EMILIE MAYER’S STRING QUARTET IN E-MINOR

by Albrecht Zumbrunn (January 15 2016)

1.        Introduction

Emilie Mayer’s chamber music is almost unknown today--much of it was never published even in the composer’s lifetime.  As of now we have a recording of some of her violin sonatas^[1] and of her g-minor quartet op. 14^[2] as well as the cello sonata op. 47^[3].  The sheet music of only a few chamber pieces^[4] (not including the quartet in e-minor) is available in sheet music stores at this time and even IMSLP covers only a small fraction of her output.  In May 2014 an autograph of a quartet in e-minor by Emilie Mayer was posted to IMSLP.  In order to get to know the piece I decided to make a typeset of the work.  Later I posted the  result on IMSLP for people who might want to study, rehearse or perform the quartet.  This article is an attempt to try and convince readers of the quality of this quartet.  I hope someone will eventually perform and/or record it.

2.         The Sources

The autograph mentioned was part of Mayer’s estate which is kept at the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin.  On a hunch I checked the website of the Staatsbibliothek (digitized materials here) and found two additional manuscripts of a quartet in e-minor by Emilie Mayer, all digitized in good quality.

The first manuscript, the autograph posted to IMSLP (library signature: Mus.ms.autogr. Mayer, E. 15), is a score containing four movements in two notebooks written in ink with great care.  It appears to be a fair copy.  However one also finds some corrections in pencil (11 in the first movement, 2 each in the second and third movements and one in the finale).  They were presumably entered at some later point in time, when the author was apparently no longer entirely satisfied with the piece, especially with the first movement.

The second manuscript, another score (Mus.ms.autogr. Mayer, E. 15a M), is written in pencil and contains a reworked version of the first movement along with three entirely different movements.  It is a working copy containing numerous corrections and crossings out, sometimes corrections within crossed out measures.

The third source (Mus.ms.autogr. Mayer, E. 15b M)^[5] is a set of four parts containing the same four movements as the second source.  The music differs in some details from the second source, especially in the first movement.  These parts have again the appearance of carefully written fair copies.  It came as a surprise that a few measures were missing in all

parts at apparently random locations^[6] (different measures in each part).  This error would have made the parts practically unusable for players.  The fact that no attempt at correcting these errors (e.g. by pasting over or by entering the missing notes in between the lines) can be detected would seem to indicate that these parts were never used for a performance.

None of these manuscripts are dated^[7].  Most or all of the quartets are generally assumed to have been written in the 1850s^[8], probably based on letters, diaries, performance dates etc.

It will be difficult to date these autographs more precisely, but it is possible to date them relative to each other.  The first manuscript score, although a fair copy contains nonetheless corrections in pencil which were most likely entered some time later.  The second source represents a more thorough reworking of the first movement.  It also incorporates many of the pencil corrections found in the first source (compare e.g. the two examples in figure 1:  The added semiquavers in the first violin as well as the changed pattern in the viola appear in pencil in source 1 and as definitive text in sources 2 and 3).  This suggests strongly that the second score was written later than the first.  The third manuscript--the four parts--deviates in some (sometimes significant) details from source 2, but keeps the overall plan intact.  An autograph of the score on which the parts would have been based probably existed, written later than source 2.

Performances of the quartet in e-minor are reported in 1851 and again in 1854^[9].  One may guess that the version of the first score was performed in 1851.  It is possible that the performance in 1854 featured an updated version of the work, but given the practical difficulties posed by the missing measures in source 3 it is unlikely that those parts were used.  Which leaves open the possibility that source 3 (and source 2?) represents a version of the quartet that is younger than the 1854 performance date.

3.        Two Versions

Given these three autographs the project to typeset the work became more complicated than anticipated.  I decided on two versions^[10]:

Version 1 was the quartet as written in the first autograph, the one published on IMSLP.  It was typeset from the text written in ink ignoring the corrections in pencil^[11].  An appendix was added to the score listing all these corrections in detail.

