Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
In the shadow of Te Deum: An analytical response to the history of disregard surrounding Antonín Dvořák's patriotic cantata, The American flag
(USC Thesis Other)
In the shadow of Te Deum: An analytical response to the history of disregard surrounding Antonín Dvořák's patriotic cantata, The American flag
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
IN THE SHADOW OF TE DEUM:
AN ANALYTICAL RESPONSE TO THE HISTORY OF DISREGARD SURROUNDING
ANTONÍN DVOŘÁK’S PATRIOTIC CANTATA, THE AMERICAN FLAG
By
Nathaniel Josef Fryml
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE THORNTON SCHOOL OF MUSIC
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF MUSIC ARTS
DECEMBER 2017
Copyright 2017 Nathaniel J. Fryml
ii
For my wife and children…
iii
Acknowledgements
This project, and the terminal degree it represents, has truly been a unique experience in
that it has brought me into close contact with personal limits of time, intelligence, and
motivation, and forced me to exceed them. I owe everything to the constant support and
encouragement of my family, and to the calling and provision of my Redeemer, without whom I
would not be here today.
To my grandfather, Daniel, even though I never had the privilege of meeting you, thank
you for showing me the value of lifelong pursuit, and proving that the “one who seeks shall
find.” To my grandfather, Jaroslav, thank you for introducing me to Dvořák and tying him to my
earliest musical memories; and thank you also for encouraging my musical training – I wish you
could see where it has taken me! To my father, Martin, thank you for allowing me the freedom
to pursue music as a career while giving me a practical support structure from which to evaluate
and invest in the opportunities higher education affords. To my mother, Beverly, thank you for
your innumerable sacrifices on behalf of your family, and for always cherishing the little I could
“bring myself” to share with you. To my grandmothers, thank you for your tireless prayers. To
my siblings, thank you for always providing that “competitive edge” and pretending like I’m
somehow smarter because I’m older.
To my dear wife, Joanne, thank you for marrying me six and a half years ago, knowing
full well the rough journey ahead. To my son, Isaac, thank you for reminding me every day that
professional success is illusory at best, and to our newest little one to be born very soon, thanks
for giving me an extra dose of motivation, or desperation, to get this work done.
To my doctoral committee, Dr. Jo-Michael Scheibe, Dr. Cristian Grases, and Dr. Tram
Sparks, thank you for an incredible three years in residence at USC and for helping me make it
iv
over this final hurdle. To Dr. Nick Strimple, thank you for introducing me to this fascinating
work and for sharing your wealth of musical knowledge with me both in and outside the
Thornton School. To Dr. Robert Moore, thank you for convincing me of the value and flexibility
of Schenkerian theory, and for providing valuable feedback on the present analysis. To Audrey
Chung, thank you for “blazing a path” ahead of me and for connecting me with important
contacts in Prague. To Kyle Zeuch, thank you for keeping me abreast of your progress in our
parallel research and for sharing your findings with me. To the Národní Muzeum in Prague and
the many Dvořák scholars, performers, librarians, and publishers with whom I have
corresponded over the past year, thank for providing me with access to your perspectives and to
invaluable primary and secondary sources. A special note of thanks is reserved for Mr. Tomáš
Novotný, rental librarian for Bärenreiter Praha.
And last but not least, to the estimable Dr. David R. Beveridge, I cannot thank you
enough for your immediate and consistent engagement with my questions; your cautionary flags
thrown over misplaced or hasty assumptions; and your apparently limitless generosity of time
and resource on behalf of fledgling scholars like myself. I am greatly in your debt and can only
hope I have done this subject justice.
v
ABSTRACT
It is unusual for a major choral-orchestral work, particularly one by a composer of such
international renown as Antonín Dvořák, to languish in obscurity, even after energetic attempts
to bring about its revival. However, this is the current state of Dvořák’s cantata The American
Flag, and there does not seem to be any major shift in popular opinion regarding the work (or
awareness of it, as the case may be) on the horizon, at least in the United States. The American
Flag is one of two cantatas written by Dvořák during the months immediately preceding and
overlapping with the start of his tenure as head of the National Conservatory in New York City
(1892-1895). The other work, Te Deum, has achieved the success one would expect of a late
work penned by the master composer, and its quality has been all but taken for granted by
audiences and theorists alike. The central purpose of this paper is to address the many hasty, and
often faulty, assumptions regarding the relative structural integrity of Te Deum versus The
American Flag, and to harness the results of theoretical analysis to formulate a defense for
performance of the latter work that may supplement those presented by previous scholars. This
will be accomplished by a review of the correspondence related to the commissioning of the
works; a careful examination of Dvořák’s sketches for each cantata; a multi-level analysis of the
works combined with in-depth discussion of their relationship to one another; and presentation of
formal Schenkerian analyses of both cantatas.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LISTS OF EXAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Images ix
Musical Examples xii
Figures xvi
Tables xvii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER 1: Biography and Overview of the Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Biographical Sketch 6
Key Personalities 10
Negotiation of the Trip 12
Origins of the Works 14
Reception of the Works 19
CHAPTER 2: The Compositional Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Sources Informing Analysis 23
Sketches: Overview 27
Sketch: Te Deum 36
Sketch: The American Flag 40
CHAPTER 3: Lenses for Preliminary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Overview of Text and Form 51
vii
Text Division and Musical Form: Te Deum 55
Text Division and Musical Form: The American Flag 57
Harmonic Comparison 65
Motivic Analysis: The American Flag 83
Orchestration 88
Text Setting 102
CHAPTER 4: The Schenkerian Method of Analysis Applied to
Te Deum and The American Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Definition of Terms 123
Initial Assessment: Te Deum 128
Analysis: Te Deum 129
Initial Assessment: The American Flag 136
Analysis: The American Flag 140
CHAPTER 5: Implications and Extensions of Analytical Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Harmonic Evaluation 165
Formal Evaluation 172
Evaluation of Editions Available 175
Extensions, Responses, and Avenues for Further Research 185
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
A: Schenkerian analysis of The American Flag 204
B: Schenkerian analysis of Te Deum 210
viii
C: Errata Observed in the Published Full Score
of The American Flag (Bärenreiter Praha, Edition 2003) 214
D: Notable Discrepancies Observed Between the
Full Score (Bärenreiter Praha, Edition 2003) and
Vocal Score (G. Schirmer, Edition 1895) of The American Flag 216
E: A Letter Received by the Author 218
ix
LIST OF IMAGES
Image 1.1. The American Flag, autograph full score, p. 1 (given),
top-right corner. Location, date, and signature. 17
Image 1.2. Dvořák, The American Flag, sketch, p. 16 (given).
Inscription stating, “Vysoká September 1892 before
departing for America. Antonín Dvořák.” 18
Image 2.1. The American Flag, piano reduction autograph, p. 1 (given). 26
Image 2.2. Te Deum, sketch, p. 1 (given), bottom. Transition to A major. 28
Image 2.3. Te Deum, autograph full score, p. 5 (given), mm. 22-25.
Excerpt of transition to A major. 29
Image 2.4. The American Flag, sketch, p. 2 (given), top. Sketch of
what will become mm. 43-48, with discarded transition. 29
Image 2.5. The American Flag, autograph full score, p. 8 (given),
mm. 43-46. Dovetailing of opening solo into first choral entrance. 30
Image 2.6a. The American Flag, sketch, p. 5 (given), bottom-right.
Initial sketch of second stanza in Movement 2. 31
Image 2.6b. The American Flag, sketch, p. 6 (given, scratched out),
bottom-right. Initial sketch of second stanza in Movement 2, cont’d.
Material ultimately discarded, but significant mediant key relationship
between A major and C major explored. 32
Image 2.7. The American Flag, sketch, p. 6 (given), top-left. Restart of
second stanza in Movement 2. 33
Image 2.8. Te Deum, sketch, p. 7 (given), top. Sketch of mm. 170-181. 34
Image 2.9. The American Flag, sketch, p. 14 (given). Sketched transition
into Finale, corresponding to mm. 658-66. 35
Images 2.10a (left) and 2.10b (right). The American Flag, autograph full
score, pp. 77-78 (given). Excerpts of transition into Finale,
corresponding to mm. 658-66. 35
Image 2.11. Te Deum, sketch, p. 1 (given). Opening bars. 36
x
Image 2.12. Te Deum, sketch, p. 3 (given), top-right, corresponding to
mm. 56-60. Notes intention to use soloist and chorus. 37
Image 2.13. Te Deum, sketch, p. 5 (given), bottom-left. Fanfare and
opening bars of bass solo, corresponding to mm. 122-25. 38
Image 2.14. Te Deum, sketch, p. 11 (given), top-left. Sketched ending for
Movement 3, corresponding to mm. 347 and following. 38
Image 2.15. Te Deum, sketch, p. 13[a] (given), bottom. Sketched solo parts
corresponding to mm. 424-27 in Movement 4. 39
Image 2.16. Te Deum, sketch, p. 13[b] (given), top-right. Sketched rhythm
of choral parts, corresponding to m. 437 in Movement 4. 40
Image 2.17. The American Flag, sketch, p. 1 (given), top-right, corresponding
to mm. 6-8. Sketch of primary motif of The American Flag. 41
Images 2.18a (left) and 2.18b (right). The American Flag, autograph full
score, p. 1-2 (given), corresponding to mm. 6-8. Statement of primary
thematic motif of The American Flag (flute). 41
Image 2.19. The American Flag, sketch, p. 1 (given), end of second system.
Primary thematic motif restated and transposed, corresponding to
mm. 14-16. 42
Image 2.20. The American Flag, sketch, p. 3 (given), bottom. Sketch of
Movement 1 closing thematic material. 42
Image 2.21. The American Flag, autograph full score, p. (given),
corresponding to mm. 78-80. Full score closing of Movement 1
(woodwinds). 43
Image 2.22. The American Flag, sketch, p. 1 (given), top. Excerpt of
opening bars, corresponding to mm. 3-5. 44
Image 2.23. The American Flag, sketch, p. 2 (given), bottom-left.
Alto solo, corresponding to mm. 59-60. 44
Image 2.24. The American Flag, sketch, p. 1 (given), bottom.
Marginal note at sketch point corresponding to m. 40. 45
Image 2.25. The American Flag, sketch, p. 3 (given), corresponding to
mm. 71-73. Revised vocal lines at close of Movement 1. 45
xi
Image 2.26. The American Flag, sketch, p. 7 (given), top-right. Transition
from Movement 2 to Movement 3, corresponding to mm. 247-58. 46
Image 2.27. The American Flag, sketch, p. 7 (given), middle. First
statement of “march” theme, mm. 275-76. 47
Image 2.28. The American Flag, sketch, p. 11 (given), top-right. Opening
line of Movement 3, part 3, mm. 559-64. 48
Image 2.29. The American Flag, sketch, p. 12 (given), bottom-left.
Movement 3, part 3 climax, corresponding to mm. 620-25. 49
Image 2.30. The American Flag, autograph full score, p. 73 (given),
mm. 621-23. Choral parts. 49
Image 2.31. The American Flag, sketch, p. 14 (given), top, corresponding
to mm. 656-66. Modulatory return to A-flat major leading into the
Finale. 50
Image 3.1. Joseph Rodman Drake, “The American Flag.” Original 1819
publication, with Halleck’s closing lines. 58
Image 3.2. Dvořák, marginal note on The American Flag libretto, next to
the line “When speaks the signal trumpet tone…” 84
Image 5.1. The American Flag, hand-prepared full score of unknown origin,
formerly held by Supraphon. Cover page and p. 1. 178
Image 5.2. The American Flag, hand-prepared full score of unknown origin,
formerly held by Tams’ Musical Library. Cover page and p. 1. 181
Image 5.3. The American Flag, autograph full score, p. 58 (given). Excerpt
of D-minor section in Movement 3, corresponding to mm. 496-506. 182
Image 5.4. The American Flag, hand-prepared full score of unknown origin,
formerly held by Supraphon, p. 90 (given). Excerpt corresponding
to mm. 498-500. 183
Image 5.5. The American Flag, piano reduction autograph, p. 13 (given).
Excerpt corresponding to mm. 495-500 (treble over bass clef). 184
All images and examples from the composer’s autograph materials were reproduced from
facsimile by kind permission of the Narodní Muzeum in Prague.
xii
LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES
Example 3.1. Te Deum, mm. 191-196, end of Movement 2 (vocal score). 53
Example 3.2. The American Flag, mm. 77-82, end of Movement 1
(vocal score). 54
Example 3.3. The American Flag, mm. 259-64, start of Movement 3
(vocal score, piano RH). Dominant pedal leading to authentic
cadence in A major, m. 275. 64
Example 3.4. The American Flag, mm. 443-50, middle of Movement 3
(vocal score, piano RH). Tonic pedal reinterpreted as dominant pedal,
leading to authentic cadence in D major, m. 451. 64
Example 3.5. The American Flag, mm. 32-44, Movement 1 (vocal score).
Brief harmonic detour with return to tonic. 66
Example 3.6. The American Flag, mm. 270-76, Movement 3 (vocal score).
Chromatic embellishment of an authentic cadence. 67
Example 3.7. Te Deum, mm. 157-65, Movement 2 (vocal score).
Temporary return to E-flat-major tonic. 68
Example 3.8. Te Deum, mm. 19-27, Movement 1 (vocal score).
Modulation of primary material to A major. 69
Example 3.9. Te Deum, mm. 425-32, Movement 4 (vocal score).
Plagal cadence. 74
Example 3.10. The American Flag, mm. 1-8 (vocal score).
Suspended scale-degree 5 in relationship to chromatic half-step figure. 75
Example 3.11. The American Flag, mm. 693-97, Finale (vocal score).
Plagal cadence. 78
Example 3.12. Te Deum, mm. 122-24, opening of Movement 2 (full score;
II. mm. 1-5). Brass fanfare. 79
Example 3.13. The American Flag, mm. 259-64, opening of Movement 3
(full score; III. mm. 1-6). Brass fanfare. 79
Example 3.14. The American Flag, mm. 698-701 (vocal score).
Chromatic progression in penultimate bar. 79
xiii
Example 3.15. Te Deum, mm. 369-71, Movement 4 (vocal score).
Common-tone chromatic neighbor. 80
Example 3.16. The American Flag, mm. 361-67 (vocal score).
Common-tone chromatic neighbor. 80
Example 3.17. Te Deum, mm. 122-27, Movement 2 (vocal score).
Unaccompanied bass solo entrance. 81
Example 3.18. The American Flag, mm. 83-88 (vocal score).
Unaccompanied bass solo entrance. 81
Example 3.19. Te Deum, mm. 361-68, end of Movement 3
(full score; III. mm. 165-73). Timpani solo. 82
Example 3.20. The American Flag, mm. 251-58, end of Movement 2
(full score; II. mm. 169-76). Timpani solo. 82
Example 3.21. The American Flag, mm. 1-8 (full score; I. mm. 1-8).
Central motif (melodic fragment, mm. 7-8), flute and English horn. 84
Example 3.22. The American Flag, mm. 387-98 (full score; III. mm. 121-32).
Statement of primary motif (mm. 391-95), tenor solo. 85
Example 3.23. Te Deum, mm. 439-44, Movement 4 (vocal score).
Approach to final choral cadence. 93
Example 3.24. The American Flag, mm. 59-65 (vocal score).
Chromatic transition with trumpet fanfares (as seen in piano RH). 95
Example 3.25. The American Flag, mm. 178-81 (full score; II. mm. 96-99).
Excerpt of second harp solo. 96
Example 3.26. The American Flag, mm. 157-61 (full score; II. mm. 75-79).
Timpani solo. 96
Example 3.27a. The American Flag, mm. 693-95, Finale (full score;
IV. mm. 28-30). Tutti orchestra and chorus. 98
Example 3.27b. The American Flag, mm. 696-98, Finale (full score;
IV. mm. 31-33). Tutti orchestra. 99
Example 3.27c. The American Flag, mm. 699-701, Finale (full score;
IV. mm. 34-36). Tutti orchestra. 100
xiv
Example 3.28. Te Deum, mm. 83-92, Movement 1 (vocal score).
