Franz Liszt’s Piano Sonata in B Minor: Precedents for an Analytical Evolution (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of the American Liszt Society, 2017
FULL TEXT OF THIS ARTICLE HERE AVAILABLE on Academia.edu Towards a New Edition of Liszt’s Sonata in B minor: Sources, Editorial History, Symbolic Issues. Tibor Szász (with Gerard Carter and Martin Adler) “New wine into old wineskins”—such is the reception history of Franz Liszt’s Sonata in B minor. Ever since its publication in 1854 the score has suffered from textual misinterpretations which are reproduced as a matter of longstanding tradition in current editions and performances. What has led to these widespread misinterpretations of the Sonata? The answer must be the music itself—a continuum in statu nascendi (in the state of being born)—for which analysts have yet to develop adequate means of analysis and synthesis. Liszt was not a good proofreader of his own compositions, and this circumstance, together with his failure to transfer his piecemeal revisions to all similarly affected structures has led to his Sonata being misunderstood by generations of musicians. Liszt’s Sonata has in the past been viewed through the spectacles of distorted tradition. Accustomed to look for a featured “tune” in the soprano, analysts have failed to detect the completely novel structure of the opening Lento assai which comprises two interacting polyphonic elements, of which the “melodic” voice is found not in the traditional soprano but in the bass. Unable to find the expected structures, interpreters have forced out of the printed notes of the score fictional “tunes” fitted into a bed of habitual “soprano melodies.” They have been labeled with two unrelated names, “Phrygian” and “Gypsy” and incorrectly referred to as “descending scales.” Typically, the opening Lento assai was misinterpreted as unisons (staccati on G, mm. 1, 4, 7) broken up in mm. 2–3 and 5–6 by a descending scale starting on high G and a drone starting on the same high G. The Sonata in B minor was published in 1854 with flaws which continue to be restated uncritically in current Urtext editions. These flaws manifest, not as wrong notes, but as details of notation which obscure the two-voiced polyphony in octaves of the Sonata’s Urmotiv (or thème générateur). Liszt’s failure to transfer his autograph revisions of the Urmotiv to all similarly affected structures resulted in a first edition that contained seven flaws in the opening three measures which reappear in mm. 4–7. The present authors have re-examined all the extant and relevant sources: the autograph manuscript (the so-called “Lehman Manuscript”), the two Henle facsimiles thereof, the only extant sonata sketch (GSA 60/N 2), an undated “Sonate” fragment in E minor (old catalogue S701t / new catalogue S692f), the Urtext and critical editions published in the last two centuries, as well as other scholarly contributions to the literature on the Liszt Sonata. Their re-examination has yielded the following conclusions: Urtext policies perpetuate many of the flaws of the first edition and ignore Liszt’s autograph revisions; no edition of the Sonata reflects Liszt’s intended graphic layout of the score; many current performances and analyses of the Sonata are flawed; a correct edition that constitutes his Fassung letzter Hand (final authorized text) is urgently needed. The likelihood of misinterpreting the confusing graphic layout of the first edition of the Sonata was recognized by a number of pupils close to Liszt. In particular, Arthur Friedheim, José Vianna da Motta, and Alexander Siloti produced rectified graphic layouts intended to prevent misinterpretations of the Sonata’s opening measures. However, these solutions remain mostly unknown today. The aim of this article is to provide an impulse for the publication of a more correct Urtext edition of the Liszt Sonata which is free of the numerous flaws contained, not only in the first edition of 1854, but in all published Urtext and non-Urtext editions since then. Indeed, the time is ripe to excuse Liszt’s deficient proofreading, to remedy the resulting textual misinterpretations by performers, scholars, and editors, and to rehabilitate the text of the Sonata in a reliable Urtext edition based on Liszt’s previously ignored revisions. Implementation of this project will not be difficult, time-consuming, or expensive. It largely consists of amendments to the fourteen crucial measures 1–7 (Lento assai) and 453–59 (Quasi adagio). Besides making suggestions for a correct Urtext edition, the present authors have strived to point out the far-reaching consequences for performance of the rehabilitated Sonata text.
