Isaac Albéniz’s Suite Espanola No. 1 and No. 2 provides a depiction of Spain through ten brief piano pieces that represent areas such Aragon, Granada and Seville. Their pleasant, simple melodies call to mind Spanish folk music. Although the pieces are brief, each contains a unique character and could easily stand on its own. In her article on Albéniz in the Grove Music Dictionary, Frances Barulich gives insight into the style and importance of Albéniz:
Albéniz, one of Spain’s foremost musicians, not only contributed to the rebirth of Spanish nationalism but also gained international recognition for Spanish music . . . Albéniz preferred to suggest, rather than quote, rhythms and melodic elements to evoke the Spanish landscape. (Grove Music Online S.v. “Albéniz, Isaac”).
In his book Isaac Albéniz: Portrait of a Romantic, Walter Clark points out Albéniz not only influenced other Spanish composers such as Manuel de Falla, but that he also influenced “composers such as Claude Debussy, Gabriel Fauré, and, later, Olivier Messiaen and Pierre Boulez” (p. 5). Albéniz’s unique position in music history makes his music worthy of study.
Many of the pieces in these suites share common stylistic features. One of the most prevalent features is the use of an ostinato. This usually appeared in the left hand while the right hand played the melody such as the chromatic ostinato in “Cataluna (Corronda).” One of my favorite appearances of an ostinato pattern was in “Castilla (Seguidillas),” where the galloping ostinato in the left hand is repeatedly interrupted by insistent accented chords in the right hand, forming something of a conversation or maybe a war between the two voices. Spanish dance rhythms play a prominent role in the majority of these pieces (Walter Clark, Issac Albéniz: Portrait of a Romantic, p. 65). Clark writes:
The suite contains the ever-popular ‘Sevilla (Sevillana),’ which employs the spirited rhythms of the sevillanas (a light-hearted song and dance performed during the summer feria in Seville) in the A section as well as a stirringly lyrical and animated copla in the B section, interspersed with motivic reminiscences of the A section. (Isaac Albéniz: Portrait of a Romantic, p. 68).
Another common feature is the dominance of melody and lack of virtuosity. I was surprised at the simplicity of many of these pieces. Albéniz emphasizes beautiful, flowing melodies usually in the right hand and sometimes doubled in octaves. The left hand material tends to be relatively modest with any chords, arpeggios, accented downbeats, or ostinati serving as secondary material to embellish and accentuate the main melody. “Granada (Serenata)” and “Cuba (Capricho)” are two good examples of these flowing, mellow, melodic lines.
I noticed many similarities in form among all the pieces. Most of them open with a two to four bar introduction before launching into the main melody and are in some version of ternary form. I found that Albéniz was fond of ending A sections rests or dramatic fermatas before starting the B section. The B sections tended to contrast with the A sections and were more free in tempo than the A sections in the Naxos recording (catalog no. 8.554211-12) that I listened to. This gave them a more cadenza-like quality such as the beginning of the B section in “Sevilla (Sevillanas).” Sometimes there was an increased level of virtuosity as well. In order generate contrast, Albéniz usually changed to a minor key in the B section, as in “Granada (Serenata),” “Sevilla (Sevillanas),” “Asturias (Leyenda),” “Castilla (Seguidillas),” and “Cuba (Capricho).” Walter Clark discusses how Albéniz used the Aeolian and Mixolydian modes in the B section of “Granada” to evoke Moorish vocal music (Isaac Albéniz: Portrait of a Romantic, p.67). Occasionally, there seem to be smaller sub sections within the B sections before the return of the A theme. Once the A theme returned, it was usually repeated in full before the conclusion, which could either be loud, with an exciting chordal finish, or soft, with an understated finish that faded away.
The second suite contained only two pieces which had some differences from the pieces in first. Both pieces in the second suite called for a higher level of virtuosity than had been used in the first suite, each making use of running triplet or sextuplet rhythms. The opening piece titled “Zaragoza,” contained a chromatic ostinato and a passionate melody doubled in octaves in the right hand. The final piece, titled “Sevilla,” was interesting because it was the only piece in the suite that was in rondo form. Albéniz made effective textural contrasts by juxtaposing a rollicking, driving, triplet reprise with darker, more cadenza-like episodes.
