SCHUBERT IN CONTEXT: THE EARLY-NINETEENTH-CENTURY REVOLUTION IN

VIOLIN VIRTUOSITY AND SCHUBERT’S FANTASY IN C MAJOR FOR VIOLIN AND

PIANO, OP. POSTHUMOUS 159, D.934

BY

JI-MYUNG KIM

Submitted to the faculty of the

Jacobs School of Music in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree,
Doctor of Music,
Indiana University
September, 2014
 
 Accepted by the faculty of Jacobs School of Music,

Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree Doctor of Music

_____________________________
Frank Samarotto, Research Director

_____________________________
Federico Agostini, Chairperson

_____________________________
Mauricio Fuks

_____________________________
Kevork Mardirossian

  ii  
 저를 낳아주시고 30 년 넘도록

제게 가장 훌륭한 스승이자 친구가 되어주신

제 부모님께 이 논문을 바칩니다.

  iii  
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Samarotto for his guidance throughout

the entire process of my writing.

I would like to thank Professor Mardirossian for being so understanding and kind with me

throughout the examination process.

I would like to thank Professor Bae for the sheer inspiration and constant drive in my musical

endeavors during the time I spent as a student at Indiana University.

Lastly, I would like to thank Professor Agostini for showing me the way of an artist and a human

being I aspire to pursue for myself.

A special thanks to Ms. Katharina Malecki, the print rights manager at Bärenreiter-Verlag

Germany for kindly granting permission to use all the excerpts in this paper, extracted from

Bärenreiter edition (BA 5620) of Schubert’s Violin Fantasy in C.

  iv  
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

Dedication................................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgements................................................................................................... iv

List of examples........................................................................................................ vi

List of figures............................................................................................................ viii

List of tables.............................................................................................................. ix

Introduction............................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 1. Schubert in Historical Context................................................................ 5

Chapter 2. Comparison and Contextualization......................................................... 26

Chapter 3. Analytical Reconceptualization............................................................... 43

Chapter 4. A Performer’s Perspective....................................................................... 95

Conclusion................................................................................................................. 101

Bibliography.............................................................................................................. 104

  v  
 LIST OF EXAMPLES
Pages

1.1 N. Paganini, Theme of Non più mesta, Op. 12 from Rossini’s La Cenerentola. 31        
1.2 N. Paganini, Second variation (beginning) from Non più mesta, Op. 12. 31
2.1. N. Paganini, Second Violin Concerto, Op. 7 1st movement, mm. 108-117. 32
2.2. N. Paganini, Adagio from Second Violin Concerto, Op. 7, mm. 16-20. 33
2.3. N. Paganini, Adagio from Second Violin Concerto, Op. 7, mm. 69-71. 34
3.1. F. Schubert, Konzertstück for Violin and Orchestra, D.345, mm. 75-103. 37
3.2. F. Schubert, Sonata for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.137 No. 1, D.384,
mm. 1-18. 38
3.3. F. Schubert, Sonata for Violin and Piano in D minor, Op. posth.137
No. 3, D.408, mm. 1-15. 38
3.4. F. Schubert, Rondo in B minor for Violin and Piano, Op.70, D.895
Introduction, mm. 1-6. 38
3.5. F. Schubert, Rondo in B minor for Violin and Piano, Op.70, D.895
mm. 530-551. 39
3.6. F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934, mm. 676-700. 39
4. F. Schubert, Konzertstück for Violin and Orchestra, D.345,
Introduction and Allegro-proper (beginning), mm. 12-57. 40
5.1. F. Schubert, Rondo in A for Violin and Strings, D.438, mm. 75-103. 47
5.2. F. Schubert, String Quartet No. 11 in E major, D.353 (Op. 125 No.2),
end of the first movement. 47
6.1. F. Schubert, Polonaise in B flat major for Violin and Orchestra, D.580,
mm. 1-8. 48
6.2. F. Schubert, Sonata for Violin and Piano “Duo” in A major, Op. posth.162,
D.574, mm. 1-22. 48
6.3. F. Schubert, String Quartet No. 12, D.703, “Quartettsatz”, mm. 229-243. 48
7.1. F. Schubert, String Quartet in D minor, D.810. First movement,
mm. 89-107. 49
7.2. F. Schubert, String Quintet in C, D.956. First movement, mm. 1-47. 49
8. F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934, mm. 521-546. 51
9.1. F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934, mm. 262-263. 51
9.2. F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934, mm. 290-301. 52
9.3. F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934, mm. 521-546. 52
10. N. Paganini, Third Variation from Non più mesta, Op. 12 from
Rossini’s La Cenerentola. 59
11. F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934, Allegretto, mm. 37-40, mm. 293-296. 60
12. F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934, Allegretto, mm. 258-295. 61

  vi  
13. F. Schubert, Sei mir gegrüsst, Op. 20 No. 1, mm. 1-17. 65
14. F. Schubert, Sei mir gegrüsst, Op. 20 No. 1, mm. 74-99. 67
15.1. F. Schubert, Sei mir gegrüsst, Op.20 No.1, mm. 1-22. 70
15.2. F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934, Andantino, mm. 352-361. 71
16.1. F. Schubert, Sei mir gegrüsst, Op. 20 No. 1, mm. 59-73. 72
16.2. F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934, Andantino, mm. 369-385. 72
17.1. F. Schubert, Sei mir gegrüsst, Op. 20 No. 1, mm. 1-17. 75
17.2. F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934, Andantino, mm. 352-363. 76
18. F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934, Andantino Variations, mm. 386-457. 81
19.1. F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934 transcribed by August Wilhelmj, Andantino, First Variation,
mm. 386-388. 91
19.2. F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934 transcribed by August Wilhelmj, Andantino, Third Variation,
mm. 434-437. 92  

  vii  
 LIST OF FIGURES
Pages

1.1 F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934 Finale, mm. 529-533 (reduction). 56
1.2 F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934 Finale, mm. 537-541 (reduction). 57
1.3 F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934 Finale, mm. 583-587 (reduction). 57
1.4 F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159,
D.934 Finale, mm. 591-595 (reduction). 57
2. McCreless’ linear analysis of Sei mir gegrüsst, strophes 3-5, mm. 30-77. 66
3. McCreless’ linear analysis of Sei mir gegrüsst, mm. 1-8. 71

  viii  
 LIST OF TABLES
Pages

1. The Chronology of Schubert’s “Violin Oeuvre” 20

2. Formal Structure of the Violin Fantasy, D.934 54
3. Formal Structure of the Violin Fantasy, D.934 80  

  ix  
 INTRODUCTION

Vienna in 1828 was a pivotal time and a place in the history of violin playing and subsequently,

of Western music. It was the year during which virtuoso music of Franz Schubert and Niccolò

Paganini was presented to the Viennese audience and received opposite reactions. It has been

recorded that when Schubert’s Fantasy in C Major for Violin and Piano, D. 934 was premiered in

January, the hall gradually emptied as the majority of the listeners walked out of the hall before

the piece was finished.1 Two months later, Niccolò Paganini arrived at Vienna. It was the

departure point of his European concert tour. For his Viennese debut, Paganini played his then

most recently completed concerto (No. 2 in B minor) as well as his Sonata Militaire, played on

the G-string alone, and lastly his own set of variations based on a theme from Gioacchino

Rossini’s La Cenerentola. Paganini dazzled the Viennese audiences with his technical prowess,

instantly invoking huge uproar. Paganini’s sensational reception resulted in an extension of what

was to be a passing visit of six concerts into a four-month season of fourteen concerts. Ivry

Gitlis, an Israeli virtuoso of the twentieth century, believed that Paganini was not a part of the

development in the history of violin playing in a sense that there were his predecessors leading

up to him and followers who further improved on what he achieved. Rather, he was an

individualized phenomenon that revolutionized violin playing so that one can simply divide the

history into two: the time before him and after him. 2 The violinist Josef Slavik, who premiered

Schubert’s Violin Fantasy, was making a name for himself in Vienna as an up-and-coming

virtuoso around the time of Paganini’s arrival. But it is not hard to imagine that Slavik’s
                                                                                                               
1  Elizabeth Norman McKay, Franz Schubert: A Biography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996),

300.  
2
The Art of Violin. 1st edition. DVD-ROM, NVC Arts: A Warner Music Group Company,
2001.

  1  
impressive technique was thoroughly overshadowed by Paganini in 1828. However, the critiques

on the poorly received Fantasy indicate that it was not a matter of presentation, but a matter of

compositional failure. These were some of the reviews that followed the premiere:

Herr Franz Schubert’s Fantasia for Pianoforte and Violin… occupies rather too
much of the time that the Viennese are prepared to devote to their aesthetic
pleasures.3

…positively miscomposed…A new fantasia…made no appeal of any sort. It

would be a fair judgment to say that the popular composer has frankly gone off
the rail here.4

One of the composer’s least important compositions, if not positively

objectionable.5

Schubert scholar Maurice J. E. Brown shared his view on the Fantasy as the following:

A full scale work, containing much virtuoso writing for both instruments. But
like the “Rondeau Brillante” it fails to reconcile the claims of such technical
display with those of his own genius. All four sections promise well at the start:
the emotional undertones, the poised themes, the exalted atmosphere; but all too
soon the rich embroidery begins and the music grows turgid.6

On the other hand, Paganini’s debut just two months after the Fantasy’s premiere, generated a

wave of enthusiastic reviews.

This artist handles his instrument according to rules that are his own, and for this
reason his achievements remain inexplicable to violinists of even the first rank…7

When a new star appears in a trajectory, of which one can divine neither the chord
nor the radius, the keenest observer can offer mere conjectures. If one speaks of

                                                                                                               
3
An unspecified correspondent of “Der Sammler” (February 7 1828), quoted in Alfred
Einstein, A Musical Portrait (New York: Oxford University Press, 1951), 276.
4
An anonymous reviewer of “Leipziger Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung” (April 2
1828), quoted in Alfred Einstein, A Musical Portrait (New York: Oxford Press, 1951),
276.
5
Kreissle von Hellborn, quoted in Gerald Abraham, The Music of Schubert (New York:
W.W. Norton & Company Inc.,1947), 101.
6
Maurice J. E. Brown, Schubert: A Critical Biography (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1958),
270.
7
Leslie Sheppard and Herbert Axelrod, Paganini (Neptune City: Paganiniana Publications,
1979), 246.    

  2  
 inconceivable difficulties, which are executed as easily as the simplest air; of
miracles of double-stopping, harmonics, incredible staccato performed in the most
rapid tempo, yet with the most perfect tranquility; if one says that in his hands the
violin transcends the most moving human voice, that his ardent soul kindles the
vital flame in every heart, that every note is pure and perfect, that every singer
could learn from him everything he needs to know, it all amounts to nothing. It is
only a gleam from the glittering mirror of his playing. He must be heard and
heard again, to be believed.8

At the first stroke of the bow on his Guarnerius, one might almost say at the first
step he took into the hall, his reputation was decided in Germany. Kindled by an
electric flash, he suddenly shone and sparkled like a miraculous apparition in the
domain of art.9

It must be drawn to our attention that the reviews for Paganini’s concert as represented by the

above comments are completely devoid of the musical content of the works performed. There is

hardly a record of criticism following Paganini’s concerts in Vienna in which compositional craft

is evaluated to the extent addressed upon Schubert’s Fantasy. Paganini’s technical wizardry and

his unusual stage presence were the key factors in his success. Consequently, all the reports and

praises were directed at the sheer display of virtuosity. Such reviews seem to indicate that the

Viennese in 1828 were mesmerized by the sheer display that they did not care to comment on the

content of his music. It is evident that when the virtuosic rendition of Schubert’s Sei mir gegrüsst

was heard in the Fantasy as theme and variations, critics questioned the meaning of such

technical display and how it functions in the bigger scheme of Schubert’s musical expression.

When Paganini’s violin concerto and his variations were presented to the same audience of

Vienna, no such questions arose as they glorified the performer’s exceptional ability to put on a

show. To the Viennese audience and critics, virtuosity in Schubert’s music had to serve a greater

purpose to prove its aesthetic worth when virtuosity of Paganini was praiseworthy for its own

                                                                                                               
8
An anonymous reviewer of Theaterzeitung (April 4, 1828), quoted in Renée de Saussine,
Paganini trans. Marjorie Laurie (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1954), 94.
9
Gustav Schilling, quoted in Stephen Stratton, Nicolo Paganini: His Life and Work (New
York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1907), 35.  

  3  
sake without having to communicate any structural or theoretical meaning. In a sense, Paganini’s

virtuosity was self-sufficient in its aesthetic worth.

The reviews provide us with a critical insight regarding the prevailing musical trend in

Vienna in 1828. One of Franz Schubert’s closest friends, the playwright Eduard von Bauernfeld

later recollected that, “During the last year of Schubert’s life, Paganini gave eight concerts in

Vienna and received in a few weeks the same sum as Schubert earned by all his work. Verily, the

favors of music were distributed with a strange sense of justice…”10 Bauernfeld’s recollection

begs to further explore this “strange sense of justice” with which two sorts of virtuoso violin

music in 1828 Vienna were on the one hand embraced with infatuation and on the other hand

neglected in disapproval.

Revisiting the history of Viennese musical scene at the beginning of the nineteenth

century and its progress leading up to the year of 1828 will help us to better understand the

motives behind Schubert’s virtuoso music. With an understanding of Schubert’s musical

language in historical context, I will then reassess the virtuoso code in the music of Schubert in

juxtaposition with that of Paganini. In addition to theoretical analysis, I will present an approach

from a performer’s perspective to Schubert’s Violin Fantasy and hope to generate a new insight

into understanding the virtuosity in the Fantasy and thus the aesthetic value of the work as a

whole.

                                                                                                               
10
Sheppard and Axelrod, 250.

  4  
 CHAPTER ONE

SCHUBERT IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Schubert in a Time of Change

Franz Schubert’s music never witnessed a large public success nor did he accumulate a fortune

anywhere near the realm of Paganini’s lucrative career. Nonetheless, it is hardly a controversial

statement that Schubert was a musical genius worthy of the title “the Viennese successor to

Beethoven”. By examining Schubert’s music in its political, social, and economic context, we

can better understand the reasons behind his underrated career and ultimately, helping to clarify

the meaning of virtuosity in his musical language.

With the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 followed by the Napoleonic wars and

the Congress of Vienna taking place in 1814, the early part of the nineteenth century in Vienna

was a time of significant reforms not only in political and economic spheres but also in cultural

and domestic trends. At the heart of revolutionary spirit, freedom of individual and nation was

asserted against old customs and privileges. Thus, societies went through substantial

transformations as aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated. In the world of music and its

composers, the change meant, among others, the decline of musical patronage that had persisted

for centuries. Although the Congress of Vienna had hoped to reinstall, to a certain extent, the

status quo ante, it could not restore the huge aristocratic wealth that once made the artistic

achievements possible but now substantially ceased.11 While Beethoven still enjoyed musical

patronage well into his middle period, Schubert, whose life was contemporary with the second

                                                                                                               
11
Henry Reynor, Music and Society Since 1815 (New York: Schocken Books, 1976), 1.

  5  
half of Beethoven’s, never experienced the kind of financial support provided by wealthy

patrons.

Through the Congress of Vienna, post-revolutionary Europe witnessed secularization of

ecclesiastical states and the absorption of over a hundred minor German states into their larger

neighbors. Many minor kingdoms and dukedoms had lost their own musical organizations from

such readjustment, and it left many court musicians unemployed. At the same time however, the

evaporation of ecclesiastical and aristocratic privileges generated a hopeful byproduct for

musicians: the democratization of music. With the rapid growth of bourgeoisie during the post-

war era, there were more demands by amateurs for musical instruction. Thus the decline of

aristocratic wealth and the secularization forced many church and court musicians to be

unemployed, but in turn teaching had become the alternative for many of them had they wished

to pursue such option.

Opera and Schubert

The all-powerful patrons of pre-revolutionary Europe had built their own orchestras and opera

houses to cater to their individual taste. Without a big fortune however, patrons had to depend on

paying audiences to augment the subsidies in order to pay large orchestras now of Beethovenian

scale as well as opera productions. The subsidies for the aristocratic decadence once provided by

noble patrons now came directly from taxation or indirectly from civil list payments to a ruler.12

Consequently, once privately operated orchestras and opera houses now began to become state or

national musical organizations. The decline of court patronage and the rapid growth of the

bourgeoisie meant music was more accessible to the public and thus the taste and preference of

                                                                                                               
12
Ibid.

  6  
public audiences became important. The genre in direct relation to this change in the

demography of audience base was opera as it was the traditional center of musical life in many

European cities.

As opera became more dependent on the general public, opera houses became another

venue, like universities, for potential insinuation of seditious messages unto the masses. In the

minds of political rulers such as King Friedrich I, Count Sedlnitzky and Prince Metternich,

staged music was a medium through which undesirable – from their monarchic point of view –

sentiments and ideas would be invoked within its viewers. Therefore, while the opera houses

were dependent on the sale of seats to the general public for their economic maintenance, the

system of government within remained similar to its pre-revolutionary conditions. Although

political messages were exposed through socially oriented opera of the pre-revolution period

such as Mozart’s Le Nozze di Figaro, the growing exposure of opera in the monarchy of German

and Austrian government made strict censorship inevitable.