Second and third echoes of Sanctus in male chorus. 105
Example 3.29a. Te Deum, mm. 163-65, Movement 2 (vocal score).
Female chorus interjection during bass solo. 106
Example 3.29b. Te Deum, mm. 185-87, Movement 2 (vocal score).
Male chorus response to bass solo. 106
Example 3.30. Te Deum, mm. 72-76, Movement 1 (vocal score). 107
Example 3.31. Te Deum, mm. 235-46, Movement 3 (full score;
III. mm. 34-50). Homophonic presentation of text following
call and response. 108
Example 3.32. Te Deum, mm. 46-55, Movement 1 (vocal score).
Composite wave-like effect, especially between treble instruments
and chorus in mm. 49-52. 109
Example 3.33. The American Flag, mm. 21-27 (vocal score).
Opening bars of alto solo. 113
Example 3.34. The American Flag, mm. 658-65, transition to Finale
(vocal score). Descent of bass solo line. 115
Example 3.35. The American Flag, mm. 690-92, Finale (full score;
IV. mm. 25-27). Final descent. 116
Example 3.36. The American Flag, mm. 453-56, Movement 3 (full score;
III. mm. 186-90). Bass solo at forte dynamic, strings at mp,
percussion at p. 117
Example 3.37. The American Flag, mm. 487-91, Movement 3 (full score;
III. mm. 221-25). Bass descent to low D. 118
Example 3.38. The American Flag, mm. 538-58 (vocal score).
Transition into the “storm.” 119
Example 3.39. The American Flag, mm. 559-64 (full score;
III. mm. 293-98). Polymeter in string accompaniment. 121
Example 3.40. The American Flag, mm. 620-23 (vocal score).
Subito pp following the fff climax of the “storm.” 122
Example 4.1. The American Flag, mm. 1-24 (vocal score).
First movement introduction. 138
xv
Example 4.2. The American Flag, mm. 229-40 (vocal score).
Introduction of structural E in melody. 142
Example 4.3. The American Flag, mm. 596-601 (vocal score).
Harmonic confirmation of < 4 >. 145
Example 4.4. The American Flag, mm. 690-92 (vocal score). Final descent. 147
Example 4.5. The American Flag, mm. 388-407 (vocal score).
Melodic expansion of the “Flag theme” in the tenor solo
portion of the march. 151
Example 4.6. The American Flag, mm. 259-76, opening of Movement 3
(vocal score). Descending bass line outlining tonic triad. 153
Example 4.7. The American Flag, mm. 666-74, opening of Finale (vocal score).
Temporary interruption of melodic descent. 155
Example 4.8a. The American Flag, mm. 66-70, Movement 1 (vocal score).
Resolution of chromatic detour, initiating choral descent. 156
Example 4.8b. The American Flag, mm. 71-73, Movement 1 (vocal score).
Choral descent, cont’d. 157
Example 4.9. The American Flag, mm. 21-47, Movement 1 (vocal score).
Alto solo line. 159
Example 4.10. The American Flag, mm. 327-30, Movement 3 (vocal score).
Minor pentatonicism. 163
Example 4.11. The American Flag, mm. 430-45, Movement 3 (vocal score).
End of tenor solo. 163
Example 4.12. The American Flag, mm. 687-92, Finale (vocal score).
Resolution of cadential-6/4, with plagal inflection. 164
Example 5.1. The American Flag, mm. 675-81, Finale (vocal score).
False dominant pedal. 168
Example 5.2. The American Flag, mm. 498-99, middle of Movement 3,
excerpt of full score. 184
All published musical examples currently under copyright were reproduced by kind permission
of Bärenreiter Praha. All rights reserved.
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1. Te Deum, Ursatz. 130
Figure 4.2. Te Deum, Background level. 131
Figure 4.3. Te Deum, Head Tones at the deep Middle-Ground level. 131
Figure 4.4. Te Deum, Deep Middle-Ground level. 133
Figure 4.5. Te Deum, 6-Züge at the high Middle-Ground level. 134
Figure 4.6. Te Deum, Key change via highly chromatic sequencing. 135
Figures 4.7 (left), 4.8 (middle), and 4.9 (right). Te Deum, plagal activity
at the high Middle-Ground level. 136
Figure 4.10. The American Flag, Ursatz. 141
Figure 4.11. The American Flag, Background level. 144
Figure 4.12. The American Flag, Deep Middle-Ground level. 150
Figure 4.13. The American Flag, High Middle-Ground level, excerpt. 152
Figure 4.14. The American Flag, High Middle-Ground excerpt,
highlighting late partial Zug. 154
Figures 4.15 (left), 4.16 (middle), and 4.17 (right). The American Flag,
Excerpts of high Middle-Ground analysis showing instances
of suspended dominant. 158
Figure 4.18. The American Flag, Mediant relationship at the
high Middle-Ground level. 161
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
Table i.1. Bar numeration of Te Deum and The American Flag,
as used in this document. 6
Table 1.1. Compositional timeline for Te Deum and The American Flag. 17
Table 1.2. Documented performance and publication history of
The American Flag. 21
Table 3.1. Text division in Dvořák’s Te Deum. 52
Table 3.2. Text division in Dvořák’s The American Flag. 60
Table 3.3. Significant plagal and authentic events in Te Deum. 72
Table 3.4. Significant material generated from the primary motives in
The American Flag. 86
Table 3.5. Orchestration of Te Deum and The American Flag. 89
Table 3.6. Comparison of soloist vs. choral divisions in Te Deum and
The American Flag. 90
Table 3.7. Notable instances of text painting in Te Deum. 103
Table 3.8. Notable instances of text painting in The American Flag. 111
INTRODUCTION
It is unusual for a major choral-orchestral work, particularly one by a composer of such
international renown as Antonín Dvořák, to languish in obscurity, even after energetic attempts
to bring about its revival. However, this is the current state of Dvořák’s 1893 cantata, The
American Flag, and there does not seem to be any major shift in popular opinion regarding the
work (or awareness of it, as the case may be) on the horizon, at least in the United States.
The American Flag is one of two cantatas written by Dvořák during the months
immediately preceding and overlapping with the start of his tenure as head of the National
Conservatory in New York City (1892-1895). The other work, Te Deum (“Thee God (we
praise)”), has achieved the success one would expect of a late work penned by the master
composer, and its quality has been all but taken for granted by audiences and theorists alike.
Upon comparing general references to the works in biographies, discographies, and guides to
choral repertoire of the nineteenth century, one must concur with Nick Strimple’s assessment
that “most commentators either avoid serious discussion of [The American Flag] or condemn it
outright.”
1
But does this all but unanimous consensus regarding the inequality of the two works
mentioned stem from careful analysis, or from a polling of public opinion? Either of these
approaches might be considered valid, were they undertaken with care. However, up until 2016,
no careful study was made of The American Flag, its origins, and the reasons for its rejection by
audiences of classical music. The latter consideration has also generally been given undue
weight in discussions, as remarkably few audiences have ever had the opportunity to hear the
work performed.
1
Nick Strimple, “The Choral Works: Te Deum and ‘The American Flag,’” in Dvo řak in America, ed. John
C. Tibbetts (Portland: Amadeus Press, 1993), 199.
2
The first scholarly examination of what may be termed the “pre-American cantatas”
2
was
conducted by Otakar Šourek as part of his four-volume biography
3
of Dvořák, prepared and
published between 1916 and 1957. In volume three of this biography, Šourek devotes several
pages to the history and musical highlights of Te Deum and The American Flag, respectively.
Subsequent biographers such as John Clapham have taken a similar approach to dealing with
these works,
4,5
though in far less detail, referencing them primarily in relation to the common
impetus for their creation and the important role Te Deum played in introducing Dvořák (in
person) to American audiences. Miroslav Ivanov
6
and Michael Beckerman
7
have published
informative books on Dvořák’s “American period,” but these do not examine the cantatas in any
great detail. Various scholarly articles
8
make passing reference to the works, once again
considering them primarily as characters in a historical narrative.
2
While Dvořak wrote several choral-orchestral works in the decades prior to his departure for America, the
term “pre-American” is used by the author specifically and exclusively to refer to Te Deum and The American Flag
in order to draw attention both to their close proximity to his departure and also to the fact that they necessarily fall
into a different category than works that were fully conceived and written while in the United States. Though
intended for American audiences, the “pre-American” cantatas were not directly influenced by Dvořak’s first-hand
experience of American culture in the 1890s in the same way as were the works that followed.
3
Otakar Šourek, Život a dílo Antonína Dvo řáka [The life and works of Dvořák] (Prague, 1916-33; i–ii,
3/1954–5; iii–iv, 2/1956–7).
4
John Clapham, Antonín Dvo řák: Musician and Craftsman (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966).
5
Clapham, Dvo řák (London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979).
6
Miroslav Ivanov, In Dvo řák’s Footsteps: Musical Journeys in the New World (Missouri: The Thomas
Jefferson University Press, 1995).
7
Michael Beckerman, New Worlds of Dvo řák: Searching in American for the Composer’s Inner Life (New
York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003)
8
Brief references are made to Te Deum and The American Flag in articles such as the following:
John Clapham, “Dvořák on the American Scene,” 19th-Century Music, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Summer 1981): 16-23.
Ibid., “Dvořák’s Musical Directorship in New York: A Postscript,” Music and Letters, Vol. 59, No. 1 (January
1978): 19-27.
John Guthmiller, “The Choral Music of Antonín Dvořák: A Sesquicentennial Review,” The Choral Journal, Vol.
32, No. 3 (October 1991): 7-14.
Nick Strimple, “The Choral Works of Antonín Dvořák: An Annotated Discography,” The Choral Journal, Vol. 36,
No. 9 (April 1997): 45-52.
3
In 1989, Charlotte Kirkendall submitted a doctoral dissertation to the University of
Cincinnati, the first academic paper in English to deal with either of the “pre-American”
cantatas. Her thesis, entitled “Techniques of Choral and Orchestral writing in the Te Deum
settings of Berlioz, Bizet, Bruckner, Dvořák, and Verdi,”
9
provides an overview of certain
aspects of construction for Dvořák’s Te Deum, though it is by no means an exhaustive study.
In a thought-provoking essay from 1993 (published in the collection Dvořák in America),
Nick Strimple spends several pages exploring his theory regarding the importance of both Te
Deum and The American Flag. He posits that those two works were perhaps “two halves of an
ongoing structural experiment,”
10
particularly as pertains to symphonic form. This essay, the
first scholarship to subject these cantatas to parallel theoretical examination, forms the launching
point for the current study.
In 2015, Geoffrey Hutton performed The American Flag in partial fulfillment of a
master’s program at Ball State University. In his corresponding thesis,
11
Hutton documents this
experience, gives an overview of the work’s history, and presents a case for performances today.
Earlier this year (2017), Kyle Zeuch defended a doctoral dissertation at the University of
Michigan. Entitled “Antonín Dvořák’s Cantata, The American Flag, Op. 102: Performance
Solutions in a Modern Context,”
12
Zeuch’s work centers around a careful documentation of the
history of the controversial text upon which The American Flag is based, as well as around the
9
Charlotte Kirkendall, “Techniques of Choral and Orchestral Writing in the Te Deum settings of Berlioz,
Bizet, Bruckner, Dvořák, and Verdi” (DMA diss., University of Cincinnatti, 1989).
10
Nick Strimple, “The Choral Works: Te Deum and ‘The American Flag,’” in Dvo řák in America, ed. John
C. Tibbetts (Portland: Amadeus Press, 1993), 200.
11
Geoffrey Hutton, “The American Flag by Antonín Dvořák: A Case for Performance” (Master’s thesis,
Ball State University, 2015).
12
Kyle Zeuch, “Antonín Dvořák’s Cantata, The American Flag, Op. 102. Performance Solutions in a
Modern Context” (DMA diss., Michigan State University, 2017).
4
unique figure of Jeanette Thurber and her wide sphere of influence. A major portion of that
project consisted of the creation and performance of a chamber version of Dvořák’s cantata,
details of which Zeuch recounts in the paper. The handful of what this author believes to be
factual errors
13
scattered throughout that document do not diminish the validity of many of
Zeuch’s conclusions regarding The American Flag and his defense for its continued and
increasing performance. The current study is designed to work in tandem with Zeuch’s
dissertation, filling in certain gaps left in his chosen areas of focus and focusing itself on an
aspect of research that has long been left untouched.
The central purpose of this paper is to address the many hasty, and often faulty,
assumptions regarding the relative structural integrity of Te Deum versus The American Flag,
and to harness the results of theoretical analysis to formulate a defense for performance of the
latter work that may supplement those previously presented by other scholars. This will be
accomplished by a review of the correspondence related to the commissioning of the works; a
careful examination of Dvořák’s sketches for each cantata; a multi-level analysis of the works
combined with in-depth discussion of their relationship to one another; and presentation of
formal Schenkerian analyses of both cantatas.
Several points of clarification are necessary at the outset of this endeavor. The reader
should be aware that vocal scores for both works are freely available online through the
13
For example, Zeuch states on page 19 of the document that Dvořák was no longer the director of the
National Conservatory and implies that the public awareness of this resignation affected reception of the work.
However, it is documented in American newspapers and correspondence between Dvořák, Thurber, and others that
the American public was not made aware of the finality of Dvořák’s departure until later, and in fact, Thurber
herself seemed hopeful that he would return (Dvořák did not send a formal letter of resignation until August 17,
1895). In another instance (p. 40), Zeuch claims that the final movement restates the opening melody in the original
key (A-flat major) with strings, whereas the key is A major (a crucial distinction, as will be discussed at length in
Chapters 2 through 4 of this document), and the melody is stated in the winds. One area of particular concern is
Zeuch’s stated source of the full score used for his chamber orchestra transcription (p. 49). The score held by Rider
University (previously by Tams’ music lending library in NYC) is of unknown origin (not in Dvořák’s hand, as
Zeuch mistakenly states) and diverges significantly from Dvořák’s autograph.
5
International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP). A full score of Te Deum is also available
for reference through that database. Due to inconsistent numeration of published scores and the
necessary use of several editions in this project, the decision was made to number the measures
in each cantata from beginning to end, without restarting at section breaks. This is consistent
with Kyle Zeuch’s approach to numeration in his doctoral thesis on The American Flag. Every
attempt is made to clarify points of examination and discussion; this is reflected in the relatively
large number of images and musical examples provided and the captions included beneath,
which, in the case of published full score excerpts, include the published numeration in addition
to the author’s numeration. The reader is consequently advised to note which numbering system
is being used at any given point, bearing in mind that the body of the text will generally refer to
measures using the author’s consecutive numbering system.
Finally, although there is a standing question of whether “movement” is the proper way
to refer to a section of either of these cantatas (discussed in Chapter 5 of the document),
conventional verbiage is maintained throughout for ease of communication. That being the case,
the reader should take careful note of the author’s preliminary delineation of movements (see
Table i.1), upon which subsequent references to location in each cantata will be based.
6
Table i.1. Bar numeration of Te Deum and The American Flag, as used in this document.
Mvmt I: m. 1
Mvmt II, part 1: m. 83 (pickup not numbered)
Mvmt II, part 2: m. 171
Mvmt III, part 1: m. 259
Mvmt III, part 2: m. 361
Mvmt III, part 3: m. 451
Mvmt III, part 4: m. 559
Finale: m. 666
TOTAL: 457 bars TOTAL: 701 bars
Mvmt IV: m. 369
Mvmt III: m. 197
Numeration
Mvmt II: m. 122
Mvmt I: m. 1
Te Deum The American Flag
CHAPTER 1: Biography and Overview of the Works
“[I am] happy and contented in my work as I have always been and, God grant,
may always be, for my slogan is and shall be: God, Love and Country! And that
alone can lead to a happy goal …”
1
-- Antonín Dvořák
“Truth ungilded, true democracy … And a continual creative restlessness! ...
It seemed as if his whole thought was only music … He lived in the confident
assurance that he was serving his Nation and his God …”
2
-- Josef Suk
Biographical Sketch
Antonín Leopold Dvořák (1841-1904) was born in Nelahozeves, Bohemia, situated in
what is now the Czech Republic. His father, an only marginally successful innkeeper and
butcher, played the zither and fiddle,
3
which likely served as young Antonín’s first exposure to
music. Popular tunes of the day were naturally standard musical fare in the Dvořák household.
