M434 Piano Literature- final paper 1st draft
Liszt’s B min Sonata
Jeung-Yoon Lee
1.1 Introduction
Among the crowning achievements of Weimer years( ) was the composition of the Piano
Sonata B minor. Composed 1851-1853, it represents one of the most original
contributions to sonata form in nineteenth century. The sonata was published in 1854
with a dedication to Robert Schumann (a reciprocal gesture for the dedication of
Schumann’s C major Fantasy to Liszt, some years earlier).
From now we will examine this piece by following order.
-What is sonata form?
-Influences on the Liszt’s B minor sonata
-Understanding B minor sonata
-(Reception)
-Conclusion
2.1 Traditional Sonata form
Sonata form- Antonin Reicha and Carl Czerny, along with Adolf Marx, they were the
most influential codifiers of sonata form in the nineteenth century, and it is from their
work that we drive the outline of the form now commonly taught in schools and
universities. As can be seen from the titles of the treatises- Reicha’s Traite de haute
composition musical (1826), Marx’s Die Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition
(1845) and Czerny’s school of Practial Composition (1848) – their purpose was to
provide a guide for composers in the writing of sonata form movements, rather than in
the analysis pf past Classical practice.
According to Czerny and Reicha, sonata form, defined as the form of the first movement
of a sonata or symphony, consisted of three parts: exposition, development and
recapitulation. …
2.2 Influences on B min Sonata
Most of Liszt’s creative efforts in Weimar were concentrated on following Beethoven’s
example, especially in the rejuvenation of sonata form. Although he did not specifically
tell which works of Beethoven, one of the most influential on his general approach to
sonata form was the finale of the Ninth Symphony. In this variation movement we find
the germ of so many Lisztian traits. The variations are organized as a large-scale sonata
structure in D major, with the second subject, a transformation of the main theme into
Turkish march in Bb (the flattened submediant); then comes a fugal development
followed by a recapitulation. The recapitulation is interrupted by a slow section, based on
a new theme begging with subdominant. IN fact, this slow section is analogues to
secondary development sometimes found in recapitulations. Its theme is immediately
taken up again, in the tonic, as a glorious counterpoint to the principal ‘Ode to Joy’
melody for the second, and by far the larger, section of the recapitulation. If we consider
the march as a scherzo substitute, we have all the ingredients of a four-movement work
bound to one, and underpinned by thematic transformation. Although there are important
differences in detail, this is the essence that often describes the Liszt’s sonata.
The idea of binding several movements into one might be considered fundamentally
Beethovenian, but already by 1822 Schubert in his Wanderer Fantasy had successfully
achieved the same thing. The Wanderer Fantasy was one of Liszt’s favorite concert
pieces, which he made arrangement for piano and orchestra in 1851. Many fantasies at
that time were quite short and had contrasting sections in various keys and tempos.
However, Schubert made more complex plan, using thematic transformation to connect
sections together in a scheme of first section(C major), slow section(C# min-E maj),
scherzo (Ab major) and finale (C maj, beginning with fugal exposition). Maybe is not fair
to give all the credit to Liszt for inventing thematic transformation.
By the age of thirteen Liszt learned that it was possible to accommodate sections of
varied characters within basic sonata structures. His ‘Impromptu on themes of Rossini
and Spotini’ of 1824 is composed this way. Even though its weak quality, it shows that
Liszt already started that kind of experiment in his early age. He also observed that the
concerto form was treated in many free ways by Schumann, Weber, Mendelssohn, John
Field and Herz. (There were similar attempt to make this concerto in one movement
among them.)
Although there were precedents for concerti and fantasies in one continuous movement,
there was none for the piano sonata yet. Liszt’s approach in the B min sonata can be
describing d as a combination of fantasy, which was normally in one movement, with the
traditional sonata. Beethoven also had this kind of composition such as ‘quisi una
fantasia’ op.27. These sonatas are directed to be played without break between
movements.
For last, Liszt adopted Chopin and Hummel’s way. For his third sonata, op.58, Chopin
adopted a scheme unused by Hummel in his sonata in F# minor, op.81, namely a highly
chromatic transition hinting various remote keys before long period in the dominant of
the relative major establishes it as real second key. This kind of procedure made new
exotic sound. Liszt, who admired Chopin and Hummel’s sonatas, used similar way in his
B min sonata.