I found the pieces on this recording pleasant, but slightly bland. I expected them to be more virtuosic and exciting and was a little surprised by how simple and mellow they were. After a while, it became rather predictable to listen to them because their form and texture was so similar. However, just because they did not live up to my expectations does not mean that they are not worth listening to. With their simple yet beautiful melodies, colorful ostinato figures, and straightforward form, they would be a welcome contrast to standard piano works of Schumann, Liszt, and Chopin that often get performed on recitals. The different local colors of Spain that are apparent within each piece add an additional layer of interest. Although they can not compete with the works of these giants in terms of virtuosity, structure, or depth, the pieces from Suite Española No. 1 & No. 2 provide simplicity and playfulness that make for pleasant light listening, even if they do not quite deserve a place within the Canon.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
MUSIC OF CLARA SCHUMANN, FANNY MENDELSSOHN, LOUISE FARRENC, & MARIE GRANDVAL
The music of Clara Schumann, Fanny Mendelssohn, Louise Farrenc, and Marie Grandval presents an intriguing case study in the role of women composers during the nineteenth century. These four women were contemporaries living and working during the Romantic Period, one of the most fertile periods for composition. Although their music seldom gets performed today, I was surprised to learn that they each had relatively successful careers during their lives. Schumann is most famous as the wife of the composer Robert Schumann, but she was a musician in her own right, performing throughout her life, composing, and serving as a piano teacher at the Hoch Conservatory (Grove Music Online S.v. “Schumann, Clara”). Mendelssohn, who is remembered chiefly because of her brother Felix, participated in a salon and composed numerous pieces, although most were not published (Grove Music Online S.v. “Mendelssohn, Fanny”). Farrenc was given the Chartier Prize in 1861 and 1869 (Grove Music Online S.v. “Farrenc: (2) Louise Farrenc”). Bea Friedland writes of Farrenc:
Farrenc’s role in music history carries significance beyond that ordinarily accorded to competent minor composers. Having worked in a society whose women musicians attained prominence mainly as performers, and in a cultural environment which valued only theatre and salon music, she merits recognition as a pioneering scholar and a forerunner of the French musical renaissance of the 1870s. (Grove Music Online S.v. “Farrenc: (2) Louise Farrenc”).
Grandval won the Councours Rossini in 1880 and her compositions include orchestral pieces and operas as well as numerous chamber works. Judy Tsou points out that Grandval’s friends included Gounod, Saint-Saëns, and Bizet and writes, “Her stature as a respected composer is clear from the many favourable contemporary reviews of her works.”(Grove Music Online S.v. “Grandval, Marie, Vicomtesse de”). It is valuable to investigate the works of these women because of the unique place they have in music history. I was surprised by the variety of styles, instrumentation, and compositional devices used in the pieces on this recording, and how each piece reflects a unique character. They are all chamber works, with the exception of Schumann’s Konzertsatz, a concerto.
I was disappointed by Schumann’s Konzertsatz in F minor because it lacked originality and character. On this recording by the Ambache Chamber Orchestra and Ensemble, only one movement of this unfinished piece was presented, and that movement was not even finished by Schumann, but was instead completed and orchestrated by Jozef de Beehouwer. Unlike previous concertos from the Classical Period, there is no “double exposition” in this concerto—the piano enters on a diminished chord after a dark, brief orchestral introduction. This is just one example of how, thanks to the innovations of Beethoven, Schubert, and Robert Schumann, the pieces of the mid 19th century increasingly pushed the boundaries of the Classical form. The piano’s first theme is a melancholy, restless melody that gradually builds in intensity. The tonality changes to a major key which ushers in a gentle, meandering second theme before the orchestra begins a new melody with the piano adding embellishment. Compared with the great piano concertos of Beethoven, Chopin, and Tchaikovsky, I found Schumann’s work relatively dull. Although there were three main melodies, none of them grabbed my attention as do Mozart’s melodies. The development section failed to hold my interest as well—it consisted mainly of short snatches of the melody developed in different keys, with lots of running 16th notes from the piano and the occasional chordal climax. There was nothing original to set this piece apart from any other piano concerto in the mid 19th century. This piece left no distinct flavor in my mouth except maybe vanilla.
If Schumann’s piece took inspiration from Beethoven, Schubert, and Robert Schumann, Fanny Mendelssohn’s Piano Trio in D minor, op. 11 shows the influence of Felix Mendelssohn. The Trio, scored for piano, cello, and violin in four movements, immediately calls to mind Felix Mendelssohn’s Violin Concerto in E minor in the opening “Allegro molto vivace,” where the doubled octave line in the violin and cello is strongly reminiscent of the opening melody of the Violin Concerto. Felix Mendelssohn’s concerto was composed in 1844, so it is probable that Fanny had heard it by the time she wrote the Piano Trio in 1846. The third movement is titled “Lied: Allegretto,” and features a piano introduction leading into a vocal violin melody that is soon joined by the cello. This refreshing movement lasted just over two minutes and was an effective adaptation of the vocal genre to an instrumental one.