Although Antonín was sent to nearby Zlonice, then Böhmisch Kamnitz (today, Česká
Kamenice), and eventually Prague to study Classical music in formal settings, he never lost his
heart-connection to the music of the common folk. It is in these humble, grassroots origins that
one can find at least a partial explanation for why Dvořák would even entertain the question of
traveling to America to help establish a school (in the ideological rather than physical sense) of
musical composition suited to the young but promising country.
1
Otakar Šourek, Dvo řák: Letters and Reminiscences (Prague: Artia, 1954), 88. Excerpted from letter to A.
Gobl, December 31, 1884.
2
From an essay on Dvořák by his pupil and son-in-law, Josef Suk. Quoted by Šourek in Dvo řák: Letters
and Reminiscences, 14.
3
John Clapham, Dvo řák (London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979), 10.
8
Dvořák’s compositional life can be roughly divided into five musical periods. During the
Student/Experimental years (1857-71), he wrote methodically larger works demonstrating a
dependence on the German masters of the early nineteenth century and his own gradual mastery
of formal construction, harmonic complexity, and orchestration. A violist and violinist, he
played under Bedřich Smetana (1824-1884) in the orchestra of the Provisional Theatre in Prague
and was thereby exposed to operas by Czech and Slavic composers as well as masterworks (and
guest conductors) of the more Germanic and cosmopolitan varieties. Though little of this early
output was performed or even published during his lifetime, it laid critical groundwork for the
careful craftsmanship, cultural engagement, and incessant creativity that would come to define
his music and garner international attention later on.
The second period (1871-82) was characterized by Dvořák’s compositional interaction
with the tension between the seemingly diametrically opposed forces of conservative versus
progressive musical thought, the former propagated by Felix Mendelssohn (1809-1847) and
Johannes Brahms (1833-1897), and the latter by Franz Liszt (1811-1886) and Richard Wagner
(1813-1883). Dvořák seems to have avoided political association with either camp, although his
music bears hallmarks of both compositional approaches, which was no doubt refreshing for
mid-century audiences. However, Dvořák’s music might not be considered truly honest, or
strike such a deep chord with its listeners, had he not kept his identity as a Bohemian very near
the forefront of his mind.
4
When several of his compositions captured the interest of the musical
elite in Vienna and a publisher in Berlin, Dvořák boldly met the rising interest in and demand for
4
Dvořák leaned heavily towards Czech texts in his songs and choral works; sparred with publisher Simrock
on the spelling of his name (which he did not want to be Germanized) and translation of texts (felt Czech translation
should be included; and made use of Bohemian and Moravian folk material in his music. In a letter dated September
1, 1886, Dvořák responded thus to the apparently unwelcome adulations of an adoring fan: “I still remain just what I
have always been – a simple Czech musician” (Otakar Šourek, Dvo řák: Letters and Reminiscences (Prague: Artia,
1954), 13).
9
his work, all the while endeavoring to hold true to his personal and artistic convictions. It is
during this decade that Dvořák began taking greater musical risks and, in a sense, his “personal
voice” came to the foreground in his writing. This is the voice that would inspire the British
public and reach even as far as the shores and heartland of America.
5
During the third period (1883-92), Dvořák made no fewer than eight visits to England,
6
enjoying successful performances of his compositions at music festivals as well as receiving
commissions for new works.
7
It was there that he met Alfred Littleton (1845-1914), co-owner of
Novello, an association that would lead to publishing prospects when relations with his German
publisher cooled. Littleton would also assist in the negotiation of Dvořák’s trip to America.
8
Dvořák became familiar with the English language during these years, making a teaching
engagement in the United States more feasible and helping him overcome qualms about leaving
his beloved Bohemia for an extended period of time.
The fourth period (1892-95), though short and fraught with emotional instability,
9
gave
rise to several of Dvořák’s best-known compositions. This “American period” both served as an
opportunity to write upon a clean slate and also drew out of him a fierce love for his homeland
that even he may not have fully grasped before leaving. That desperation to be reunited to the
land of his birth coincided with a total shift towards programmatic music on Czech themes or by
5
John Clapham, “Dvořák on the American Scene,” 19th-Century Music, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Summer 1981): 20.
6
A ninth visit was made in 1896.
7
Klaus Döge, “Dvořák, Antonín (Leopold),” Oxford Music Online (Accessed March 15, 2017).
8
John Clapham, “Dvořák’s Musical Directorship in New York,” Music and Letters, Vol. 48, No. 1
(January 1967): 41.
9
Dvořák’s emotional struggles during this time stemmed primarily from separation from his homeland and
much of his immediate family. Though he had endured darker moments in his life, particularly when he lost his first
three children within the span of three years (1875-77), his time in America proved a different sort of challenge due
to its voluntary nature.
10
Czech writers, a compositional conviction to which he would adhere through the end of his life
and the defining characteristic of his final period (1895-1904).
Key Personalities
Several key personalities played a significant role in Dvořák’s rise to international
prominence as a composer, his decision to move to America, and his crystallization of thought
on what constitutes nationalistic music, or why that is desirable. Besides his wife, Anna
Čermáková Dvořák (1854-1931), one of the most personal influences on Dvořák was the
German composer Johannes Brahms, with whom Dvořák enjoyed and cultivated a close
friendship. Brahms, perhaps more than any of Dvořák’s contemporaries, championed the
younger composer’s music, and in Brahms, Dvořák found both a fellow craftsman and an
inspiration to write music true to his roots.
10
Brahms served as a proof-reader for Dvořák’s
European publications while the Czech composer was in residence in New York City.
11
This was
fortunate for Dvořák, as the German master had been acquainted with Dvořák’s music from the
early 1870’s when Brahms served on the jury of the Austrian State Stipendium, a grant-based
initiative to help struggling young artists. It was none other than Brahms who had recommended
several of Dvořák’s early works to the publisher Fritz Simrock (1837-1901), who would be
instrumental in circulating much of the Bohemian’s music throughout the Austro-Hungarian
Empire.
Fritz Simrock operated out of Berlin and was, like his English competitor Littleton,
personally and professionally connected to many of the most famous European composers and
10
Though Brahms was one of the favored children of the Austro-Hungarian artistic community and the
prevailing winds that blew all throughout Europe, he was in fact a controversial musical figure due to his
traditionalist and formalist convictions.
11
Clapham, Dvo řák, 137.
11
performers of his day. Following his initial financial successes with Dvořák’s Moravian Duets
and the first set of Slavonic Dances for 4-hand piano,
12
Simrock eagerly entered into a
relationship of “exclusive publisher” for Dvořák, gaining him right of first refusal on all of
Dvořák’s new works. In return, Dvořák enjoyed wide circulation of his music throughout
mainland Europe. Simrock published much of Dvořák’s oeuvre during the composer’s lifetime,
although, businessman that he was, Simrock did not always agree with the composer on matters
of artistic significance, or of compensation for that matter. Dvořák’s trip to America came
during a period of considerable tension between the composer and publisher.
13
Of the two works
considered in this document, Simrock published only one (Te Deum), and that apparently with
little enthusiasm.
14
As pertains directly to the arrangement and facilitation of Dvořák’s trip to America, two
figures stand out, namely Jeanette Thurber (1850-1946) and Josef Jan Kovařík (1870-1951).
Mrs. Thurber, the mastermind for this plan, was a staunch supporter of the arts in America even
as she was discontent with the status quo and eager to enact change. Educated at the Paris
Conservatory, she married Frances Thurber (1842-1907), a grocery wholesaler soon to become
multi-millionaire, who supported her vision and provided her with the financial means to begin
making it a reality. Though her initial efforts to start an American opera company devoted to
productions in English or English translations proved less than successful, the National
Conservatory which she founded in 1885 had a much broader and more lasting impact. Though
this institution would also ultimately be forced to close its doors, due in large part to financial
12
Simrock himself had suggested that Dvořák write these duets a la Brahms and his wildly popular
Hungarian Dances.
13
Clapham, Dvo řák, 102.
14
Nick Strimple, “The Choral Works: Te Deum and ‘The American Flag’” in Dvo řák in American, ed.
John C. Tibbetts (Portland: Amadeus Press, 1993), 194.
12
duress and apparent mismanagement, one cannot overstate the impact it had on the American
musical landscape with its radical support of African-American, female, and impoverished
musicians, and its role in bringing Dvořák, with his ideas and ideals, to the States.
Josef Kovařík was an American, of strong Czech heritage, whose father had sent him to
study music and Czech language and culture at the Prague Conservatory. Dvořák met Kovařík in
1889, just before he was presented with multiple invitations to accept the position of Director of
the National Conservatory in New York. Kovařík was the personal connection Dvořák needed to
allay his concerns about traveling to the New World, a prospect that carried with it considerable
inconvenience, a necessary separation from his beloved homeland, and a host of familial
concerns. It is clear from Dvořák’s correspondence that family was at the center of his thoughts
as he weighed the financial incentive presented to him.
15
Dvořák came to rely heavily on the
much younger man as a musical assistant, guide, and generally close companion during his
sojourn in the United States, and much of what is known about Dvořák’s daily experiences and
compositional process comes from reminiscences of the devoted Kovařík.
Negotiation of the Trip
Before examining the two pre-American
16
cantatas at hand, some attention should be
given to the circumstances surrounding Thurber’s persistent efforts to attract Dvořák to New
York City, and similarly, Dvořák’s initial perception of that purpose to which he was being
engaged. Thurber was searching for an iconic figure with nationalist ideals through whom she
could harness her vision for a self-aware, self-sustaining school of composers and performers in
15
John Clapham, “Dvořák’s Musical Directorship in New York: A Postscript,” Music and Letters, Vol. 59,
No. 1 (January 1978), 20-24.
16
See Footnote 2 in Introduction.
13
the United States. Up through the late nineteenth century, America had taken its artistic cues
from continental Europe and had more or less resigned itself to the “import” of both music and
virtuosi. In Dvořák, Thurber believed she had found someone who could lend credence and
increased visibility to her institution as well as stir the waters of American creativity at large.
She was not entirely wrong in this assessment,
17
for although Dvořák was himself European, he
represented a burgeoning nationalism amongst composers who sought to express ideological
independence from prevailing winds of Germanic art music associated with the Austro-
Hungarian Empire.
Informal discussions regarding a possible trip to America began as early as 1884, at
which time Dvořák indicated he would consider a trip “provided the terms were acceptable.”
18
A
formal invitation was extended to the composer by Jeanette Thurber in 1891, and negotiations
ensued. Dvořák’s initial response was negative, but Thurber persisted, communicating with
Dvořák primarily through their mutual friend Littleton in England. Eventually the composer was
convinced of the advantageous nature of the trip, familial concerns notwithstanding, and signed a
contract for a two-year engagement.
19
Dvořák seems to have understood the enormity of the task at hand, in that he expressed
concerns to Thurber about his feeling unequal to the challenges she was asking him to face.
20
Be
17
Jeannette Thurber, “Dvořák as I Knew Him,” The Étude (November, 1919). Thurber states, “In looking
back over my thirty-five years of activity as President of the National Conservatory of Music of America there is
nothing I am so proud of as having been able to bring Dr. Dvořák to America.”
18
Graham Melville-Mason, “From London to New York: Dvořák’s Introduction to America,” Dvo řák in
America: 1892-1895, ed. John C. Tibbetts (Portland: Amadeus Press, 1993), 30.
19
Thurber would later convince Dvořák to extend his contract for an additional two years, though this
additional term was cut short due to financial and other tensions.
20
Clapham, Dvo řák, 109. Clapham quotes Dvořák from a letter he wrote to Thurber on December 12,
1891: “I am a little afraid that I shall not be able to please you in everything in my new position. As a teacher and
instructor and conductor I feel myself quite sure, but there [are] many other trifles which will make me much sorrow
and grieve – but I rely on your kindness and indulgence and be sure I shall do all to please you.”
14
that as it may, Dvořák seems to have carried a general optimism and openness of thought with
him to America. Evident in Dvořák’s correspondence and interviews throughout his time in the
States is a movement away from natural fantasies of what America may be like – with further
pronouncements of what it should be like – and movement towards celebration of the unique
potential for originality he found in the inhabitants of the “New World.” The two cantatas under
consideration, written as they were immediately before (and in the case of The American Flag,
overlapping with) Dvořák’s arrival to the United States, must necessarily be understood as
anticipatory rather than documentary. This distinction places limits on what theorists may label
as “Americanisms” in these works.
Origins of the Works
The American Flag and Te Deum are “two sides of the same coin,” though one has
clearly landed on top in history’s toss. It was Jeanette Thurber who initially posed the idea of
Dvořák’s writing a festive cantata. She seems to have envisioned a dual function, with the
composition serving both as Dvořák’s formal introduction to the American public as well as an
important part of the Columbus Quadricentennial celebrations of 1892.
21
In light of the latter
function, she naturally desired the work to have a patriotic quality, leading to the following
directives in a letter sent June 10, 1892, to Alfred Littleton from Novello’s New York office,
with instructions to pass along the proposal to Dvořák:
[He] should write for the occasion a Cantata (not to take longer than 30 minutes) for Solo
of Soli, Chorus and Orchestra. Mrs. Thurber is trying to get suitable words for the
occasion written by some good American poet and will send them to you as soon as
possible. Should Mrs. Thurber not succeed in getting suitable words in time, the
21
The celebrations culminated in the Columbian Exposition (“Chicago World’s Fair”) of 1893. Dvořák
visited the Exposition in August of that year and conducted a concert of his own works on “Bohemia Day.”
15
proposition is that Dr. Dvořák choose some Latin hymn such as ‘Te Deum Laudamus’ or
‘Jubilate Deo’ or any other which would be suitable for the occasion.
22
In fact, Thurber did not send Dvořák a text in time, and he opted to write a Te Deum.
When the long-awaited patriotic text did arrive in early July, Dvořák put the finishing touches on
Te Deum before responding on July 28:
As to ‘The American Flag’ … I can tell you that I like the poem very much – it really is a
grand poem – and your selection for a patriotic hymn – ‘Columbus Cantata’ – is very
well fitted for music. But what a pity it is that you did not send the words a month
earlier. It is quite impossible to get ready a work which will take half an hour in
performance in time for October, and so I was compelled to write a Te Deum. I shall,
however, go on with the work from which every musician must get inspired.
23
True to his word, Dvořák sketched and completed the second cantata, though with no clear
prospect for performance.
The text Thurber had finally settled on was the poem “The American Flag,” written in
1819 by Joseph Rodman Drake (1795-1820), a New England satirist whose work came to be
associated with the American spirit of the nineteenth century, the very spirit which Thurber
herself was trying to translate into musical invention. In his recent dissertation regarding
performance solutions for The American Flag, Kyle Zeuch notes how the poem was likely used
as a staple recitation in schools towards the end of the century, and held in similar regard as the
national motto and anthems.
24
The poem gave every indication of being, to borrow the
colloquialism, “tried and true,” but was unavoidably a product of a unique time in American
history, the social tenets of which would be called into question by later generations.
22
Clapham, “Dvořák’s Musical Directorship in New York: A Postscript,” 25.
23
Ibid., 26.
24
Kyle Zeuch, “Antonín Dvořák’s Cantata, The American Flag, Op. 102. Performance Solutions in a
Modern Context” (DMA diss., Michigan State University, 2017), 24.
16
Nevertheless, Dvořák did appear to take an immediate and genuine interest in the poem and its
subject matter.
The liturgical hymn Te Deum, by contrast, had already stood the test of nearly fifteen
centuries of church history and was ubiquitously associated with festive occasions.
25
A devout
Roman Catholic, Dvořák likely found a direct and deep connection to this text, which may in
part explain the quick work he made of its setting. Dvořák took the liberty of adding the
Benedicimus patris (“Let us bless the Father”), a line excerpted from the Roman Catholic
canticle Benedicite (“Bless [the Lord]”), to the end of the text, heightening its jubilant impact.
