Unity and Discontinuity in the Act II

Finale of Le nozze di Figaro

Dr. Matthew Shaftel, Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs Florida State University

Kofi Agawu on Discontinuity

  Think, too, of opera, of the numerous discontinuous musical effects that seem practically unavoidable. Plot, of course, is in principle continuous, or more readily invites attributions of continuity. Discontinuity is thus buffered. But although music and plot are imbricated within each other’s domains, their individual sets of capacities are not thereby erased… effects figured as interruptions, visits from other worlds, shiftings of dramatic gears, etc., are common in opera. They suggest that discontinuity is not merely a rhetorical option for individual composers. (2009, 95)

The Essential Questions   Can aspects of both unity and discontinuity be

conveyed in a single analysis?   Do unifying musical schema necessarily imply a direct

parallelism between music and drama? Can a unified musical structure provide dramatic support for stark discontinuity in the drama and vice versa?

  How can analysts mitigate between the “individual sets of capacities” of drama and music while remaining sensitive to discontinuous successions within and/or between operatic numbers?

  Is a comprehensive approach to the discontinuities of opera possible?

  Now, feel free to doze off.

Le nozze di Figaro (1786)

Susanna+ Figaro Servants

Vs.

An angry and lustful Count

Countess, scorned spouse Friend to Susanna

Prior to Act II Finale

An angry and lustful Count

Cherubino is locked in the dressing room. The count insists that the Countess open the locked door.

Prior to Act II Finale

Susanna sneaks into the dressing room with Cherubino, and Cherubino jumps out the window.

Act II Finale-Part 1

The Count begins the finale demanding that the Countess open the door to the dressing room (where she still believes that Cherubino is hiding). Suddenly the door opens and out walks Susanna, to everyone’s astonishment.

Act II Finale-Part 2

Figaro enters, calling for the wedding to proceed. The Count attempts to delay, and confronts Figaro about an anonymous letter that he had received. Figaro denies writing the letter, although the women have already admitted to the Count that he had written the letter as a prank

Act II Finale-Part 3

The drunken gardener appears, saying he saw someone jump out of the dressing room window. The Count is furious because he is sure it was Cherubino all along. Figaro attempts to discredit the gardner, but eventually claims that he himself jumped from the window. The Gardener produces Cherubino’s military papers (commission), which the jumper had lost in the excitement and the Count attempts to corner Figaro in his lie, until the women prompt Figaro into saying that he had been holding on to the papers in order to procure the missing seal.

Act II Finale-Part 4

The Count is just lamenting his inability to win when three additional characters who are allied with the count arrive—Marcellina, Basilio, and Bartolo. They end the finale with claims that according to an old contract, Figaro must marry Marcellina, not Susanna.

4 Discrete Sections = 4 Increases in Tension

  the Count enters, hunting Cherubino

  Figaro enters, demanding his wedding

  the gardener enters, damning Cherubino

  the final trio enter, demanding a different wedding

Two dependent decreases in tension - Susanna enters, to everyone’s surprise! -  Figaro denies writing letter and requests a happy ending -  Figaro’s lie about keeping Cherubino’s papers

Large-Scale Musical Sections in Act II Finale

Large-Scale Musical Sections in Act II Finale

Large-Scale Musical Sections in Act II Finale

Large-Scale Musical Sections in Act II Finale

The Case for Unity   “[The second Act Finale] is in Eb major against the entire opera’s tonic of D…” “A finale is an opera in

miniature: the same tonal unity that reigns there may be found…within the opera as a whole.” (Rosen 304-305).   “The Finale to Act II serves as a shining example… it is the most extended, unified piece of music written by

Mozart up to 1786.” (Sternfield 31).   “The finale offered composers of the eighteenth century an opportunity to display their skills in binding

extended material into a coherent unit, while at the same time illuminating a plethora of stage incident… The sections all contribute to an organized key structure based on the tonic Eb major…The general organization of the Finale into a harmonically balanced sequence is duplicated in the internal structure of the sections…the dramatic stimulus is presented in the exposition, worked through the central development, and resolved for the recapitulation.” (Steptoe 173, 175, 178-179)

  “The music is divided into three sections, which appear to be built around sonata form. The opening section, or exposition, begins in E-flat major and travels to the dominant, B-flat major, during the discovery of Sus in the closet. The middle section, or development, begins in G major and travels to the subdominant, C Major, during the entrance of Figaro. The closing section, or recapitulation, begins in F major, travels to the subdominant, B-flat major, and closes in E-flat major, the tonic of the finale.” “The strongest concentration of dramatic excitement conveyed by the music occurs at the beginning of the recapitulation. There is the shock of being deprived of a development.” (Levarie 107, 110)