[T]he aim of the authorities was to preserve and consolidate their restored power,
ruling on eighteenth-century lines through nineteenth-century instruments of
coercion. Anything that questioned official established policy was to be
suppressed as prejudicial to religion, morality or good order. The composer’s
appeal to the public was not allowed to step outside narrowly drawn limits of
what was politically and socially acceptable to an old regime conscious of the
fundamental dangers of its position.13

Censorship certainly restricted the imaginative expression of the opera composers. Among the

composers who first-handedly suffered political repression for their music were Beethoven and

Schubert.14 Of the two works written by Schubert in 1823, Fierrebras and Die Verschworenen,

the latter became problematic because of the title ‘The Conspirators’ suggestive of its dangerous

                                                                                                               
13
Ibid., 4.
14
Schubert’s earlier operas before 1823, often Mozartian in their gestures, did not get
produced, and Beethoven’s Leonore (1805,1806) witnessed greater success later in 1814 as
Fidelio.

  7  
political theme. The sketch of his last opera Der Graf von Gleichen of 1828 was abandoned

because the censors objected to its libretto.

However, political censorship was not the only reason behind Schubert’s failure in the

genre. Because the opera house business was no longer dependent on an all-powerful patron,

composers who were already established in the field had the upper hand against any newcomers

that were threatening to become dangerous rivals.15 The only opera by Schubert that brought

reasonable success was the one-act Singspiel Die Zwillingsbrüder (The Twin Brothers, D. 647).

With Vogl’s effort16 to secure the commission for Schubert, it was requested by the Kärntnerthor

Theater of Vienna in 1818. However, before it could enjoy a modest success, the work was kept

unproduced for eighteen months under the precaution of Joseph Weigl, the Kapellmeister of the

Theater. At the time Weigl’s own production, Die Schweizerfamilie was a huge hit among the

audiences and his influence in the theater was simply unassailable. As a composer and the

conductor of the Theater, Weigl was in no way interested in encouraging young newcomers to

undermine his popularity. When Schubert’s Die Zwillingsbrüder finally got its chance to be

produced and brought in some success from six of its performances, the opera management

requested the composer for some less profiled tasks: an aria and a duet for an opera17 written by a

French composer, Ferdinand Hérold and an incidental music for a play18 by a German

playwright, Helmina von Chézy. While Hérold’s French production was successful in its own

                                                                                                               
15
Raynor, 18.
16
Johann Michael Vogl was a prominent bass-baritone in Austria who introduced many of
Schubert’s songs to the Viennese public.      
17
La Clochette (The Magic Bells, 1817) was produced in Vienna with the German title, Das
Zauberglöckchen.
18
Rosamunde (1823) for which Schubert wrote an overture and ten numbers, the main theme
from the third Entr’acte in B♭ major was later reused for the second movement of his string
quartet in A minor, D. 804 and again, with some modification, in his Impromptu in B♭, Op. 142
(D. 935), No. 3.

  8  
right, Rosamunde failed to capture the interest of the audience. In the mean time Schubert, in

1822, received another commission for which he wrote Alfonso und Estrella.19 The work

however was never produced and Schubert never heard it during his lifetime. Despite Schubert’s

innate gift of setting words to music and his sensitivity to palettes of orchestral colors, critics

blamed the lack of action and poorly paced drama for its failure. The Fierrabras of 1823 was set

to a libretto by Joseph Kupelwieser, the general manager of the Kärntnerthor Theater. The opera

was advertised as the forthcoming attraction, but before the production was due, Kupelwieser left

his position and the hopes of its realization took off as well. Nonetheless, the modest success

from his Die Zwillingsbrüder must have given him some hope for a post as composer/conductor

at the Imperial Opera in Vienna. Although his application was supported by rather impressive

testimonials from established musicians and Kapellmeisters including his former teacher Salieri

and Weigl, Schubert was only offered a work as a vocal coach. This could have opened doors to

a more substantial apprenticeship in the field, but he exhibited no sense of punctuality apparently

and was paid no more than once for coaching a female singer for her role in Mozart’s Cosi fan

Tutte. While he could be productive and industrious, Schubert was an artist in his own freedom

for whom the concept of daily punctuality and mechanical pattern was vexatious. As a result, his

casual attitude cost him what came to be his only chance of employment in the field. Schubert’s

free spirited nature was already evident from his pre-opera years in 1816 when he worked briefly

as a schoolmaster. Although Schubert had a good basis for a career in teaching (his father being a

schoolmaster himself), but teaching youth under a fixed curriculum was a profession, as

Schubert found out, the least congenial with his personality.

                                                                                                               
19
It was set to a German libretto by Franz von Schober, a confidant of Schubert’s.  

  9  
 When opera was once an entertainment designed for monarchs and their courtiers, public

taste mattered little to the Kapellmeisters.20 But when these court theaters lost the wealth of their

aristocrats and began to augment the subsidies from the ticket sales for the general public, it

virtually terminated the role of the traditional Kapellmeister of the pre-revolutionary era. If the

eighteenth-century Kapellmeister was the “all-round composer who could provide music

whenever it was needed for church and opera house”, what the post-war system needed was

instead a conductor with excellent executive and administrative skills in place of his creative

gifts, to attract public attention and increase ticket sales.21 Schubert, unlike Beethoven, was as

un-political as a musician of the early nineteenth century Europe could be. He was shy and

retiring in front of unfamiliar masses and never a charismatic public persona. Schubert’s lack of

tactful social grace and public affair skills had kept him relatively uncontroversial in the eyes of

his political overlords. But such traits caused his social network to be rather limited and surely

did not benefit his career as a composer in the time of political readjustments and cultural

reform. Besides the financial destitution, Schubert’s awareness of the need for a change in his

way of addressing his art to the public gave him some incentive to search for a public position.

But Schubert certainly did not fit in to this new kind of Kapellmeister in demand at the time and

in fact he never held a significant official post during his life.

A close observation of the socio-political context of the early nineteenth century Vienna

delineates reasons behind Schubert’s unsuccessful career as a composer. The decline of

aristocratic patronage, political censorship of the monarchy, and the power play in the opera

houses were the post-revolutionary conditions collectively imposed upon musician including

Schubert in German-speaking Europe at the time. It was undoubtedly a time in which a composer

                                                                                                               
20
This excludes Italian theaters where the public support had been financially necessary.
21
Raynor, 15.

  10  
was left without a social function and the kind of audience with whom to truly communicate.22

Nonetheless, post-revolutionary Europe offered other outlets for a composer to make his living

and to build a career. Some of the most notable contemporaries of Schubert’s such as Louis

Spohr and Carl Maria von Weber began as concert artists on the violin and piano, respectively

before embarking on their career as Kapellmeisters. Although the careers of Spohr and Weber

were established upon their performing abilities, they adapted themselves to the new

circumstance by capitalizing on their administrative talents rather than their performance and

compositional inclinations. Raynor’s assessment of the early nineteenth century composer and

his loss of artistic identity speaks more truth when it is addressed to Schubert for whom

conformity in his expression was hardly an option. When musical instruction for the growing

bourgeoisie surged as a lucrative market, Schubert did not choose to embrace the path wholly.

His private and scarcely political persona did not amount to any tangible success in his operatic

endeavor nor in his efforts to land a Kapellmeister post. Certainly, it would be misleading to state

that Schubert’s career was unsuccessful based just on his financial achievement alone. But

without a doubt, his personal attributes limited his reputation as a composer within selected

number of minor aristocracy and upper bourgeoisie of Vienna. More importantly, they limited

awareness of his impressively extensive musical oeuvre to a little less than two hundred songs, a

few chamber works and less than a dozen piano pieces. The administrative and public affair skill

finessed by Spohr and Weber was something that Schubert was not born with. Although it would

be hardly disputable that their aesthetic prowess and compositional output were no greater that

those of Schubert, they possessed other such qualities that enabled them to have a successful

career at the time of socio-political readjustments and cultural reforms.

                                                                                                               
22
Raynor,15.

  11  
 In the pre-revolution times, the central purpose of music was to either glorify god or to

serve as an aesthetic pastime for the old nobilities. Beethoven emerged in the latter part of the

eighteenth century as the pioneer who single-handedly overturned the old idea of a musician’s

subservient role in society. He sought to present his music with as having intrinsic value. This is

not to say that Beethoven’s music never served any other purpose but his own vision as he too

was a beneficiary of the musical patronage in the old custom and his opinionated outlook in

politics produced music of celebration at times.

From political censorship to democratization of music, the early nineteenth-century

Europe witnessed shifts, changes, and reforms in various aspects of the lives of its people and its

musicians. Post-revolution and post-war circumstance generated conditions by which the social

function of a musician also changed drastically. The ramification of the revolution and

Napoleonic wars delineated the need for changes not only in the ways a musician could build a

successful career but also in the kind of music he was pressed to write. Now that music was

accessible not only to the privileged but to wider and larger demography, the musical trend was

to be shaped by its largest audience class, the one of growing bourgeoisie. Subsequently, a

composer was to adhere to the taste of his new audience if he dreamed of gaining any significant

fame and recognition. Opera houses demanded a new kind of financially savvy Kapellmeister

instead of a creative artist with musical integrity. It was becoming more of a business-oriented

industry targeting the general public being as the main market. Thus, commercialization of music

was surfacing at these larger venues.

  12  
Schubert during Biedermeier Vienna in the 1820s

One of the most noteworthy outcomes of the revolution and wars in France was the newly

empowered bourgeoisie. The revolutionary uproar of the middle classes against old customs and

privileges of the nobilities had ended the monopolized privileges of the previous regime. This

new bourgeoisie “gradually came to impose its way of life and its view of the world upon

society, as the influence of the old nobility waned and as monarchies began slowly to

disappear.”23 Unlike in France, this upsurge of lower classes was accomplished without any

violent revolution in Austria. The middle classes in Vienna proved to be more crucial than other

countries affected by the revolution in that they practically possessed the key to the country’s

future economy. The Viennese bourgeoisie truly blossomed and became heavily influential that

the leading figures of science and philosophy, once dominated by the aristocracy, now birthed

out of the middle classes. These newly empowered members of the Viennese society were the

dominating component that gave ways to the period characterized as Biedermeier.24 The culture

of Biedermeier Vienna then provides the foundation for our understanding of the early

nineteenth-century virtuosity and Schubert’s place in it.

The deprivation and inflation of post Napoleonic-war era had people yearning for a life

that is safe and stable and the kinds of music that are light-hearted and sensual without serious

messages. Theatrical music for the larger public, by its nature, was much more prone to political

censorship. On the other hand, music and music making in smaller gatherings among amateurs

were just right for the Viennese seeking peace and leisurely entertainment in uncontroversial

settings. It is no coincidence that waltz, with its innocent grace and charm, truly came into

fashion in Vienna around the time of the Congress in 1815. “Cozy domesticity seemed to them to

                                                                                                               
23
Charles Osborne, Schubert and His Vienna (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1985), 137.
24
Bieder [plain] meier [common last name]: implying an age of plain lifestyle.

  13  
be preferable to adventurousness and good humor more important than deep thought”.25 This age

of comfortable coziness in Vienna under Metternich’s regime represents the time particularly

from 1815 until 1848 of the European revolution. Walter Pollak’s summary encapsulates the

character of this age:

Under the cloud of the Metternich system, there blossomed with the Biedermeier
one of the most charming and sensitive epochs. It is hardly an exaggeration to
describe this rich intellectual and artistic development as the consequence and
result of a kind of ‘inward immigration’. People, given no say in matters political,
barred from all participation in public affairs and the shaping of social conditions,
withdrew from onward concerns into the intimate circle of the family and friendly
relations with their fellow creatures. The harmless, gay parlor game, the
sentimental literary salon, the cultivation of music at home: these formed the basis
of a widely ramified, deeply rooted cultural life.26

In Biedermeier Vienna, the waltzes of Strauss Jr. and Lanner flourished while Ländler and

Kontretänze were enjoyed widely by both the nobilities and the bourgeoisie.

The post-war depression triggered hopeful longing for a life free of any concerns that had

been so taxing not only financially but physically and emotionally as well. Poverty-stricken war

times adding to the long suppressed discontent among the middle classes of the old regime were

now manifesting in a form of compensatory comfort and untroubled leisure. Of many aristocratic

privileges of the old regime, music came to be one the most representative exponents of the

newly empowered bourgeoisie in Biedermeier Vienna. Rightly so, Vienna had retained its

reputation as the musical capital where hopeful composers flocked to test their newest works

with its culturally sophisticated audience. However, when music became no longer the

prerogative of the aristocracy, Viennese bourgeoisie sought to find comfort in kinds of music

                                                                                                               
25
Osborne, 133.  
26
Walter Pollak, quoted in Charles Osborne, Schubert and His Vienna (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, Inc., 1985), 138.

  14  
that were simple, easily accessible and free of serious political connotations and potentially

controversial messages.

The democratization of music encouraged many “less-serious” genres to flourish among

the bourgeoisie. However, it was only a matter of time until the popular trend in Viennese

musical society became devoid of aesthetic substance because of its pleasure-seeking citizens.

The musical trend shaped by such an audience is captured in Putz’s description in regards to

Schubert’s music as the following:

Around the year 1820 Schubert’s music was intelligible only to music-lovers who
took an active interest in the output of contemporary composers. Publishers
tended to shy away from the commercial risks of printing the music he was
composing at the time – long, involved, introspective piano sonatas, andantes and
allegros, marches and, some years later, impromptus and moment musicaux. The
prevailing taste was altogether more trivial: caprices, rondos with variations,
showy fantasias, tarantellas, minuets and arrangements of popular operatic
melodies.27

Mark W. Rowe’s account of Biedermeier Vienna in regards to Beethoven’s music depicts the

superficiality in Viennese musical taste.

Many of [Beethoven’s] patrons had died or gone bankrupt by the 1820s, and the
revolutionary message of freedom in the ninth symphony, or the religious
emotions of the Missa Solemnis found little sympathy amongst the jaded,
reactionary and pleasure-loving Viennese.28

The beginning of Biedermeier life style in post-war Vienna coincides with the rise of the

middle classes and it is also about the time in Schubert’s life (1816) when he contemplated

deserting his job as a schoolteacher and proposed to make a living as a freelance composer. The

trend of domesticity in music surely favored Schubert in winning himself, although limited

within small circles of upper bourgeoisie and minor aristocracy in Vienna, considerable fame and

                                                                                                               
27
Franz Putz. Schubert 1797-1828 trans. Paul Catty (Vienna: Federal Press Service, 1997),
53.
28
Mark. W. Rowe, Heinrich Wilhelm Ernst: Virtuoso Violinist (Burlington: Ashgate
Publishing Company, 2008), 30.  

  15  
recognition throughout his life. He was, in all certainty, a composer par excellence of writing

music for more intimate gatherings. However it was amongst the few true connoisseurs

consisting of the composer’s close friends where Schubert’s charming and sometimes intensely

introverted Lieder and Kammermusik seemed to truly shine. Evidently, such music of depth was

not the popular trend among the reactionary Viennese public infatuated with anything sensual,

exotic and easily stimulating without the complication of deep thoughts. As John Reed relates in

his evaluation, one would be grossly mistaken “to assume that the tastes and values of the

Schubert circle were typical of Vienna as a whole”.29

Referring back to the quote from Franz Putz regarding the prevailing taste of music in

1820s Vienna, “popular operatic melodies” refers strictly to Italian imports in Germany and

Austria where people were Rossini-mad ever since his L’inganno felice was first introduced in

Kärntnertor Theater back in 1816.30 With one exception31 of Weber’s Der Freischütz (premiered

in Berlin in the summer 1821 then later in Vienna), popular operas in German speaking regions

were predominantly Italian. In the same year of the enthusiastic success of Weber’s German

production, the two main theaters in Vienna, Theater am Kärntnertor and the Theater an der

Wien were both run by an Italian impresario, Domenico Barbaja, who had been closely tied to

Rossini’s success. Interestingly, Barbaja made great effort to encourage German opera by which

Schubert sought to realize his own hope, but the seasons were dominated by overwhelming

demand for Italian operas. The conflict between the supporters of Rossini and the Italian operas

and much smaller number of supporters behind Weber and German operas reflects the Parisian

                                                                                                               
29
John Reed, Schubert: The Final Years (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1972), 108.
30
Prince Metternich’s vigorous censorship over operatic endeavors within his jurisdiction
hindered the development of German opera, that is, an opera written and sung in German
language and constructed in German style.
31
The success of Schweizerfamilie (1808) by an Austrian composer Josef Weigl, although
gradually diminishing, technically was an achievement from a pre-censorship period.  

  16  
conflict between Gluck and Piccinni of the preceding century.32 This is no surprise because with

opera in German speaking regions, the focus was on preserving political agendas rather than

allowing the freedom of expression in art in its organic form. Thus during the early nineteenth

century, German opera production in cities under political censorship such as Vienna suffered

from sub-par production quality until years later when Richard Wagner’s Gesamtkunstwerk

arrived at the scene to revolutionize the art form. A young British organist and critic Edward

Holmes recollects his impression of the state of German music during his visits to Munich and

Vienna in 1827:

German opera is not much patronized by the Viennese, who doat upon these
things which are foreign and despise their own good writers. Both the Italian and
German operas are played at the same house; but the latter is considered by the
public as a mere foil to the former, and by the managers as a mere stop-gap.33

Unfortunately, Holmes failed to encounter Schubert and his music during his visit and thus

returned wholly unaware of the smaller private circles and the musical gems hidden behind the

veil of popular scenes among the forefront Viennese public. Holmes goes on to share his

impression of the popular trend of instrumental music in Vienna:

The flippancy of taste displayed by the more fashionable concert-goers in Vienna

may be imagined from an exhibition of instrumental playing with which they
were entertained on one occasion when I was present, the prominent parts of
which were variations for the violin, performed by Madame Paeravicini, and the
first movement of Hummel’s pianoforte concert in B minor played by Frederic
Worlitzer of Berlin, a boy thirteen years old.34

                                                                                                               
32
Elizabeth Norman McKay, “Schubert as a composer of operas” in Schubert Studies:
Problems of Style and Chronology. ed. Eva Badura-Skoda and Peter Branscombe (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1982), 88.
33
Reed, 109.
34
Ibid., 110.