Given Dvořák’s dexterity in treating the Latin text, it is doubtful he sought or needed any
support in understanding it. Conversely, although his English was quite good after several trips
to Great Britain, Dvořák likely needed assistance with the American poem, especially
considering the lofty, and at times archaic, verbiage. Thurber had sent a brief explanation and
history of the poem, prepared by Drake’s grandson, Charles de Kay (1848-1935),
26
but for
practical translation of the poem into Czech for better comprehension, Dvořák most likely relied
on the young American, Kovařík, who was staying with the family at Dvořák’s summer home in
Vysoká
27
and would accompany them on their overseas passage.
28
A general timeline of composition for the two works can be constructed using
correspondence from the time and information contained on the sketches and autograph scores
25
Ron Jeffers, Translations and Annotations of Choral Repertoire: Volume 1: Sacred Latin Texts (Oregon:
earthsongs, 1988), 219-20.
26
Clapham, “Dvořák’s Musical Directorship in New York: A Postscript,” 26. These notes are held by the
Narodní Muzeum in Prague and catalogued with the libretto as S226-900.
27
Kateřina Nová and Veronika Vejvodová, eds, Three Years with the Maestro: An American remembers
Antonín Dvo řák (Prague: Národní museum, 2016), 19.
28
Marginal notes on the libretto in Dvořák’s hand, often regarding meaning or significance of certain
phrases or words in the text, would seem to reflect such discussions.
17
themselves (see Table 1.1). Examples of Dvořák’s manuscript dating system can be seen in
Images 1.1 and 1.2.
Table 1.1. Compositional timeline for Te Deum and The American Flag.
Image 1.1. The American Flag, autograph full score, p. 1 (given), top-right corner. Location, date, and
signature.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, partitura. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Date Details
June 25 (1892) Te Deum sketch begun at Vysoka
June 30 Te Deum sketch completed
July 2 Te Deum orchestration begun
July 28 Te Deum score completed
August 3 The American Flag sketch begun at Vysoka
Early September The American Flag sketch completed (exact date unknown)
November 1 The American Flag orchestrati on begun in New York City
January 8 (1893) The American Flag score completed
January 18 The American Flag piano reduction begun
February 17 The American Flag piano reduction completed
Compositional Timeline
18
Image 1.2. Dvořák, The American Flag, sketch, p. 16 (given). Inscription stating, “Vysoká September
1892 before departing for America. Antonín Dvořák.” [translated by David Beveridge]
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Several factors likely contributed to Dvořák’s taking considerably longer to complete The
American Flag than its counter-part. He was no longer under pressure to have a work in hand
for his debut performance, as he had already expended considerable creative energy to produce
Te Deum and was likely satisfied with this work.
29
The physical move of Dvořák and his family
to the United States in September of 1892 likely made work impractical, if he considered the
composition at all during the trans-Atlantic voyage and early weeks in New York City.
Following his arrival, Thurber very quickly suggested that he consider writing an American
symphony or opera,
30
a proposition he latched onto quite readily and for which he began
sketching ideas as early as December of that same year. Another idea, a resetting of the patriotic
29
Given the time constraint, it is likely that Dvořák would not have made any revisions to the work, even
had there been concerns. In his letter to Thurber on July 28, 1892, he states: “If you wish to have [Te Deum]
performed on the occasion of my first appearance in New York … it would be necessary to get it copied
immediately” (quoted in Clapham, “Dvořák’s Musical Directorship in New York: A Postscript,” 26).
30
Clapham, Dvo řák, 118-19.
19
text “My Country, ’Tis of Thee”
31
for which a sketch exists dating December 19, shows that
Dvořák was very much immersed in the overall experience of American life and that he had
other compositional irons in the fire besides completing The American Flag. When one
considers how many reasons Dvořák likely had to let the project go, his mere completion of the
cantata – with no immediate prospects for performance – seems to be an indication that he
valued the work for its own sake.
Reception of the Works
Te Deum was premiered to enthusiastic reception
32
on Oct. 21, 1892, in Carnegie Music
Hall, with Dvořák on the podium before full orchestra
33
and a chorus of approximately 250
singers.
34
The American Flag, on the other hand, was laid aside and perhaps even forgotten
35
by
the composer until shortly before he left the United States for the last time in April of 1895.
36
Premiered on May 4 of that year, the work did not fare nearly as well as its close cousin, owing
at least in part to an apparent lack of performance quality
37
and a natural tendency of the
audience to compare the work directly to the iconic Symphony in E minor “From the New
31
Jarmil Burghauser, “‘My Country, ’Tis of Thee’” in Dvo řák in America, ed. John C. Tibbetts (Portland:
Amadeus Press, 1993), 203-04. At that time, no official national anthem was in place, although “The Star-Spangled
Banner” and “America” (also known as “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee”) were among those most widely used as
unofficial anthems of the young nation.
32
Clapham, Dvo řák, 116.
33
Šourek notes that this was the Boston Symphony Orchestra (Dvo řák: Letters and Reminiscences, 150),
but that claim is dubious.
34
Antonín Dvořák, Te Deum, Op. 103: Vocal Score (Prague: Bärenreiter Praha, 2004), VIII.
35
Clapham, Antonín Dvo řák: Musician and Craftsman (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966), 261.
36
While Dvořák’s first summer (1893) was spent in Spillville, Iowa, he did return to Bohemia with his
family during the summer of 1894, arriving back in New York in the fall.
37
Zeuch, “Antonín Dvořák’s Cantata,” 16-17.
20
World” (composed 1892-93), which had taken America, and indeed the world, by storm. To
further complicate matters for the public, The American Flag and Te Deum were published
shortly thereafter as Op. 102 (G. Schirmer, 1895) and Op. 103 (Simrock, 1896), respectively.
Compared with the Op. 95 listing of the Symphony No. 9 (known as No. 5 at that time), the older
cantata with delayed release date must have appeared lackluster indeed.
Despite a couple of years’ delay in publication, Te Deum has enjoyed consistent
performances worldwide since its premiere. Today, there are available several excellent editions
in full and vocal score format, and various recordings can be found on major labels. The same
cannot be said for The American Flag, however, which has a publication and performance
history much more easily listed than found (see Table 1.2). This constitutes an indubitably
uncharacteristic failure for Dvořák, particularly when considered alongside the performance
history of Te Deum. Granted, The American Flag lacked certain advantages bestowed upon its
predecessor, not the least of which being the Latin cantata’s association with Dvořák’s much-
anticipated arrival in the U.S.A. Dvořák himself expressed a general uncertainty regarding
whether The American Flag could possibly be accepted or understood outside of America,
38
and
yet one cannot presume he had very high hopes for its American premiere either, as he made his
final departure for Bohemia on April 16, a few short weeks before the premiere of the cantata.
This puzzling turn of events should not be too quickly taken as Dvořák’s disavowal of the work,
however, as there were many other factors involved in the somewhat hurried departure.
39
38
Kateřina Nová and Veronika Vejvodová, eds, Three Years with the Maestro: An American remembers
Antonín Dvo řák (Prague: Národní museum, 2016), 112.
39
In addition to longstanding financial tensions between the Dvořák and Thurber stemming from
increasingly late payments of his stipend, the composer’s third and final year in the States was also plagued by
homesickness for the majority of his family, who were left in Bohemia after summer of 1894.
21
Table 1.2. Documented performance and publication history of The American Flag.
The few scholars and biographers who have considered The American Flag in any great
detail have suggested that the chief obstacle to its success lies either in a controversial American
imperialist text made less comprehensible by the Bohemian voice speaking it; shoddy
construction; or a simple run of bad luck in a musical marketplace already saturated with popular
Romantic-era literature, exacerbated by its halting (stumbling) presentation to a public always on
guard against anything that might be considered passé. More than likely, the truth lies in a
Date Details
1895 (May 4) World premiere in New York City, O. Stewart Taylor conducting
1895 (summer)
Subsequent performances throughout the United States (Los Angeles,
Chicago, Cincinnatti, etc.) [ not well documented ]
1895 Publication of vocal score by G. Schirmer
1931 (May 2) European premiere in Prague [ conductor unknown ]
[ dates unknown ]
Various hand-copies of full score created, including one originally held by
Supraphon (Prague) and one by Tams' Musical Library (New York)
1976 Re-release of vocal score by G. Schirmer
1976 (June)
Recording with Berlin Radio Symphony Orchestra, Michael Tilson-Thomas
conducting
1976 (October)
New York performance with Buffalo Philharmonic, Michael Tilson-Thomas
conducting
2003 Publication of full score by Bärenreiter Praha, edited by Jan Kachlik
1995 (May)
Prague centennial performance with the Prague Radio Symphony Orchestra,
Vladimír Válek conducting
1995 (May)
Recording with Prague Radio Symphony Orchestra, Vladimír Válek
conducting
2014 (September)
Ball State University student performance with piano accompaniment,
Geoffrey Hutton conducting
2016 (January)
Michigan State University student performance of a newly arranged chamber
orchestra version, Kyle Zeuch conducting
Performance and Publication History of The American Flag
22
combination of factors.
40
The question at hand, however, is whether such ambivalence,
bordering on overt opposition, towards this work has ever been entirely warranted. Kyle Zeuch
has drawn attention to the historical significance of the text, arguing for recognition of the
corresponding cantata as a critical piece of American history,
41
and certainly of Dvořák’s
compositional journey. One would have expected efforts like those of Michael Tilson-Thomas
and G. Schirmer to revive the patriotic work through performance, recording, and a
“Bicentennial Edition” of the vocal score, to have gained some traction. There were many
similar “rediscoveries” of underappreciated composers and works during the latter half of the
twentieth century,
42
and yet despite this trend, Dvořák’s patriotic cantata continues to languish in
relative obscurity.
In trying to determine whether the impotence of this cantata on the world stage is
attributable to some defect in the composition itself or merely to the whim of history, it would
seem prudent to examine the inner workings of the cantata more closely from a theoretical
perspective. The remainder of this document will attempt to shine light on the structural
underpinnings of both pre-American cantatas, gauging their respective strengths and weaknesses
in the manner of a comparative analysis. In the course of the analyses, specific attention will be
drawn to points of compositional interest that uniquely recommend each work to the performer
and listener.
40
These factors almost certainly do not include “poor construction,” as will be observed later in this
document.
41
Zeuch, “Antonín Dvořák’s Cantata,” 60.
42
Take, for example, the sacred works of Josef Rheinberger (1839-1901) or the concerti of Antonio Vivaldi
(1678-1741).
CHAPTER 2: The Compositional Trail
Sources Informing Analysis
Dvořák rarely spoke or wrote about his compositional process. In fact, he seems to have
intentionally avoided such discussions. However, a couple of key comments that pertain to the
present study emerge from formal interviews with the composer. In an excerpt from Dvořák’s
first official interview upon arriving in the United States:
Dr. Dvorák became embarrassed when asked about his own music, but he was finally
prevailed upon to produce the preliminary rough draught of the American ode, if only for
the purpose of demonstrating the great facilities of English above Bohemian …
"English," explained the composer, "as you know, abounds in monosyllabic words. Each
of these can stand for a musical accent, or, better still, every other word can bear the
accent; as, for instance, in the iambic lines:
When Freedom from her mountain height
Unfurled her standard to the air.
Nothing could be easier.” …
With some reluctance Dr. Dvořák explained how he had conceived the music for the
poem.
1
Seven years later, back in Europe:
How do you work out your ideas, Master? –
“Gluck is said to have affirmed that he has his opera complete in his head before he
writes it. I do not know if that is right, but to a certain extent I find it is true of myself. I
always make sketches which contain the substance of the motifs for my work, the basic
material for the intended musical expression. After a period of intense thought, of
conscious concentration of my artistic ‘I,’ the work proceeds quite smoothly and quickly.
My imagination requires to be stimulated but then it carries me along with it …”
2
1
Unsigned, “A Talk with Dvořák” in The New York Evening Post (Vol. 91, October 1, 1892), 2.
2
Egon Šamberk, “From an interview ‘Bei Meister Dvořák’” in Politik (November 26, 1899), quoted in:
Otakar Šourek, ed., Antonín Dvo řák: Letters and Reminiscences (Prague: Artia, 1954), 187.
24
From these accounts, one can glean that Dvořák’s sketchbooks, of which there are many
(and no fewer than five from the “American period”),
3
reveal much more than casual jottings or
a mere work in progress which could be reimagined at any moment. Though some instances
reveal a complete reworking of a theme or restart of a section, both Te Deum and The American
Flag are clearly recognizable in their sketched form.
It is widely known that, although Dvořák personally oversaw the preparation of scores for
publication and often made significant revisions during this proofing process, published scores
are nonetheless often riddled with inconsistencies and errors. Early in the composer’s career,
Brahms gently chided Dvořák regarding his apparent lack of care in preparing scores, stating in a
letter dated March, 1878, “You write somewhat hurriedly. When you are filling in the numerous
missing sharps, flats and naturals, then it would be good to look a little more closely at the notes
themselves and at the voice parts etc.”
4
Simrock likely complained on occasion about the rough
condition of Dvořák’s fair copies. This apparent absentmindedness on Dvořák’s part does not
seem to have significantly improved with age, as evidenced by the following humorous anecdote
related by Kovařík about the summer in Spillville (1893):
I sat in my room, copying out the score of the [New World] symphony; I reached the last
page and discovered that it was missing some ten bars of “trombones” … Coming
downstairs, I heard Gaffer Bílý talking with the maestro about “music” … asking the
maestro very naïve questions … he just couldn’t understand how it was possible for the
person who was writing to simultaneously hear what it would sound like. Finally, Gaffer
ventured one more question: “And, Mr. Dvořák, sir, you never forget anything?” To
which the maestro replied: “No, Gaffer.” … I came up to the maestro and asked him what
was the deal with the “trombones” that they stopped so abruptly … The maestro
remarked that I was always looking for some “devil in the details”, but he took the score,
looked at it, and finally said: “Ah, but you didn’t read the footnote.” “Three p.m.
3
Miroslav Ivanov, In Dvo řák’s Footsteps: Musical Journeys in the New World (Missouri: The Thomas
Jefferson University Press, 1995), 178-79.
4
Johannes Brahms, addressing Dvořák in a letter from March of 1878, as quoted in: Otakar Šourek, ed.,
Antonín Dvo řák: Letters and Reminiscences (Prague: Artia, 1954), 42.
25
Cablegram just arrived from Southampton, the children are on their way to America –
and all in good health!” I objected that the footnote had nothing to do with the symphony
and that it would be absurd to inform the audience when performing the symphony that
as a consequence of having received a cable, the trombone parts were left unfinished! …
[Gaffer Bílý] laughed and said: … Well then, we forgot something after all!” And the
maestro laughed as well!
5
In the current age of critical editions, editors face a particular challenge due to Dvořák’s
less than pristine penmanship and standard practice of considering the published score, rather
than the autograph score, to be the final version of a composition. Consequently, in light of the
errors present in first editions, it is difficult to say with absolute certainty what Dvořák really
meant in cases of discrepancy between or amongst primary sources, especially since the fair
copies of neither Te Deum nor The American Flag are extant.
6
From a compositional
perspective, however, it is fascinating to observe the progression of his ideas from sketch to
published edition, the thrust of which generally comes through quite clearly.
7
Working in reverse chronological order through the extant sources dating from the
composer’s lifetime,
8
one first encounters the published vocal score of Te Deum (Simrock, 1896)
and the corresponding vocal score of The American Flag (G. Schirmer, 1895). Schirmer’s
publication, which by Dvořák’s instruction was only to be distributed on the American market,
9
seems to have had no direct supervision by the composer, at least none that is documented.
When compared to Dvořák’s hand-written piano reduction of the orchestral score (see Image 2.1)
5
Kateřina Nová and Veronika Vejvodová, eds., Three Years with the Maestro: An American remembers
Antonín Dvo řák. (Prague: Národní museum, 2016), 61-62.
6
Antonín Dvořák, Te Deum: The New Novello Choral Edition (London: Novello, 2003), iii.
7
Throughout the analyses that follow, effort will be made not to give undue weight to minor details, though
commentary will occasionally be offered in an attempt to clarify certain ambiguities.
8
It is from these sources that modern editions have been created, including the first critical edition of Te
Deum by Editio Supraphon in 1969 and the much more recent (first) edition of The American Flag, released by
Bärenreiter Praha in 2003.