Classical Models, Sonata Theory and The First Movement of Liszt’s Faust Symphony
.” Gamut 4/1 (2011): 53-91; Available at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/gamut/vol4/iss1/4
or many years, conventional wisdom about form in nineteenth-century music assumed that thematic organization and program took precedence over harmonic structure, and that conventional (i.e., Classical) models were limited in their influence in favor of expression. Later studies, like those by Edward T. Cone and Charles Rosen, emphasized harmonic structure more strongly, revealing much about formal procedures (especially in sonata form); but overstatements and broad generalizations posed problems for theorists seeking a balance. 1 More recently, studies of sonata form such as those by William E. Caplin, James Hepokoski, and Warren Darcy offered additional insights when applied to this music; but like earlier studies they focused primarily on thematic organization (although in a much more systematic way) and thus underemphasized characteristics illustrative of the foundational formal/harmonic relationships that exist between many nineteenth-century pieces and those of an earlier practice. 2 Although some of these more recent studies based many of their ideas on earlier treatises, and quoted liberally from them, their
LISZT, Franz - Sonata in B minor. An explorative research to sources and performance
LISZT, Franz - Sonata in B minor. An explorative research to sources and performance, 2020
A pianist’s interpretation of a work is the result of long and complex process. During this process he may consult many different sources. This research evaluates the different types of sources on their relevance and added value in forming this interpretation. The object of this case study is Liszt’s Sonata in B minor. The case study unfolds in three stages. The 0irst chapter discusses how I formed a 0irst interpretation based on the score, the manuscript and the lessons with Prof. Cervino. I recorded this interpretation as a reference recording. In the second chapter I discuss the different types of sources relevant to the research question categorising them. Thereafter, I show which sources contributed to forming my interpretation and performance of the work, and how. This third chapter is a re0lection on the process as the sources are consulted. I made a second recording after this process in order to compare it with the original one. In this same chapter I compare the two recordings while discussing the relevance of each source on my interpretation. Finally, I re0lect as a pianist on how my interpretation and performance evolved during this process. This research discusses how different sources can contribute to forming an artistic interpretation of a work, in this case the Liszt Sonata. How can a pianist develop an informed interpretation and performance? I was able to draw different conclusions from this research and appreciate the richness of different sources realising their relevance when forming a personal, informed interpretation. The result being what I call a vivid, alive performance.
2013
The present paper summarises the general affi nities that link the great romantic piano fantasies (Schubert’s Op. 15, Schumann’s Op. 17, Chopin’s Op. 49 and Liszt’s B minor Sonata) by means of the presence of dual structures of various kinds, including the tonal, formal and an extramusical, interpretational ‘false bottom’, the latest often of autobiographical nature. One of the most prominent dual structures present in all the above mentioned fantasies is a so-called ‘duble-function form’ (apart from far-reaching individualism in detailed solutions) which have no roots in the tradition of keyboard fantasia written by predecessors. As possible source of inspiration some oeuvres of Beethoven are often evoked. However, the paper juxtaposes them with the tradition of the so-called reprise-overture, a particular kind of sonata form (called also ‘interpolated sonata form’ as its key element consists in an intrusion of slow movement within the course of sonata form) that emerged in the cir...
Gamut 6/1 (2013): 45-94; Available at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/gamut/vol6/iss1/3
or many years, conventional wisdom about form in nineteenth-century music assumed that thematic organization and program took precedence over harmonic structure, and that conventional (i.e., Classical) models were limited in their influence in favor of expression. Later studies, such as those by Edward T. Cone and Charles Rosen, emphasized harmonic structure more strongly, revealing much about formal procedures (especially in sonata form); but overstatements and broad generalizations posed problems for theorists seeking a balance. 1 More recent studies of sonata form, such as those by William E. Caplin, James Hepokoski, and Warren Darcy, have offered additional insights when applied to this music; but like earlier studies they have focused primarily on thematic organization (although in a much more systematic way) and thus have underemphasized characteristics illustrative of the foundational formal/harmonic relationships that exist between many nineteenth-century pieces and those of an earlier practice. 2 * Portions of this paper were presented in an earlier form at the 2007 meeting of the Society for Music Theory (Baltimore, MD).