  17  
Not to discredit the music of Hummel,35 who was a Viennese contemporary to Schubert, but it is

the presentation of his music by a pseudo-prodigy as well as what must have been a violinist’s

showy display of variations on a well-known Italian operatic theme winning the public

enthusiasm that epitomized the kind of environment in which Schubert felt the unsettling need to

compromise. Reed makes an interesting assessment based on Holmes’ recollection that it was for

this kind of superficial and frivolous audience that “showpieces like the B minor Rondeau

Brillante and the C major Fantasie for violin and piano were written.”36

Schubert, even among his closest friends and supporters, seldom revealed his innermost

feelings about art, poetry and his ideals in relation to his own reality. What is often discussed in

Schubert scholarship is his struggle, towards the final years of life, between manifesting what he

believed to be his vocation in his time on earth and the cruel reality that never ceased to

challenge that belief. At the height of Biedermeier Vienna’s frivolity in musical taste, perhaps

the non-conforming Schubert who succumbed to his recent failure in the theater and without the

impressive dexterity and flamboyant public persona of a virtuoso, felt compelled to compromise

and indeed was more than ever “intent upon winning his public” by writing such pot-boilers

deliberately void of Schubertian magic.37

Schubert’s life-long struggle chained in series of disappointments is evident. The

recurring symptoms of his illness towards the end of his life only aggravated his once-mild

tendency toward manic-depression38. In fact, some of his close friends such as Bauernfeld and

Spaun reported of the dual nature (one of uninhibited Biedermeier gaiety and one of dark

                                                                                                               
35
Johann Nepomuk Hummel: an Austrian composer and a virtuoso pianist whose mutually
respecting relationship with Beethoven eventually led to befriending Schubert. He became the
dedicatee of Schubert’s last three piano sonatas.
36
Ibid.
37
Einstein, 275.  
38
It was a genetic disorder from which Schubert suffered since his childhood.

  18  
melancholy) in the composer that became more pervasive towards the final years. He was

financially hopeless and his own Vienna, among its surrounding cities, seemed to be growing

ever more inhospitable for an artist of Schubert’s character. Reed’s assessment in regards to the

purpose of writing such music is certainly plausible, for Schubert was certainly aware of what

could appeal to the general audience at the time. However, the purpose for which a piece of

music is composed, and especially when composed by someone like Schubert, must not define,

for the sake of convenience, the aesthetic value and the language of virtuosity embedded in it.

Virtuoso Music as Perceived by Viennese Audiences in 1828

Schubert was quite capable on the violin and viola. His practice and understanding of these string

instruments began in his early childhood and his skill was nurtured in his teens through active

participation in the Seminary orchestra. When he grew out of the school orchestras, Schubert

continued to play the viola whenever reading some of his own chamber music at Schubertiaden

as well as in semi-public/private concerts held by the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde. Piano was

an instrument Schubert played with mastery, as considered by the connoisseurs around him and

certainly believed so by his brother Ferdinand. He is told to have played the piano in an unusual

manner, although without virtuosic flare that was full of insight and expressivity.39 Schubert’s

caliber as a pianist however was simply incomparable to those of his predecessors, Beethoven

and Mozart. More importantly, the so-called brilliant, sometimes tempestuous and flamboyant

persona of a virtuoso on public stage was not a part of the private and introverted artist. The fact

that the instrumental concerto, a genre fostered by Mozart and Beethoven as a vehicle for the

performer’s virtuosic display, was deliberately avoided by a multi-faceted genius such as

                                                                                                               
39
David Schroder, Our Schubert: His Enduring Legacy (Plymouth: The Scarecrow Press,
Inc., 2009), 51.  

  19  
Schubert seems to suggest his insecurity in utilizing the genre to its full potential. His

Konzertstück für Violine und Orchester in D major, D. 345 (1816) suggests, with its title

“concert piece”, Schubert’s respectable attempt at a violin concerto. But as innovative as

Schubert always was, such a shortcoming never hindered his imaginative craft. For Schubert, the

Rondo, Polonaise, and Fantasy were makeshifts for the concerto genre, and these were the

outlets through which he exploited the virtuoso writing for the violin. By the time of the

inception of the Fantasy in C for Violin and Piano, he was no stranger to composing for the

instrument (Table 1).

Table 1: The Chronology of Schubert’s “Violin Oeuvre”40

______________________________________________________________________________
Year Year Deutsch Title
written published number
______________________________________________________________________________

1816 1897 345 Concert Piece for Violin and Orchestra

in D major

1816 1930 354 four comic Ländler in D for Two Violins

1816 early 1900 355, 370, 374 more than two dozen Ländler for the
violin (possibly)

1816 1836 384, 385, 408 Sonatas for Piano and Violin (D, a, g)

1816 1897 438 Rondo in A major for Violin and Strings

1816 1865 487 Adagio and Rondo Concertante in F for

piano, violin, viola, and cello (a concerto
in miniature)

1817 1851 574 Sonata in A for Piano and Violin “Duo”

op. posth. 162

                                                                                                               
40
The list features works in which violin assumes a more central role (excluding chamber
works).

  20  
1817 1928 580 Polonaise in B-flat Major for Violin and
Small Orchestra

1817 597a Variations in A for Violin (sketches, lost)

1826 1827 895, Op. 70 Rondo in B minor for Piano and Violin,
as “Rondeau Brillante”

1827 1850 934 Fantasia in C Major for Violin and

Piano op. posth. 159

By the year 1827 he had under his belt fifteen string quartets, a string trio in B♭, two piano trios

(B♭ and E♭), a Quintet in A for piano and strings, and an Octet for strings and winds. As his

reputation gradually grew over the years, he came to befriend fine concert artists such as pianist

Karl Maria von Bocklet, virtuoso violinists including Josef Slavik, Ignaz Schuppanzigh and

Joseph Michael Böhm and a cellist Joseph Linke. These were some of the virtuoso exponents in

Schubert’s life who played Schubert’s sonatas and various chamber music in many occasions

and inspired the composer to write the kind of music suitable for their virtuoso prowess. The fact

that Schubert was not a virtuoso performer must not lead to the assumption that his music is

devoid of such elements.

Franz Schubert’s Fantasy for the violin was written towards the end of 1827 and

premiered in Vienna on 20 January the following year. It is certainly virtuosic music, as so

assessed then too, for both the violin and the piano. It was written for the pianist Bocklet and a

young rising virtuoso Josef Slavik who was considered the next Paganini. When it was

premiered however, the public reception was so poor so that the hall gradually emptied during

the performance. The grounds on which the piece was criticized are listed as the following:

  21  
 1. Empty virtuosity and too difficult.
2. Misappropriation of the theme from his song and poor construction of variations on the
theme.
3. Aesthetically flawed (it fails to capture the essence of Romanticism)

Revisiting above categories will be the basis of my analysis into which I will draw Paganini’s

composition where appropriate to strengthen my argument.

The significance of Paganini in the 1820s Viennese musical setting

By the mid-1820s, the forefront musical scene in Vienna was one in which Beethoven’s late

masterpieces had been out of vogue for sometime because of their difficulty and incoherence.

The master once hailed as Europe’s pivotal figure in music now almost completely lost his

audience. The prevailing taste in the Viennese musical world was more superficial and vulgar

and than ever before. Music of light-hearted gaiety was preferred over that with philosophical

resonance, and simple operatic melody and its flashy variations more appealing than music of

subtle nuance and profound subtext. In a world where music was just skin deep and pretentious,

there scarcely existed room for Schubert whose expression was now deeply rooted than ever in

the realm of perpetual subjectivity. It had always been the case that the unusual ability to put on

a showy display on an instrument was popular among the post-war Viennese audiences. In fact,

virtuosity was yet another direct path to a guaranteed success in the post-war times. Going well

into a decade of growing infatuation with anything exotic and sensually stimulating led the

Viennese audiences to acquire what J. N. Burk called a “fetish” for virtuosity.41 Vienna in 1828

could not be more propitious in worshiping a man who not only was phenomenally gifted with

his violin but fantastically clever with putting on a “show” for his audiences.

                                                                                                               
41
J. N. Burk, “The Fetish of Virtuosity” The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 2. (April 1918),
282-292.

  22  
 Paganini’s feeling for showmanship was uncanny. He raised expectations and
curiosity by regularly doubling prices. Rarely playing in the first item of a
programme, he would allow an apparently interminable delay before his
appearance, and frequently let his lingering shadow be thrown across the stage.
There would be much stage business with gloves and handkerchiefs, and even his
poor health managed to add to his dramatic impact.42

Here was a case, acutely the opposite of Schubert’s, of an artist’s ability and persona well in

congruence with his time.43 Vienna, among many other European cities soon to be spellbound,

was a world ready to be conquered by Niccolò Paganini.

Before Paganini’s arrival in Vienna in the March of 1828, his name and tales of his

unusual skill on the violin were already known in some of the musically more receptive towns in

Europe and most certainly in Vienna. However the true inception of the epoch-making sensation

began with his first concert appearance at the Redouten-saal on March 29. For this first concert

in Vienna, Paganini chose two original compositions written by himself and his own variations

on a theme from Rossini’s Le Cenerentola. In one of his later tour programs, Paganini

occasionally included concerti by Rode and Kreutzer just to prove to the critics questioning the

lack of comprehensiveness in his musicianship that he could master works written by composers

other than himself. Although the concert was yet to be attended by the nobility, his preceding

reputation was sufficient enough to bring Kreutzer from Paris, Lipinski from Poland as well as

                                                                                                               
42  Rowe,  35.  
43
Paganini’s playing and his composition were influenced by Pietro Locatelli (1693-1746)
and August Duranowski (1770-1834). Locatelli’s twenty-four caprices inspired Paganini to write
his own set and Duranowski’s impressed Paganini with his technical innovations (harmonics and
left-hand pizzicato) and showmanship. While the caprices by Locatelli were shunned for their
technical innovations, Duranowski did not have the fortune of enjoying a career as extensive as
Paganini did.

  23  
all the musical elite of Vienna including Joseph Michael Böhm and Joseph Mayseder44 to come

hear the much expected wonders on the violin by the Italian. Interestingly enough, Schubert was

also present at the historical event and was compelled to hear Paganini two more times after that.

What Paganini could do with his violin was beyond the imagination of the contemporary

musicians and beyond what was conceivable on the instrument at the time. Giacomo

Meyerbeer’s simple remark embodies the sentiment of the musical public regarding what they

witnessed, “Where our reason ends, there Paganini begins.”45

In March of 1828 when Paganini began to embark on his concertizing tour beyond the

confines of his home country, he was forty-five. He had been touring for years throughout Italy

both at public venues and private, so that by the time he decided to expand his career over the

rest of Europe, not only did he have plenty of performance experience under his belt, he had

become an expert at selling his art. Paganini was very fond of the music of Rossini as much as

he revered that of Beethoven. For many of his recitals, Paganini often presented his tour de force

of technical wizardry with variations based on his favorite melodies by Italian opera composers,

including several from Rossini. Vienna’s reputation as a town of palpable favoritism for

Rossini’s operas must have been a significant factor for Paganini in choosing her as his first

target of the six-year long European conquest.

Paganini’s contribution to violin playing has been well documented in an abundant pool

of scholarship: artificial harmonics, double-stopped harmonics, scordatura, left-hand pizzicati

and its combination with bowing, performance on one string, ricochet-spiccato, fast chromatic

                                                                                                               
44
Böhm and Meyseder, Viennese virtuoso violinists, would have heard Paganini’s playing
already during their previous concert tours in Italy. They were pivotal in the growth of the only
violinist whose feat, by some, surpassed those of Paganini, Heinrich Wilhelm Ernst.
45
Giacomo Meyerbeer, quoted in Boris Schwarz, Great Masters of the Violin: from Corelli
and Vivaldi to Stern, Zukerman, and Perlman (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), 175.

  24  
passages in the highest reaches of the instrument, rapid jumps and leaps, huge left-hand

stretches, more complex double stopping and so on.46 Through these techniques, he has

expanded the instrument’s capabilities with regards to register, timbre, and sonority. It was even

more impressive that Paganini performed the fiendishly difficult tasks with consummate ease.

                                                                                                               
46
Rowe, 39.

  25  
 CHAPTER TWO

COMPARISON AND CONTEXTUALIZATION

A Profile of Virtuoso Elements

The term “virtuoso” was broadly used in the sixteenth and seventeenth century Italy to honor an

individual who excelled in any intellectual or artistic discipline: a poet, architect, scholar, etc.47

In the field of music, the term referred to a person with an exceptional training in theory rather

than ability in performance. With the growth of opera and the instrumental concerto in the late

eighteenth century, a virtuoso was now an individual with an unusual gift as a performer who

pursued a career as a soloist: voice, piano and violin, etc. Thus Schubert, by definition, was not a

virtuoso. Furthermore, with Paganini’s arrival at the Viennese musical scene in 1828, the term

assumed added implications: a dexterous executant with flamboyant and exhibitionist

temperament. Ever since Paganini’s appearance in the history of violin playing and western

music, his name has become synonymous with the term “virtuoso”.

The phrase “virtuoso music” or “virtuosity” is often used by critics and scholars to

describe the music of Paganini (and some of Schubert’s including the Violin Fantasy), therefore

refers to the kind of music appropriate for a virtuoso player to exhibit his extraordinary technical

skill. Thus, in turn, a virtuosic piece must contain performance elements that will yield a high

level of technical display. In the pieces Paganini performed for his Viennese debut (his second

violin concerto, Sonata Militaire on G-string, and variations on Rossini’s Non più mesta) these

virtuoso elements are delineated through an array of his revolutionary techniques

aforementioned. Regardless of its poor reception and neglected fate in violin literature,
                                                                                                               
47
Owen Jander, “Virtuoso,” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, eds.
Stanley Sadie and J. Tyrrell (London: MacMillan, 2001), xxvi: 789.

  26  
Schubert’s Violin Fantasy has been considered as virtuoso music. However, the Fantasy,

conceived before the Viennese musical scene had come to witness Paganini, features at most

scale passages, arpeggiations and occasional busy string crossings, but they do not render an

aural and visual effect as raw as those in Paganini’s concerto and his variations. To put it simply,

the Fantasy, in spite of its busy figurations and other technical challenges for its performers, does

not sound or look virtuosic.

Paganini and his Virtuoso Code

The legacy of Paganini manifests itself through transcriptions, paraphrases and homages by

many composers and instrumentalists of later generations.48 Paganini has inspired generations of

performers as well as composers of Western music in that he personified an art form in which

virtuosity was an indispensable element in expression. But among those who came across the

nature of Paganini’s art, some tended to solely emphasize the technical bravura in the virtuoso

aesthetic. Paganini’s artistry at times has been overshadowed by more tangible factors: his

achievement and contribution in regards to violin technique. The exhibitionistic nature of

virtuosity in his music and the effect-oriented presentation of himself had encouraged some of

his listeners conjure up an image of a crowd-pleasing charlatan putting on shows with his

trickery. Performers such as Louis Spohr and Charles Phillipe Lafont who belonged to the

lineage of the classical school of violin playing acknowledged the technical feats of Paganini, but

also questioned the artistic integrity in his music. Even into the twentieth century, there still exist

violinists who would choose to characterize Paganini’s music as Virtuosenmachwerke (pieces of

                                                                                                               
48
Paganini’s caprices, Op. 1 (notably the twenty fourth in A minor) and the finale from his
second violin concerto, “La Campanella” had been reworked by many composers including
Franz Liszt, Robert Schumann, Johannes Brahms, Sergei Rachmaninov as well as Witold
Lutoslawski, Alfred Schnittke, and Luigi Dallapiccola.

  27  
routine display).49 However, arguing as to what the true nature of his virtuosity actually was

remains counter-constructive because as it will become more apparent from examining the

concert program of his Viennese debut in March of 1828, he was both an artist and an

exhibitionist. He was a virtuoso of more than one caliber. An account of violinists in the early

nineteenth century by the German poet Heinrich Heine (1797-1856) provides an interesting

glance on the range of presentation in regards to Paganini’s virtuosity.

When it comes to violinists, virtuosity is not entirely the result of mechanical

finger velocity and sheer technique, as it is with pianists. The violin is an
instrument which has almost human whims – it is attuned to the mood of the
player in a sympathetic rapport: a minute discomfort, the tiniest inner imbalance,
a whiff of sentiment elicits an immediate resonance … probably because the
violin, pressed against the chest, can perceive our heart’s beat. But this happens
only with artists who truly have a heart that beats, who have a soul. The more
heartless a violinist is, the more uniform will be his performance, and he can
count on the obedience of his fiddle, any time, any place. But this much-vaunted
assurance is only the result of a spiritual limitation, and some of the greatest
masters were often dependent on influences from within and without. I have never
heard anyone play better – or, for that matter, play worse – than Paganini…50

Paganini’s technical mastery on the violin was emulated by his contemporaries but

scarcely equaled during his lifetime. But also, and just as importantly, he was tremendously

gifted in marketing and selling his own virtuosity. The public uproar following his concerts in

Vienna of 1828 is indebted not only to his artistry and consummate mastery of his instrument,

but unmistakably also to the way his program was chosen and presented under thoughtful plan

and calculation.51 Paganini knew his audiences and he did everything in his power, from

                                                                                                               
49
Owen Jander, “Virtuoso,” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, eds.
Stanley Sadie and J. Tyrrell (London: MacMillan, 2001), xxvi: 789. A German expression with a
pejorative connotation referring to frivolous music containing showy effects without artistic
substance.
50
Heinrich Heine, quoted in Schwarz, Great Masters of the Violin, 23.
51
The concert program order of Paganini’s Viennese debut in March 29, 1828:
Overture to Fidelio by Beethoven (continued on the footnote on the next page)

  28  
carefully timing his entrance onto the stage to doubling the ticket prices just before the concert

day, all to further mystify himself and to provoke anxious curiosity from the anticipating public.