9
Nová and Vejvodová, eds., Three Years with the Maestro (Prague: Národní museum, 2016), 112-13.
26
and to the vocal parts in the autograph full score,
10
however, only minor discrepancies emerge.
These differences consist mostly of corrections to the text, suggesting that the editor(s) used a
published copy of Drake’s original poem as an additional source in preparing the vocal score.
Only small fragments of work on a piano reduction for Te Deum exist in Dvořák’s sketchbooks.
Image 2.1. The American Flag, piano reduction autograph, p. 1 (given).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, klavier. New York: Autograph, 1893. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
The short-score sketches of each cantata, Te Deum being worked out in late June of 1892,
and The American Flag arriving at its basic form by early September of the same year, are held
10
Careful copied scores were presumably left with Gustav Schirmer when the publication rights were sold
to him by Dvořák for $1,000 USD.
27
by the Národní Muzeum in Prague. These are the earliest versions of the works known to exist,
preceded only by general discussion with Jeanette Thurber in letter form and Dvořák’s personal
notes in the margins of the libretto she provided him for The American Flag. Before moving into
the analytical portion of the paper, which will draw primarily from published versions of the
scores, an examination of the sketches will be undertaken to provide a frame of reference for
discussion of Dvořák’s compositional process. Specific points or passages in the sketches will
be referred to using Dvořák’s given page numbers and a brief description of location on the
pages referenced.
Sketches: Overview
When placing the sketches side by side, several points of commonality are readily
apparent. Dvořák makes visible corrections to both sketches at the phrasal and sectional levels,
though the overall structure remains intact in both cases. Very few transitions are fully worked
out as compared to the autograph scores (compare, for instance, Images 2.2 and 2.3). In a few
cases, however, transitions are actually shortened or even eliminated in the later version, as in
Images 2.4 and 2.5.
28
Image 2.2. Te Deum, sketch, p. 1 (given), bottom. Transition to A major (standard, modern choral clefs
for top four staves, treble over bass clef for bottom staves, G-major key signature).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní Muzeum in
Prague. Used with permission.
29
Image 2.3. Te Deum, autograph full score, p. 5 (given), mm. 22-25. Excerpt of transition to A major
(from top: brass, percussion, chorus, violins, all with standard clefs).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, partitura. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní Muzeum in
Prague. Used with permission.
Image 2.4. The American Flag, sketch, p. 2 (given), top. Sketch of what will become mm. 43-48, with
discarded transition.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
30
Image 2.5. The American Flag, autograph full score, p. 8 (given), mm. 43-46. Dovetailing of opening
solo into first choral entrance (standard modern clefs for alto solo and chorus).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, partitura. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Key motives are present, at least in proto-form, in the early pages of each sketch and are
noticeably refined over the course of the work in addition to being developed and used as
unifying material throughout. Along these lines, the initial statements of motivic material in the
orchestral score of each cantata are far clearer than the ones in the early pages of the sketch.
Dvořák apparently knows what he intends to say but is unsure of exactly how to phrase it until
having tried once and had opportunity to reflect on the material. All eventually becomes clear to
him, and the statement in the full score confidently bears its own weight.
Dvořák frequently uses vertical shorthand and omission of necessary horizontal
orchestral material, jotting ideas here and there for instrumental accompaniment (harmonies and
figures) but focusing largely on vocal/choral lines. He also engages in revision of ideas as he
sketches, sometimes in the form of marginal notes, and sometimes with corrections written
directly onto the staves. In a few instances, he backtracks and restarts a section, evidently
dissatisfied with where previous attempts were headed (see, for instance, Images 2.6a/b and 2.7).
However, the majority of ideas seem to be already in working order prior to being notated into
the sketchbook.
31
Image 2.6a. The American Flag, sketch, p. 5 (given), bottom-right. Initial sketch of second stanza in
Movement 2 (treble clefs).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
32
Image 2.6b. The American Flag, sketch, p. 6 (given, scratched out), bottom-right. Initial sketch of
second stanza in Movement 2, cont’d. Material ultimately discarded, but significant mediant key
relationship between A major and C major explored.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
33
Image 2.7. The American Flag, sketch, p. 6 (given), top-left. Restart of second stanza in Movement 2.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Although the two sketches are reflective of a very similar compositional process, several
key differences can be seen at the sketch level. The two works each have a performance length
of roughly twenty minutes; however, the Te Deum sketch is shorter in sketched form, with
fifteen pages against the eighteen of The American Flag.
11
The former is less legible, which
would seem to indicate a more hurried compositional pace, and also less detailed, with frequent
melodically driven short-hand employed to facilitate movement through sections (see Image
2.8). Melodies are also more prone to be altered in Te Deum, both within the sketch and when
converted over to the full score.
11
Dvořák mistakenly assigns the number 13 to two consecutive pages in Te Deum, yielding a given
numeration of 14. In The American Flag, he is careful to renumber pages when a significant amount of material has
been discarded, yielding a given numeration of 16.
34
Image 2.8. Te Deum, sketch, p. 7 (given), top. Sketch of mm. 170-181 (treble clef 8vb for soloist, treble
over bass clef for accompaniment, E-flat minor).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní Muzeum in
Prague. Used with permission.
The most significant difference, however, regards the respective key structures of the two
works. The sketched progression of keys in Te Deum corresponds at every important point to the
progressions encountered in the final version. The parallelism between sketch and full-score of
The American Flag unfolds in much the same manner. However, just before the Finale
movement, Dvořák completely changes the key in the final version, shifting up a half step from
the sketched A-flat major and arriving instead in A major (compare Image 2.9 to 2.10a/b).
35
Image 2.9. The American Flag, sketch, p. 14 (given). Sketched transition into Finale, corresponding to
mm. 658-66 (treble clef over 8vb treble clef at top, bass clef at bottom, E-minor key signature at start).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Images 2.10a (left) and 2.10b (right). The American Flag, autograph full score, pp. 77-78 (given).
Excerpts of transition into Finale, corresponding to mm. 658-66 (vocal parts [bass clef over two treble
clefs] over low string parts [alto clef over two bass clefs] in 2.10a, E-minor key signature at the start;
woodwinds over Horn 1 in 2.10b).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, partitura. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
36
Sketch: Te Deum
Looking more closely at each sketch individually, several noteworthy discrepancies
between sketch and full score emerge.
12
In Coro (“chorus”) No. 1 of Te Deum (the first
movement), no introduction is given at the start, although the oscillating triplet timpani line is
jotted in the upper margin (see Image 2.11). Neither is any fanfare suggested on page 1 at the
point corresponding to mm. 23-24, despite the fact that this idea will figure prominently into the
final version (see Image 2.2). Following this rapid transition into A major, Dvořák’s sketch
incorporates new lines of text that will, in the final version, instead be delayed until after a
repetition of the opening lines and a return to tonic G.
Image 2.11. Te Deum, sketch, p. 1 (given). Opening bars.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní Muzeum in
Prague. Used with permission.
12
Many other examples can be mentioned, though most are easily explained by allowance for surface
manipulation and tightening or extending of transitions, etc.
37
The soprano solo (m. 56) is not yet clearly established in the sketch.
13
Instead, a
homophonic choral presentation of the initial material of this section is given (see Image 2.12),
and much of what follows seems to be conceived with some uncertainty of whether soloist or
choir will be dominant throughout the section.
Image 2.12. Te Deum, sketch, p. 3 (given), top-right, corresponding to mm. 56-60. Notes intention to
use soloist and chorus (standard modern clefs for chorus, G-major key signature).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní Muzeum in
Prague. Used with permission.
In Coro No. 2, the iconic second bar of the fanfare (m. 123) has not yet materialized,
given in the sketch as a long downbeat instead. The bass solo beginning in the following bar is
first sketched far more similarly to the bass line in m. 7 than one finds in the final form,
suggesting to a generative approach to melodic invention in this composition (see Image 2.13).
The solo is revised in sketch to its final form.
13
By the author’s reading, the marginal note seen in Image 2.12 suggests presentation of the melody as a
soprano solo.
38
Image 2.13. Te Deum, sketch, p. 5 (given), bottom-left. Fanfare and opening bars of bass solo,
corresponding to mm. 122-25 (bass over treble over bass clef).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní Muzeum in
Prague. Used with permission.
The sketch of Coro No. 3, the most clearly recognizable compared to its final form,
differs significantly from the final version only in its approach to Coro No. 4. In sketch, the third
movement slows to a halt by means of the chromatically collapsing chords that will correspond
to mm. 337-54, and ends on a fermata (see Image 2.14). In the full score, however, the restless
accompaniment is given voice once more at m. 355, and its energy is finally dissipated through
disintegration and a descending line that is dovetailed into the soft and lyrical opening of the
fourth movement.
Image 2.14. Te Deum, sketch, p. 11 (given), top-left. Sketched ending for Movement 3, corresponding
to mm. 347 and following (treble over bass clef, B minor).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní Muzeum in
Prague. Used with permission.
39
Coro No. 4 exhibits slight alterations of melody throughout when converted from sketch
to final form, most of which need not be highlighted. However, a couple of seemingly minor,
even ornamental, additions to the solo parts at mm. 425-28 prove to be structurally significant
when viewed through a Schenkerian lens (see Chapter 4). An excerpt of the sketched static
version can be seen in Image 2.15.
Image 2.15. Te Deum, sketch, p. 13[a] (given), bottom. Sketched solo parts corresponding to mm. 424-
27 in Movement 4 (treble over bass clef, C-major key signature).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní Muzeum in
Prague. Used with permission.
Also, worth noting is the heightened clarity of ideas at mm. 407 and following as
presented in the final form. Dvořák similarly reworks the rhythm of the sketched choral parts in
what will become mm. 437-41 so as to yield a more clear and energetic rendering of the fanfare
motif. The original version of the rhythm can be seen in Image 2.16.
40
Image 2.16. Te Deum, sketch, p. 13[b] (given), top-right. Sketched rhythm of choral parts,
corresponding to m. 437 in Movement 4 (treble clefs, G-major key signature).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní Muzeum in
Prague. Used with permission.
Sketch: The American Flag
The more substantial sketch for The American Flag leaves less to conjecture regarding
the composer’s process, though several difficult questions arise from its examination. The first
sketched page reveals a clear commitment to a full instrumental introduction, sketched
essentially in its complete form on piano grand staff. However, the central motif of the
composition (hereafter referred to as the “Flag theme”),
14
though stated clearly in mm. 6-8 in the
full score of the cantata, is given only in rough form at the corresponding point in the sketch
(compare Images 2.17 and 2.18a/b).
14
In a discussion of The American Flag (third volume of his four-volume biography of Dvořák, Život a dílo
Antonína Dvo řáka), Otakar Šourek identifies two central ideas around which the cantata is constructed. These are
the “motif of Freedom” encountered in mm. 1-2, and the “Theme of the Flag” first encountered in mm. 6-8. A
dotted form of this “Flag theme” is jotted down by Dvořák in the margin of the libretto in A major. It is impossible
to know precisely when this was penned in relationship to the start of the sketch, and likewise, how many other
themes had begun to take shape in the composer’s mind before he began the sketch. While it seems likely that
Dvořák would have used the margins of the libretto to jot down his very earliest ideas, it is hard to reconcile that
with how the central theme/motivic idea was only “worked out” as the opening bars were sketched. Refer to the
motivic analysis in Chapter 4 for further discussion.
41
Image 2.17. The American Flag, sketch, p. 1 (given), top-right, corresponding to mm. 6-8. Sketch of
primary motif of The American Flag (treble clef, A-flat major).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Images 2.18a (left) and 2.18b (right). The American Flag, autograph full score, p. 1-2 (given),
corresponding to mm. 6-8. Statement of primary thematic motif of The American Flag (flute, treble clef,
A-flat major).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, partitura. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Surprisingly, the motif is then presented almost exactly as it will appear in final form at
the sketch point corresponding to mm. 14-15 (see Image 2.19). This begs the question of how
fully formed the work truly was in Dvořák’s mind when he started the sketch, for it seems as
though he is working out this motif as he goes. While it is certainly possible that Dvořák
intended to “unfold” the motif gradually, it seems more likely that he stumbled upon the more
interesting version of the line as he moved through the introduction and decided to keep it and
adjust whatever concept he had for the work as a whole. He does not yet, however, feel
compelled to reiterate the ascending triad portion of the motif at the point in the sketch
corresponding to mm. 79-80, located at the bottom of sketch page 3 (see Image 2.20). The
sketched melody of scale degrees < 8 – 6 – 5 > is reminiscent of the pentatonic inflection that
42
occurs at the opening of Te Deum, but this entire closing section will ultimately be revised and
re-harmonized in the full score (see Image 2.21).
Image 2.19. The American Flag, sketch, p. 1 (given), end of second system. Primary thematic motif
restated and transposed, corresponding to mm. 14-16 (treble clef, A-flat-major key signature).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Image 2.20. The American Flag, sketch, p. 3 (given), bottom. Sketch of Movement 1 closing thematic
material (treble over bass clef, A-flat major).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
43
Image 2.21. The American Flag, autograph full score, p. (given), corresponding to mm. 78-80. Full
score closing of Movement 1 (woodwinds, bottom staff in bass clef, all others in treble, A-flat major).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, partitura. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Returning to the opening bars, there is a noticeable absence of lowered scale degree
< 6 >
15
in m. 4 and a generally brighter quality to the introduction set up by an A-flat-major
chord on the downbeat of that same measure, supporting < 5 > in the melody (see Image 2.22).
Several bars later, however, an alternative harmonization (minor iii) of the final melody note in
m. 30 yields a far more solemn effect than one encounters in the later version. Dvořák appears to
be working out the proper mood to set the stage for the cantata as a whole. By the point
corresponding to m. 59, the F-flat has finally been worked into the harmonic language (see
Image 2.23).
15
Hereafter “scale-degree” is simply indicated by < # >.
44
Image 2.22. The American Flag, sketch, p. 1 (given), top. Excerpt of opening bars, corresponding to
mm. 3-5 (treble over bass clef to start, A-flat major).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Image 2.23. The American Flag, sketch, p. 2 (given), bottom-left. Alto solo, corresponding to mm. 59-
60 (all treble clef except bottom left bass clef, A-flat-major key signature).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Given the key area at which the final version of the composition will ultimately arrive,
Dvořák’s marginal note at the bottom of page 1 is fascinating. He indicates that the chord
controlling the second half of m. 40 is A dur (“A major”), enharmonically spelled of course,
which is an ironic bit of foreshadowing that likely was no more than a glimmer in the
composer’s subconscious of where the work was destined to travel (see Image 2.24). Also,
worth noting is the sketch point corresponding to mm. 69-73 (page 3, third system, Image 2.25)
45
in which an alternative soprano line rebuts criticism levied against Dvořák that he had
(tastelessly or naively, but intentionally) quoted the Russian national anthem.
16
Image 2.24. The American Flag, sketch, p. 1 (given), bottom. Marginal note at sketch point
corresponding to m. 40 (treble over bass clef, A-flat-major key signature).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Image 2.25. The American Flag, sketch, p. 3 (given), corresponding to mm. 71-73. Revised vocal lines
at close of Movement 1 (treble over bass clef, A-flat major key signature).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
16
The following is an excerpt from a Czech translation of a presumably American article (translated back
into English by David Beveridge) which is held by the Narodní Muzeum under catalogue number S226/900 (the
original source is currently unknown):
Much [of the material] apparently has its origin in the Russian national anthem, and the beginning is
borrowed from Wagner's "Parsifal" so openly and directly that only a great composer whose originality
and capability of invention are so confirmed could be so daring.
Both claims were common in reviews of early performances. The first can be dealt with easily by examination of
the sketch and how the theme was formed. The second claim is difficult to refute, as there are very strong
similarities between the first theme of the Overture to Parsifal and the alto solo theme in the first movement of The
American Flag, and Dvořák was almost certainly familiar with Wagner’s melody (one of the festival concerts in
England in which he participated featured that very overture). However, there is no logical explanation for why the
Czech composer would quote Wagner to an American audience. The similarities are, in all likelihood, incidental,
arising from mood and melodic arc.
