher” public.5 Women were discouraged and inhibited from publishing and even writing music throughout the Common Practice Period. They experienced the “regular and systematic denial of access to the 3 Nancy B. Reich, “European Composers and Musicians, ca. 1800–1890,” in Women & Music: A History, 2nd ed., ed. Karin Pendle (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001), 154. 4 Citron, “Gender, Professionalism and the Musical Canon,” 110. 5 Marcia J. Citron, Gender and the Musical Canon (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 102. 3 full range of compositional training.”6 In her article “Gender, Professionalism and the Musical Canon” (1990), Citron discusses the difficulties women faced getting their compositions published: Before 1800 musical activity was organized