104 / 116
wrote to Henriette Voigt on August ,
, “if
their ‘stems’ and ‘lines’ are so tender and feeble.”
Elsewhere, Schumann described this trio of
works as “lighter and more feminine.” Others
noticed a stylistic change as well. Carl Kossm-
aly—a composer, critic, and original member of
Schumann’s
Davidsbund
(Society of David)—
published the rst comprehensive review of
Schumann’s music in the
Allgemeine Musika-
lische Zeitung
(
), in which he praised this
return to “melodic ow, clarity, and songlike
attitude.”
e
Arabeske
in C major, op. , is a seven-min-
ute rondo movement. Its C-major refrain pres-
ents a charming, memorable theme with con-
siderable internal repetition.
e rst episode
o ers a brooding Romantic melody in minor.
Schumann restates the refrain, and then intro-
duces additional thematic contrast with another
minor-key theme containing a rhythmic motive
from the refrain.
e refrain is heard a nal
time. A coda, apparently unrelated to previous
melodic material, concludes in an introspective
mood.
As for the fate of the
Neue Zeitschri für
Musik
, a er a six-month administrative review,
Schumann’s petition was rejected, and he de-
parted Vienna on April ,
.
Variations on a Nocturne by Chopin in
G minor, Anh:
Schumann frequently praised the compositions
of Polish Romantic pianist-composer Fryderyk
Franciszek Chopin in the pages of the
Neue
Zeitschri für Musik
, observing and document-
ing his progression from keyboard virtuoso to
introspective artist.
is evolution appeared
complete with the publication of Chopin’s Noc-
turne in G minor, op. , no. , as Schumann
elaborated in a review of recent piano compo-
sitions by Chopin, Schubert, and Mendelssohn:
“I shall merely observe that Chopin seems at last
to have arrived at the point which Schubert had
reached long before him. … Chopin’s virtuosity
now serves him. I shall add that Florestan [the
imaginary alter-ego in Schumann’s critical writ-
ing representing his passionate mind], some-
what paradoxically, declared that ‘in Beethoven’s
Leonora
Overture there was more future than in
his symphonies’; this remark may be more cor-
rectly applied to Chopin’s most recent Nocturne
in G minor, in which I detect the most terri c
declaration of war to the entire past; further-
more, one begins to ask oneself how gravity
must be clothed if jest goes about wrapped in
dark veils.”
Smaller compositional forms as hotbeds of mu-
sical revolution remained a common refrain for
Schumann, both as composer and critic. Beyond
the surface simplicity of Chopin’s nocturne, he
recognized a profound intensity of expression
and unconventionality of form, elements that
Schumann extended into his own Variations
on a Nocturne by Chopin in G minor, Anh:
.
Taking the opening section of Chopin’s G-minor
nocturne, Schumann began composing a series
of variations in
– , before stopping in the
middle of the
h variation.
is set remained
incomplete and unpublished in Schumann’s
lifetime.
Concert sans orchestre
in F minor, op. (
)
At various points in his career, Robert
Schumann attempted to break into the Vien-
nese musical market. e year
brought his
rst multi-pronged advance. On February ,
Schumann initiated negotiations with Tobias
Haslinger—one of the leading music publish-
ers in Vienna, whose catalog included import-
ant works by Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz
Schubert, Johann Nepomuk Hummel, and Ignaz
Moscheles, among numerous others—to issue
a grand sonata and etudes for solo piano.
at
correspondence stretched over a period of four
months. In October, Schumann dispatched the
rst three volumes of his musical journal, the
Neue Zeitschri für Musik
, to the Gesellscha
der Musikfreunde, ostensibly as a gi to the so-
ciety’s library but more surreptitiously to build
his reputation as a music critic.
e interactions with Haslinger, particularly
regarding the publication of Schumann’s new
piano sonata, provide exceptional insight into
the publication, dedication, and re-composition
process. A er sending the engraver’s copy of the
sonata to Haslinger on February , Schumann
wrote the piano virtuoso Ignaz Moscheles on
March to ask if he would accept the dedica-
tion of the published sonata. Schumann had
met Moscheles the previous October through
Felix Mendelssohn, a former student of the pi-
anist, and sought the elder musician’s approval
of the new composition. Moscheles accepted
the dedication but later gave a somewhat un-
favorable review in an article on the “New Ro-
manticism” published, ironically, in Schumann’s
Neue Zeitschri für Musik
, where he described
the work as “very labored, di cult, and rather
confused, but interesting.”
As originally submitted, the sonata contained
ve movements, two of which were scherzos.
Sometime between February and June, Hasling-
er evidently returned the manuscript with re-
quests for a number of changes, including the
removal of both scherzos, the omission of two
variations and reordering of the others in the
Quasi variazioni
movement, and the inclusion
of an alternate nale. Schumann had made these
adjustments and enlarged the coda in the rst
movement by the time he returned the man-
uscript to Haslinger in June. His revised score
included a new title in a handwritten note on
the rst page of music, where the composer had
crossed out “Sonate III” and substituted “Con-
cert.” Engraving followed, and the three-move-
ment score was published in November under
the title
Concert sans orchestre
, presumably the
suggestion of Haslinger.
Friedrich Wieck
Lithograph of Tobias Haslinger by Joseph Kriehuber
(1842)
Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin by Eugène Delacroix
RAVINIA MAGAZINE | AUGUST 27 – SEPTEMBER 2, 2018
102