The pre-concert ritual was premeditated as to maximize the effect of his performance as well as

his presence on stage.

Paganini was extremely meticulous about public exposure of his own compositions. His

scrupulous character is well represented by the fact that in addition to always playing his own

part from memory with no sheet music laid in front of him, he would collect all the parts from

the orchestra players after the rehearsal of his yet unpublished, newest violin concerto. He was

always concerned with the danger of revealing his own unique playing methods, bowings, and

fingerings, as they give some insights on how to execute the kinds of technical effects he

incorporated into his own pieces. It has been thus observed that during the rehearsal of his

concertos, Paganini would refrain from playing all the passages note-by-note, skipping the part

with his signature virtuoso bravura so that no part of the show is spoiled until the actual

performance. Such cautious practice helped increase the expectation even from the musicians

behind him on concert day.

As his fame grew, Paganini was aware of the possibility of other violinists around him

threatening the commercial value of his identity as the ultimate virtuoso by imitating his playing

style and mimicking the effects. Whenever Paganini stayed at the town of his upcoming

performance venue and practiced in his room, he never played the entire program and with what

he did play, he would use a mute to minimize the potential exposure of the sound from the violin.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
Concerto No. 2 in B minor (Paganini)
Aria by Paer (Antonia Bianchi)
Sonata Militaire on the G string (Paganini)
Rondo Non lusingare a barbaro (Antonia Bianchi)
Larghetto and Variations on Non più mesta from Rossini’s La Cenerentola (Paganini)

  29  
While most of the virtuoso violinists at the time including Böhm and Meyseder in Vienna did not

begin to make an attempt at competing with Paganini, the young Wilhelm Ernst sought to

discover the secret by following Paganini’s concertizing route and renting the adjacent room to

where Paganini was lodging and listening to his practice sessions.

Prior to his Viennese debut in 1828, the Twenty-four Caprices for Solo Violin, Op. 1,

was the only composition Paganini had allowed to be published.52 Although considered

unplayable by all the respected violinists at the time, the Op. 1 set has always been highly

regarded not only for the motivic originality and harmonic sophistication but even more for the

sheer innovation of extensive violin techniques and incorporation of such virtuosity into an

ingenious art form. To many musicians of the following generations, the caprices had been

considered as a testament to Paganini’s consummate artistry and superlative understanding of the

violin’s capacity. With a handful of modern day virtuosos, they have certainly become readily

accessible and a fundamental part of any violinist’s repertoire. Ironically, the Op. 1 set never

made an appearance in Paganini’s own concert programs and certainly not during his six-year

European tour. The fact that Paganini, even in Italy before his tour years, scarcely performed any

of the caprices in public but mainly the novelty variations and opera-influenced violin concertos,

testifies to his insightful assessment of his audiences and on the commercial value of the music

he composed.

Prior to his Viennese debut, Paganini was well aware of the favoritism towards Italian

operas in the city and its Rossini-mad audiences. He himself was an ardent admirer of Rossini’s

music and never hesitated to use themes from his operas as a vehicle for his own virtuoso

display. In the excerpts chosen, melodies are straightforward and harmonic progressions are

                                                                                                               
52
Published by Ricordi in 1820.

  30  
painfully rudimentary. However, such simplicity in structure proved to be a favorable setting for

a virtuoso like Paganini to add complex elaborations and to showcase his extravagant

pyrotechnics (Example 1.1-2).

Ex. 1.1: N. Paganini, Theme of Non più mesta, Op. 12 from Rossini’s La Cenerentola.53

Ex. 1.2: N. Paganini, Second variation (beginning) from Non più mesta, Op. 12.

                                                                                                               
53  Refer to the footnote 81 on page 91 regarding the scordatura practice shown here.  

  31  
 The musical profile of Paganinian virtuosity as presented through his Viennese debut of

1828 was in a similar vein to Rossini’s virtuosic arias in that it was geared toward creating a

spectacle for the soloist only. From bel canto playing to flamboyant acrobatics reminiscent of the

vocal athleticism of a coloratura soprano in a Rossinian opera, it is the soloist with his virtuosity

hovering over the subordinate orchestral/piano accompaniment that single-handedly carries the

drama and tension of the music from the beginning to the end (Example 2.1-3). Paganini’s violin

concertos embodied a wistful sentiment of the post-Napoleonic war era also defined by Maiko

Kawabata as “militaristic heroism”.54

Ex. 2.1: N. Paganini, Second Violin Concerto, Op. 7, First movement, mm. 108-117.

                                                                                                               
54
Maiko Kawabata, “Virtuoso Codes of Violin Performance: Power, Military Heroism, and
Gender (1789-1830)” 19th-Century Music, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Fall 2004), pp. 89-107.

  32  
 Ex. 2.2: N. Paganini, Adagio from Second Violin Concerto, Op. 7, mm. 16-20.

  33  
 Ex. 2.3: N. Paganini, Adagio from Second Violin Concerto, Op. 7, mm. 69-71.

  34  
Situating Schubert’s Virtuosic Violin Fantasy

Before the Paganinian revolution of instrumental virtuosity was revealed to the Viennese musical

scene, the seed for stylistic shift in musical trends had been planted as early as the beginning of

Biedermeier period (1815-1848). Virtuosity in Rossini’s operas evoked rapturous sensation

among the enthusiastic Viennese already in 1816, preceding the city’s subsequent infatuation

with the advent of Paganini twelve years later. The fetish of virtuosity in the early nineteenth

century Vienna finds its roots in the city’s own Biedermeier culture as well as in its exposure to

the fioritura in Italian operas at the time. When Schubert was in the midst of working on his

more mature operas (between 1819 and 1823), Rossini’s operas had not reached the peak of their

popularity in Vienna just yet. However, as inconspicuous and distant as Schubert always was

from the mainstream musical trends in Vienna, it is hard to suspect that he was completely

oblivious to the object of the general public’s enthusiasm and the aesthetic profile of popular

Italian operas, especially when he immersed himself into that very field at the time. Schubert’s

private persona certainly limited his networking possibilities. However, as a member of the

Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde his involvement was growing and it provided opportunities for

Schubert to come in contact with some of the leading performers in Vienna. In addition,

Schubert had his gathering with a group of music connoisseurs known as the Schubertiaden.55

Schubert’s faithful friends played a significant role in shaping his musical expression but just as

importantly, the Schubertiaden functioned as a conduit between the socially reserved composer

and some of the more high-profiled Viennese musicians at the time. When Schubert gradually

                                                                                                               
55
Central members of the Schubertiaden:
Michael Vogl (bass singer who sang many of Schubert’s songs), Joseph von Spaun (a senior civil
servant), Eduard von Bauernfeld (playwright), Johann Mayrhofer, Franz Grillparzer, Franz
Schober (amateur artist/actor), Moritz von Schwind, Leopold Kupelweiser(painter), Franz
Lachner (composer/conductor), Joseph Gahy (an amateur pianist with whom Schubert enjoyed
playing the most).

  35  
acquainted himself with these individuals, it is highly probable that he became more conscious of

the change in popular musical trends toward that of virtuosity. Well into the second decade of the

nineteenth century, the shift in prevailing taste was becoming more pronounced as greater

numbers of virtuoso instrumentalists surfaced. Patrick McCreless examines the symptoms of this

change in Europe at the time when Schubert was struggling to build his reputation as a serious

composer.

A budding school of violin playing in Vienna, the appearance of young artists

such as [Josef] Slavek and Ignaz Schuppanzigh, growing public adulation of the
virtuoso, the increasing prominence and market success of composers and
composer-performers who hitched themselves to the new aesthetic – all were
signs of a significant shift in taste.56

McCreless situates Schubert’s Violin Fantasy as the composer’s response, a misfired one

at that, to this change in musical trend.57 McCreless’ assessment is potentially appealing when

we consider the maturity and consistency in craftsmanship among Schubert’s other late works.58

Schubert’s instrumental output was consistently fertile throughout his life. However, it is clear

from revisiting the chronology of his violin-centered repertoire (shown on pages 21-22), that

there is a curious gap almost a decade between his “Duo” sonata of 1817 and Rondo Brillant of

1826, and Fantasy of 1827. More interestingly, there are discernable changes in the profile of

writing for the solo violin part in his last two so-called virtuosic violin pieces from all the

previous ones. Compare Ex. 3.1-3 with Ex. 3.4-6. With a single exception of his Fantasy in C

major for piano “Wanderer”, D.760 composed in 1822, there is hardly a piece among Schubert’s

instrumental oeuvre prior to the last two aforementioned works (Rondo and Fantasy) that come

                                                                                                               
56
Patrick McCreless, “A Candidate for the Canon? A New Look at Schubert’s Fantasie in C
Major for Violin and Piano,” 19th-century music 20, no. 3 (1997), 205-230.
57
Ibid.
58
Some of more notable works from Schubert’s last years: Fantasy in F minor for piano four
hands, D.940, Symphony in C, “Great”, D.944, a quintet in C for two violins, viola, two cellos.
D.956, the last three piano sonatas, D.958, 959, 960.

  36  
close to being considered as ‘virtuosic’ in the early nineteenth century’s standard. Schubert’s

only instrumental concerto, a genre established by Mozart and Beethoven as a vehicle for

virtuoso display, was the Konzertstück in D major, D.345 from 1816. But the concerto (or

“concert piece” as Schubert titled it) is anything but ambitious. The title itself suggests a humble

take on the genre.59 The writing for the solo part virtually never explores the possibilities of

polyphonic writing for the violin. It is also quite reserved in exhibiting any technical features

then already known for the instrument. The thematic ideas are simple and straightforward

without any interesting further development (Example 4). The underlying harmony remains

unadventurous while the texture is thoroughly solo-oriented, devoid of dialogue or counterpoint

with the monotonous accompanying forces. Schubert’s Rondo in A major for violin and strings,

D.438, written in the same year, and his Polonaise in B♭ major for violin and small orchestra,

D.580, written a year later, do not render themselves as significantly improved from the concert

piece as far as exploration of the virtuosic elements for the solo violin is concerned.

Ex. 3.1: F. Schubert, Konzertstück for Violin and Orchestra, D.345, mm. 75-103.
                                                                                                               
59
The full title: Konzertstück für Violine mit begleitung von Streichquartett, zwei oboen, zwei
trompeten und Pauken (Concert Piece for Violin with accompaniment by string quartet, two
oboes, two trumpets, and timpani).  

  37  
 Ex. 3.2: F. Schubert, Sonata for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.137 No. 1, D.384, First movement,
mm. 1-18.

Ex. 3.3: F. Schubert, Sonata for Violin and Piano in G minor, Op. posth.137 No. 3,
D.408, First movement, mm. 1-15.

Ex. 3.4: F. Schubert, Rondo in B minor for Violin and Piano, Op. 70, D.895,
Introduction, mm. 1-6.

  38  
 Ex. 3.5: F. Schubert, Rondo in B minor for Violin and Piano, Op. 70, D.895, mm. 530-
551.

Ex. 3.6: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934, mm. 676-
700.

  39  
 Ex. 4: F. Schubert, Konzertstück for Violin and Orchestra, D.345, Introduction and Allegro-
proper (beginning), mm. 12-57.

McCreless supports his view by addressing the Violin Fantasy’s odd place in Schubert’s

otherwise masterpiece-concentrated late years. The pianist Alfred Brendel, as quoted in

McCreless’ article, shares this sentiment.

  40  
 With the exception of a few pieces written for virtuoso display in the concert hall,
such as some of the violin music and the Variations on ‘Trocke Blumen’ for Flute
and Piano [D.802, 1824], nearly all these compositions are on the same high level
of accomplishment.60

The Violin Fantasy is preceded by Schubert’s last three string quartets (written in 1824

and 1826) including “Rosamunde”, D.804, and “Death and the Maiden”, D.810, and two piano

trios written in the same year (B♭, D.898 and E♭, D.929). Immediately following are his Fantasy

for Piano duet, D.940, the late piano sonatas (D.958, 959, 960) and the String Quintet in C,

D.956. On a bigger scale, his “Great” Symphony in C major, D.944 and Winterreise cycle, D.911

were also conceived and written during the last few years of Schubert’s life. Hence, as

McCreless and a handful of other Schubert scholars suggest, the Violin Fantasy, with its

superfluous virtuosity and the “flawed” aesthetics projected, placed right in the middle of

Schubert’s mature and inspirational late years, raises questions pertaining to its purpose. Surely,

situating the Violin Fantasy in the context of Schubert’s complete output, as handful of scholars

have done, strengthens the claim that the work is in fact an anomaly, a miscalculated attempt at a

style of writing that was simply not of Schubert’s own voice. It certainly occupies a curious

place within Schubert’s impressive canon.61

In the context of Biedermeier Vienna and its lingering sentiment of post-war heroism

personified by the advent of Paganinian virtuosity, Schubert’s Violin Fantasy and its technical

challenges represent work that is out of vogue and out of the tradition of writing for strings. The

sharp contrast in the reception of the Viennese audience in 1828 toward Schubert’s Violin

Fantasy and Paganini’s virtuoso music was an inevitable one and most certainly, a natural one.

                                                                                                               
60
Alfred Brendel, Musical Thoughts and Afterthoughts (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1976), 58.
61
McCreless, 205.

  41  
 As a performer, Schubert was proficient on the violin (as well as on the viola and the

piano) but at the same time, he never had the technical prowess or the extroverted public persona

possessed by Paganini. The writing for the violin in Schubert’s music hardly exhibits the

protagonist profile evident in those by Paganini. Schubert’s virtuoso writing for the violin in his

concerto substitutes, be they concert piece, rondo, or polonaise, never quite reflected the popular

trend nor explored the instrument’s potential to its fullest.

In order to better grasp the nature of virtuosity in Schubert’s language, we must re-

conceptualize the term from its conventional meaning and connotation initially established

during the early nineteenth century and then epitomized during the Paganinian era. I will now

propose a different approach to understanding Schubert’s virtuoso code.

  42  
 CHAPTER THREE

ANALYTICAL RECONCEPTUALIZATION

The Rondo in B minor and the Fantasy in C major are Schubert’s two “virtuoso” pieces written

for violin and piano during his final years: 1826 and 1827 respectively. The manifestation of

virtuosity in these works suggests a language that is fundamentally different from the virtuosity

of Paganini. Schubert is often considered as a respectful heir to Beethoven in the lineage of great

classical composers. Like his predecessor, Schubert excelled in writing for a wide range of

genres. He belonged, more or less, to what Schroeder called, “the generation of universalist

composers” who wrote every type of genre known at the time.62 Paganini on the other hand, was

a violinist of unparalleled gift and aptitude for his instrument who wrote music exclusively for

the overriding purpose of capitalizing on his own playing abilities and style. Unlike Schubert, he

was a specialist. If Paganini’s virtuosity is directly communicated through the performer’s

execution, Schubert’s virtuosity requires analysis and interpretation. In other words, virtuosity in

Paganini’s music is effect-oriented, and thus created to be instantly heard and felt through our

senses, virtuosity in Schubert’s music is integrated into the expression that needs to be studied

and interpreted to know its purpose and function. When the issue of virtuosity is discussed

among scholars, such discretion is hardly taken into consideration. To better understand the

meaning of virtuoso writing in Schubert’s violin music, we need to reconceptualize the term.

                                                                                                               
62
Schroeder, 67.

  43  
An Interpretation of Schubert’s Virtuosity

Ever since its premiere, Schubert’s Violin Fantasy, D.934 has been categorized as a virtuoso

piece. Situating the work in the context of 1820’s Vienna and more specifically, setting its poor

reception against the sensation brought by Paganini’s music of 1828 establishes the fact that the

style of composition was simply not congenial to the popular trend at the time. Ever since then,

performers as well as scholars including Maurice Brown and Patrick McCreless have continued

to categorize the work as a virtuoso piece and a poorly conceived one at that. To recap Brown’s

comment on the virtuosity of the Fantasy, “…the rich embroidery begins and the music grows

turgid”.63 Such sentiment is echoed by McCreless who proposed technical difficulty (for the

violin) as one of the key reasons for the poor reception of the Fantasy and its neglect in the violin

literature: “[t]hat the Fantasie’s ferocious technical demands have always had a negative impact

on its reception and programming history is hardly disputable.”64 That the idea of “a poorly

conceived virtuoso writing” still serves as one of the main reasons behind contemporary

criticisms of the work, it requires us to revisit the meaning of virtuosity and how the term has

been applied by scholars to describe the writing in the Fantasy. First, what, precisely, constitutes

“virtuosity” in instrumental music? As much as the nature of writing in Schubert’s Violin

Fantasy differs from that in Paganini’s violin music, the piece has been and still to this day,

considered as a virtuosic one. Thus virtuosity is not just about the sheer effect of presentation. If

Schubert’s Fantasy can be categorized as “virtuosic” as it has been thus far by a pool of scholars,

musicologists, and violinists, then the claim must rest on the fact that the work contains

formidable technical challenges for its performers. Hence, the following equation can be

established: Severe technical difficulty = Virtuosity. Subsequently, the equation generates other

                                                                                                               
63
Brown, 270.
64
McCreless, 206.

  44  
critical questions. If rich embroidery can potentially cause the music to grow turgid, and if

daunting technical difficulty can in fact have a negative impact on a work’s musical value, why

is it that Paganini’s music, many of which are richly embellished variations and many of which

feature fiendishly difficult techniques, not only created such sensation in the past but also has

ever since been considered as an aesthetic that forever influenced the writing of Western music?