(The double function structure was to have no successor until Schoenberg did something
similar in his first chamber symphony more than fifty years later.)
2.3 Understanding the Sonata
There are three major opinions about analyzing the Sonata:
The analysis of W.S. Newman has been most influential, particularly in his coining of the
apt term ‘double function’ form, a structure that can be considered both as on continuous
movement and simultaneously as a composite of the of a multi-movement work. More
concretely speaking, the Sonata exhibits elements of a first movement-slow second
movement-scherzo-finale though in one movement. Newman was the first one who
brought up this double function idea, although Dohnanyi apparently taught something
similar in the Budapest Liszt Academy in early nineteenth century. Whatever the
difference are, Newman, Longyear and Winklhofer are at least agreed on that the Sonata
is not a programmic work, and that as a result analysis of it can only proceed on only
musical terms. Liszt himself never gave the slightest hint that the Sonata had a
programme, but this is no problem, as several writers have been kind enough to supply
one for him.(necessary?)
2.3.1 Programmatic interpretations
These programmatic approaches range from vague to the very (?) specific.
The vaguest one is that of Peter Raabe, who thought that the Sonata was a musical
autobiography, exploring the contradictory elements within Liszt himself, his triumphs
and disappointments, his loves and hates.Raabe’s theory was nevertheless given sterling
support by the Hollywood film of Liszt’s life, Song without end.
The second category of programmatic interpretation is the eschatological.(?)
Tibor Szasz (‘) has advanced the revelation that the Sonata is about struggling between
God and Lucifer for the soul of man, based on the Bible and Milton’s Paradise Lost. (add
more detail?)
The Faust interpretation has been the most enduring of all programmatic descriptions.
Cortot, in his Salabert edition of the Sonata, gives it as a fact. Even the preface to the
New Liszt Edition takes this as read. However, the only reason they believe this is
because of the thematic similarities with he Faust symphony. But then, it is also almost
identical with one of the Grand Concert-solo themes, for which no one has ever
suggested a programme music, and also to a theme in the symphonic poem Ce qu’on
entend sur la montaqne. It is, in fact, one of the Liszt’s favorite melody.(add?)
Moreover, the theme 3 of the sonata has strong resemblance to the theme in the second
movement of Alkan’s Grande sonate of 1848, the movement named Quasi Faust.
(check the flowing)
(ex)
Lina Ramann, however, who wrote the first major biography of Liszt, and who
questioned the composer closely on the origins of his works, stated (other word?)
categorically that the Sonata was not inspired by a programme even though Liszt himself
was quite capable of creating programme for his music.
Ironically, the one dramatic association made by composer himself was that the Sonata
theme 2 with the defiant (?) mood of Beethoven’s Coriolian Overture. Liszt told this to
his pupil August Stradal during a lesson on the Sonata in order to help Stradal to capture
the correct mood for performance on this theme.
2.3.2 Musical analysis
Both Newman and Longyear agreed that the Sonata can be considered either as a single
movement sonata form or as a multi-movements, with a slow movements and scherzo
(meaning fugue section here). They differ over whether the sections are divided four
movements (Newman) or three (Lonyear). On the other hand, Winklhofer sees the Sonata
only as one single movement. She admits that there is a slow movement in the middle of
the Sonata, but refuses to identify the fugue with a scherzo. Winkklhofer thought the slow
movement as a ‘slow sub movement’ in sonata form. In Longyear’s
case, he also denies the ‘scherzando’ fugue an independent movement. He includes it in
his finale movement. The fascination of the work is increased by leaving the answer
open: the fugue is a ‘scherzo’if the performer chooses to project it as such, and the
listener decides to hear it as so.
The differences between Winklhofer and Newman are more acute. Longyear’s threemovement division of the Sonata is consistent with his one movement analysis. In other
words, his ‘first movement’ is only a notional term that comprises the exposition and
development of the Sonata as a whole, without the closing recapitulation that we would
find in a true first movement. Newman’s ‘first movement’ is the same part of the Sonata
as Longyear’s(measure 1-330), but here described as a self-contained unit in ‘incomplete
sonatina from’, by which he means ‘sonata form in which a simple recapitulation replaces
the development section.’(what so called slow movement sonata form) What Lonyear and
Winklhofer consider as the beginning of the development, Newman hears as a
recapitulation with its own mini coda. In his view of the Sonata as a single movement,
the development begins with the Andante sostenuto. Personally, I cannot agree to
Newman’s idea at this point..