  “It was [Mozart’s plan] to introduce the Countess for the first time at the beginning of Act 2, with a soliloquy in Eb, balancing the Eb of the act’s conclusion.” (Cairns 121)

  “In form the finale consists of eight smaller pieces laid out in a large key-area plan. They move from Eb Major to the dominant, then through an ‘X-section’ (G, C, and F major) to the dominant again, and finally return to the tonic. This key scheme shapes a closed form with its own harmonic drive and dynamic curve.” (Allanbrook, 119)

  “In the finale, the key succssion [of Act II] is united into a cycle… Tonally, the finale itself is…constructed in virtual symmetry around C major in the middle, and gravitationally with respect to the tonal foundation Eb of the two pillar-sections, Allegro and Allegro assai.” (Kunze 307, 308, 310; translated in Webster)

  The Act II finale (no. 15) is so constructed that the keys of its eight sections move through a clearly conceived arch… The whole finale is a masterpiece of tonal planning that creates a firm structure through no less than 940 bars of music and despite all the twists and turns of the action.” (Carter 118-119)

The Case for Unity:

HC in Cm (m. 233, middle of a dramatic idea)

Compare the following sections: 1) 93 mm.; Related to discovery of Susanna in previous section. Unified meter/tempo (with one excursion). All belong to same dramatic impulse. 2) 281 mm. Harmonically diverse. Two completely separate dramatic impulses.

No thematic or dramatic reprise

From: Jacobson, “Sonata Form as a Dramatic and Unifying Force in Mozart's Vocal Music.”

The Case for Unity: Levarie & Allanbrook

Links the entrance of the gardener with the entrance of Marcellina’s “intriguers,” despite the fact that their entrance is quite unrelated both musically and dramatically. Marcellina’s complaint is with Figaro, whereas the Count and the Gardener’s complaints are with Cherubino.

No thematic or dramatic reprise

They essentialize the tonal content of each section, while postulating a unified tonal plan that supposedly parallels the drama without deviation.

No thematic or dramatic “recapitulation”

Levarie

Allanbrook

Act II Finale, 1a

Act II Finale, 1b

Act II Finale, 1c

Act II Finale, 2a

Act II Finale, 2b

Act II Finale, 3a

Act II Finale, 3b

Act II Finale, 4

Synoptic table of the opera model (example 3)

Act II Finale, Mvmnt. 1: sonatina-like

- The Count’s angry march (dramatic paraphrase) is directly contrasted by the Countess’s bourrée, which quickly turns into a gavotte. Her shifting topics and breathless 8ths reflect not only her distraught state, but also her attempts to try multiple strategies to solve the situation. Indeed, she will adopt the march in a moment (dramatic paraphrase and character supplement).

Act II Finale, Mvmnt 2: “Shock Tutti” (Platoff)

- Susanna’s 3/8 minuet polarizes the drama: she is mocking the Count with her feigned innocence. - Susanna’s non-aligning triplets supplement her character by allowing us to see her functioning in a different time and space. She’s a step ahead of everyone!

The distant move to GM paraphrases the drama, signaling a drastic refocusing of the plot, but, more importantly, the distant key of GM and the accompanying dance supplements by indicating the degree to which Figaro would like there to be a refocusing on his wedding. The Count combats Figaro on Figaro’s own terms (supplement) in a closely related shift to CM and use of a low-style dance.

Mvmnt: 3

Mvmnt: 4

•  They show his quick wit as he sings the Gardener’s gavotte-like material in six different keys to respond to accusations.

•  Figaro derails the Count’s slow

gigue (6th mvmnt), resolving the tension by explaining the purpose of the papers found by the Gardener.

•  Movement 7, despite a harmonic

connection with the previous Bb mvmnt, presents disjunction in virtually every other aspect, leaving the dramatic crux of the opera completely unresolved.

Mvmnt: 5

Mvmnt: 7

The two episodes with the gardener in mvmnts 5 & 6 supplement Figaro’s character:

Narrative Mythoi of Act II Finale and Opera as a Whole Lorenz and his followers Macellina and her allies

Unity in music and marriage Romantic Narrative

Audience Susanna and her allies

Attempts to upset aristocracy are thwarted. Marches quash dancing rebellions.

Tragic Narrative

Opera as a whole, to the characters and to today’s audience

Sympathetic transgressors thwart aristocratic order

Comic Narrative

Could Mozart and DaPonte have intended the opera as a satiric political commentary?