46
In movement II, Dvořák originally conceives of the second strophe with contrasting
musical material, moving quickly into C major. This idea is abandoned in favor of a nearly
identical setting to the first part, but from the discarded music emerges a significant harmonic
progression: C major – A major – C major – E minor (see Images 2.6a and 2.6b). A melodic
short-hand is used to move quickly through the second C-minor strophe, but the shift to C major
is clear enough at the end. Dvořák first imagines the closing bars as a descending scale stressing
< 8 – 6 – 5 >, reminiscent of mm. 59-61 with pentatonic inflection (see Image 2.26), although
this will eventually be abandoned in favor of a timpani solo.
Image 2.26. The American Flag, sketch, p. 7 (given), top-right. Transition from Movement 2 to
Movement 3, corresponding to mm. 247-58 (treble over bass clef, C-minor key signature).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Dvořák’s sketch of the “march”
17
(Movement 3, part 1) corresponds very closely to the
final version, though the march melody is still being worked out through corrections (see Image
2.27). Tenor and choir enter much as they will in the full score, although Dvořák initially
imagines the section ending quite differently, with a soft transition facilitating modulation into
17
It is well worth noting that the opening bars of Dvořák’s Carnival Overture, Op. 92, written in 1891, bear
striking similarity to the “march” in The American Flag. Both utilize similar instrumentation, the same general
outline of melody, and mode mixture on the iv chord, and both reside in the key of A major.
47
the bass solo. He then changes his approach and adds the dramatic ending built around a
restatement of the tenor solo, “Flag of the free.”
Image 2.27. The American Flag, sketch, p. 7 (given), middle. First statement of “march” theme, mm.
275-76 (treble over treble clef, A major).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
The bass solo (Movement 3, part 2) is labeled marginally as the “second march” and
unfolds in a manner very similar to the final version, including the shift to D minor. The sailor
chorus (Movement 3, part 3) begins with rather static melody which is eventually reworked, but
the decision to set the chorus in E-flat minor and in 6/8 time seems already to have been made.
A fascinating note is scribbled over the updated version of the chorus on the following page: “a
half step lower in D minor!” (see Image 2.28). This may indicate that Dvořák intended to begin
the chorus in the same key as the previous section, and modulate up two half steps, rather than
one, to what still appears to be the ultimate destination of E minor. The final version of the
composition, with its sudden shift of the dominant chord at the very last second launching the
chorus into E-flat minor, is of course much more striking.
48
Image 2.28. The American Flag, sketch, p. 11 (given), top-right. Opening line of Movement 3, part 3,
mm. 559-64 (bass clef, E-flat minor).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Towards the end of the sailor chorus sketch, at what would correspond to m. 621, the text
“Before the broadside’s reeling rack” is strangely omitted altogether (see Image 2.29). Dvořák
may have mistakenly thought that the music and text arrived together at the dynamic high-point,
which could account for the unusual, minimalistic setting of that previously omitted line of text
in the final score (unison at pianissimo dynamic, as seen in Image 2.30). But it is equally
possible, and perhaps more likely, that Dvořák knew precisely the effect he wanted, stressing the
importance of < 5 > and the terrifying aftermath of the broadside rather than the impact itself,
and simply failed to include it in the sketch.
49
Image 2.29. The American Flag, sketch, p. 12 (given), bottom-left. Movement 3, part 3 climax,
corresponding to mm. 620-25 (treble over bass clef at bottom, choral parts above, E-minor key signature).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
Image 2.30. The American Flag, autograph full score, p. 73 (given), mm. 621-23. Choral parts (standard
modern clefs).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
50
The most critical part of the sketch, however, is the moment when Dvořák tries to coax,
or force, the music to return home to A-flat major, as seen in Image 2.31. The F-sharp minor
chord at the start of the line corresponds to m. 657. The motion from the augmented-sixth chord
(built on bass note of F) into a cadential-6/4 chord in A-flat major is ineffective, to say the least.
One must assume Dvořák intended to work out this transition before scoring. His final solution,
namely to use the transition in its original form but allow it to carry the music back into A major
(see Images 2.10a and 2.10b), was logical given the local context. But the ramifications of this
decision from the perspective of overall structure and tonal integrity are staggering and will be
carefully considered in Chapter 4.
Image 2.31. The American Flag, sketch, p. 14 (given), top, corresponding to mm. 656-66. Modulatory
return to A-flat major leading into the Finale (treble over treble 8vb over bass clef, E-minor key signature
to start).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
CHAPTER 3: Lenses for Preliminary Analysis
Before a satisfactory examination of the two Pre-American cantatas from a Schenkerian
perspective can be conducted, a frame of reference must be established using more common
methods of analysis. In this chapter, the cantatas will be assessed using the lenses of form,
harmony, motive, orchestration, and text painting, thereby providing a framework for discussion
of how tonal theory interacts with other more immediately recognizable methods of pitch
organization and structural delineation.
Overview of Text and Form
Dvořák chooses to divide the texts of both the patriotic poem and Latin hymn according
to his sense of drama and musical balance, rather than strictly following the natural divisions of
the poetry. His freedom in treatment of the texts leads one to think that the music, while fully
engaged with the text, was nonetheless the priority in the composer’s mind. Repetition of text
phrases occur in both cantatas, with some text reordering and addition in Te Deum, as can be
seen in Table 3.1.
52
Table 3.1. Text division in Dvořák’s Te Deum.
Traditional Dvořák's Text, with Repetitions and Additions Movement
Benedicamus Patrem, et Filium cum Sancto Spiritu.
Alleluja!
Laudemus et superexaltemus eum in saecula.
Alleluja!
I
Te Deum : Division of Text
II
III
IV
Section I
(verses 1 - 13)
Section II
(verses 14 - 21)
Section III
(verses 22 - 29)
1. Te Déum laudámus: te Dominum confitémur.
2. Te aetérnum Pátrem ómnis térra venerátur.
___ 1. Te Déum laudámus: te Dominum confitémur.
___ 2. Te aetérnum Pátrem ómnis térra venerátur.
3. Tíbi ómnes Angeli, tíbi Caéli et univérsae Potestátes,
4. tíbi Chérubim et Séraphim incessábili vóce proclámant:
5. Sánctus: Sánctus: Sánctus: Dóminus Déus Sábaoth.
___ 5. Sánctus: Sánctus: Sánctus: Dóminus Déus Sábaoth.
6. Pléni sunt coéli et térra majestátis glóriae túae.
7. Te gloriósus Apostolórum chorus,
___ 5. Sánctus: Dóminus Déus Sábaoth.
8. te Prophetárum laudábilis numerus,
___ 5. Sánctus: Dóminus Déus Sábaoth.
9. te Mártyrum candidátus láudat ex ércitus.
___ 5. Sánctus: Dóminus Déus Sábaoth.
10. Te per órbem terrárum sancta confitétur Ecclésia:
11. Pátrem imménsae majestátis:
12. Venerándum túum vérum, et únicum Fílium:
13. Sánctum quoque Paráclitum Spíritum.
___ 1. Te Déum laudámus: te Dominum confitémur.
___ 2. Te aetérnum Pátrem ómnis térra venerátur.
14. Tu Rex glóriae, Chríste.
15. Tu Pátris sempitérnus es Fílius.
16. Tu ad liberándum susceptúrus hóminem, non horruísti Vírginis úterum.
17. Tu, devícto mortis acúleo, aperuísti credéntibus régna coelórum.
18. Tu ad déxteram Déi sédes, in glória Pátris.
19. Júdex créderis ésse ventúrus.
20. Te ergo quaésumus, túis fámulis súbveni, quos pretióso sánguine redemísti.
21. Aetérna fac cum sánctis túis in glória numerári.
22. Sálvum fac pópulum túum, Dómine, et bénedic haereditáti túae.
23. Et rége éos, et extólle íllos usque in aetérnum.
24. Per síngulos díes benedícimus té:
25. et laudámus nómen túum in saéculum, et in saéculum saéculi.
26. Dignáre, Dómine, díe ísto sine peccáto nos custodíre.
27. Miserére nóstri, Dómine, miserére nóstri.
28. Fíat misericórdia túa, Dómine, super nos, quemádmodum sperávimus in te.
___ 27. Miserére nóstri, Dómine, miserére nóstri.
29. In te, Dómine, sperávi: non confúndar in aetérnum.
___ 27. Miserére nóstri, Dómine, miserére nóstri.
___ 29. In te, Dómine, sperávi: non confúndar in aetérnum.
___ 27. Miserére nóstri, Dómine, miserére nóstri.
53
Both works consist of several movements intended to be performed attacca, and in only
one instance in each (Te Deum, end of Movement 2, and The American Flag, end of Movement
1) is any written pause given (see Examples 3.1 and 3.2). In all other instances, the music runs
fluidly up to and over each double bar line. Musical delineations are instead made using abrupt
changes in key, mode, meter, instrumentation, or a combination thereof. Further reinforcing the
unified nature of these cantatas are Dvořák’s decisions to employ cyclic form and, within this
form, to cultivate his themes by means of thematic transformation, though not always in the
strictest sense.
Example 3.1. Te Deum, mm. 191-196, end of Movement 2 (vocal score).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Vocal score with piano reduction by J. Suk. Berlin: N. Simrock,
1896. Public domain.
54
Example 3.2. The American Flag, mm. 77-82, end of Movement 1 (vocal score).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
A few scholars have drawn attention to the symphonic nature of these cantatas,
1
and
Strimple goes so far as to suggest that they are part of a bold experiment with the form and with
the relationship between form and text that led to the composer’s eventual abandonment of
absolute forms in favor of a more programmatic approach to composition.
2
This idea will be
revisited in Chapter 5, but for the purpose of the following analyses, the reader should bear in
mind that tempo relationships and character shifts certainly resemble the standard four-
movement symphonic model, and also that Dvořák’s very next composition, the Symphony in E
minor, uses cyclic form.
1
John Clapham, Antonín Dvo řák: Musician and Craftsman (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966), 259-61.
2
Nick Strimple, “The Choral Works: Te Deum and ‘The American Flag’” in Dvo řák in America: 1892-
1895, ed. John C. Tibbetts (Portland: Amadeus Press, 1993), 195-201.
55
Text Division and Musical Form: Te Deum
The ancient hymn Te Deum is traditionally understood to have a tripartite structure due to
changes of address, though unlike in Drake’s “The American Flag,” the perspective remains the
same throughout, specifically that of the people of God addressing Him and His Son. The
internal shifts in address (from the Father, to the Son, and then more generally to the Godhead)
reflect the fact that the hymn was assembled from various sources, most likely at the beginning
of the fifth century.
3
Dvořák, a devout Roman Catholic throughout his life, is not likely to have
altered the text haphazardly or irreverently, and yet he does not seem to feel any compulsion to
attend to a strict rendering of it (see Table 3.1). Unlike certain other nineteenth-century settings
of Te Deum, such as that of Hector Berlioz,
4
Dvořák does not take the liberty of omitting any of
the text or dramatically reordering its parts. However, he does put a personal stamp on the text
by dividing it into four distinct sections, none of which correspond exactly to one of the major
sections of the hymn. He also uses the phrases Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus (“Holy, holy, holy”)
and Miserere nostri, Domine (“Have mercy upon us, O Lord”) as recurrent refrains and restates
the opening lines of the hymn at the end of the first movement.
Perhaps the most surprising element of the text is that Dvořák appends the penultimate
line from the Catholic canticle Benedicite to the Te Deum text in his setting, along with several
jubilant shouts of Alleluja (“Praise the Lord!”). Though somewhat reminiscent of the age-old
tradition of adding the doxological Gloria Patri (“Glory be to the Father”) to the end of the
canticle Nunc dimittis (“Now dost Thou dismiss”), Te Deum and Benedicite are by no means
3
Ron Jeffers, Translations and Annotations of Choral Repertoire: Volume 1: Sacred Latin Texts (Oregon:
earthsongs, 1988), 218-19.
4
Charlotte Kirkendall, “Techniques of Choral and Orchestral Writing in the Te Deum settings of Berlioz,
Bizet, Bruckner, Dvořák, and Verdi” (DMA diss., University of Cincinnatti, 1989), 38.
56
traditionally paired in musical settings of Te Deum;
5
on the contrary, the length of Te Deum has
generally precluded any extension. By no means is this an ineffective maneuver, however.
Dvořák’s addendum simultaneously forms a bridge back to the idea of eternal praise directed
towards God, with which the hymn began, and allows Dvořák to build the emotional energy back
up sufficiently to warrant a return to the introductory musical material, which he reworks into an
exuberant ending. The word Alleluja, literally rendered “praise to the LORD,” is a succinct and
appropriate summary of the entire work. It is also a word of Hebrew origin, which sits
comfortably alongside the final lines of the hymn which are Latin translations of petitions from
the Hebrew Book of Psalms, wherein the word in its various forms occurs quite frequently.
Dvořák may have had personal reasons for making the connection, but certainly the addition
makes very good sense from both a dramatic and liturgical perspective, and to that end is well-
supported by the music.
6
The form of Dvořák’s Te Deum more readily lends itself to consideration as a celebratory
pseudo-symphony. The composer entitles and gives a clear metronome marking for each of the
four movements, and the character and relative rhetorical weight of each movement, as well as
overall tempo scheme, immediately calls to mind the traditional Classical symphony. One
cannot miss, for example, the nod to Scherzo in the vivace third movement, set in 3/4 time, and
5
David Beveridge recently brought to the attention of the author that the line Benedicamus…eum in
saecula in fact follows directly after the Te Deum in at least two liturgical books dating from the late nineteenth
century (Beveridge acquired this information from Czech hymn specialist Dr. Tomáš Slavický). The addendum was
apparently intended to be intoned following the formal chanting of Te Deum. A cantional published in Prague in
1885 (Mešní Kancionál, issued by F. J. Lehner) contains such an entry, with Allelúja given parenthetically with
instructions for use at Easter. Dvořák may have used this or some similarly published version of the text as his
model, which places greater emphasis on the musical rather than liturgical novelty of including the Benedicite
excerpt. The Liber Usualis of 1896 contains a similar entry but would have been accessible to the composer only
after his Te Deum setting was completed.
6
In the preface to the Peters Edition of the Te Deum vocal score (1989), Henry Schernus posits that the
decision was purely based on need to end exuberantly for Columbus Day festivities.
57
the opening movement feels like a journey unto itself. Perhaps it is this clarity of macro-form
that prompts the composer to take more harmonic risks internally, as will be seen.
Text Division and Musical Form: The American Flag
J. R. Drake’s poem “The American Flag” was originally published in the New York
Evening Post
7
as five stanzas of unequal length and with varying rhyme scheme (see Image 3.1).
The libretto that was sent to Dvořák divided the text into seven sections, each with a heading not
included in the original poem.
8
Also unlike the original publication and many other subsequent
publications of the poem, the version Thurber sent to Dvořák restores the final four lines which
were originally penned by Drake but discarded in favor of an alternative ending provided by his
partner, Fritz Halleck.
7
Croaker and Co., “The American Flag” in The New York Evening Post (May 29, 1819), 2.
8
This presumably constitutes the “analysis” mentioned at the top of the libretto.
58
Image 3.1. Joseph Rodman Drake, “The American Flag.” Original 1819 publication, with Halleck’s
closing lines.
Source: Croaker and Co, “The American Flag,” The New York Evening Post, May 29, 1819.
59
Dvořák follows the libretto’s suggested seven-stanza scheme to the extent that each
stanza is given a distinct musical section. However, the movement headings in Dvořák’s
autograph score divide the music into three sections, unequal in length, corresponding to the
shifts in address that occur (see Table 3.2).
60
Table 3.2. Text division in Dvořák’s The American Flag.
Drake's Poem
Thurber's Libretto
(section titles not original to poem)
Dvořák's Divisions
(by movement /
section )
2nd Apostrophe to Eagle
Child of the sun! to thee 'tis given
To guard the banner of the free;
To hover in the sulphur smoke,
To ward away the battle stroke,
And bid its blendings shine afar,
Like rainbows on the cloud of war,
The harbingers of victory!