Why is it that virtuosic embroidery in Schubert’s Fantasy is unnecessary and excessive when the

fioritura of Paganini’s variations is considered as an indispensable part of musical expression?

Can a piece’s aesthetic worth be satisfactorily explained only in terms of its virtuoso utterance or

justly assessed in terms of pure theoretical concepts? Instead of investigating all the theoretical

and aesthetic reasons for determining the necessity and function of virtuoso elements in a piece

of work, we need an approach from a performer’s perspective to the physical nature of the

performance elements we often indiscreetly label as “virtuosic”. What we can firmly establish at

this point is that the Violin Fantasy, like many works of Paganini, is technically challenging yet

when executed, the result is not as rewarding for its performer nor as instantly effective to its

listeners. In other words, Paganini’s virtuoso music, in spite of its daunting challenges for the

player, has merits that can be felt and heard immediately whereas in Schubert’s Fantasy, its

merits, if any, are not as raw and instantaneous; thus it needs to be studied to be appreciated.

Whether or not to label such unrewarding technical difficulty as “virtuosic” is another matter I

will later discuss in chapter four. But first let us clarify the following. Just because the violin

writing in Schubert’s Fantasy does not present any revolutionary techniques a la Paganini and

thus renders no visual and aural spectacle, it does not suffice to claim that its virtuosity is empty

and superfluous. Also, just because the technical challenge is unrewarding and yields no instant

effect for its listener, does not make the music turgid and less valuable.

  45  
Schubert’s Approach to Violin Writing

The aesthetic of Schubert’s music is ensemble-oriented both in its conception and projection.

Even in a case where a single voice is highlighted and emphasized, its meaning is contextual

within a larger framework of the music and its intention is never an effect-inducing gesture. The

only genre in which there is a protagonistic voice set in the foreground is lieder and even there,

the narrated drama and tension of the music are often shared with the piano, which provides the

harmonic framework as well as the ambience and the overall mood of each song. In Schubert’s

two virtuoso violin works, the Rondo Brillante in B and the Fantasy in C, the violin part is

integrated into the ensemble not only in structural texture but also in musical expression. The

work’s virtuoso effect, although less flashy than that of Paganini, is achieved as an ensemble

between the violin and the piano.

By revisiting the chronology of Schubert’s violin oeuvre and examining the palpable shift

of musical trends in Vienna through the rise of virtuoso performers, we may suspect that when

Schubert composed the Violin Fantasy, he surely had in mind the technical prowess of the duo,

Bocklet and Slavik, who had just premiered the other virtuoso piece, the Rondo Brillante in B.

Whether or not the Fantasy was hurriedly composed as Schubert hoped to win the public and to

make ends meet, the work not only requires formidable dexterity from both players, but a

perceptive vision and interpretive mind to make musical and structural sense out of the piece.

Unlike Paganini’s virtuoso music geared towards highlighting the solo instrument, the Fantasy is

still a chamber work that strikes a good balance between the two instruments.

A closer observation of some of Schubert’s more notable chamber works reveals an

intriguing shift in the nature of writing for the violin. Let us take into consideration the

straightforwardness and simplicity of the violin part in his concerto substitutes (the genres geared

  46  
towards virtuoso display of the solo instrument) such as the Konzertstück, D.345, the Rondo in

A, D.438, and Polonaise in B♭, D.580. Then, we will juxtapose the violin writing (for the sake

of simplicity, we will consider the first violin part only) in each of the following chamber works

written contemporaneously. See the following examples (5.1-2, 6.1-3, and 7.1-2), collated by

year, with techniques highlighted.

Writings from 1816

[Register expansion]

Ex. 5.1: F. Schubert, Rondo in A for Violin and Strings, D.438, mm. 75-103.

Ex. 5.2: F. Schubert, String Quartet No. 11 in E major, D.353 (Op. 125 No.2), end of the first
movement.

  47  
 Writings from 1817
[Phrase structure]

Ex. 6.1: F. Schubert, Polonaise in B flat major for Violin and Orchestra, D.580
Antecedent (4) + consequent (4) phrases, mm. 1-8.

Ex. 6.2: F. Schubert, Sonata for Violin and Piano “Duo” in A major, Op. posth.162, D.574, mm.
1-22.

Ex. 6.3: F. Schubert, String Quartet No. 12, D.703, “Quartettsatz” (1820), mm. 229-243.

  48  
 Other chamber works written in the last years, 1824-1828

Ex. 7.1: F. Schubert, String Quartet in D minor, D.810, First movement, mm. 89-107.

Ex. 7.2: F. Schubert, String Quintet in C, D.956, First movement, mm. 1-47.

  49  
The juxtaposition indicates that the violin parts in Schubert’s chamber works are not only more

adventurous in their ideas, but more demanding for the player in purely technical terms.

Comparing the nature of violin writing in Schubert’s so-called virtuoso genre with the violin

parts in his chamber works further strengthens the claim that Schubert’s musical language

becomes much more imaginative in an ensemble setting. Moreover, it suggests a new

perspective: virtuosity in Schubert’s violin music is never an end itself but always a means to

other ends. In Schubert’s language, virtuosity is a byproduct of communicating a larger musical

idea and is not the main purpose in and of itself. Technical difficulty that arises from any form of

virtuoso writing is never for the sake of display because it exists as a necessary part of the

expression integrated into the music.

Virtuoso Passages and the Technical Difficulties Projected

The Fantasy’s virtuosity triggered harsh reviews from the critics. Many violinists of later

generations including Boris Schwarz and Wilhelmj August, made remarks in regards to certain

passages as virtually unplayable (Example 8). The most recent edition (2007) of the Violin

Fantasy from Bärenreiter includes both the urtext edition and an extra violin part with some

alterations of passages “motivated by considerations of violin technique” (Example 9.1-3).65

Comparing the “simplified” version to the original provides some insights into a contemporary

perception of violin idiom and virtuosity. Furthermore, I will incorporate some of these altered

passages as examples to support my interpretation of Schubert’s virtuosity.

                                                                                                               
65
Franz Schubert, Fantasie in C für Violine und Klavier, D.934 (Urtext der Neuen Schubert-
Ausgabe: Bärenreiter Kassel, 2000) preface, IV.

  50  
 [The arpeggios in the Finale considered by Boris Schwarz as “virtually unplayable”]

Ex. 8: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934, mm. 521-
546.

[The original and the simplified version, published by Bärenreiter, BA 6520]

Original Simplified

Ex. 9.1: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934, mm. 262-
263.

  51  
 Original

Simplified

Ex. 9.2: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934, mm. 290-
301.

[The arpeggios in the Finale, the simplified version]

Ex. 9.3: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934, mm. 521-
546.

  52  
By contextualizing some of the virtuoso passages in the Violin Fantasy, it becomes clear that

they serve structural and expressive purposes. Furthermore, looking into the physical realization

of the “virtuosic” passages strongly suggests that when Schubert conceived the violin part, the

instrument’s idiom was hardly the priority.

The Finale’s Arpeggios

Example 8 shows the notoriously difficult arpeggio passages that have been one of the more

controversial cases exemplifying an unidiomatic conception for the violin. In larger context, it

becomes obvious that these busy figurations are never to be sweeping bursts of technical bravura

but broken chords functioning as a sequence of harmonic modulations that serve an important

musical purpose in the overall harmonic scheme of the finale movement.

Although the Violin Fantasy’s “flaws” have encouraged scholars to categorize the piece

as lacking the usual Schubertian craftsmanship, hence oddly placed among other superb works of

his late years, the harmonic structure of the Violin Fantasy bears a trait that is a hallmark of the

composer in that it is built around submediant key relationships. The harmonic layout of the

Finale is in fact a microcosm of the entire work’s harmonic structure (Table 2).

  53  
Table 2: Formal Structure of the Violin Fantasy, D.934

I II III [Reprise of IV[Finale] [Reprise of CODA

Introduction] song theme]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1-36 37-351 352-479 480-92 493-638 639-64 665-700

Andante Molto Allegretto Andantino [Andante Molto] Allegro Vivace [Andantino] Presto
Variations
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A A A Dev. A Dev. A B Dev. A B Dev. A
(aabab) (aabb)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C a—C A~a-C C~ A♭ C C C a~C A ~~ a—C A♭—C C

Finale: C C a~C A ~~ a—C A♭—C

Harmonic layout of the Finale (mm.493–638) as a microcosm of the entire harmonic structure

Exhaustive application of the submediant (C – A/A♭) relationship is evident throughout the

entire work. In the Finale, Schubert incorporates rapid harmonic progressions as a sequential

motive to dictate all the necessary modulations required by the music’s harmonic organization.

Schubert then simply assigns the violin part an arpeggiated version of all the chord progressions

of the modulatory sequences.

By examining the arpeggio passages of the violin part, we can discern how Schubert’s

understanding and consideration of violinistic idiom are weighed against his musical intentions.

The reduction of these arpeggios clearly indicates that Schubert tried to observe smooth voice

leading, treating the broken chords as a four-part texture. Such treatment renders an unusual

spacing for the violin, forcing the player to contort and stretch his fingers to execute them. But

because the chords are arpeggiated and not stacked as blocked chords, it allows the player to

finesse the complex fingerings and stretches making the passages executable without any

insurmountable difficulty. What makes these passages truly “virtuosic” to the point where it has

been considered virtually unplayable by someone like Boris Schwarz, is the sheer speed at which



the performer is asked to execute them. The Finale is marked Allegro Vivace. While various

tempi can be chosen by the performer, slowing it down to the point that allows considerable ease

and comfort for executing the arpeggios will no longer present the music in the general range of

Vivace tempo. Notwithstanding the interpretive nature of tempo indications, the arpeggios do

present physical challenges for the violinist when contextualized within the suggested character

of the Finale movement.

In these arpeggio passages, Schubert incorporates a chain of German augmented-sixth

chords to provide harmonic drive towards the tonic triads at the end of each set (Figure 1.1-4).

The voice leading patterns show that Schubert intended to preserve the tendency notes, lowered

6̂ and raised 4̂ resolving in a contrary motion to 5̂ , in the augmented chords to propel the

harmonic momentum forward by outlining a chromatic contrary motion. A close observation of

the voice leading in the arpeggio reductions reveals that Schubert was not completely

inconsiderate of the violin idiom. Or rather, he was and had to be conscious of the instrument’s

physical limitations. The resolution chord at the end of the first set of progression shows an

idiomatic spacing of a major triad for the instrument: a fifth interval for the bottom two strings

(the root and the fifth of the triad) and a sixth interval for the top two strings (the third and the

root of the triad) (Figure 1.1). Had Schubert insisted on ideal voice leading, the leading tone (B

natural) in the penultimate chord would resolve up to C rather than down to G. Then the

resolution would have a C octave for the bottom two strings instead of a fifth interval. This

alternative is still playable on the violin but certainly less desirable because 1) it is unnecessarily

more laborious for the left hand and 2) the resolution chord would be missing the fifth of the

triad, thus not as full as the original solution. The resolution in the second set also hints at the

composer’s awareness of the congenial spacing of a triad for the violin (Figure 1.2). Consider

  55  
also the alternative for this case. The voicing shown in the third reduction presents a clear case

where Schubert had to accommodate the physical limitations on the instrument (Figure 1.3). The

bass notes in the first and the third chord (E and F) are just below the instrument’s register and

thus are omitted. But by observing the pattern of the bass line from the first set of progression,

we can certainly assume that these two pitches would have otherwise been included had it not

been for the instrument’s limitation. In the three chords that lead into the final A major triad, the

usual spacing changes. Here, Schubert resorts to octave displacements of the bass notes (F sharp-

E-E) and one of the inner voices (A), thus making the passage playable on the violin while

preserving all the chord tones. In the last set of arpeggios, Schubert is able to sustain the

desirable voice-leading that is also playable on the instrument. For the resolution chord at the

end, Schubert simply chooses to leave the C# in the bass rather than resolving up to an F#

(Figure 1.4).

Alternative
resolution

G: I Ger+6 (II) Ger+6 (III) viiº43

V of D V of E C: of V V64 – 5
3 I
Idiomatic spacing Not ideal
for the violin

Figure 1.1: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934 Finale,
mm. 529-533 (reduction).



 Alternative
resolution

E: I - (Ger+6) - I viiº43 (bVII) Ger+6 Possible alternative

(Tonic prolongation) of bVII V of G Am: V64 – 5
3 i with the bass moving up

Figure 1.2: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934 Finale,
mm. 537-541 (reduction).

Alternative
Voice-leading

[Octave displacement] Ideal voice-leading, but

not executable on the violin

Figure 1.3: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934 Finale,
mm. 583-587 (reduction).

Contrary motion of the outer voices creating harmonic momentum

Figure 1.4: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934 Finale,
mm. 591-595 (reduction).



 In the simplified version of these arpeggios from the Bärenreiter edition, the bass notes

are left out for the most part and the passages are considerably less burdensome for the player

and the figurations more idiomatic for the instrument (Example 9.2, pg. 54). Here, most of the

notes are still preserved. Furthermore, the melodic pitches at the top are now reiterated, making it

easier to hear the melodic line that often needs to be articulated. Such a common maneuver of

arpeggiating over three strings, instead of all four strings as in the original, could have not been

inconceivable to Schubert. Knowing that harmonic progression with four-part voice leading

could have been the central concern of Schubert’s, the simpler version might not have been so

appealing to him because of the harmonic importance of the bass notes in these particular

progressions.

Analyzing these unidiomatic and technically challenging passages helps us to visualize

Schubert’s intention. What Schubert intended to communicate was a strong harmonic drive with

a convincing momentum in sequences as is needed within a short movement that requires rapid

modulations.

Schubert was never a virtuoso violinist but at the same time, analyzing above passages

indicates that his knowledge of the instrument was sufficient. However, contextualizing the

problematic virtuoso passages of the Finale reveals to us that although Schubert was

knowledgeable on the violin, instrumental idiom hardly governed his compositional process. The

rapid progression of these broken chords serve a structural and musical function. Any technical

difficulty proposed by the part writing is but a byproduct and not for the sake of flashy virtuoso

display.

  58  
Octaves in the Violin Writing of Paganini and Schubert

One of the crowning achievements of Paganini was the extended use of multi-stopped chords on

the violin. He often incorporated rapid successions in thirds, sixths, octaves, and tenths into his

compositions. Although Schubert’s Violin Fantasy was conceived before the composer was

directly exposed to Paganinian techniques, it features occasional utilization of multi-stopped

chords.

One of the more frequently employed double-stops by Paganini was octave, and more

specifically a rapid succession of octaves as a way of exhibiting virtuoso bravura (Example 10).

Even prior to the advent of Paganini, use of octaves was already established in the violin

literature and the purpose behind Schubert’s utilization of octaves present a sharp contrast to the

purpose in Paganini’s music. As an example of this contrast, I will again refer to the altered

passages in the simplified version in the Bärenreiter edition as a basis of my assessment on what

has been considered as virtuosic in the Violin Fantasy.

Ex. 10: N. Paganini, Third Variation from Non più mesta, Op. 12 from Rossini’s La Cenerentola.

  59  
 Example 9.2 (pg. 54) shows one of the few octave passages in the Fantasy that has been

simplified. The original version requires constant shifting of the left hand for the player. Such

business seems unnecessarily laborious and it does not lend any audibly and visually impressive

effects. However, placing it in context delineates its motivic relevance to the section and to the

entire Allegretto movement. The reason for doubling the melodic line is clear: to emphasize and

reinforce the motivic idea that could otherwise get lost in the midst of the chromatic runs exerted

by both hands of the pianist. The motivic idea is a development of the theme a la hongroise

introduced at the beginning of the Allegretto movement (Example 11).

Ex. 11: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934
Allegretto, mm. 37-40, mm. 293-296.

The theme’s first alteration appears in the violin part in measure 265 in the key of A

minor, at the beginning of a transition that eventually leads straight into the next major section,

the Andantino (Example 12). The transition takes the music to distant key areas as it features a

chain of momentary tonicizations. The altered opening motivic idea plays a pivotal role in that it

governs the tonicizations through its own diatonic sequences. The motivic idea in the violin part

tonicizes E minor as the piano takes over in the left hand (mm. 273-280). The music lands

momentarily on B minor as a second alteration of the motivic idea is introduced by the piano’s

left hand (mm. 281-286), tonicizing F# minor, and then given to the right hand (mm. 287-292)



 Ex. 12: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934
Allegretto, mm. 258-295.

  61  
eventually landing on C# minor where the violin begins the strenuous octave passages all the

while continuing the process of rapid tonicizations of distant keys. Throughout this entire process

in the transition, the rate of tonicization intensifies. Between measures 265 and 280, the motivic

idea is built as a 4+4 phrase length: the idea plus its diatonic sequence. Thus, in the first sixteen

measures, it takes eight measures to travel to the next distant key area. When the motivic idea is

altered for the second time (mm. 281-292), it is also shortened to six measures thus allowing just

six measures to reach its next harmonic destination. When the violin finally takes over the

motive, it further shortens the process by occupying just eight measures altogether to get to the

key of E♭, the final point of arrival, the dominant of the key of the Andantino in A♭ major.

