UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date:___________________ I, _________________________________________________________, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in: It is entitled: This work and its defense approved by: Chair: _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ Schumann’s Op. 14: Original, Revised and Edited (“Concerto without Orchestra” versus Piano Sonata No. 3) Doctoral Document submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS (D.M.A.) in the College-Conservatory of Music 2006 by Eugene Kaminsky B.M., University of Tel-Aviv, 1996 M.M., University of Cincinnati, 1999 Committee Chair: Dr. Steven Cahn ABSTRACT Robert Schumann’s 3rd Piano Sonata Op. 14, known also as “Concerto without Orchestra,” belongs to a relatively small group of the composer’s unpopular and least performed piano works. It rarely appears in recital programs, and when it happens to be performed, it is usually and erroneously listed under both titles. The adversarial publication history of this composition, along with the sporadic revisions and substitutions made by the composer and editors, might well be among the key reasons for existing confusions around Op. 14 and its reputation of a bizarre by-product of Schumann’s young years. This document presents a detailed study of the history of the piece, the circumstances around its publication, and editorial notes based on the analysis of the changes (corrections, deletions) made by the composer himself as well as the changes made by editors later. Specifically, the study intends to analyze the options of the original compositional plan of the piece; to determine whether the changes in its structure and details were intentional or accidental; and consider whether these changes improve the music or disfigure and impair an otherwise successful composition. James Whistler, a late nineteenth century American painter, once said that it takes two to paint a picture: the artist and another person, who stands next to the painter with a revolver, ready to blow out his brains if the painter begins to overwork the painting. David Dubal, Evenings with Horowitz CONTENTS Chapter 1. Foreword………………………………………………………………….2 2. Op. 14: The History……………………………………………………….7 3. Moscheles: Op. 14 and Its Dedicatee ……………………………………19 4. Op. 14: The Structure…………………………………………………….25 5. Manuscript and Editions in Comparison: Allegro Brillante ……………..33 6. Manuscript and Editions in Comparison: Quasi Variazioni……………...51 7. Manuscript and Editions in Comparison: Finale………………………...56 8. Op. 14: The Title………………………………………………………….65 9. Bibliography………………………………………………………………72 1 Foreword Robert Schumann’s 3rd Piano Sonata Op. 14, known also as “Concerto without Orchestra,” belongs to a relatively small group of the composer’s unpopular and least performed piano works. It rarely appears in recital programs, and when it happens to be performed, it is usually and erroneously listed under both titles. The adverse publication history of this composition, along with the sporadic revisions and substitutions made by the composer and editors, might well be among the key reasons for existing confusions about Op. 14 and its reputation of a bizarre by-product of Schumann’s young years. Though surrounded chronologically by some of his most famous works, such as the Symphonic Etudes, Kinderszenen, the 1st and 2nd Piano Sonatas, and the Fantasia, the Op. 14, composed around the same time, has rarely earned the interest of performers. The textual ambiguities in several of Schumann’s compositions that underwent revision after being published, and therefore exist in earlier and later versions, have often been the subject of arguments. However, the array and the nature of textual discrepancies between the manuscript and various editions of Op. 14 are of a particular interest. Schumann’s dissatisfaction with the 1836 version of the piece (which incorporated three out of five movements of the manuscript) was the likely reason behind considering the second edition of 1853, though still different from the original intent. The composer’s discontent with either version was apparently the motivation for careful preservation of both accounts of the piece in Clara Schumann’s 1893 edition of her late husband’s complete works for Breitkopf & Härtel. The later editors, though acknowledging the ambiguities of the work, gave priority to the 1853 edition as the ultimate version, thus carrying over the inaccuracies and mistakes in it. These sometime evident and 2 unresolved discrepancies are likely to be one of the causes of this composition’s dubious reputation. In working on the present document by studying the most important editions and the manuscript and researching all available information related to Op. 14, I have sought to scrutinize and analyze the evident textual discrepancies in the piece. If the version of 1836 was based on three out of five original movements, the version of 1853 incorporated the second Scherzo, thus getting closer