Part 1
II
Part 2
Stanza 2
The American Flag : Division of Text
Colors of Flag - whence
When Freedom from her mountain height
Unfurl'd her standard to the air,
She tore the azure robe of night,
And set the starts of glory there!
She mingled with its gorgeous dyes
The milky baldric of the skies,
And striped its pure, celestial white
With streakings of the morning light.
Then, from his mansion in the sun,
She call'd her eagle bearer down
And gave into his mighty hand
The symbol of her chosen land.
I Stanza 1
1st Apostrophe to Eagle
Majestic monarch of the cloud!
Who rear'st aloft thy regal form
To hear the tempest-trumpings loud,
And see the lightning-lances driven,
When strides the warrior of the storm,
And rolls the thunderdrum of heaven.
61
Table 3.2 (cont’d)
III
3rd Apostrophe to Flag - The Sailor
Flag of the seas! on ocean wave
Thy stars shall glitter over the brave;
When death, careering on the gale,
Sweeps darkly round the bellied sail
And frighted waves rush madly back
Before the broadside's reeling rack,
The dying wand'rer of the sea
Shall look at once to heaven and thee,
And smile to see thy splendours fly
In triumph over his closing eye.
1st Apostrophe to Flag - The Foot Soldier
Flag of the brave! thy folds shall fly,
The sign of hope and triumph high!
When speaks the signal trumpet tone
And the long line comes gleaming on.
Ere yet the life-blood, warm and wet,
Has dimm'd the glist'ning bayonet,
Each soldier eye shall brightly turn
To where thy skyborn glories burn,
And, as his springing steps advance,
Catch war and vengeance from the glance.
2nd Apostrophe to Flag - The Cavalryman
And when the cannon-mouthings loud
Heave in wild wreaths the battle-shroud,
And gory sabres rise and fall
Like shoots of flame on midnight's pall;
There shall thy victor-glances glow,
And cow'ring foes shall shrink beneath
Each gallant arm that strikes below
That lovely messenger of death!
Part 1 [Instrumental]
-
Part 2
Stanza 3
Stanza 4
Part 3
III
Part 4
62
Table 3.2 (cont’d)
The opening unfolds like a historical narrative, setting the stage for what Lady Freedom
(an image predating the Statue of Liberty) is about to do and say. Dvořák encompasses this
narrative within the first movement. The voice then changes as Freedom calls to the Eagle,
addressing him in two parallel strophes, both of which Dvořák sets to nearly identical music
forming a second movement in two parts. The final major shift in address occurs less than half
of the way through the poem, at which point Dvořák interjects a grand instrumental interlude (m.
259). The Flag is the focal point through the remainder of the cantata, though it is found in four
different contexts: flying over the foot soldier, the cavalryman, the sailor, and those at home.
Freedom addresses the Flag and its unique function in each setting, and Dvořák likewise
conjures a unique character for each section of the music, serving as a backdrop for each address.
Stanza 5
Closing lines penned by Fitz-Greene Halleck which replaced those above in the
first published version (NY Evening Post, May 29, 1819):
...
Forever float that standard sheet!
Where is the foe but falls before us,
With Freedom's soil beneath our feet,
And Freedom's banner streaming o'er us?
Finale
Flag of the free heart's hope and home,
By angel hands to valour given,
Thy stars have lit the welcome dome,
And all thy hues were born in heaven!
And, fixed as yonder orb divine
That saw thy bannered blaze unfurled,
Shall thy proud stars resplendent shine,
The guard and glory of the world!
Finale
63
On paper, Dvořák makes his final indication of a formal movement change at the start of
the A major instrumental interlude that leads into the various addresses of the Flag. However,
the shifts in character amongst the sections within the large final movement are so dramatic –
and the immersion contrasting musical materials so extended – as to call into question whether
Movement 3 ought to be considered as a whole or if it is in fact comprised of several much
shorter movements. Dvořák does not seem to obsess over this, which is perhaps permission, or
instruction, to the listener not to think in terms of compartments. Though organization by means
of self-standing movements is common to the genre of vocal/choral cantata, this particular text
unfolds more like drama than lesson, and Dvořák seems intent upon carrying the listener straight
through to the end without much pause for reflection. If one considers the manner in which
Movements 1, 2, and 3 are delineated, they each involve some sort of surprise. These are,
namely, a bold woodwind fanfare introducing Movement 1 and the cantata as a whole; a sudden
bass call in high register at the start of Movement 2; and a literal interruption of a previous idea
by military brass heralding the start of Movement 3. These movement changes are also
accompanied by sudden key shifts, utilizing common tone modulatory technique.
The shifts encountered within the large final movement in question, however, are of a
much more cohesive character. There is no tempo change in the transition from the first
“Address to the Flag” (m. 361, tenor solo) to the second (m. 451, bass solo), and the key
relationship, namely that of V moving to I, feels inevitable as it is occurring, due in large part to
its having been predicted in m. 259 (compare Examples 3.3 and 3.4). The transition into the
third Address to the Flag calls so much attention to itself – emerging from a sudden evaporation
of the previous material and gradually building into a literal storm – that the arrival point is all
but predictable. Dvořák circumvents the expectations of the listener by shifting the dominant-
64
seventh chord up a semi-tone at the very last second, casting the listener into the unsettling
territory of a new tonic a half step above what was anticipated. But this surprise does not negate
the overall effect of continuation of an idea. And lastly, in the case of the motion out of the
“storm” and into the reassuring Finale, the rhetorical impact of the broad cadential-6/4 chord
preceding the downbeat of m. 666 is, in the author’s opinion, that of a “homecoming” well-
earned. As the Finale commences, the listener is connected not only to the melody of the first
movement introduction, but also to A-major tonic of the march from the third movement. It
would seem, then, that a more natural way to hear and understand the work is in three
movements of varying length, followed by a closing section that thematically and rhetorically
connects back to Movement 1 (delineated on Table 3.2).
Example 3.3. The American Flag, mm. 259-64, start of Movement 3 (vocal score, piano RH). Dominant
pedal leading to authentic cadence in A major, m. 275.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
Example 3.4. The American Flag, mm. 443-50, middle of Movement 3 (vocal score, piano RH). Tonic
pedal reinterpreted as dominant pedal, leading to authentic cadence in D major, m. 451.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
65
Harmonic Comparison
The American Flag is, on the surface at least, less harmonically adventurous than Te
Deum. In setting the Drake poem, Dvořák informs the listener on how to understand a particular
movement or section by clarifying the tonality immediately and, if straying away temporarily,
making much of the return when it occurs. Motion away from tonic is generally accompanied by
unstable harmonies, intensifying the need to return home. Examples 3.5 and 3.6 demonstrate
two instances of overt chromaticism against a backdrop of diatonic stability.
Example 3.5. The American Flag, mm. 32-44, Movement 1 (vocal score). Brief harmonic detour with
return to tonic.
66
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
Example 3.6. The American Flag, mm. 270-76, Movement 3 (vocal score). Chromatic embellishment of
an authentic cadence.
67
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
By contrast, Te Deum is more likely to traverse harmonically ambiguous territory, with
movements away from and back home presented in an often-understated fashion, as seen in
Example 3.7. This is foreshadowed in the opening movement, for once the first subject,
harmonically a simple one, is stated, Dvořák feels complete freedom to suddenly shift the
material up a whole-step, and then back again to the original pitch level, a sort of Moravian
modulation in reverse (see Example 3.8).
9
While the dominant chord preceding each of these
tonal shifts is certainly emphasized, these episodes serve more of a dramatic function (delayed
gratification) than structural reinforcement of tonic, although they certainly achieve both.
Example 3.7. Te Deum, mm. 157-65, Movement 2 (vocal score). Temporary return to E-flat-major
tonic.
9
A traditional “Moravian modulation” involves sudden modulation a whole-tone lower.
68
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Vocal score with piano reduction by J. Suk. Berlin: N. Simrock,
1896. Public domain.
Example 3.8. Te Deum, mm. 19-27, Movement 1 (vocal score). Modulation of primary material to A
major.
69
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Vocal score with piano reduction by J. Suk. Berlin: N. Simrock,
1896. Public domain.
70
At deeper levels, however, the harmonic structure of Te Deum becomes increasingly
clear, whereas The American Flag comes very close to leaving the listener befuddled, though
likely intrigued at the same time (see Chapter 4). Other forces are at work as well, however. In
Te Deum, tension is cultivated at various levels between the intervals of the third and the fifth,
with the fifth established from the outset as “favored to win,” and so it does. The American
Flag, however, presents an internal struggle that seems to exist predominantly between the fifth
and the second, and specifically the half step; in this case, however, the winner-apparent turns
out to be subverted by a harmonic twist executed in the background.
Looking first at Te Deum, the overall key structure outlines a descending augmented
triad, moving from G major (tonic) through the temporary areas of E-flat major/minor and B
minor/major and then back home again to G major. Dvořák favored such harmonic mediant
relationships,
10
which offered a simple means of effecting modulation outside of close key
relationship.
11
It is important to bear in mind, though, that “third-relations … most effectively
foil the sense of forward drive in tonal music, invariably created by root-movement of a fifth or a
second.”
12
The juxtaposition of prominent fifths and thirds at various structural levels in Te
Deum create a dynamic that seems to pose the question of whether music can be in motion and at
rest simultaneously.
The unabashed perfect fifths proclaimed by timpani in the first two measures and
throughout the first movement, however, cause one to expect a strong follow-through on this
motivic idea. Naturally, fifths relationships abound as dominant chords are used at various
10
Benedict Taylor, “Modal Four-Note Pitch Collections in the Music of Dvořák’s American Period,” Music
Theory Spectrum, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Spring 2010): 56.
11
John Clapham, Antonín Dvo řák: Musician and Craftsman (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966), 39-40.
12
Michael B. Beckerman, “Dvořák’s Pentatonic Landscape” in Rethinking Dvo řák: Views from Five
Centuries, ed. David R. Beveridge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 249.
71
points to clarify key changes; however, these do not express anything unique, as the dominant-
tonic relationship is the most fundamental idea of tonal music. Consider the motion at the end of
Movement 2 from E-flat major to G-flat major in preparation for the descent to B minor; the
structural motion is not up by third and then down by fifth, but rather simply down by third at a
deeper level. The conclusion of the second movement in the temporary key area of G-flat major
(enharmonically F-sharp, or dominant of B) is nonetheless unexpected and mildly unsettling, and
the strong motion down by fifth into Movement 3 gives a forceful reminder that more is at play
than mere chromatic mediant shifts.
The opening of the third movement uses a harmonic technique so traditional as to feel
shocking, particularly in light of the daring harmonic progressions that define the preceding
movement. A call and response, built exclusively on the fifth relationship introduced at the key
change, dominates the new section. This does not sound like a dominant-tonic relationship,
however, because the temporary F-sharp tonic is given in its minor mode. In fact, the effect is
more that of a plagal relationship, emphasizing the sub-dominant (fifth below tonic, with B
minor being the “fifth below,” in this case). This turns out to be the very relationship Dvořák
uses to reassert the powerful position of the fifth near the end of the composition. Table 3.3
traces significant plagal and authentic cadences and relationships throughout the work.
72
Table 3.3. Significant plagal and authentic events in Te Deum.
The most striking use of the plagal cadence occurs in mm. 425-29 (see Example 3.9), the
moment at which the fifth relationship is revealed as coregent, if not master, of the harmonic
landscape. By choosing not to employ a straightforward D-major to G-major progression in the
return to true tonic – using instead an approach from below (speaking here of root motion) –
Dvořák sidesteps the fully anticipated reiteration of III – V – I which was established between
Movements 2 and 3. Despite the chromatic uncertainty in the middle of Movement 4, Dvořák
has made his way back to B major by m. 417, and all that remains is to draw a clean line from B
to G, completing the outline of the augmented triad. A simple D-major chord would accomplish
this; however, it would not assert the interval of a fifth due to its common and inevitable
Bar # Description Bar # Description
1-2 Timpani solo 49-52 Sanctus
3-6,
11-14
Bassline
3-6,
11-14
Subdominant over dominant
(polychord)
21-25,
35-39
Dominant pedal tones - key
change and return to tonic
190-191
Cadence intensified by plagal
substitute (mode mixture)
195-97 Key change
197-235
Material shifted to key area of
minor v, then back to tonic
197-235
Ambiguous - i-v-i expansion
feels reversed (iv-i-iv)
299-303,
325-29
Cadences using minor iv and
major IV (by mixture)
425-29
Plagal and plagal substitute
(by mixture) over tonic pedal
443-44
Functional perfect authentic
cadence - response to mm.
425-29
Significant Perfect-5th Relationships in Te Deum
Authentic (Dominant) Plagal (Subdominant)
73
relationship to G. The effect would be no different than if a sudden common-tone modulation
between B and G were employed.
74
Example 3.9. Te Deum, mm. 425-32, Movement 4 (vocal score). Plagal cadence.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Vocal score with piano reduction by J. Suk. Berlin: N. Simrock,
1896. Public domain.
75
The C-major chord,
13
however, is far enough removed (harmonically speaking) from B
major to draw attention both to the G major destination and to itself, and to the unique
relationship between them. The meta-narrative becomes even clearer as a tertian relationship
attempts to make a comeback in mm. 37-39 but is thwarted by a sudden detour to G-sharp minor
and a much-anticipated cadential motion through D major – the “correct” approach – to ultimate
G major. The presence and function of the D-major chord is also now intensified by the former
plagal approach to tonic G and garners a certain amount of (rightful) recognition as the
fundamental fifth, tonally speaking.
Turning to The American Flag, the suspended melodic fifth (typically implying or
explicitly part of a dominant harmony) is established very early on as an important idea (mm. 6-
8). However, the chromatic half step is introduced even earlier (m. 4) and is actually placed into
direct contact with the fifth in m. 5 (see Example 3.10). The outworking of this uncomfortable
encounter can be seen operating at various levels throughout the cantata.
Example 3.10. The American Flag, mm. 1-8 (vocal score). Suspended scale-degree 5 in relationship to
chromatic half-step figure.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
13
Dvořák occasionally uses ii
(7)
as a plagal substitute for IV, allowing for structural support of < 2 >.
76
Looking at the major key areas, a large-scale progression of A – D – E – A stands out.
Likewise does the connection between A-flat major (Movement 1) and E-flat minor (m. 559). C
minor resides comfortably between A-flat and E-flat, and one could almost imagine an ascending
major triad (returning from E-flat to implied A-flat major at m. 675) being the controlling
harmonic progression of the composition. And yet a chromatic melodic shift of E-flat to E at the
end of Movement 2 takes the music in a completely different direction. Suddenly, E-flat and E
are at war with one another, each trying to assert the superiority of the tonic key to which they
belong (A-flat major and A major, respectively). While the motion from D major/minor to E-flat
minor is intriguing, and even more so when the root half-step motion is continued into the key of
E, the ultimate result of the double half step is only to reinforce the macro-harmonic motion from
D to E and eventually to A (IV-V-I), a seeming forfeiture of control. E-flat is referenced once
more in m. 674 and the bars immediately following, but the same double half step, now from E-
flat to E to F, and then back to E, only serves to strongly reinforce the strong final motion from E
to A. However, as E-flat gives way to E at the dominant level (allowing A major to be asserted
as the true tonic), a fresh and much deeper half-step motion between A-flat and A is discovered,
although certainly foreshadowed with various local Phrygian relationships. The half step is thus
asserted as the fundamental structural unit at the deepest harmonic level.
One compositional tool that Dvořák uses to good effect in both of these works is the
maintenance of separation between defining intervals at various levels. For example, in Te
Deum, the fifth relationship is operational at a relatively deep level, so Dvořák favors motion by
half step in more developmental passages. This is part of the reason Te Deum feels more
chromatically complex than its sister cantata; the surface level progressions are quite chromatic
and unsettling indeed! Conversely, in The American Flag, Dvořák must maintain some distance
77
from the half step closer to the surface in order to avoid stripping it of middle- and background-
level significance. Therefore, surface-level progressions by thirds are favored instead.
It is interesting to note some direct, though likely unconscious, connections between the
two works. A plagal cadence, featuring mode mixture over tonic pedal tone, occurs at a
significant, dramatic moment near the end of each cantata (compare Examples 3.9 and 3.11).