Version 2 was typeset from the third source (the set of parts) using the second source as a backup source (for the missing measures mostly)^[12].

This way we now have a score and parts for the earliest known version of the quartet as well as for the latest known version which can be used to study, rehearse, coach or perform the e-minor quartet in either version.

4.        The First Movement

The first movement, Allegro maestoso is the only movement the two versions share.  It underwent significant revisions on its way from version 1 to version 2.  The following is an attempt to represent both versions of this movement side by side as it moves through the stages of sonata form.  The example on the left is always version 1.

4.1.  “Introduction”:  The work opens with a theme preceding the actual first subject^[13].  This theme is based on a descending e-minor scale in the cello:

The changes from version 1 to 2 are:  

A “clean” e-minor scale was substituted for the “embellished” scale of the first version, then varied at its second appearance.  This version of the opening is only found in source 3, source 2 is still following the first version with only minor changes.

The repeated fermatas^[14] in the final measures were removed.  This way the passage, rather than suffering from a stop and go effect, moves uninterrupted, rallentando to the B major chord and from there directly into the first subject.

The first version by contrast contains a transition measure (M. 21).  The motive it features in the first violin reappears throughout the piece in transitional and modulating sections (in both versions).

Version 1: 20 measures plus 1 transition measure; version 2:  20 measures.

4.2.  First Subject:  The first subject (a falling triad) differs only in details between the two versions.  After a confirmation of e-minor in unison the music moves to F sharp major and spends some time there, setting up the second subject.  

Version 1: 26 measures; version 2:  25 measures.  Figure 1 shows the beginning of the section in version 1 (above) and 2 (below).

4.3.  Second Subject:  The second subject--like the “introduction”--is based on a descending scale.

Version 1:  In the last measure before the second subject begins the music stops on an F sharp major chord, then restarts with the upbeat to the second subject in forte and surprisingly in b-minor--the rulebook would require B-Major here.  

Version 2:  Here the music does not stop; the flow is continuing and the second violin introduces the second subject comparatively discreetly in B-Major in piano.  However, only eight measures later the first violin takes over and plays the theme forte and in b-minor, not to return to the Major again:  As if the Major had been an error.  

The codetta of version 1 is based on the modulating section that leads into the second subject.  The codetta of the second version is entirely new, based on a descending scale, this time chromatic.  

Version 1:  34 measures, plus codetta of 6 measures; version 2:  17 measures plus codetta of 6 measures.

4.4.  Development:  Version 1:  The development is mostly built on material from the first subject, material from the “introduction” appears shortly before the music leads back to the recapitulation.

Version 2:  The development section of the second version is newly composed; it still relates mostly to material from the first subject, which is used more freely than in the first version.  A sense of tension is built on a slow chromatic rise, then the music relaxes directly into the short lead back to the recapitulation.

Version 1:  46 measures; Version 2:  35 measures.

4.5.  Recapitulation -- “Introduction”:  At this point the two versions begin to differ more decisively.  In the first version the “introduction” is restated almost literally--including all the fermatas. In the exposition there was one measure of transition to the first subject, here the transition is expanded to four measures featuring some witty play with the violin motif.  

In the second version though the theme is modified to afford a big surprise:  The descending scale is now transformed into a run in triplets plaid forte by the viola and cello in octaves, the harmony being supplied by the two violins in double stops.  It is an almost violent effect (below the entire section from version 2).

The final measures of the “introduction” are also modified in version 2; they are now in piano, any trace of the fermatas is gone and the modulation leads to a-minor, the key in which the principal subject appears!  

Version 1:  20 measures plus 4 measures transition; version 2:  21 measures.

4.6.  Recapitulation -- Principal Subject:  Again, the first version features a nearly identical, somewhat embellished repeat of the subject.  The long modulating passage leading to the second subject is also restated.