Going back to measure 265, the motivic idea is played on a single string on the violin. As the

harmonic progression intensifies, it is played in octaves on the piano. Therefore, when the violin

finally takes over in measure 293, it seems only sensible to emphasize the pitches that outline the

motivic idea by doubling them in octaves so that what needs to be heard can pierce through the

chromatic run that is treated as a counter melody.

The Theme and Variations in the Violin Fantasy: A Proposed Problem and a Critical

Perspective

The last case for my analysis of “virtuoso” passages in Schubert’s Violin Fantasy is the

variations on his own Sei mir gegrüsst in the Andantino section. Among a handful of passages

projected as problematic for their trivial virtuoso interjections, the violin part in the variations

has been the center of much criticism.

Besides the issue of exhibiting empty virtuosity, the variations presented a whole new

dimension of problems for McCreless who elaborates on Arthur Godel’s claim that the Fantasy’s

  62  
virtuoso rendition utterly fails to capture the essence of Romanticism so vividly expressed in the

song: “empty virtuosity…applied thoughtlessly, needlessly to a song supposedly undeserving of

such treatment”.66 But does the Violin Fantasy actually need to do so to justify its musical worth?

In fact, because the variations are built upon a theme from a lied, the entire theme and variations

movement exemplifies how Schubert transforms his craft and communicates his intention

without a singer and the texts.

Friedrich Rückert’s strophic poem features a typical “tragic-ironic trope” of the

nineteenth century Romanticism: a protagonist’s hope and yearning never fulfilled in reality.67

There is also a clear sense of a progressive drama through the growing length of each stanza as

Schubert employs various means of text-painting to capture the essence of the poem. For his

instrumental rendition, Schubert creates a condensed version of the song into a twenty-four

measure binary variation theme. In doing so, Schubert makes several modifications, such as

omitting the piano introduction and inserting a refrain with a short motivic and a harmonic

sequence that somewhat resembles the digressions of the fifth stanza. According to McCreless

and Godel, the result of such modifications in the Violin Fantasy is an undesirable compromise.

Furthermore, the “cheap virtuoso variations” built on such poorly constructed theme negate the

essence of a progressive drama.68 Although McCreless and Godel’s assessment contains its logic

and rationale, it is based on a blunt juxtaposition lacking a critical perspective on the genres

fundamentally different in their tools of communication. A theme-with-variations structure

conveys an entirely different framework of expression from a lied. For his Fantasy, Schubert

simply borrowed a melody from a song to be reused as a source for strictly instrumental

                                                                                                               
66
McCreless, 207.
67
Ibid., 208.
68
Ibid., 210.

  63  
utterance within the framework of theme and variations. This shift in genre and instrumentation

certainly presents some obvious limitations in expression but at the same time, it allows other

new possibilities.

First, I will present McCreless’ viewpoint on how the concept of Romanticism is depicted

through various means in Sei mir gegrüsst. Then, I will discuss the ways in which Schubert

translates his musical language from a lied to an instrumental theme and variations. By

examining the losses and gains from shifting the genre, I hope to construct a plausible argument

against those by McCreless and Godel. Consequently, I will contextualize the violin part of the

variations to show how the virtuoso elements are once again a purposeful part of a more

comprehensive expression.

Romanticism Portrayed

According to McCreless, Schubert achieves a clear depiction of the Romantic dichotomy

between reality and the imagination by setting the inner voice to the singer’s first line: “O du

Entriss’ne mir und meinem Kusse” (O you, who have been torn from me and my kisses),

juxtaposed to the top melody line on the piano that represents “what the singer longs for but

cannot attain” (Example 13).69 Only when the singer utters the hopeful phrase “sei mir gegrüsst,

sei mir geküsst” (May I greet you, may I kiss you), does Schubert restore the melodic line to the

singer’s voice. Moreover, McCreless endorses the idea of the song’s literal representation of the

“unattainable beloved” by placing the piano’s melody on offbeats and in the higher register

hovering over the singer’s line, thus never in sync with the singer neither in time nor space.

                                                                                                               
69
Ibid., 221.

  64  
 Ex. 13: F. Schubert, Sei mir gegrüsst, Op. 20 No. 1, mm. 1-17.

There are a total of five strophes in Sei mir gegrüsst and each strophe grows in length

over the course of the entire lied, and the narrated drama intensifies with greater harmonic

digression each time. Throughout this “progressive intensification” as McCreless puts it, the

singer’s melodic line attempts to break out of the middle register by a means of Übergreifung

(“reaching over” to the top line), but without success (Figure 2).70 The gradual elevation of the

singer’s register towards the realm of the piano’s melodic line unmistakably indicates the ever-

growing yearning of the protagonist. After couple of attempts in the strophes 3 and 4, the singer

finally takes over the top register in the final strophe with the statement, “Ich bin bei dir, Du bist

bei mir” (I am with you, you are with me) in measures 82-85 (Example 14). For the first time in

the entire song, the singer’s hopeful plea for unification is not in the subjunctive mood or past

                                                                                                               
70
Ibid.  

  65  
tense, but in the present indicative mood.71 The much anticipated unification between the

protagonist and his beloved is hopeful yet momentary. Schubert depicts the short-lived illusion

with a conventional circle-of-fifths harmonic pattern, as opposed to the usual sequence in pair of

thirds.72 Plus, in these four measures, the rate of harmonic progression becomes four-times

quicker than the preceding equivalent spots (two chords in a measure as opposed to changing

every other measure), implying how the flow of time is perceived by the protagonist during such

a momentary glimpse of happiness. With the piano’s C♭ burst on the downbeat of measure 86,

the illusional unification is shattered as the singer cries in despair, “ich halte dich in diese Arms

Umschlusse” (I hold you closely in my arms’ embrace), holding on to the high G♭ before

returning back to reality in the middle register below the piano’s melody line (mm.86-89). The

G♭ sustained by the singer in measure 88 represents all the previous F#s (enharmonically spelled)

in the main subjunctive statement “Sei mir gegrüsst, sei mir geküsst” that always resolved down

to F natural but never upward.

Figure 2: McCreless’ linear analysis of Sei mir gegrüsst, strophes 3-5, mm. 30-77.73
                                                                                                               
71
Ibid.
72
Ibid.  
73
Ibid., 222.

  66  
 Ex. 14: F. Schubert, Sei mir gegrüsst, Op. 20 No. 1, mm. 74-99.

As McCreless suggests, the romantic-tragic trope in Friedrich Rückert’s poem is vividly

portrayed through Schubert’s masterful composition. Acknowledging Schubert’s musical

depiction through role-assigned voicing and harmonic manipulation along with other means of

text painting is certainly an agreeable interpretation. As a matter of fact, that is precisely what

Schubert sought to do as a prolific composer of German lieder. McCreless argues that all the

depiction of such a Romantic concept is completely lost in the Andantino’s theme where

Schubert simply applies the straightforward voicing from the song’s piano introduction unto both

  67  
instruments’ lines. Thus in the Fantasy’s variation theme, Schubert eliminates the potential for

any musical depiction of the lied’s texts.

Romantic Dichotomy Translated

In McCreless’s view, there is a clear representation of a protagonist and his beloved in Sei mir

gegrüsst. The protagonist’s state of wistful yearning is aurally depicted through Schubert’s

manipulation of register and rhythm between the voices: the singer and the piano. These

elements are accompanied by the underlying harmony in creating tension and momentum of a

progressive drama. However, all this aside, the text itself is the literal, thus the most compelling,

indication of a lied’s intended expression. While Schubert was undoubtedly gifted in setting

words to music, it was always the poetry in those texts that triggered the composer’s imagination

and propelled his musical creativity. However when the narrated drama takes a purely

instrumental form, such literal utterance is sacrificed. When Schubert borrows a melodic idea

from a song to write a variation theme for a violin-piano duo, the musical expression cannot be

as literal as the original lied. With the change of genre, there is a clear shift in Schubert’s

expressive goal: from text setting to composing a theme and variations that is a part of an

instrumental Fantasy. Thus, literal manifestation of the Romantic dichotomy was never

Schubert’s goal when writing the Andantino movement. The following in-depth examination of

the Andantino movement will suggest that Schubert does not completely disregard the elements

of Romanticism but simply translates the Romantic language into one more congenial and fitting

for instrumental variations.

  68  
The Formal Structure of the Theme

The lied Sei mir gegrüsst is in the key of B♭ major whereas the theme and variations section in

the Violin Fantasy is in the key of A♭ major (a lowered submediant in the piece’s overall key of

C major). Unlike in Sei mir gegrüsst, there is no introduction in the Fantasy’s Andantino

movement.74 In addition to omitting the introduction, Schubert makes other structural

adjustments. The first part of the theme, he combines different elements from the first eighteen

measures of the lied (the piano introduction plus the first strophe of the singer) into a ten-

measure opening statement of the theme played by the piano (Example 15.1-2). The phrase

structure of the theme is 4+6: a four-measure antecedent phrase and a four-measure consequent

phrase plus a repeat of the cadential gesture (V – I) in its last two measures. This asymmetry in

phrase construction is identical to the structure of the first strophe (mm. 9-18) from the song. The

antecedent phrase of the theme however resembles the first four measures of the piano

introduction in that the beginning part of the Urlinie (fundamental line) is similarly outlined

through the right hand of the piano (Figure 3).

                                                                                                               
74
 This omission is common considering that the material is now stated as a reworked
variation theme, intended for a single movement of a larger instrumental chamber work and not
as an independent set of variations such as his Trockne Blumen Variations, D. 802 for Flute and
Piano, where Schubert adds a piano introduction. In the Fantasy’s Andantino, the piano’s
statement of the theme can be regarded as a functional equivalent to an introduction in that it
introduces the main melody for later development.
Other cases in which the introduction is omitted when a song’s melody is reused for an
instrumental genre include, Die Forelle, D.550, in the fourth movement of the “Trout” Quintet in
A, D.667, and Der Tod und das Mädchen, D.531, in the second movement in String Quartet in D
minor “Death and the Maiden”, D.810.

  69  
 Ex. 15.1: F. Schubert, Sei mir gegrüsst, Op.20 No.1, mm. 1-22.

  70  
 Ex. 15.2: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934
Andantino, mm. 352-361.

Figure 3: McCreless’ linear analysis of Sei mir gegrüsst, mm. 1-8.75

The second part of the theme resembles the fifth stanza (mm. 61-77) in its motivic profile

but Schubert simplifies the dominant prolongation (mm. 61-65) into a two-measure cadential

pattern (V-I) (Example 16.1-2). The refrain spans fourteen measures with the phrase structure

laid out as 8+4+2. The overall structure of the theme appears as asymmetrical with irregular

phrase lengths. However, the harmonic rhythm underneath is much simpler and more

straightforward compared to the lied’s irregular strophic layout.

                                                                                                               
75
Ibid., 221.

  71  
 Ex. 16.1: F. Schubert, Sei mir gegrüsst, Op. 20 No. 1, mm. 59-73.

Ex. 16.2: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934 Andantino,
mm. 369-385.

  72  
 According to McCreless, the structural simplification in the Andantino’s theme is a

significant loss. However, a simple and straightforward profile is a necessity for a variation

theme, for it can then be modified, elaborated and developed in the following variations. A

theme that is structurally and aesthetically full blown would no longer suffice as a variation

theme. In fact, such elaboration of a motivic idea could possibly be considered a movement or an

independent piece, and that is not what Schubert intended here. In the Andantino movement,

there is no longer the same manipulation of voicing and intricate text painting, but

notwithstanding its obvious binary structure, the theme contains its own irregular phrase lengths,

rhythmic tension and harmonic digression.

Without the poem’s strophes to dictate a general framework, the formal structure of

Andantino’s theme is now presented in a more straightforward binary form. The piano’s opening

is not an introduction that prepares the singer’s entrance but a complete statement with its own

harmonic closure (I-V-vi-III-V-I). Then the statement is repeated when the violin reiterates the

top melody. Hence, motivically, the first part of the binary theme corresponds to the first and

second strophes of the song. However, now without the text and role-assignment, Schubert

manipulates the rhythm instead to express the emotional turbulence of the Romantic protagonist.

Over the entire span of Sei mir gegrüsst, the conceptual distance between the Romantic

protagonist and his unattainable beloved is shown through metric misalignment between the

singer and the piano’s right hand melody (Example 17.1). Now in the Andantino movement, the

right hand’s melody begins on the downbeat, as opposed to offbeats in the song, but Schubert

preserves rhythmic tension by aligning the straightforward melody against now syncopated left

hand (Example 17.2). The syncopation pattern is maintained until it begins to change in measure

357 when the right hand’s melody corresponds to the singer’s subjunctive phrase “sei mir

  73  
gegrüsst”. Then for the remaining four measures, the syncopation ceases and there is rhythmic

congruity between the hands as the left hand sings a countermelody in even eighth notes. The

rhythmic profile of the right hand melody bears some changes as well. In the song, the initial

three notes are played and sung evenly (either e e e or q q q) whereas in the Andantino, it is

altered to (q q. e). This altered model becomes an archetype for other rhythmic variations: (q q. dg

and q q r.g). These altered patterns effect a rhythmic anticipation and a constant momentum

towards the downbeat of the following measure. In larger context, when the altered rhythm in the

right hand melody is laid on top of the syncopated pattern of the left hand (e q q e), there is a

momentary unification in rhythm between the hands. As the result, there is a consistent

syncopation between the hands in the first five measures of the theme (mm. 352-356) until it is

reconciled in the following measures (mm. 358-360). Such a change in rhythmic pattern finds

another purpose when we observe the melodic alteration. The Romantic sentiment of restlessness

discomfort is expressed through 1) offbeat placement of the melody played by the right hand of

the piano in the introduction and 2) augmented second interval in the singer’s entrance (B♭ to

C#). When refashioning a variation theme for the Andantino, Schubert’s choices are

conventional in that he uses the top melodic line from the piano’s introduction instead of the

inner voice given to the singer and then applies the rhythmic stability of the singer’s line.

However, by inserting a chromatic filler (D♭) into the melodic contour (C-D♭-D♮-E♭) now in the

altered rhythm, Schubert delays the arrival on the first note of the descending Urlinie (E♭, 5̂ ) to

the second beat of the second measure as opposed to off the downbeat in the second measure in

the lied. Subsequently, the non-chord tones (passing tones) land on the downbeat of the measure.

  74  
This creates a momentary clash of pitches between the hands: D♮ (forming a tritone) together

with B♮ in the inner voice (forming an augmented second/ninth) against the A♭ octaves at the

bottom. By placing two non-chord tones on the downbeat and deliberately adding an accent on

the dissonances, Schubert sought to convey a feeling of uneasiness and provide a strong tonal

momentum.

Ex. 17.1: F. Schubert, Sei mir gegrüsst, Op. 20 No. 1, mm. 1-17.

  75  
Ex. 17.2: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934 Andantino,
mm. 352-363.

It is no coincidence that measure 358, where this rhythmic congruity occurs, is also an

important focal point in the opening harmonic progression: A♭M: I-V-vi-III (V/vi)-V-I (Example

17.2) The progression entails a sequential pair of descending fourths in the bass notes: I(A♭)

down to V(E♭), and vi(F) down to III(C), then V(E♭) down to I(A♭). This sequence creates an

illusion of a conventional pattern. McCreless also points out the fact that the pattern appears to

be circular although literally, it is not so.76 The mode mixture chord III (C, E♮, G) that precedes

V (E♭, G, B♭) is in fact a secondary dominant (V/vi) both in its harmonic function and also in the

way it is heard in the flow of the progression. Therefore, if the chord were to resolve normally,

the progression would be palindromic (I-V-vi-V/vi-vi-V-I).77 But Schubert breaks the

conventional rule of harmonic progression by “making the poignant move directly to V and thus

forcing the ♯ 5̂ (E♮) to behave as ♭ 6̂ ”.78 McCreless also mentions another possibility of a longer

                                                                                                               
76
Ibid.
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid.

  76  
harmonic digression by continuing the pattern of descending fourths, each a third lower: I-V, vi-

III, IV-I, ii…IV-I.79 Therefore, possibilities of various digressions are embedded in the harmonic

progression of the first six measures of the theme (I-V-vi-III). Schubert reinforces the feeling of

instability through the tension of rhythmic incongruity aforementioned and accented

dissonances, reconciled in measure 358, at which point the underlying harmony also returns to

the dominant (V). This inappropriately prepared resolution to V indicates, in a literal sense, a

break of a conventional progression, but also, aesthetically, it represents an abrupt return back to

the beginning of the protagonist’s imagined journey (back to reality) before completely grasping

his goal (successfully reaching his destination).

The first part of the theme is therefore deceptively straightforward. Schubert reconstructs

the song’s melody into a more conventional structure while manipulating its rhythmic profile in

the context of the given harmonic progression in order to project the song’s Romantic subtext,

only now in a more subtle way without the narrated poem. With his instrumental rendition of Sei

mir gegrüsst, Schubert strikes a balance between structural order and expressive freedom that is

in fact desirable and thus appropriate, for a variation theme.

