Proceedings of the National Conference On Undergraduate Research (NCUR) 2011 Ithaca College, New York March 31-April 2, 2011
Defiance through Music: the First Movement of Paul Hindemith’s Sonata for Trumpet and Piano Marybeth Weiss Music Adelphi University 1 South Ave Garden City, New York 11530 Faculty Advisor: Dr. Sidney Boquiren Abstract This project is based on the musical and historical elements shown through the first movement of Paul Hindemith’s Sonata for Trumpet and Piano. Paul Hindemith (1895-1963) was a German composer who was blacklisted by the Nazi Party and was forced to flee Germany. In 1939, during his exile in Switzerland and before his arrival to the United States, Hindemith wrote the Sonata for Trumpet and Piano. It is often said that the Trumpet Sonata was the most personal work of Hindemith’s during this time of exile. What is unique about this particular composition is that Hindemith defies conventional sonata form. Through dissecting the musical form, using historical and biographical analysis of Hindemith, I will make the connection between Hindemith’s defiance of conventional sonata form and his defiance of the Nazis. Keywords: Hindemith, Trumpet, Nazis
1.Introduction While investigating the background of the Sonata for Trumpet and Piano in preparation for performance I came across a program note by Richard Freed that stated, “This particular work took on a depth quite beyond the scope of its companion sonatas; it became one of Hindemith’s most personal expressions.”1 In particular, Hindemith had said “it is maybe the best thing I have succeeded in doing in recent times, and that is quite a good sign, since I do not regard any of my newest productions as of little value.”2 Freed goes on to say that with the horrors of Nazi Germany, this sonata “became a protest.”3 With those lines resonating in my mind, I turned my efforts to researching Hindemith’s life and relations with the Nazi Party of Germany. In his article “The Hindemith Case”, noted Nazi-favored conductor and composer Wilhelm Furtwängler argued that Hindemith was a true German composer. In his book Music in the Third Reich Erik Levi describes Hindemith’s relationship as “consistently hostile”4 in throughout the 1930s. Paul Hindemith’s often antagonistic relationship with the Nazis, the controversy surrounding his compositions, and the way the Trumpet Sonata was written as evidenced by a theoretical analysis of the music leads me to support Freed’s contention that the piece is an act of defiance.
2. Paul Hindemith Paul Hindemith (1895-1963) identified himself as a violinist first and foremost, followed by violist, and then composer. He was employed with the Frankfurt Opera House for several years and served as concertmaster. His
employment with the Opera House lasted before and after his time in the German military. Hindemith served his mandatory time as a part of the German military band as a percussionist playing the bass drum. He studied composition under Arnold Mendelssohn, the great nephew of the composer Felix Mendelssohn. Hindemith had a particular type of musician in mind when he composed: the avid music lover and amateur musician. With this in mind, Hindemith wrote “… an enormous number of chamber works of all kinds-‘pieces’, studies, sonatas, trios, quartets, quintets, Spielmusik, and so on-with the practical result that almost any combination of instruments that happens to be assembled can find a work by Hindemith to play.”5 He wrote pieces with unusual instrumentations such as the Trio for Piano, Viola and Heckelphone (1928), Quartet for Clarinet, Violin, Cello, and Piano (1938), and the Concerto for Trumpet and Bassoon with String Orchestra (1949). Hindemith was generally not a political person, but during his time in the Frankfurt Opera house he defended the rights of Jewish musicians to be employed as the Nazi Party rose in status. He was never attacked for his views during this time of the Nazi’s ascendancy; he was still in favor with Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels. However, this was the beginning of his turbulent relationship with the Nazis that led to his downfall after he composed the symphony and opera versions of Mathis der Maler.