In version 2 the texture is changed significantly, adding triplets to the mix.  Moreover, not only does the first subject start in a-minor (the subdominant of the main key), the music moves through g-minor and d-minor, back to a-minor for an unisono measure and eventually reaches the B-Major chord in 3 measures over a pedal point on b in preparation for the second subject.  The section feels more like a continuation of the development than a reprise.  

Version 1:  27 measures; version 2:  13 measures.

4.7.  Recapitulation -- Second Subject.  Version 1:  Unlike in the exposition the second subject starts in major, E-major, according to the rule book, then falls back into e-minor after 8 measures and stays in minor for the rest of the section.

Version 2:  The theme appears in E-Major, then falls back into e-minor.  The section ends in E-Major.

Version 1:  34 measures; version 2:  20 measures.

4.8.  Coda:  Version 1:  The coda begins with the codetta from the end of the exposition.  When it ends (ritardando with a cadence to e-minor) an additional section starts a tempo with a chromatic rise (crescendo, based on the motif from the transition measure following the “introduction”), then relaxes to end the piece ritardando in quiet e-minor chords.

Version 2:  The coda starts in E-major and turns out to be a longish development like section based on the “introduction” in its various guises.  Ten measures before the end the cello starts playing the falling scale from the very beginning of the piece, but now in E-Major with the appropriate harmony in the other instruments.  The piece closes quietly in E-Major.

Version 1:  20 measures; version 2:  41 measures.

4.9.  Summary:  While the first movement of the first version is in textbook sonata form--with some deviations from the convention--Mayer took considerably more liberties with the form in the second version.  We hear a reprise of the “introduction” which is not just varied, but entirely changed in character followed by the first subject, also cast in an entirely new texture, which begins in the “wrong key” of a-minor, immediately followed by modulations as if in a development.  The reprise of the second subject is more conform to expectations.  This again is followed by a long coda written as if it were a development.  It is almost as if the development never stopped and continued through the recapitulation to the very end of the movement.  In contrast to the first version this movement ends in E-major after the movement shows a strong emphasis on minor keys.  Mayer also made the movement more concise and concentrated; every section excepting the coda is shorter in the second version than in the first, resulting in a movement that is shortened by 57 measures or nearly two minutes (assuming the exposition is repeated).

5.        The Other Three Movements

Mayer composed three entirely new movements to complement the updated version of her opening movement in e-minor.  The two overall plans look as follows:

First Version:  1.  Allegro maestoso, e-minor, ends in e-minor, 4/4, sonata form.             2.  Adagio, G-Major, 3/8,  sonata form.  3.  Scherzo, e-minor, trio in G-Major, 3/4, scherzo-trio-varied da capo section.  4.  Finale.  Allegro,  e-minor, ends in E-Major, 2/4 sonata form.

Second version:  1.  Allegro maestoso, e-minor, ends in E-Major, 4/4, sonata form.        2.  Scherzo:  3/4, A (a-minor)-B (A-Major)-A’-B’-coda.  3.  Adagio molto espressivo, E-Major, 3/4, sonata form.  4.  Allegro appassionato:  e-minor, ends in e-minor, 4/4, formally similar to sonata form.

5.1.  Version 1:  The Adagio in in G-Major is built entirely on rising triads:  Both the first and second subject are built on them and are rhythmically quite strongly related; the movement is quasi monothematic.  The exposition ends on the dominant seventh chord on a fermata.  Skipping a development the recapitulation follows immediately.  After the first subject a longish section is interspersed.  It looks like part of a development section, goes

through F-Major, d-minor, B flat Major, B-Major etc. to D-Major; the tension rises, then relaxes and the second subject follows in G-Major.  Then another development-like section follows. Thus the development is interlaced with the recapitulation in this rather original sonata form.  A very short coda based on the opening theme concludes the movement in piano.