Franz Liszt - a Dilemma of Stylistic Interferences
Proceedings Volume of the The 12th World Congress of Semiotics, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2014, 2015
Considered both as a national and a universal artist, Franz Liszt has inflamed a deep process of continuous progress and radical changes in music, on every level he has undertaken: piano playing, composition, conducting and writing about music. He remained in the history as a complex musician, with a rich activity, maybe the most visionary composer at that time, because his personality was so controversial, that he literally shocked his contemporaries in every parameter of his art. There are numberless books, biographies, treatises, studies, dissertations about his activity, written in different manners and using various analysis techniques. The purpose of this paper is to go beyond some texts where Franz Liszt was approached as one-sided figure, in order to outline his personality as a whole, by pointing some key-elements in his artistic psychology, some deep resorts of his composing principles. In this regard, I have chosen some well-known authors who wrote about Liszt and have kept the most representative elements of their works to describe him, trying to 'catch' the essence of the great Franz Liszt.
How Sonata Forms: A Bottom-Up Approach to Musical Form
Eighteenth-Century Music, 2024
In his book How Sonata Forms: A Bottom-Up Approach to Musical Form Yoel Greenberg makes a substantial contribution to our understanding of the evolution of sonata form. His analysis of the binary and concerto forms of mid-eighteenth-century composers sheds light on the emergence of a musical structure that has intrigued musicologists and listeners for centuries. Greenberg grounds his research in the writings of past and present sonata-form thinkers, engaging with a 'who's who' list of musicians and scholars from Scheibe to recent twenty-first-century writers. He complements this grounding in the field with an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on concepts from diverse areas such as linguistics, evolutionary biology, sociology, statistics and philosophy. This approach provides the framework for a bottom-up investigation into the development of sonata form. Greenberg supports his arguments with evidence from historical treatises, data on thematic quotations in a corpus of almost one thousand works and statistical analysis. Acutely musical and skilfully written, Greenberg's book presents analyses and arguments with clarity and accessibility. His prose is not only insightful but also infused with humour and grace, making it a compelling read for both scholars and enthusiasts alike. Greenberg leans heavily on the distinction between synchrony and diachrony throughout this work. Synchrony represents a snapshot of a specific moment or period of time, allowing us to ask the question 'what is sonata form?'. On the other hand, diachrony resembles a timeline and corresponds to the question 'when and how did sonata form come into existence?' (13). However, attempts to address these questions reveal counterexamples to neat narratives or categorizations, termed 'fuzziness' by Greenberg. When addressing the synchronic question, numerous sonata forms fit the definition perfectly, while many others fit it awkwardly. Similarly, answering the diachronic question complicates explaining the existence of sonata-form movements that occurred 'too early' in the timeline. None the less, Greenberg successfully makes valuable insights into the nature and evolution of sonata form. Greenberg's arguments frequently invoke the distinction between bottom-up and top-down approaches. A bottom-up approach focuses on individual features, such as genotypes or musical elements, and explores how they combine to form more complex systems, like phenotypes or musical forms. It is reductionist. A top-down approach starts with a complete whole and then deconstructs it into smaller segments. It is holistic. In music, top-down approaches dominate, often addressing the diachronic question through the lens of 'great men' who altered the paradigm or forged new paths for a particular form. Bottom-up approaches in musicology are relatively uncommon, even rare. They offer a new perspective that top-down approaches cannot. In the case of sonata form, a bottom-up approach allows us to understand it as 'a problem, a collection of disparate common practices inherited from other works and expected by listeners, which must