Bearing in mind of all these confusing pictures, let us look at the Sonata in more detail,
first as an single movement sonata, which all those three scholars agree.
Giving his work the simple title ‘Sonata’, Liszt ensured that the pice would be initially
considered in relation to the familiar sonata type. The overall key scheme conforms
strictly to this sonata key scheme., unlike most of Liszt’s sonata form symphonic poems.
The use of the relative major for the second subject, and the dominant major key for the
central Andante sostenuto were quite conservative which focused on the more radical
elements of the Sonata. One thing important here is that even though Liszt’s tonal goal s
may be conventional, his means of reaching them are dramatically progressive and new.
Thematically, the entire melodic texture of this piece is constructed out of only five
themes. The first three scarcely more that fragments in themselves, but capable of
forming longer units by transformation or synthesis.(ex)
Ex.p.35
Theme 1 (Lento assai, measure 1-7) grows out of the slow syncopated repetition of the
note G (muffled timpani strokes, according to the Liszt Padagogium, and not pizzicato
string as commonly played), the third repetition initiating a descending scale, firstly GPhrygian mode, secondly Hungarian gypsy scale. These two different scales create a
pensive, brooding impression, enhancing the tentative grouping of the repeated Gs. The
extra harmonic flavor given by the tritone G-C# of the gypsy scale, further emphasized
by sustaining G octave in the right hand, increases the feeling of expectancy, fulfilled
when a third repeat of the syncopated Gs leads not to another scalar figure, but instead to
theme 2(Allegro energico, m 8-13), a motif outlining diminished seventh chord, the
accented notes D (m10) and A (m12) making harsh seventh suspensions against the
diminished harmony. (This technique of a single line creating its own harmonic tension
and resolution can be trace to Bach’s unaccompanied instrumental music.) Theme 2
reminded Liszt of the Coriolan of Beethoven’s overture and Collin’s play, haughtily
announcing ‘Why sound I show my sorrow to them? I bear them within me, and proudly
hide them away.’ Theme 3 (m 13-17) was also specifically characterized by Liszt as a
‘Hammerschlag’(hammer-blow), striking and pounding single note repetitions.
Repetitions are an important feature of all three themes. Theme 2 takes off from the
repeated G of theme 1, and transformed to octaves (m8), and theme 3 starts by repeating
A# which ended theme 2, using it as part of the upbeat to its repeated note phrases. Thus
each new theme begins by pivoting on the note that finished the previous one. This gives
sense of continuous flowing between themes.
The tonality of these themes 1,2,3 is ambiguous though. The harmony of theme 1
suggests c minor, the Gs function as a dominant. Theme 2 is just diminished chord (A#C#-E-G), which can be resolved to b minor. Yet, theme 3 continues diminished seventh
harmony.
In terms of phrase structure, the typical Romantic four bar structure is abandoned. Theme
1 is two three bar phrases, a potential third phrase cut short by theme 2, a five bar unit.
Theme 3 is more regular, as befits hammer blows, making two bar structure.
When we consider all these complexity of this opening page- the fragmentary nature of
the themes, the tonal obscurity, the irregular phrasing- it is understandable why this piece
struck some nineteenth century audiences as completely incomprehensible.
Theme 4 appears at measure ( ), second subject. Theme 4, 5 are at m ( ) in the slow
movement. Theme 5 can be seen as thematic transformation (augmentation) of theme 3.
The Andante sostenuto (compound ternary form?) is similar to late Beethoven’s works.
The F# major, which is dominant of tonic B minor, is also Liszt’s ‘beatific’ key. The
three-part fugue, which reminds us Beethoven, is both third movement and an extended
return to the recapitulation, in B minor (m 533.check!).
(Help needed. I’m not sure how much detail I should cover here.)
2.4 Reception
The first performance of this piece was given by Hans von Bulow(Liszt’s student) in
Berlin on 22 January 1857. The work’s reception was not promising. Otto Gumprecht
described it as ‘ and invitation to hissing and stamping’, while Gustav Engel said that it
conflicted both with nature and with logic. The fame of the B minor sonata recovered
slowly before the turn of the century. One of the best known was the private performance
that Karl Klindworth gave to Richard Wagner in London, on 5 April 1855.
3. Conclusion