to the original text: four movements out of five in the manuscript. It is very likely that Schumann’s death in 1856 prevented us from seeing at least one more edition/version of the piece, and my strong belief is that knowing the composer’s original intent should be considered a key issue in any attempt to study and perform the Op. 14. After all, it was Robert Schumann who wrote, “The first conception is always the most natural and the best. Reason errs, but never feeling.”1 That is why the restoration of the piece in its original form should be a crucial step in correcting the subsequent errors of reason. Performance largely depends on the performer’s choice of the edition of the musical score. The tendency toward authenticity, which dominates today’s professional music performance world, has significantly cast aside editions of doubtful trustworthiness. Browsing through various editions of the same piece, today’s performer looks for the score that enables the artist to communicate the work without the interference of an intermediary: the editor. Not to reduce the importance of editorial work in preparation of the hand-written material for publishing, but the fact that editors frequently were assumed to be arrangers creates a peculiar array of choices for the 1Robert Schumann, Gesammelte Schriften über Musik und Musiker, ed. F. Gustav Jansen, (Leipzig, 1891), Vol. I, p. 25. 3 performer. The result of such editing often distorts the music so substantially that a publication such as J.S. Bach’s Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue in Hans von Bülow’s edition (available today from G. Schirmer) is viewed by the present day Bach scholars as rather a free fantasy on the source. The materials used in this document include the six most authoritative editions of Op. 14: - 1836 – Haslinger (original edition) - 1853 - Schuberth & Co. (second edition, revised by composer) - 1893 - Breitkopf & Härtel (Clara Schumann – Johannes Brahms) - 1900 - Peters (Adolf Ruthard) - 1983 - Henle (Wolfgang Boetticher) - 1985 - Breitkopf (Clara Schumann –Wilhelm Kempff) I also make use of the precious microfilm of the manuscript of Op. 14 from the archives of the British Library in London - the only microfilm of the original manuscript available in the USA - kindly provided to me by John Roberts, head of Hargrove Music Library at the University of California, Berkeley. There are numerous excerpts from several old and recent editions, which are reproduced and analyzed in the course of the current document. Figures 4, 18, 20-21, 23- 24, 41, 46, 49, 52-62, 69, 71, 76, 79, 81 are reproduced by permission of The British Library (Add. 37056 Sonatas). Figures 6-14, 66, 70, 72, 74, 78, 82 are reproduced from Schumann Klaviersonate f-moll Opus 14 mit Frühfassung Concert sans Orchestre©1983 by G. Henle Verlag, München, used by permission. Figures 28, 37, 38, 65 reprinted from Edition Peters No. 2300e with kind permission from C. F. Peters Corporation (Copyright 4 © by C. F. Peters Corporation, London. All rights reserved.). Musical examples in figures 17, 29, 33 are used by kind permission of Breitkopf & Härtel, Wiesbaden. Some invaluable advice and guidance in newly available materials on Schumann have been given to me by Linda Correll Roesner, one of the most respected researchers of Schumann’s manuscripts and the editor of several modern editions of his music. This work presents a detailed study of the history of the piece, the circumstances around its publication, and editorial notes based on the analysis of the changes (corrections, deletions) made by the composer himself as well as the changes made by editors later. Specifically, the study intends to analyze the options of the original compositional plan of the piece; to determine whether the changes in its structure and details were intentional or accidental; and consider whether these changes improve the music or disfigure and impair an otherwise successful composition. I was also deeply intrigued by the role of Ignaz Moscheles, the dedicatee of Op. 14, in the inspiration and influence on Schumann’s piano writing style. It is also important to note that Op. 14 catalyzed Moscheles’ and Schumann’s personal and professional ties, which are discussed in Chapter 5 of the present document. Moscheles’ influence and guidance of an entire generation of composers is of immense importance and is a subject of a separate study. Under no circumstances will the details of Schumann’s private life, nor facts of his medical history be scrutinized in this document. The present study is entirely based on the widely accessible printed musical scores and on the published correspondence of Schumann available to every reader. My hope is that these notes will provide a useful source of information to those pianists inquisitive enough to study a number of editions of Op. 14 including the 5 facsimile of the manuscript, before performing the piece, instead of relying on any single existing edition of the piece as the ultimate score.