3. Conflict The main source of conflict between the Nazis and Hindemith that caused his fall from favor was the opera Mathis der Maler which he conceived during 1933 through 1935 first as a symphony and then as a full length opera. The opera follows Matthias Grünewald (c. 1475-1528), an artist involved in the conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics during the Peasant’s War of 1524-1525. The symphony was “written during the period of [Hindemith’s] own conflict between his love for the land of his origin and his abhorrence of its present political direction.”6 On January 17th, 1936 Hindemith pledged to Hitler so that he could continue his employment in Germany. The theme of rebellion in the opera version of Mathis der Maler is what caught the attention of the Nazi officials which lead to the blacklisting of the piece. The opera was first staged in 1938 and would not be performed again until after the end of World War II. The Nazis feared that Hindemith’s depiction in his opera of Grünewald’s rebellion through art would incite actual rebellion in the German public. Musicians and conductors who supported Hindemith, including Furtwängler, fought for the piece to be performed. In reference to Hindemith’s three earlier operas which had the favor of the Nazis, Furtwangler wrote that “Hindemith was by no means sure whether he wanted to be a composer.”7 Furtwängler demanded that the public look at Mathis der Maler as a mature opera. Furtwängler argued that in his recent works “one arrives at an image of Hindemith….as an out-and-out German type.”8 Furtwängler contended that the Mathis der Maler symphony and opera was a “return to his beginnings, to his real self.” He concluded his argument with the statement that “Hindemith [had] never engaged in political activity” and that “there can be no doubt but that no musician of his generation has done more for the reputation of German music.”9 Despite the support of Furtwängler and others, Goebbels denounced Hindemith’s music as an atonal atrocity and deemed it entartete Musik (“degenerate music”). Hindemith’s fall from the graces of the Nazis and the persecution of the Jews forced Hindemith and his half-Jewish wife to flee to Switzerland. Claire Taylor in The Artist-Operas of Pfitzner, Krenek, and Hindemith: Politics and the Ideology of the Artist compares this action with what Matthias Grünewald did in Hindemith’s own opera: Grünewald left the fighting and returned to painting; Hindemith left the fighting in Nazi Germany and returned to composing in Switzerland.
4. Music of Defiance Whether Hindemith intended to or not, his works were highly charged and can be interpreted as political. As he composed the Trumpet Sonata, Adolf Hitler was annexing Czechoslovakia, and invading Poland bringing about the start of World War II. Hindemith must have had a reaction to these disturbing events. As a composer, Hindemith responded with music. Specifically, the Trumpet Sonata, in its defiance of standard sonata conventions and tonality, is music of defiance. According to Craig Retzlaff, Hindemith was “very traditional in certain aspects of composition.”10 He often followed conventional standards such as beginning a three-movement piece in one key and ending the piece in the same key. Classical sonata form is conventionally in three movements of alternating tempi as fast-slow-fast; in his Trumpet Sonata, Hindemith arguably defied this convention by using a tempo scheme of fast-fast-slow. Perhaps
1045
Hindemith may have been experimenting with tempi but within the context of 1939 and the composition’s conception, his use of an atypical tempo scheme can be interpreted more logically as an act of defiance. The first movement in classical sonata form is usually in first-movement sonata form which involves three distinct sections: exposition, development, and recapitulation. However as I analyzed the first movement, I discovered its form to be compound rondo. This is not so common since any form of rondo is usually reserved for the last movement in a classical sonata. Hindemith’s use of rondo form in the first movement, just like his use of an alternative tempo scheme, can similarly be interpreted as yet another act of defiance. In order to further demonstrate that the trumpet sonata can be a music of defiance, I dissected this specific movement, analyzed each section, and interpreted what the music conveys. In terms of number and order of sections, Hindemith follows convention (as Retzlaff claims above): Rondo Theme, Digression 1 (AB), Rondo Theme (transposed), Digression 2 (B`A`), and Rondo Theme (in tonic). This is not where “defiance” can be found but in the details of each section.
