Reconsidering the Nineteenth-Century Potpourri: Johann Nepomuk Hummel’s Op. 94 for Viola and Orchestra 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 D. M. A. 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 Don Giovanni 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 Fantasia sulla “La Sonnambula” di Bellini Example 2.14: 68 Scene Structures in Rossini Operas 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 piano 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. (London: 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 C.