Unity and Discontinuity in the Act II Finale of Le nozze di Figaro Works Cited

Abbate, C., & Parker, R. (1990). Dismembering Mozart. Cambridge Opera Journal, 2(02). Abert, H., Spencer, S., & Eisen, C. (2007). W.A. Mozart. New Haven: Yale University Press. Agawu, V. K. (2009). Music as discourse: semiotic adventures in romantic music. New York: Oxford University Press. Allanbrook, W. J. (1983). Rhythmic gesture in Mozart: Le nozze di Figaro & Don Giovanni. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Almen, B. (2003). Narrative Archetypes: A Critique, Theory, And Method Of Narrative Analysis. Journal of Music Theory, 47(1), 1-39. Carter, T. (1987). W.A. Mozart, Le nozze di Figaro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cone, E. T. (1974). The composer's voice. Berkeley: University of California Press. Decker, G. (2011). The Language of Baroque Opera: Topic, Structure, and Characterization in Handel's Italian Language Operas (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 2011). UMI. Dent, E. (jul. - sep., 1910). Ensembles and Finales in 18th Century Italian Opera. Sammelbände Der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft, 543-569. Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of criticism; four essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Heartz, D., & Bauman, T. (1990). Mozart's operas. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hunter, M. K. (1999). The culture of opera buffa in Mozart's Vienna: a poetics of entertainment. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hunter, M. K. (2008). Mozart’s Operas: A Companion. New Haven: Yale University Press. Jacobson, D. (1993). Sonata Form as a Dramatic and Unifying Force in Mozart's Vocal Music. Mozart-Jahrbuch, 113-131. Kerman, J. (2005). Opera as drama. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kunze, S. (1984). Mozarts Opern. Stuttgart: P. Reclam. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Le Nozze di Figaro. Dir. David McVicar. Royal Opera House. Perf. Gerald Finlay, Erwin Schrott, Miah Persson, and Dorothea Röschmann. Opus Arte, 2008. DVD. Levarie, S. (1952). Mozart's Le nozze di Figaro, a critical analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levin, D. J. (2007). Unsettling opera: staging Mozart, Verdi, Wagner, and Zemlinsky. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Liszka, J. J. (1989). The semiotic of myth: a critical study of the symbol. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Lorenz, A. (1926-27). Das Finale in Mozarts Meisteropern. Die Musik, 19, 622. Mozart and His Operas : David Cairns. (n.d.). University of California Press. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520228986 Panofsky, E. (1939). Studies in iconology; humanistic themes in the art of the renaissance. New York: Oxford university press. Platoff, J. (1989). Musical and Dramatic Structure in the Opera Buffa Finale. Journal of Musicology, 7(2), 191-230. Platoff, J. (1991). Tonal Organization In ‘Buffo’ Finales And The Act Ii Finale Of ‘Le Nozze Di Figaro’. Music and Letters, 72(3), 387-403. Platoff, J. (1996). Myths and Realities about Tonal Planning in Mozart’s Operas. Cambridge Opera Journal, 8, 3-15. Platoff, J. (1997). Tonal Organization in the opera buffa of Mozart’s Time. In C. Eisen (Editor), Mozart studies 2 (pp. 139-174). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rosen, C. (1971). The classical style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven. New York: Viking Press. Rosen, C. (1997). New preface. In The classical style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven. New York: W.W. Norton. Shaftel, M. R. (2009). Types, tokens, and Figaro: musical structure and dramatic narrative in the Act I trio from Mozart's Marriage of Figaro. In G. C. Sly (Editor), Keys to the drama: nine

perspectives on sonata forms. Farnham: Ashgate. Steptoe, A. (1990). The Mozart-Da Ponte operas: the cultural and musical background to Le nozze di Figaro, Don Giovanni, and Così fan tutte. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sternfeld, F. (1955). Opera News Book of Figaro. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co. Tarasti, E. (1994). A theory of musical semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. Wagner, R. (1897). Gesammelte Schriften und Dictungen. Leipzig: E.W. Fritzsch. Webster, J. (1987). To Understand Verdi and Wagner We Must Understand Mozart. 19th-Century Music, 11(2), 175-193. Webster, J. (1990). Mozart's operas and the myth of musical unity. Cambridge Opera Journal, 2(02). Webster, J. (1991). The Analysis of Mozart's Arias. In C. Eisen (Editor), Mozart studies (pp. 101-199). Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Not cited specifically, but Webster’s list of analytical

parameters could make a useful appendix to the opera model found above] Webster, J. (2012). The Act IV Finale of Le Nozze di Figaro: Dramatic and Musical Construction. In J. Rushton, S. Rohringer, S. Durante, and J. Webster (Editors), Dramma Giocoso: Four

Contemporary Perspectives on the Mozart/Da Ponte Operas. Leuven: Leuven U. Press.