Although composed in1861, Louise Farrenc’s Clarinet Trio in E flat, op. 44 hearkens back to Classical chamber music more than any of the other pieces on this recording. Scored for clarinet, cello and piano, I found it intriguing that Farrenc’s Trio in E flat has an almost identical opening with Mozart’s Piano Trio No. 2 in E flat Major, which is scored for the same instrumental combination with the exception of Mozart’s use of a viola instead of a cello. The abundance of light, graceful melodies and periodic phrase structure throughout the work also reminded me of Mozart as did the conservative classical harmonies. Occasionally, however, hints of Romanticism broke through. Although the minuet is a relic of the Classical Period, Farrenc’s “Menuetto: Allegro” contains a dark, foreboding 16th note passage in the low register for the clarinet and cello in octaves. Such a dramatic shift in register and tonality would have been out of place in the Classical Period, but was typical for the Romantic Period. By and large however, this piece retained strong ties to the earlier generation. If I had not known that this work was composed in 1861, I would have guessed that it was composed in the late 18th century. It certainly has more in common with Mozart and Beethoven than it does with Berlioz, Schumann, or Weber.
I enjoyed Deux pieces by Marie Grandval. As the title implies, this work contains two pieces—“Romance: Andantino” and “Gavotte: Allegro non troppo” and is scored for piano, oboe, and cello. This work had many more Romantic characteristics than Farrenc’s Trio. In the liner notes for the recording, Misha Donut claims that the first piece shows the influence of Camille Saint-Saëns. To my ear, the oboe part brought to mind the oboe writing in Francis Poulenc’s Sextet, who may have taken inspiration from Saint-Saëns as well. In any case the long, passionate melodic lines and progressive harmonies link this piece closely with the French Romantic School. The “Gavotte: Allegro non troppo” pays tribute to the French Baroque with its opening melody, its harmonies, and its ornamentation even while retaining its Romantic identity by the more progressive melodic and harmonic material in the middle section. This movement strongly reminded me of Maurice Ravel’s La tombeau de Couperin in its nostalgia for the French Baroque, and I found Grandval’s whole work to be pleasantly fresh and original.
Personally, I enjoyed some of the pieces on this recording more than others. I disliked the Schumann because of its lack of melodic originality. The Farrenc and the Mendelssohn each contained some enjoyable moments and well-crafted melodies that would make them worth listening to again. However, my favorite piece on this recording was Grandval’s Deux pieces. With its unusual and colorful instrumentation, contrast of movements, and effective combination of old and new styles of composition, I found this piece to be refreshing and enjoyable. Despite my own tastes, it is easy to see why none of these works are in the Canon. In general, pieces that end up in the Canon have been widely performed in public. With chamber music that was written to be performed for an intimate audience of family and friends, it would have been difficult to get public exposure, especially since these pieces were composed by women. Despite the fact that these women were all skilled musicians, only men were viewed as the professional composers in the eighteenth century—women’s compositions were seen more as a hobby. These pieces were never widely performed which explains why they have fallen into relative obscurity today. Meanwhile, so many high quality compositions have been added to the Canon during the Romantic Period that there is hardly room for more. While I do not think that there is room in the Canon for these pieces of Grandval, Farrenc, Schumann, and Mendelssohn, they deserve to be heard and explored by anyone motivated and interested enough to venture outside the Canon.
Farrenc’s role in music history carries significance beyond that ordinarily accorded to competent minor composers. Having worked in a society whose women musicians attained prominence mainly as performers, and in a cultural environment which valued only theatre and salon music, she merits recognition as a pioneering scholar and a forerunner of the French musical renaissance of the 1870s. (Grove Music Online S.v. “Farrenc: (2) Louise Farrenc”).
Grandval won the Councours Rossini in 1880 and her compositions include orchestral pieces and operas as well as numerous chamber works. Judy Tsou points out that Grandval’s friends included Gounod, Saint-Saëns, and Bizet and writes, “Her stature as a respected composer is clear from the many favourable contemporary reviews of her works.”(Grove Music Online S.v. “Grandval, Marie, Vicomtesse de”). It is valuable to investigate the works of these women because of the unique place they have in music history. I was surprised by the variety of styles, instrumentation, and compositional devices used in the pieces on this recording, and how each piece reflects a unique character. They are all chamber works, with the exception of Schumann’s Konzertsatz, a concerto.
I was disappointed by Schumann’s Konzertsatz in F minor because it lacked originality and character. On this recording by the Ambache Chamber Orchestra and Ensemble, only one movement of this unfinished piece was presented, and that movement was not even finished by Schumann, but was instead completed and orchestrated by Jozef de Beehouwer. Unlike previous concertos from the Classical Period, there is no “double exposition” in this concerto—the piano enters on a diminished chord after a dark, brief orchestral introduction. This is just one example of how, thanks to the innovations of Beethoven, Schubert, and Robert Schumann, the pieces of the mid 19th century increasingly pushed the boundaries of the Classical form. The piano’s first theme is a melancholy, restless melody that gradually builds in intensity. The tonality changes to a major key which ushers in a gentle, meandering second theme before the orchestra begins a new melody with the piano adding embellishment. Compared with the great piano concertos of Beethoven, Chopin, and Tchaikovsky, I found Schumann’s work relatively dull. Although there were three main melodies, none of them grabbed my attention as do Mozart’s melodies. The development section failed to hold my interest as well—it consisted mainly of short snatches of the melody developed in different keys, with lots of running 16th notes from the piano and the occasional chordal climax. There was nothing original to set this piece apart from any other piano concerto in the mid 19th century. This piece left no distinct flavor in my mouth except maybe vanilla.