The e-minor scherzo is a witty affair with all sorts of rhythmic games being played:  Hemiolas and “false” accents abound.  A faux-dramatic unisono is also featured.  The trio is more relaxed and melodious, with a bass line related to the main motif of the scherzo section.  The da capo section is varied.  At the end the cello plays alone:  Syncopated notes in pianissimo.

The Finale opens with an energetic unisono theme:  based on a descending e-minor scale it provides a link to the very beginning of the quartet.  This sonata movement is more conventional with a more melodic second theme in B-Major.  Apart from the unisono sections at the opening and the beginning of the reprise the texture is light; motives are traded between the voices giving the impression of witty banter.

The music stays in E-Major after the appearance of the second theme in the reprise and the work ends in E-Major in pianissimo.  This way to end in Major is common in quartets in minor keys by Haydn and others.  Mayer follows a well established pattern here.

5.2.  Version 2:  All three of the movements discussed above are very good music, especially the scherzo.  This raises the question why Mayer decided to compose three new movements to complement her revised first movement.  Conceivably she wanted a different overall plan for the quartet:  To follow the very serious first movement (even more serious after the reworking) with equally serious music rather than the lighter, brighter movements she had written for her first version.

The scherzo (now in second place) opens with a tiny introduction:   An E-Major chord which turns out to be the dominant of a-minor, the key of the movement:  A link to the E-Major ending of the first movement.  This little misdirection also serves to emphasize the minor character of the Scherzo:  The Major ending of the first movement was temporary.  The scherzo itself features accompanying voices in repeated notes in triplets (reminiscent of Schubert’s “Erlkönig”) creating a feeling of anxiety. There are no witticisms; some sforzati on the second beat provide drive rather than amusement.  Dotted quavers also lend the music a strong forward momentum.

Formally this scherzo is composed through, no repeats and no da capo signs are in the score.  It follows this overall pattern:  A - B - A’ - B’ - short coda (based on A).  The B parts are in A-Major, somewhat slower, more melodious and more restful in contrast to the A part; they represent the trio section of the scherzo.  The movement closes with a stretta: stringendo and crescendo.  

The third movement--with the very unusual tempo marking Adagio molto espressivo^[15]--is

in sonata form.  Like the Adagio from version 1 it is more or less monothematic, built on melodies that are not especially memorable (e.g. the beginning: example top left).  The composer used harmony to create and sustain interest and make the music highly expressive:  For example:  The cadence in B major announcing the beginning of the second subject:  The dominant triad is held for an entire measure (example top right) and provides a moment of rest in the generally rapid progression of chords, often quite dissonant (e.g. example bottom left).  The recapitulation is very beautifully varied (bottom right).

The last movement, Allegro appassionato has many features of sonata form^[16], but is not following the usual pattern.

It starts with a theme (theme 1) based on a rising e-minor triad and featuring the triplet accompaniment that is used in the scherzo.  In measure 15 another theme (theme 2) is already introduced, this one in E-major and based on an ascending scale (see the examples below).  Since the first movement’s two themes are based an a falling triad and a descending scale this provides a strong link between the first and last movements.  After this opening the music continues with several new ideas, which are however not cast in concise “themes”

Eventually a development section follows using the first and later on also the second theme.  The recapitulation is very well prepared, giving a strong sense of sonata form.  Only the first theme is featured in this reprise.  A coda follows which ends ritardando on a pedal point on B (in B-Major).  A short stretta (presto, forte) in e-minor concludes the work.

These three new movements are all more serious, denser and more intense than their counterparts in the first version.  

6. Conclusion

This quartet, especially its second version, is very inspired music, written by a composer who was confident enough to adapt the formal schemes she was working with to tell exactly the “story” she intended to tell.  It can withstand comparisons with very famous and established quartets such as Mendelssohn’s op. 44.  One would wish that it enters the repertoire, in concerts, recordings and also for amateur quartet sessions^[17].