Schubert maintains this balance throughout the second part of the theme. The

protagonist’s emotional and spiritual wandering, suggested through the gradual harmonic

digression over the span of five strophes, is now condensed into a sequential pattern over an

eight even measures (mm.372-379; refer to Example 16.2, page 74). The digression is regulated

by V-I pattern: A♭ major: V-I, ♭VII-♭III (V-I in C♭M), viiº7-iii64 (digression), VI7-ii (V-I in B♭

minor). Furthermore, the harmonic rhythm is conventional because it shows a typical 2+2

antecedent followed by 2+2 consequent phrase structure. Without the strophic text to govern the

                                                                                                               
79
Ibid.

  77  
emotional development and to motivate the expansion of phrases, the progressive drama narrated

throughout the entire song is now compressed into eight measures of regulated harmonic

digression. Although the harmonic rhythm is even and predictable, what these measures

represent structurally is a transition moving towards harmonic stability. Schubert reinforces this

structural function with a rhythmic motive from the first part of the theme. Let us examine the

rhythmic profile of the piano’s left hand from measure 357 (e q rty) (Example 17.2). This is a

break point in the syncopation pattern thus far observed (e q q e). The change is subtle, but in a

larger context measure 357 functions as a transition-like conduit that prepares the rhythmic

integration of the following measures. Throughout the first part of the theme, the only other time

this pattern occurs is in measure 367, the corresponding pattern-breaking moment during the

theme’s reiteration by the violin. Schubert employs this transition motive in the initial eight

measures of the second part to yield a rather subtle motivic coherence within the structure of the

theme.

In Sei mir gegrüsst, each strophe grows in length and the corresponding harmonic

digression intensifies. However, the most compelling manifestation of Romantic drama is the

gradual rise of the register of the singer who at the end takes over the top melodic voice (a brief

moment of unification with his beloved). Without the multiple attempts of the singer’s

Übergreifung (reaching over) in each strophe, the melodic line in the digression passage (mm.

372-379) in the theme displays a long stepwise ascent forming a contrary motion against the bass

(Example 16.2, page 74). Extra momentum is added to this motion of the outer voices when the

right hand joins the left hand’s rhythmic motive in measures 374 and 378, where the inner voice

of the left hand also creates a contrary motion against the top line. Thus the application of the

  78  
transition motive (e q rty) not only renders motivic coherence but also contributes to the

harmonic drive between the chords.

The Andantino’s theme is certainly not a literal rendition of Sei mir gegrüsst, but

rhetorically it does not need to be. Compared to the song, framework of the variation theme

imposes structural, and perhaps expressive, restrictions. Its structural purpose is different from

the lied and yet Schubert refashions and translates various text-painting maneuvers into ways

more fitting for two instruments, and manages to preserve some of the essential expression

communicated in the song.

The Variations

Schubert composed just three variations out of the Andantino’s theme. This is considerably less

compared to his other song-based instrumental variations: five variations for both the A major

Quintet, D.667, “Trout”, and the D minor String Quartet, D.810, “Death and the Maiden”, and

seven variations in Introduction and Variations for Flute and Piano, D.802, “Trockne Blumen”.

When we examine the entire framework of the Fantasy, such a compact design appears

structurally sufficient. The Andantino’s theme and variations is one of four sections that are

played continuously without a break. It functions as a part of a larger flow of expression. In

addition to the blurred boundaries, the Andantino’s motivic idea is reused as transitional material

between sections, mm. 458-479 and mm.639-664. Unlike the variation themes in D.667 and

D.810, the melodic material of Sei mir gegrüsst is integrated, beyond the boundary of the

Andantino, into a larger framework. Such integral usage negates the Andantino’s identity as an

independent movement with a self-contained theme. Thus, as an expressive part of the Fantasy’s

overall layout, the length of Andantino’s theme and variations is structurally proportionate.

  79  
Table 3: Formal Structure of the Violin Fantasy, D.934

I II III Transition [Reprise of IV [Reprise of CODA

Introduction] the theme]
(Transition)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1-36 37-351 352-457 458-479 480-492 493-638 639-664 665-700
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Andante Molto Allegretto Andantino Based on [Andante Molto] Allegro [Allegretto] Presto
Theme+Vars. the theme
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A A A Dev. A Dev. A B Dev. A B Dev. A

(aabab) (aabb)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C a—C A~a-C C~ A♭ A♭~V of C C C C a~C A ~~ a—C A♭~V of C C

What is unique about Andantino’s variations in comparison to other song-based

variations written by Schubert, is that there is a sense of progressive intensification with each one.

Schubert refrains from exploring mode mixture and meter adjustment in that all three variations

remain in the key of the theme (A♭ Major) and in the original meter (3/4). The obvious

manifestation of progressiveness is the gradual increase in rhythmic activity (Example 18). The

first variation begins with sixteenth notes in the violin part which accelerates into sextuplets

(mm. 392, 394). In the second variation, the right hand of the piano takes over the sextuplets

which then turn into thirty-second notes (mm. 416-418). In the last variation, the thirty-second

notes become a perpetual motion played by the violin.

  80  
 Ex. 18: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934
Andantino Variations, mm. 386-457.

  81  
 Ex. 18, continued.

  82  
 Ex. 18, continued.

  83  
 Ex. 18, continued.

  84  
 Ex. 18, continued.

  85  
 The less obvious, but the most intriguing manifestation of this progressive intensification

is the way Schubert treats the instruments throughout the variations. Unlike as in the Trockne

Blumen variations for Flute and Piano, both instruments constantly play a prominent role

throughout the entire variations. In a way, each variation features not only one but multiple

versions of variations laid on top of each other. Just as the theme is embedded in all the

arpeggiations of the violin in the first variation, the piano part, despite its rhythmic monotony,

also contains the melodic line of the theme as well as the inner voices and the bass. In other

words, there is never a moment where either instrument plays a role that is strictly

accompanimental. In the second variation, the piano breaks out of the rhythmic monotony. In

fact, each hand has its own motivic profile. The left hand appears to be an Alberti bass but it is

reminiscent of what the violin played before in that it contains the melody as well as the inner

voice. Compared to this, the pizzicato of the violin plays a more subservient voice in the texture,

but it features a separate contour of countermelody. Furthermore, the violin soon joins the piano

with its own rhythmic acceleration outlining a countermelody. In the last variation, the violin

takes over the thirty-second notes from the piano. If two hands of the piano displayed two

different voices in the second variation, now the violin’s busy figurations outline a moving

melody against pedal tones simultaneously. In the first two measures of the variation, Schubert

constructs an example of Übergreifung (reaching over) of an inner voice (refer to the detail in

Example 19.2 in page 94). In measure 434, the melodic pitches, C-C-D♭-E♭, are discreetly

planted in the violin’s figurations. In the next measure, the last note of the melody (E♭) becomes

a pedal note while the E♭ of a lower octave begins to more upward, rising above the register of

the melody. The rest of the figurations are constructed in a similar manner: (melody + pedal

tone). The piano returns to synchronized rhythm, but by no means is it an accompaniment to the

  86  
perpetual motion of the violin. Not only are the melody, the bass and the inner voice contained,

but its rhythmic/motivic profile is independent and individual enough to be considered as a

separate version of a variation. If the first variation features two central voices between the two

instruments, the second and third variations feature three distinctive lines: the piano plays two

voices in the second variations and then the violin plays two in the third.

The Andantino variations exhibit a rare case of an instrumental duet where the texture

rarely consists of a primary line of melody with an accompaniment. Here, such roles are neither

fixed nor apparent. There are incidents of motivic and rhythmic unification in cadential moments

(mm. 394, 408, 419, 433). However, the ensemble between the instruments is not built upon the

usual give-and-take dialogue through shared motives and rhythms. In fact, both instrument

present motivic and rhythmic profiles in each variation that are distinctive enough to suffice as

an independent take on the theme. The variations communicate a unique sense of a duet in that

two voices share a conceptual goal: progressive intensification, by means of rhythmic

acceleration and textural depth. In Sei mir gegrüsst, the gradual rise of the singer’s register and

corresponding harmonic digression portrayed the progressive drama of the poem’s expanding

strophes. Without a text in the Andantino’s variations, formal framework and harmonic structure

are modified to be shorter and fixed. However, Schubert repaints the emotional development of

the poem through an acceleration of rhythm and an increase in the number of motivic variations

and voices rendered by both the piano in the second variation and by the violin in the third

variation.

  87  
Virtuosity in the Variations

I have argued that the sentiment of Sei mir gegrüsst manifests differently in the Andantino’s

theme and variations. The variations are bounded by a fixed harmonic progression within a

binary framework. But amidst such structural confinement Schubert preserves the sense of

development in time, literally narrated in the song. As the music progresses from one variation to

the next, there is a continuous accumulation of tension achieved through increased rhythmic

activity and complex figuration. Accordingly, certain passages require ample amount of dexterity

from its players (i.e. the piano in the second variation and the violin in the third variation).

However, we must consider the unusual nature of the instrumental duet in these particular

variations and understand its goal of communication: translating the song’s progressive drama

into a language more idiosyncratic for an instrumental duet and for the character of variation

structure. The busy figurations of the variations that are often considered as virtuosic serve a

structural and a conceptual purpose. To better assess the virtuosic nature of instrumental writing

in the variations, we need not focus on the physical difficulty that arises from playing, but

instead dwell on what they represent in a bigger scheme of expression and what they intend to

communicate.

The Fantasy’s technical passagework has convinced many to categorize the work as a

virtuoso piece. However, without an understanding of their purpose, the Fantasy is too easily

viewed as a work unidiomatic for the violin with unrewarding and superfluous fingerwork. Many

violinists of the later generation including Boris Schwarz, made remarks in regards to certain

passages as virtually unplayable.80 Now I will discuss a case in which a violinist disregarded any

conceptual or structural purpose of the technical challenges in the variations, and primarily

                                                                                                               
80
Boris Schwarz, “Die Violinbehandlung bei Schubert,” in Zur Aufführungspraxis der Werke
Franz Schuberts, ed. Vera Schwarz (Munich, 1981), 90.

  88  
concerned with instrumental idiom, tried find a feasible solution by transposing the variations

from A♭ major to A major.81

The Fantasy’s Variations: Idiomatic Rendition by the Violinist August Wilhelmj

August Wilhelmj (1845-1908) was a German virtuoso of the nineteenth century. Wilhelmj’s

attempt to cope with technical challenges presented by the Fantasy has led him to write his own

edition of the Fantasy with considerable modifications in regards to pitches, figurations, and the

allocation of motives between the violin and the piano. Wilhelmj sought to create a version that

is more idiomatic by transposing the entire theme and variations up a half step: from A♭ major to

A major. From a violinist’s view Wilhelmj’s intention is apparent in that transposition yields

more open E-string playing thus relieving the performer from the burden of constant string

crossing.82 The variations I and III are case in point.

While Wilhelmj’s solution eliminates considerable amount of string crossings, this is the

only advantage. In fact, playing the variations in A major generates issues not present in the

original. The theme of the Sei mir gegrüsst is embedded in perpetual figuration. In the first

variation, the challenge is to bring forth the melodic pitches as a flowing line in the midst of

constant string crossing and busy arpeggiations. Now in A major, open A and open E strings

                                                                                                               
81
Schubert, Werke für Klavier und ein Instrument, Schubert: Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher
Werke, ser. VI, vol. 8, foreword, ix.
82
Virtuoso violinists of the Romantic era were acutely conscious of favorable keys for their
instrument. Paganini wrote the orchestra parts to his first violin concerto in the key of E♭ major
for a more subdued color (less open string playing) to accompany the solo part written in D
major to be tuned a semitone higher for performance. This scordatura practice, nowadays
obsolete, allowed Paganini to perform in the key of E♭ while achieving the brilliance of the
instrument rendered by the key of D major (i.e. more open strings, generating overtones with less
effort, and fingerings that are more idiomatic). Pablo de Sarasate, a virtuoso violinist exact
contemporary of Wilhelmj’s, transcribed Chopin’s Nocturne in D♭ major into violin and piano
accompaniment version in D major for the same reasons.

  89  
become available for use, eliminating the consecutive string crossings for the first measure and

half (Example 19.1). For the following measures, Wilhelmj’s fingerings suggest a shift from

consecutive string crossings back to a simplified bow maneuver. Even in this four-measure

antecedent phrase there is inconsistency not only in bow maneuver but more importantly, in

color. Open strings on a violin yield greater resonance and special timbre. But at the same time,

warmth in tone is compromised. Out of all the open strings on a violin, the open E string,

although variable depending on the instrument and the string type, will more often than not yield

a bright and piercing timbre. When the desired effect and goal is to delineate the melodic pitches

(C♯-D♮-D♯-E), all struck on the E string, playing an open E around the melodic pitches will

blend the color and make it significantly harder to accentuate the line of the melody.

Furthermore, although the burden of constant string crossing is somewhat lifted by taking

advantage of the open strings, it forces extra shifting for the left hand that is both unnecessary

and counterintuitive. Plus, the first two measures suggest a tonic prolongation with a chromatic

ascent of the melodic line from 3̂ to 5̂ . E, the fifth of the A major triad, is the only non-moving

note and harmonically the least important one in this context. Considering how often it is played

in these two measures, using the bright open string for E is theoretically and aesthetically

undesirable. Therefore, there is no convincing reason, both musically and technically, to use an

opening string simply for the sake of convenience for the bow arm. The utility of employing the

open E string, achieved through transposing the movement up to A major, is in fact a musical

and technical disadvantage in this case.

  90  
 Ex. 19.1: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159 – D.934
transcribed by August Wilhelmj, Andantino, First Variation, mm. 386-388.

The issue that arises from taking advantage of open strings remains musically

counterintuitive in the third variation for the reasons already stated. Here, the linear motion of

the theme is further obscured by the faster rhythmic motion (from sixteenth to thirty-second

notes) (Example 19.2). From a point of execution, transposing to A major is most beneficial in

measures two and four (and wherever the string crossing involves an open E string throughout

the rest of the variation). Unlike in the first two measures of the first variation, in the second

measure of the third variation, E is in fact a melodic pitch ( 5̂ ) that functions as a quasi-pedal

tone for the arpeggiating voice that embellishes the melody. Because the rate at which notes pass

by is now considerably quicker, it is all the more important to delineate the voices involved by

using different strings as much as possible. In the fourth measure, E is no longer a part of the

melodic line (B-B-C♯-D) but once again functions as a pedal tone which is of secondary

importance against the moving voice. However, Wilhelmj’s fingerings of utilizing the open E

string do not help delineating this moving voice.

  91  
 Ex. 19.2: F. Schubert, Fantasy in C major for Violin and Piano, Op. posth.159, D.934 transcribed
by August Wilhelmj, Andantino, Third Variation, mm. 434-437.

The technical elements in the Fantasy have been criticized for the lack of musical

content. The performer faces a greater challenge in the third variation where the rhythmic

activity heightens for both hands. The perpetual drive of thirty-second notes easily lends it an

etude-like quality. The performer is given the task of producing variety of timbres for different

voices as much as the instrument allows, and constructing a sensible phrasing accordingly.

Utilization of open E strings in the third variation, once again, relieves the player of abundant

string crossings, but the result is a monotonous color that only contributes to an already etude-

like nature of the variation.

Transposing the theme and variations to A major has an acoustic advantage, a key more

favorable to the instrument in regards to resonance and overtones yielding more brilliance and

greater sound projection, and a technical advantage, utilization of open strings eliminating busy

string crossings in certain measures. However, the performer is left with fingerings that are

counterintuitive (e.g. beginning of the first var.) and an undesirable blend of color where

delineation of voices is crucial. Semitone transposition generates more issues for the performer

because it fails to take into account the challenge pertaining to musical expression of each

  92  
variation. Furthermore, writing the theme and variations in A major creates entirely new

dimensions of problems in the work’s overall harmonic layout. Hence, Wilhelmj’s solution has

little benefit in exchange for much compromise in a work criticized for its empty virtuosity and

sometimes, for its structural ambiguity.

Re-defining Virtuosity

I hope to have proposed a different approach to understanding the virtuoso elements in

Schubert’s violin music by juxtaposing some of Paganini’s music and also by incorporating other

scholars’ criticisms on the Violin Fantasy. A careful analysis dissects a piece’s thematic,

harmonic, and organizational structure, and provides insights into composer’s style and even

intentions. However, virtuosity is a topic that cannot be organically explained in terms of

traditional analysis alone. Virtuosity does not have a theoretical vocabulary. The style of

Paganini’s music is deeply embedded in virtuoso elements. Paganini himself was a virtuoso

performer, so identifying the meaning and function of those elements is relatively

straightforward. Schubert was never a virtuoso performer nor is he known for writing virtuoso

music. As McCreless claimed, virtuosity was not Schubert’s voice. So can we even label the

Violin Fantasy as “virtuoso” music? If virtuoso music must render flashy effects and bravura,

then the Violin Fantasy is not one. But, ever since its unsuccessful premiere in 1828 in Vienna, a

handful of criticism and analyses has classified the Fantasy as a virtuoso piece and moreover, a

poorly conceived one. In the midst of all the contextualization and comparative analyses

conducted in this paper, we have yet to clarify how one comes to define virtuosity. The analyses

and criticism of the Violin Fantasy presented thus far by various scholars are built upon a hazy

premise that technical difficulty equals virtuosity. Even if this equation is valid, technical

  93  
difficulty is an assessment that can be precisely brought forth only by an individual who

physically realizes the written notes on the music, the performer. Therefore, besides discussing

whether or not the virtuoso elements in the Violin Fantasy serve a valid purpose, we must delve

into other more important questions: is it virtuoso music to begin with? Does the fact that

Fantasy presents technical difficulties for the player make it virtuoso music? and finally, how do

we define technical difficulty? To clarify these issues, I now propose a performer’s perspective

upon the topic of technical difficulty and then investigate the meaning of it in Schubert’s music.

