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.