If Schumann’s piece took inspiration from Beethoven, Schubert, and Robert Schumann, Fanny Mendelssohn’s Piano Trio in D minor, op. 11 shows the influence of Felix Mendelssohn. The Trio, scored for piano, cello, and violin in four movements, immediately calls to mind Felix Mendelssohn’s Violin Concerto in E minor in the opening “Allegro molto vivace,” where the doubled octave line in the violin and cello is strongly reminiscent of the opening melody of the Violin Concerto. Felix Mendelssohn’s concerto was composed in 1844, so it is probable that Fanny had heard it by the time she wrote the Piano Trio in 1846. The third movement is titled “Lied: Allegretto,” and features a piano introduction leading into a vocal violin melody that is soon joined by the cello. This refreshing movement lasted just over two minutes and was an effective adaptation of the vocal genre to an instrumental one.
Although composed in1861, Louise Farrenc’s Clarinet Trio in E flat, op. 44 hearkens back to Classical chamber music more than any of the other pieces on this recording. Scored for clarinet, cello and piano, I found it intriguing that Farrenc’s Trio in E flat has an almost identical opening with Mozart’s Piano Trio No. 2 in E flat Major, which is scored for the same instrumental combination with the exception of Mozart’s use of a viola instead of a cello. The abundance of light, graceful melodies and periodic phrase structure throughout the work also reminded me of Mozart as did the conservative classical harmonies. Occasionally, however, hints of Romanticism broke through. Although the minuet is a relic of the Classical Period, Farrenc’s “Menuetto: Allegro” contains a dark, foreboding 16th note passage in the low register for the clarinet and cello in octaves. Such a dramatic shift in register and tonality would have been out of place in the Classical Period, but was typical for the Romantic Period. By and large however, this piece retained strong ties to the earlier generation. If I had not known that this work was composed in 1861, I would have guessed that it was composed in the late 18th century. It certainly has more in common with Mozart and Beethoven than it does with Berlioz, Schumann, or Weber.
I enjoyed Deux pieces by Marie Grandval. As the title implies, this work contains two pieces—“Romance: Andantino” and “Gavotte: Allegro non troppo” and is scored for piano, oboe, and cello. This work had many more Romantic characteristics than Farrenc’s Trio. In the liner notes for the recording, Misha Donut claims that the first piece shows the influence of Camille Saint-Saëns. To my ear, the oboe part brought to mind the oboe writing in Francis Poulenc’s Sextet, who may have taken inspiration from Saint-Saëns as well. In any case the long, passionate melodic lines and progressive harmonies link this piece closely with the French Romantic School. The “Gavotte: Allegro non troppo” pays tribute to the French Baroque with its opening melody, its harmonies, and its ornamentation even while retaining its Romantic identity by the more progressive melodic and harmonic material in the middle section. This movement strongly reminded me of Maurice Ravel’s La tombeau de Couperin in its nostalgia for the French Baroque, and I found Grandval’s whole work to be pleasantly fresh and original.
Personally, I enjoyed some of the pieces on this recording more than others. I disliked the Schumann because of its lack of melodic originality. The Farrenc and the Mendelssohn each contained some enjoyable moments and well-crafted melodies that would make them worth listening to again. However, my favorite piece on this recording was Grandval’s Deux pieces. With its unusual and colorful instrumentation, contrast of movements, and effective combination of old and new styles of composition, I found this piece to be refreshing and enjoyable. Despite my own tastes, it is easy to see why none of these works are in the Canon. In general, pieces that end up in the Canon have been widely performed in public. With chamber music that was written to be performed for an intimate audience of family and friends, it would have been difficult to get public exposure, especially since these pieces were composed by women. Despite the fact that these women were all skilled musicians, only men were viewed as the professional composers in the eighteenth century—women’s compositions were seen more as a hobby. These pieces were never widely performed which explains why they have fallen into relative obscurity today. Meanwhile, so many high quality compositions have been added to the Canon during the Romantic Period that there is hardly room for more. While I do not think that there is room in the Canon for these pieces of Grandval, Farrenc, Schumann, and Mendelssohn, they deserve to be heard and explored by anyone motivated and interested enough to venture outside the Canon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)