Widor, Charles-Marie

Charles-Marie Widor – Deuxième Symphonie en la, op. 54

(b. Lyon, 21 February 1844 — d. Paris, 12 March 1937)

Preface
It may at first seem surprising that a symphony by Charles Marie Widor should be a purely orchestral composition with no bearing on organ music. After all, what the name of Widor first brings to mind are his so-called organ symphonies. Yet this productive composer wrote for virtually every genre – and organ music by no means constitutes the bulk of his oeuvre. Among his some two dozen orchestral works are five symphonies: Première Symphonie en fa (op. 16), Deuxième Symphonie en la (op. 54), Troisième Symphonie pour Orgue et Orchestre (op. 69), Sinfonia Sacra pour Orgue et Orchestre (op. 81), and Symphonie antique for solo voices, chorus, orchestra, and organ (op. 83). There is also a Symphony in G minor for organ and orchestra (op. 42) whose three movements are orchestrations of isolated movements from his organ symphonies. The three-movement symphonic poem La Nuit des Walpurgis might also be added to this list.

Deuxième Symphonie en la, op. 54

Widor’s Second Symphony in A major, op. 54, was completed in 1882. It was rarely performed and achieved a lukewarm response from critics and audiences. In 1886, when Widor himself conducted the work in Amsterdam during a festival devoted to his music, the symphony was regarded as somber, without buoyancy or affectation. One year later, when it was given at London’s Crystal Palace in March 1887, the critics were decidedly unimpressed. Apparently no performance of it was given in Paris itself until 1891, at which time the reviews were more varied: the composition was called extremely remarkable, and several sections were deemed worthy of comparison with the best of Schumann. It was well-constructed, the critics continued, but rather lacking in ideas. Another performance under Widor’s baton is known to have taken place in Moscow in November 1896 during his first concert tour of Russia. But all in all it seems that the symphony never celebrated a triumph.

Unlike his First Symphony, Widor’s Second Symphony draws on the romantic tradition and attempts to strike out on new paths, especially as regards structure. The piece antedates the great series of French symphonies (by Franck, Saint-Saëns, Chausson, etc.), which only began in the mid-1880s. Viewed in this light, Widor was one of the earliest French composers to do innovative work in this field.

Widor makes use of the typical romantic orchestra and draws on the four-movement sequence of the classical tradition, albeit with the middle movements reversed. The first movement (Allegro vivace, A major) follows tradition by employing sonata form. It opens with a two-part introduction, i.e. two contrasting sections, each of which presents an important thematic idea and ends in a fermata. The first section states a motto with a grand gesture for full orchestra. This motto contains two important motifs. In particular the head motif, stated in unison over four octaves (an ascending fourth followed by a descending octave) holds the entire movement together and while extending beyond the confines of the movement itself. It is immediately followed by a highly contrasting second motto that begins and ends with the above-mentioned head motif and consists of a descending melodic line (likewise in four octaves) above a pedal point. The subdued orchestration of solo woodwinds and two horns underscores the sharp contrast between the two sections of the introduction. In the first movement this contrast between forceful optimism and resignation, rather than forming a “conflict” between two antithetical themes, serves to distinguish the exposition and recapitulation, which are dominated by the first motif, from the dramatic minore writing of the development. The movement finally comes to a close with an optimistic flourish in the coda.

The second movement, in C-sharp minor, assumes the function of a scherzo in the traditional four-movement symphony. It is most remarkable for the scherzo-like quality manifest in its emphasis on rhythm: the musical activity is dominated by short rhythmic motifs, staccato articulation, and a propulsive flow. After six introductory bars the first flute presents a theme that will become important particularly for the rhythm of its second limb. It is followed by a passage of contrast. Both sections are repeated in slightly varied form. A brief interlude in D major fulfills the expectations of a trio. The varied recapitulation of the first section is followed by a repeat of the trio in the parallel tonic, C-sharp major (written as D-flat major in the score). The final appearance of the A section leads directly to a coda that allows the trill motif of the opening and the rhythm of the first theme to fade away.

Then comes a dramatic movement in D minor with passages reminiscent of a dirge, offering a sharp contrast to the preceding movements and pointing back, as far as its expression is concerned, to the development section of the opening movement. The movement is laid out in a tripartite adagio form with introduction and coda. Despite the triple meter, the dotted motif and eighth-note triplets kindle associations with a funeral march.

The finale, in A major, brings the symphony to a rousing climax. The form of the movement is highly interesting. It opens with a juxtaposition of contrasting thematic fragments. The first creates a relation to the opening movement only to suddenly break off. Then comes a second “run-up” with a new theme differing in meter (3/4), key (F-sharp major), and mood. The listener receives the impression that a scherzo movement is being quoted (particularly as the expression mark explicitly reads “scherzando“). In fact, however, it is a variation of the secondary theme from the opening movement. Again the music suddenly breaks off. The movement continues in the same fashion: the next section (Moderato, 4/4) contains a string cantilena which in turn ends in a fermata. Yet once again the expectation that we are dealing with a quote from the slow movement remains unfulfilled: the theme has not been heard before, and as the music progresses it will prove to be, not a quotation, but the actual thematic material of the finale – namely, an anticipation of the secondary theme, as shown by its cantabile character and the dominant key of E major. Even the introduction to the first movement is quoted, only to prove irrelevant to the finale per se. Only now do we hear the finale’s main thematic group, actually composed of two very similar themes. The first is a vivacious theme in the woodwinds, suggesting that it will later crown the movement in an apotheosis. This assumption turns out to be incorrect, however, for the climax is formed by the second theme of the main thematic group in the cellos, even though at its first appearance it was a sparsely orchestral string cantilena of little significance. After the development we hear a section which, though not a proper repeat of the exposition, restates the movement’s defining themes one after the other in the tonic. This is followed by a coda leading in several stages of escalation to a final apotheosis. This apotheosis ends, however, on the dominant and leads to a second coda climaxing in the motif from the opening of the symphony, thereby bringing the work full circle.

In sum, Widor’s Second Symphony is a highly interesting composition whose value becomes apparent after a detailed analysis. The composer establishes thematic ties between the opening movement and the finale while leaving the middle movements untouched. In an age concerned with the rejuvenation of the symphony, Widor thus made his own distinctive and personal contribution to the genre.

Translation: Bradford Robinson

For performance material please contact the publisher Durand, Paris.