  94  
 CHAPTER FOUR

A PERFORMER’S PERSPECTIVE

Technique and Technical Difficulty

Maurice Brown, a modern-day exponent of Schubert scholarship, shares his view in regards to

the writing of the Fantasy that despite hints of promise at the beginning of each section, the

music “soon becomes embroidered with superfluous virtuosity”.83 Brown and McCreless’

scholastic evaluation and criticisms of the Fantasy’s virtuosity are constructed upon the proposed

claim that it is technically too difficult. Yet their assessments on the topic of technical difficulty

in Schubert’s Fantasy are misleading and outdated for the following reasons.

First, the concept of technique and any difficulty generated by it within a piece of music

cannot be assessed in the same manner by its performer, who realizes physically the virtuoso

writing, and by the non-performer, scholars and theorists who incorporate and apply their

expertise in analysis to assess the degree of technical challenge. The mechanics of violin

technique entail various types of physical maneuver involving muscle manipulation: complex

fingerings, stretches, and quick leaps for the left hand as well as various bow strokes, divisions

and controls, and then combinations of such elements. However, the concept of technique cannot

be explained by precision and coordination of physics alone. Instrument playing requires highly

sophisticated sensory and motor exercises that are conducted by a person who performs the

necessary muscle manipulation governed by his thoughts and feelings. Furthermore, when these

virtuoso pieces are performed by a person with a wide palette of emotion, sentiment and nuance

are infused into physical precision. In other words, technique is an inseparable component of

                                                                                                               
83
Brown, 270.

  95  
artistic expression of a musical work that can only be realized by an individual who participates

in the actual process, the performer. Thus, physical realization of written music, especially of the

ones written by an individual such as Schubert who often performed his own chamber music,

becomes imperative in understanding the composer’s perspective by participating in the

manifestation of the expression. Paganini’s music holds the same truth. When discussing the

chamber music of Schubert or the virtuoso violin music of Paganini, the aesthetic value of a

work cannot be broken down just into the language of theoretical analysis nor can the

manifestation of expressive nuance and phrasing therein be captured only with musicological

facts and insights, no matter how thorough and comprehensive they might be. It is a performer’s

prerogative to be able to approach a piece of music beyond printed notes and documented facts

by possessing the tools to experience first-handedly the perspective of a composer-as-a-

performer. Physical realization of such music potentially fosters a new realm of interpretation

and insights otherwise unattainable.

Second, the concept of “technical difficulty” is perceived quite differently from one

performer to another because individual strengths and weaknesses will vary depending on one’s

physical as well as mental training in addition to any particular disciplinary routines. When it

comes to playing the violin, certain physical attributes alone can influence one’s perception of

technical difficulty. For instance, an individual with larger hands and longer fingers is less likely

to be burdened by complex chords that require strenuous stretches. Also, having thick fingers is

advantageous when playing the fifth interval that requires covering two strings with one finger

yet at the same time, it is more challenging to execute quick scales of whole and half steps in

very high positions, due to such close proximity of pitches on higher part of the fingerboard,

requiring a person with thick fingers to either wedge them together as much as possible or to

  96  
simply make minute in-position shifts. When we consider the habitual tendencies as well as

mental strengths and weaknesses of each individual, there are a myriad of factors that govern the

perception of executional difficulty in playing the violin. Thus, the effort to objectively define

technical difficulty in violin music is counter-productive and unintuitive.

Third, the general perception of “technical difficulty” in violin playing has also changed

significantly over time. The average level of technical prowess among violinists has risen

drastically as well as steadily ever since 1828. In the early nineteenth century, there was scarcely

a violinist with dexterity to master the technical challenges proposed by the Violin Fantasy or

any of Paganini’s concertos and variations.84 Then, the post-Paganini era witnessed the

flourishing of romantic virtuoso violinists. The early nineteenth-century virtuoso music of

Schubert and Paganini is still considered challenging in our time. However, with the

development of systematic pedagogy and organized training at institutions with broader

disciplinary methods of the modern day, that music has become much more accessible to handful

of contemporary virtuosos.

Technical difficulty in violin music cannot be purely objective in its concept; instead, it

varies among players who come to encounter it. Even if technical challenges in violin music of

1828 could have been objectively assessed and then categorized into different levels, the issue of

difficulty as perceived now in the twenty-first century, cannot be a decisive and compelling

reason in itself to discredit the entire musical value of the Violin Fantasy.

Technical difficulty is subjective in nature therefore it cannot be generalized and certainly

cannot be addressed interchangeably with the term virtuosity. At times, virtuoso writing will

                                                                                                               
84
Heinrich Wilhelm Ernst is generally considered as the only virtuoso contemporary of
Paganini who not only sought to emulate the feats of the Italian but surpassed his rival in some
regards, as considered by critics and scholars.

  97  
present technical challenge, but not always. Also, just because a work presents technical

challenges, does not mean the music should be called a “virtuoso” piece. Let us again contrast

the writing in the violin music of Paganini with that of Schubert’s Violin Fantasy. The style and

character are certainly different. The general conception of “difficulty” also varies significantly

in nature. Nonetheless, from a performer’s perspective, they both feature technical challenges.

Suppose a concert violinist with a consummate mastery of the instrument delivers a musically

convincing and technically flawless performance of a theme and variations by Paganini

alongside Schubert’s Violin Fantasy. The performer’s perception of the technical challenge

presented by both pieces might not differ significantly, but from a listener’s perspective, the

“virtuoso” effects rendered are not nearly the same. Ever since a concept of virtuosity was

epitomized by Paganini and reinforced through a pool of nineteenth century violin literature, the

term implied display of effects that are more explicit than implicit. If we are to uphold the

viewpoints of Brown and McCreless and consider the Violin Fantasy as a virtuoso piece, then we

endorse the notion that its virtuosity communicates an entirely different concept and purpose

from the virtuosity understood in 1828 in Vienna. The alternative approach would be to

understand the Violin Fantasy as a work that does not exhibit virtuosity per se with deliberate

and explicit effects, but a work exhibiting subtle structural coherence with challenging technical

passages that are unflattering in their effects yet pivotal once their contextual function and

expressive purpose are understood, and certainly rewarding when a performance can be carried

out with such understanding.

  98  
A Performer’s Prerogative and Responsibility

When a piece of music is analyzed as a composition written on paper, various theoretical

components can be assessed. Furthermore, such analysis provides not just critical insights into

the composer’s musical personality but often political, social and economic context surrounding

the work. However, the essence of a piece of music goes far beyond the realm of its

compositional elements and other extra-musical contexts, especially in the music written by

composer-performers such as Paganini and Schubert. The shift in musical trend and the fetish of

virtuosity acquired through Biedermeier sentiment were certainly important factors behind the

general public’s infatuation in the early nineteenth century. But beside compositional coherence

and executional brilliance, at the core of the Paganinian sensation was the performer’s ability to

communicate his music beyond the written notes and physical execution. It was Paganini’s

unique approach and personal interpretation of his music that made his virtuosity one of a kind.

It was then that his virtuosity was transformed into an art form and ultimately became an

indispensible part of musical expression. Therefore, a performer’s responsibility stretches

beyond accurate observation and execution of written components in music. Compared to the

flamboyant and explicit nature of virtuosity in Paganini’s music, the writing in Schubert’s Violin

Fantasy requires more contextual interpretation from its performer.

The criticisms and the programming history behind the Fantasy have proven that the

work’s laborious yet aurally unimpressive technical passages have been viewed through a

confined perspective. The fact that a palpable shift in musical trend was evident and that

Schubert had written the work for virtuoso performers, Bocklet and Slavik, have encouraged

scholars and musicologists to address the work only by the nineteenth century standard of

virtuosity. But as my analysis suggests, the virtuoso elements in the Fantasy should not be

  99  
approached so for various reasons. Schubert’s musical output, especially during his last few

years, was impressively consistent in its craftsmanship and maturity. Schubert’s struggle at the

time for financial stability as well as his hope for acknowledgement as a serious composer

conveniently support a view that the Fantasy was the composer’s poor attempt at the new trend

and was composed only for a reason of appealing to a decadent taste of the general public. But

when we examine the works written around Schubert’s final years, there is hardly a piece

conceived for such practical purpose where the composer completely abandons his character and

integrity. Schubert’s uncompromising character and integrity as a composer is well represented

by the incident during his audition for the conductor position at the Imperial Opera in 1826.85 A

review from Theatrezeitung of Vienna expressed an impression of the Fantasy’s premiere as the

following: “[The premiere] showed up Slavik’s shortcomings and thought it would only be

appreciated by an audience of ‘true connoisseurs’”.86 Because the same performers premiered the

Rondo Brillante in B with a considerable success just a year before, perhaps with the Violin

Fantasy Schubert felt even freer from any concern about the physical realization of his writing

and focused on sheer expression by composing a piece with many subtleties only truly insightful

connoisseurs could appreciate.

                                                                                                               
85
Schubert struggled to make a name in the field of theater in the early 1820’s. Without the
system of aristocratic patronage and without the skill and persona of a concert virtuoso, Schubert
sought ways to earn a steady income by auditioning for these posts. During a rehearsal, when a
soprano insisted on making a minor change to some high notes in an aria, Schubert refused at
once. When other members of the orchestra as well as the director suggested modifying a couple
of pitches, Schubert stormed out, virtually terminating any further opportunities for himself in
the field.
86
An anonymous reviewer of Theaterzeitung (April 4, 1828), quoted in Renée de Saussine,
Paganini trans. Marjorie Laurie (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1954), 94.  

  100  
 CONCLUSION

Schubert’s Vienna was a world of music in which there was a clear division between that of

private and that of public; songs, sonatas and chamber music were intended for the enjoyment of

the players in private settings (in which Schubert himself actively participated as a performer)

and operas and symphonies were intended for a larger public in concert halls.87 Although

Schubert left us with considerable amount of music of both kinds, he certainly excelled in

writing music intended for a more private setting: Lieder and Kammermusik, the kind in which

essence of the music is communicated as an ensemble between its participants.88 David

Schroeder emphasizes the fact that Schubert’s role as an active participant in performing his own

chamber music undeniably influenced the way all of his music was conceived and expressed.

Since [Schubert] wrote the vast majority of his works for these intimate
performing settings, both solo and ensemble, he places himself in his own
audience, experiencing the works in much the same way as the other participants.
He wished more than anything to share his works with others able to understand
them, and that understanding in large measure arises from an ability to perform
them, as Schubert himself performs them, finding something that cannot arise
from a listening experience.89

Schubert certainly did not possess such consummate mastery of execution in any particular

instrument as did Paganini in violin. But his playing on the piano, especially when he performed

his own compositions, exhibited rich expressivity and insightful phrasing. Louis Schlösser, one

                                                                                                               
87
Schroeder, 62.
88 Some of his music for a larger public setting assumes a smaller chamber ensemble in its

core conception. Throughout his symphonies, Schubert’s orchestration only became truly
symphonic in concept with his eighth “Unfinished” (1822), notwithstanding the fact that only
two movements were completed. The preceding six (excluding the seventh symphony drafted in
1821 for which only a part of the opening movement was fully orchestrated by the composer) are
more of an orchestral expansion on string quartet writing.
89
Ibid., 67-68.  

  101  
of the connoisseurs fortunate to be present at one of Schubert’s matinee concerts described

Schubert’s performance style.

Much as I liked the pieces I should not care to say for certain whether they were
published exactly as he played them on this occasion from the sketch,
improvising, as it were, rather than actually playing from the music. How
spontaneous it sounded! How his eyes shone. I listened to the sounds with
indescribable excitement–and yet, from the standpoint of virtuoso performance,
this piano playing could not in any way compete with the world-famous Viennese
master pianists. With Schubert, the expression of the emotions of the world within
him obviously far outweighed his technical development. But who could think of
this when, carried away by some bold flight of imagination, oblivious of
everything round him, he recited the mighty C minor Fantasia[sic] [the
“Wanderer”] or the A minor Sonata! It is not without reason that I choose this
word; for the long familiar pieces sounded to me like dramatic recitation, like the
outpourings of a soul which creates its musical forms from the depths of its being
and clothes them in the garment of immaculate grace.90

Schubert did not perform all the chamber music he ever wrote. In fact, he could not play some of

his own piano works such as the last part of the Wanderer Fantasy for the piano, D.760. But

what we can project here is his composer-as-performer approach to writing these types of music

for more intimate settings and how a performer plays an integral part of expression in Schubert’s

music.

The fact that Schubert never identified himself as a virtuoso performer nor wrote his

music to showcase virtuosity suggests a critical insight as to how technical passages in the Violin

Fantasy, often categorized as virtuosic, are but a byproduct of conveying a more comprehensive

idea. One of the reasons behind Schubert’s underrated career during his time was his

uncompromising musical integrity that governed his compositional process. As much as

Schubert had hoped to win his Viennese public at the time of change in musical trend, it is hardly

conceivable that he would incorporate any effect-rendering pretentious gesture in his artistic

                                                                                                               
90
Otto Erich Deutsch, ed., Schubert: Memoir by His Friends, trans. Rosamond Ley and John
Nowell (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1958), 330.

  102  
creativity. Schubert’s character and personality as a composer as well as a performer of his own

music are indications of how the issues of technique and technical challenge should be perceived

as a means for musical expression and how performers of Schubert’s Violin Fantasy should treat

those issues accordingly, thus taking a pivotal step toward the composer’s language in his art.

  103  
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Abraham, Gerald. The Music of Schubert. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1947.

Boyd, Malcolm. Music and the French Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992.

Brendel, Alfred. Musical Thoughts and Afterthoughts. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1976.

Brown, Maurice J. E. Schubert: A Critical Biography. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1958.

______. Schubert’s Variations. London: MacMillan & Co. Ltd. 1954.

Burk, J. N. “The Fetish of Virtuosity.” The Musical Quarterly 4, no. 2 (April 1918): 282-292.

Einstein, Alfred. Schubert: A Musical Portrait. New York: Oxford University Press, 1951.

Kawabata, Maiko. “Virtuoso Codes of Violin Performance: Power, Military Heroism, and
Gender (1789-1830).” 19th-Century Music 28, no.2 (Fall 2004): 89-107.

McCreless, Patrick. “A Candidate for the Canon?: A New Look at Schubert’s Fantasie in C
Major for Violin and Piano.” 19th-Century Music 20, no. 3 (1997): 205-230.

McKay, Elizabeth Norman. Franz Schubert: A Biography. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

______. “Schubert as a Composer of Operas.” In Schubert Studies: Problems of Style and

Chronology. edited by Eva Badura-Skoda and Peter Branscombe, 85-104. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Meyerbeer, Giacomo. The Diaries of Giacomo Meyerbeer. edited, translated, and annotated by
Robert Ignatius Letellier Madison. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2004.

Osborne, Charles. Schubert and His Vienna. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1985.

Putz, Franz. Franz Schubert: 1797-1828. Translated by Paul Catty. Vienna: Federal Press
Service, 1997.

Raynor, Henry. Music & Society Since 1815. New York: Schocken Books, 1976.

Reed, John. Schubert. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1997.

______. Schubert: The Final Years. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1972.

  104  
Rowe, Mark W. Heinrich Wilhelm Ernst: Virtuoso Violinist. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing
Company, 2008.

Saussine. Renée de. Paganini. Translated by Marjorie Laurie. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., 1954.

Schroder, David. Our Schubert: His Enduring Legacy. Plymouth: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.,
2009.

Sheppard, Leslie and Herbert R. Axelrod. Paganini. Neptune City: Paganiniana Publications,
Inc., 1979.

Stratton, Stephen S. Niccolo Paganini: His Life and Work. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1907.

Sugden, John. Niccolo Paganini: Supreme Violinist or Devil’s Fiddler? . Neptune City:
Paganiniana Publications, Inc., 1980.

Hutchings, Arthur. Schubert. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1945.

Secondary Sources

Baker, Richard. Schubert: A Life in Words and Pictures. London: Little, Brown and Company,
1997.

Black, Leo. Franz Schubert: Music and Belief. New York: The Boydell Press, 2003.

Brown, Maurice J. E. Essays on Schubert. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966.

_____. The New Grove Schubert. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980.

Clark, Suzannah. “From Nature to Logic in Schubert’s Instrumental Music.” PhD diss.,
University of Michigan, 1997.

Courcy, G. I. C. de. Chronologie von Nicolo Paganinis Leben. Translated by Hans Dünnebeil.
Wiesbaden: Rud. Erdmann, 1961.

______. Paganini: the Genoese. Vol. 1. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1957.

Damschroder. Harmony in Schubert. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Day, Harold, ed. Niccolo Paganini: Journals & Jottings. Translated by John Parker. Hobart:
Hobart Press, 2002.

  105  
Deutsch, Otto Erich. Franz Schubert: Die Dokumente Seines Lebens. Translated by Eric Blom.
London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1946.

Flodin, Robert W. The Meaning of Paganini. San Francisco: Morgan Printing Company, 1953.

Flower, Newman. Franz Schubert, The Man and His Circle. New York: Tudor Publishing Co.,
1939.

Kramer, Lawrence. Franz Schubert: Sexuality, Subjectivity, Song. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1998.

Marek, George R. Schubert. New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1985.

Mosonyi, Pierre and Myriam Mason. trans. Bicentenaire de la Revolution Francaise. London:
1995.

Newbould, Brian. ed. Schubert the Progressive: History, Performance Practice, Analysis.
Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2003.

Whitaker-Wilson. Franz Schubert: Man and Composer. London: William Reeves Bookseller
Ltd., 1928.

  106