5. First Occurrence of Rondo Theme Hindemith stated that music creates “images of feelings.”11 The first movement is entitled Mit Kraft (“powerful”). The Rondo Theme, delivered by the trumpet at forte, enters on the downbeat of the first measure and emphasizes main beats, thereby creating a feeling of strength; I thus identify this as the “theme of strength”—arguably Hindemith’s. The first occurrence of this theme is centered on the key of B-flat major. I arrived at this conclusion that it was B-flat Major though there is no key signature through textural reduction. In measures 1-9, I saw a tonic to dominant progression and a tonic triad in measure 27 which concludes the Rondo Theme. The theme itself is a twophrase period consisting of 9 measures: Phrase “A” consists of 4 measures while phrase “B” consists of 5. The use of a two-phrase period in this case is common but being unbalanced is less so. Hindemith’s use of convention highlights his defiance of it.
6. Digression 1 The digressions serve as periods of instability. Digression 1, which consists of two sections, starts at measure 27, with measures 27 through 29 serving as a connecting bridge between the rondo theme and the actual digression. At measure 27, the character of the music drastically changes from full sound to a fraction of what it was. At measure 30, with the trumpet still in 4/4 and the piano changing to 12/8, the unstable “A” section of this digression begins. The tonal center at this point fluctuates, with sharps dominating measure 30 and flats dominating measure 31. The piano comes to the forefront and is more forceful than during the rondo theme. This instability in the music can convey Hindemith’s perception of the Nazis and the terror they brought to Europe. At measure 47 there is a bridge from the “A” section to the “B” section of the digression which decrescendos to piano. At measure 48, section “B” begins this time with a stable theme, as the trumpet joins the piano meter of 12/8. Harmonically, the music shifts less than in the previous section, supporting the stability of the theme. The trumpet line at measure 48 starts on A and ends on E. In measure 59, the theme ascends a minor third causing the trumpet line to begin on C and end on a G, copying the earlier fifth relationship, similar to the tonic-dominant relationship in “Hindemith’s Theme.” Although this harmonic relationship is conventional, the placement of meters between the two instruments is not. Measures 64 through 67 serve as a transition from Digression 1 to the Rondo Theme. The dynamic level at measure 64 suddenly changes to pianissimo and the texture thins down. The minor third figure that occurs in these measures crescendos from pianissimo to fortissimo, sounding very much like an approaching siren. Here I believe Hindemith is blatantly referring to the sirens of Nazi patrol cars.
7. 2nd Occurrence of Rondo Theme The second occurrence of the Rondo Theme is labeled as Breit (“broadly”) at fortissimo in measure 68 transposed to D minor. This tonality is identified by four factors: 1. The descending chromatic line and harmonies in measures 7176, ending on a D harmony; 2. The dominant pedal A in measures 71-74 which then ascends chromatically to the tonic of D in measure 76; 3.The unusual augmented sixth chord in measure 76 that leads to this harmony; and 3. The
1046
Neapolitan chord in measure 82 that resolves to a D major triad. Augmented sixth chords and the Neapolitan chord usually go to dominant, but in this case they go directly to tonic—yet another way that Hindemith defies convention. The shift from minor to major is felt as the calm after a storm. There is uneasiness in the beginning, but the major chords reinstate the center of strength to continue further.
8. Digression 2 Digression 2 begins at measure 84 with the marking Wie vorher (“as before”). Where Digression 1 is labeled as “AB”, Digression 2 is labeled as “BA”; the stable section (“B”) begins Digression 2. In measure 84 on the second beat, the piano figure starts on B and ends on F-sharp at measure 85, again another fifth relationship. This theme is transposed down a (diminished) fifth as the trumpet begins on F at measure 91 and ends on C at measure 92. The third time the motive occurs is in measure 99 (displaced to the fourth beat) beginning on C-flat in the trumpet and ends on G-flat at measure 101, yet another fifth relationship. These fifth relationships happen in stable or strong sections; the first time we hear this fifth is in the Rondo Theme—“Hindemith’s Theme.” Measure 106 begins the unstable section of Digression 2 (section “A”). The piano has the rhythm as found in measure 30 of Digression 1. The trumpet line differs in this digression as it begins a long crescendo from piano at measure 114 preparing for the return of “Hindemith’s Theme” at fortissimo in measure 126, strength arising from instability.
9. Final Occurrence of Rondo Theme “Hindemith’s Theme”, delivered by the trumpet, is forceful and drowns out the flurry of the piano which starts with a G-flat triad while the trumpet line begins on (concert) B-flat as it did in measure 1. The Rondo Theme harmonically is where it should be but the piano is not. The flittering piano does not have a well-defined key while the trumpet line is clearly in the key of B-flat. The two are in conflict, which can be interpreted as the conflict between Hindemith and the Nazis. This harmonic conflict is resolved in measure 137 when the piano finally joins the trumpet in the key of B-flat, perhaps arguing for Hindemith’s hope for resolution.
10. Conclusion Whether Hindemith intended to be defiant or not, there is evidence in his music to believe he was. With Mathis der Maler being the source of conflict that led to the banning of his music from Nazi Germany and the historical events of the 1930s, Hindemith must have been deeply affected. Hindemith at first intended the Trumpet Sonata to be Gebrauchsmusik (“utility music” or music for amateurs), but a close look at the piece demonstrates that he was defying certain conventions, including sonata form. The “images of feelings” that are depicted are those of defiance.
11. Acknowledgements The author would like to express her appreciation to the Music Department at Adelphi University. She would also like to express her gratitude to faculty advisor Dr. Sidney Boquiren for his guidance and endless support on the project. She would also like to express her sincere thanks to Professor Meryl Sole for introducing this piece of music to the author. She would like to express her thanks her family and Kate Ludwig for all their support during her research.
12. References 1. Richard Freed, “Sonata for Trumpet and Piano”, The Kennedy Center http://www.kennedycenter.org/calendar/?fuseaction=composition&composition_id=2994. 2. Paul Hindemith to Willy Strecker, 1939, in Selected Letters of Paul Hindemith, edited by Geoffrey Skelton, 140. (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1995.)
1047
3. Freed “Sonata for Trumpet and Piano” italics mine. 4. Erik Levi. Music in the Third Reich (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. )108. 5. Frani B. Muser and Paul Hindemith, “The Recent Work of Paul Hindemith.” The Musical Quarterly30.1(1944)29-36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/739533. 6. Geoffrey Skelton, Paul Hindemith: The Man Behind the Music. London: Victor Gollancz LTD, 1975. 160. 7. Wilhelm Furtwangler. “The Hindemith Case” Furtwangler on Music: Essays and Addresses. Ed. Ronald Taylor. (London:Scholar Press 1991), 117. 8. Furtwangler, “The Hindemith Case” 117. 9. Ibid., 119-120. 10. Craig Retzlaff. 2008. World War II Symbolism and Programmatic Content in Hindemith’s Sonata for Trumpet and Piano. Master’s Thesis, California State University. 11. 11. Paul Hindemith. A Composer’s World. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1952.42. Retzlaff World War II Symbolism 13.
13. Bibliography Freed, Richard. “Sonata for Trumpet and Piano”, The Kennedy Center http://www.kennedycenter.org/calendar/?fuseaction=composition&composition_id=2994. Furtwangler, Wilhelm. “The Hindemith Case” Furtwangler on Music: Essays and Addresses. Ed. Ronald Taylor. London:Scholar Press, 1991. Hindemith, Paul. Letter to Willy Strecker, 1939. In Selected Letters of Paul Hindemith, edited by Geoffrey Skelton, 140. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1995. Hindemith, Paul. Sonate für Trompete in B und Klavier. Mainz: Schott Musik International, 1940. Levi, Erik. Music in the Third Reich. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. Muser, Frani B. and Paul Hindemith, “The Recent Work of Paul Hindemith.” The Musical Quarterly30.1(1944) http://www.jstor.org/stable/739533. Retzlaff, Craig. 2008. World War II Symbolism and Programmatic Content in Hindemith’s Sonata for Trumpet and Piano. Master’s Thesis, California State University. Skelton , Geoffrey. Paul Hindemith: The Man Behind the Music. London: Victor Gollancz LTD, 1975.
1048