Likewise, brass fanfare is featured in an inner movement of each (see Examples 3.12 and 3.13).
Similarities of key and contrary chromatic motion can be seen between Te Deum progression in
mm. 23-24 (see Example 3.8), and the final progression in The American Flag (see Example
3.14), which is itself a variation of a progression used in the instrumental march at the start of
Movement 3 (see Example 3.5). Also notable is the similar effect between the start of the
soprano solo in Te Deum, Movement 4, and the start of tenor solo in The American Flag,
Movement 3, both of which use a common-tone chromatic neighbor chord twice in succession
(see Examples 3.15 and 3.16, respectively). The dramatic bass solo entrance in each work, in
both cases devoid of accompaniment, cannot be missed (see Examples 3.17 and 3.18). Finally,
both cantatas have a prominent timpani part, featured specifically at transitions between
movements (see Examples 3.19 and 3.20).
78
Example 3.11. The American Flag, mm. 693-97, Finale (vocal score). Plagal cadence.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
79
Example 3.12. Te Deum, mm. 122-24, opening of Movement 2 (full score; II. mm. 1-5). Brass fanfare.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Full score. Prague: Editio Supraphon, 1969. Used with permission
from copyright holder, Bärenreiter Praha.
Example 3.13. The American Flag, mm. 259-64, opening of Movement 3 (full score; III. mm. 1-6).
Brass fanfare.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
Example 3.14. The American Flag, mm. 698-701 (vocal score). Chromatic progression in penultimate
bar.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
80
Example 3.15. Te Deum, mm. 369-71, Movement 4 (vocal score). Common-tone chromatic neighbor.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Vocal score with piano reduction by J. Suk. Berlin: N. Simrock,
1896. Public domain.
Example 3.16. The American Flag, mm. 361-67 (vocal score). Common-tone chromatic neighbor.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
81
Example 3.17. Te Deum, mm. 122-27, Movement 2 (vocal score). Unaccompanied bass solo entrance.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Vocal score with piano reduction by J. Suk. Berlin: N. Simrock,
1896. Public domain.
Example 3.18. The American Flag, mm. 83-88 (vocal score). Unaccompanied bass solo entrance.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
82
Example 3.19. Te Deum, mm. 361-68, end of Movement 3 (full score; III. mm. 165-73). Timpani solo.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Full score. Prague: Editio Supraphon, 1969. Used with permission
from copyright holder, Bärenreiter Praha.
Example 3.20. The American Flag, mm. 251-58, end of Movement 2 (full score; II. mm. 169-76).
Timpani solo (erroneous, see Appendix C).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
83
Motivic Analysis: The American Flag
In her 1989 dissertation comparing several nineteenth-century settings of Te Deum,
Charlotte Kirkendall engages in a relatively in-depth motivic analysis of Dvořák’s work,
demonstrating the unifying effect of thematic transformation coupled with cyclic form.
14
Otakar
Šourek similarly acknowledges the traceability of various motives through The American Flag,
15
though in less detail, given the biographical setting. The following section will therefore focus
on The American Flag, serving as a supplement to Šourek’s study.
The central theme of the cantata, indeed the cell from which even secondary motives are
derived, first appears in mm. 6-8, albeit in softened form compared to its various uses throughout
the cantata (see Example 3.21). An expanded statement of the motif, corresponding in rhythm
precisely to a marginal sketch in the libretto (see Image 3.2), occurs at mm. 391-95 (see Example
3.22). This “Flag theme,” heard as more of a short melody than motif in the strict sense, is
comprised of seven elements that form the basis for nearly everything else in the composition.
These are:
1) Third filled in by passing tone (first time ascending)
2) Complex dotted rhythm (first time lilting)
3) Leap of a sixth (first time falling)
4) Half-step neighbor tone (first time lower neighbor)
5) Simple dotted rhythm (first time lilting)
6) Arpeggiated triad (first time ascending)
14
Kirkendall, “Techniques of Choral and Orchestral Writing in the Te Deum settings,” 146, 154, 159.
15
Otakar Šourek, Život a dílo Antonína Dvo řáka (Prague, 1916-33; i–ii, 3/1954–5; iii–iv, 2/1956–7).
84
7) Vertical range of an octave (both ends emphasized)
Example 3.21. The American Flag, mm. 1-8 (full score; I. mm. 1-8). Central motif (melodic fragment,
mm. 7-8), flute and English horn.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
Image 3.2. Dvořák, marginal note on The American Flag libretto, next to the line “When speaks the
signal trumpet tone…”
Source: Drake, et al. Americký prapor, Op. 102, libretto. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
85
Example 3.22. The American Flag, mm. 387-98 (full score; III. mm. 121-32). Statement of primary
motif (mm. 391-95), tenor solo.
/ / / / / /
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
An important secondary motif is a variation of the half-step neighbor tone, in which the
half step is followed by another half step moving in the same direction, first seen in mm. 4-5.
Another is the repeated fanfare figure, first encountered in m. 1, intensified rhythmically in m.
259, but ultimately also derived from the repeated A-flats of the central motif.
As an example of how integral the central idea, referred to by Šourek as the “Theme of
the Flag,” is to Dvořák’s compositional process, one may consider the opening 5 bars, in which,
86
besides the secondary motives just mentioned, one encounters the filled third (m. 2), a reordering
of the first four notes (mm. 3-4), an augmented statement of the filled third (mm. 4-5), and yet
another statement of the filled third combined with neighbor tone (mm. 5-6) – all this before the
motif itself is even stated.
More than a few pages could be devoted to tracing the various elements of this fruitful
“Flag motif” throughout the cantata, but a distilled list will likely be of greater interest and use to
the reader. Table 3.4 presents an overview of occurrences deemed significant by the author
either on the basis of structural importance or melodic prominence. The portion of the primary
melodic motif used in each instance is indicated by numeric reference to the list above.
Secondary motives are designated either as “Double 1/2” or “Fanfare,” respectively.
Table 3.4. Significant material generated from the primary motives in The American Flag.
Motivic Development in The American Flag
Bar #
Motif
Employed
Notes
1-14 Primary (P) _ 6 Triad referenced in harmonic outline: F - A-flat - C-flat
21-22 P_6
Triad inverted and resolved from its ascending
exposition
29 P_1 Beat 2, melody
27-28 Double 1/2 Bass line
37-38,
59
Fanfare Solo rhythm
44,
81-82
Double 1/2 Inner voices
60, 62 Fanfare / P_1 Trumpets
62-69 Double 1/2 Solo, ascending
69 P_1,2,3 Bass line
70 P / Double 1/2 Bass line
79-80 P_6 Melody
83-86 P Derived from retrograde-inversion of primary motif
87-89 P_6 Arpeggiation operating at multiple rhythmic levels
98- P Melody a reworking of primary motif
87
106
147-
50
P_1,4 Melody
259-
60
P_2 Brass rhythm
271-
74
Double 1/2 Expanded as outer voices move in contrary motion
275-
76
P Truncated in melody
281-
82
P_4,6 Retrograde-inversion, diminution, in melody
283-
86
P_2,6 Melodic inversion, rhythmic truncation
295-
98
P Reworked in both melody and bass line
315-
18
Double 1/2 Expanded
327-
30
P
Melodic embellishment/transformation of the melody at
mm. 83-86 and mm. 171-74
331-
33
P Reworked melodically
334-
46
P
Fragmented and reworked melodically, with bass line
derived from P at three levels
361-
437
Fanfare, P, 1/2
Fanfare present in accompaniment (increasing in
rhythmic vitality), with P and 1/2 providing basis for
melodic material
437-
43
P_1,6 Reordered, expanded melodically
452-
69
P, 1/2
Combined melodically, with 1/2 characterizing bass line
leading into final cadence
494-
539
P, 1/2
Reworked/combined melodically (primary and
secondary)
549-
50
P_4,6 Reworked (half step inverted)
559-
66
P, Fanfare Combined melodically
567-
74
P_1 Inverted in accompaniment
586-
93
P, 1/2, Fanfare Combined melodically
601-
21
P
Present in all parts (primary melody, accompaniment,
melodic responses, and bass line)
622-
55
Fanfare, P, 1/2 Combined into unstable, extended transition
88
656-
62
P_6, 1/2 P fragmented and inverted, 1/2 extended
675-
80
Fanfare, P Primary and secondary melodies
675-
88
1/2 Bass line, inverted/extended
683 Fanfare All vocal parts
684-
88
P_1 Reworked and extended
689-
92
P Reworked in all parts
695-
96
P_1 Accompaniment
697-
98
P_1 Inverted/extended
699-
700
1/2 Treble and bass lines, contrary motion
700-
01
Fanfare Final chords
1-701 P_4 Background harmonic shift by ascending half step
Orchestration
In 1880, Herman Krigar wrote in a brief biographical sketch that Dvořák’s aim in his
orchestration was to ensure that “no instrument [was] demoted to a part that is merely filling in”
but rather that each “speaks an eloquent language of its own.”
16
More recently, Dvořák scholar
John Clapham has described Dvořák’s orchestration as both “unexpected and effective.”
17
The
two cantatas at hand display, in the author’s opinion, Dvořák’s sensitivity both as a vocal and
instrumental composer, especially as pertains to dramatic narration. Using text as a point of
departure, Dvořák has constructed two musical dialogues amongst soloists, mixed choir, and
16
Klaus Döge, “Dvořák, Antonín (Leopold),” Oxford Music Online (Accessed March 15, 2017). Quoted
from Herman Krigar, Anton Dvo řák, eine biographische Skizze (Leipzig, 1880/R1992 with commentary by J.
Burghauser).
17
John Clapham, Antonín Dvo řák: Musician and Craftsman (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966), 49.
89
orchestra. Notable similarities in orchestration include the use of medium-sized Romantic
orchestra (see Table 3.5), brass fanfare, solo timpani, vocal solos, and mixed chorus.
Table 3.5. Orchestration of Te Deum and The American Flag.
Although there is naturally a great deal of variation in the outworking of the orchestration
due to the dramatic needs of each text and the difference in melodic/musical material, a number
of comparative aspects warrant particular attention. First of all, Dvořák cultivates a different
“balance of power” between soloists and choir in the respective works (see Table 3.6). In The
Te Deum The American Flag
Flute 1, 2 Flute 1, 2
Oboe 1, 2 (English Horn) Oboe 1, 2
English Horn
Clarinet 1, 2 Clarinet 1, 2
Bass Clarinet
Bassoon 1, 2 Bassoon 1, 2
Horn 1, 2, 3, 4 Horn 1, 2, 3, 4
Trumpet 1, 2 Trumpet 1, 2, 3
Trombone 1, 2 Trombone 1, 2
Bass Trombone and Tuba Bass Trombone and Tuba
Ti mpani (G, D) Timpani
Bass Drum and Crash
Cymbals
Bass Drum and Crash
Cymbals
Triangle Snare Drum and Triangle
Soloists (Soprano, Bass) Soloists (Alto, Tenor, Bass)
Chorus (Soprano, Alto,
Tenor, Bass)
Chorus (Soprano, Alto,
Tenor, Bass)
Harp
Violin 1 Violin 1
Violin 2 Violin 2
Viola Viola
Cello Cel lo
Double Bass Double Bass
Orchestration
90
American Flag, the soloists and the choir seem to be focused on the same ideas, progressing at
the same pace. In most cases, soloists introduce melodic material and choir responds
energetically with a reiteration of that material. There is no exclusively choral movement. Of
the three soloists (alto,
18
bass, and tenor), the bass holds the most significant role. However, the
work as a whole ends with chorus alone, in contrast to its solo-driven opening and mid-sections.
Table 3.6. Comparison of soloist vs. choral divisions in Te Deum and The American Flag.
18
Alternatively, a small group of alto voices, indicated as a performance option by the composer.
Bar # Description Bar # Description
1-55 Full chorus 1-58
Alto solo, with A/T/B choral
response
56-109
Soprano solo, with soft choral
interjections 59-82
Alto solo (cont'd), with full choral
response
110-21 Full chorus (reprise of opening) 83-170
Bass solo, with choral responses,
followed by joint final statement
122-96
Bass solo, with interjections by
female and male chorus
(consecutively) 171-258
Bass solo, with choral responses,
followed by joint final statement
197-368 Full chorus (entire movement) 259-450
Tenor solo, with choral response,
followed by joint statement
369-406
Soprano solo, with interjections by
female and male chorus (twice,
consecutively) 451-559
Bass solo, with responses by male
and female chorus (consecutively)
407-47
Soprano and bass duet, with
interjections by full chorus, ending
jointly 559-623
Full chorus (tenor section serving
in solo role, with S/T/B
responding)
624-665
Bass solo, with responses by
female chorus
666-698
Bass solo (cont'd), followed by full
choral response
Vocal Divisions
Te Deum The American Flag
91
In Te Deum, on the other hand, it is generally very clear who controls a given musical
moment, and these moments are not often shared. The opening of the first movement seems to
foreshadow a choir-dominated work as the chorus boldly states the opening material in both
polyphonic and homophonic texture; however, the chorus rather suddenly gives way to the
soprano soloist about half-way through the movement (m. 56). Vocal solos are extended in
Movements 1 and 2, and even when choir interjects, it does so in subdued response to an overall
idea, lending unity (continuity, formal clarity) to a movement or section (see Example 3.7).
Movement 3 is entirely choral, a “come-back” of sorts. Movement 4 begins with soprano solo
and then gradually builds, bringing together the various parts for a jubilant climax. Soprano and
bass team up first, with the choir shouting interjections of Alleluja, and as the end is approached,
all join together, though the solo and choral lines remain rhythmically independent of one
another.
In both cantatas, Dvořák shows to great advantage the soloistic properties both of the
human voice and of wind and percussion instruments within the orchestra. He never
overburdens the texture, allowing instrumental and vocal colors to be clearly heard and
appreciated. However, as these are both celebratory works, it stands to reason that the composer
would have at least one tutti moment in each cantata wherein the full orchestra and chorus could
perform at full dynamic and with maximum dramatic impact. Dvořák handles these moments
quite differently in each work.
Te Deum begins boldly and proudly, with timpani, strings, and more than half of the
woodwind and brass players entering at strong dynamic. After the chorus enters several bars
later, Dvořák begins building a gradual and exciting crescendo over the course of the opening
section by adding instruments until the entire orchestra, with chorus, is engaged simultaneously
92
at m. 39. This moment of grandeur is interrupted by a sudden drop in dynamic and
instrumentation at m. 49, preparing the lyrical soprano solo in the heart of the movement (see
Example 3.32). Just as suddenly, the chorus and orchestra reprise the tutti ending of the opening
part at m. 110, with a slightly re-orchestrated attempt to end the movement conclusively. This
attempt is again thwarted by a brass fanfare in a new key (see Examples 3.12 and 3.17),
heralding the start of Movement 2 and propelling the composition in a new direction. Much of
the remainder of the cantata explores this seemingly unanticipated musical territory. Only very
near the end is a viable path of return to the glory of the opening movement revealed. This is
initiated in m. 407 by the transition into the appended text, Benedicamus Patrem.
In light of the aforementioned “unsuccessful” attempts to bring the opening material to
conclusion using both chorus and orchestra, one might expect the composer finally to give
satisfaction to this idea by ending the cantata tutti. However, Dvořák takes an entirely different
approach. Eighteen bars from the end (m. 440), he drops the nearly-full orchestra completely
and lets the chorus and soloists struggle, exposed as they are, through the shockingly distant
harmonic area of G-sharp minor for three bars before settling on the dominant-7 chord of the
home key (see Example 3.23). The choir gives a strong crescendo, supported by timpani and
trumpets, into a tonic downbeat with full orchestra now playing a reprise of the core material of
the first movement. The singers and instrumentalists only perform together for two beats (m.
444). However, such energy has been amassed by that point – largely due to harmonic
surprises
19
immediately preceding the coda – that the choir would in a sense be “overstating its
case” by continuing to sing. The orchestra is well able to bring the work to a close on its own, at
the same time balancing the cantata’s instrumental introduction.
19
These include sudden shifts between the diatonic mediant E minor and the chromatic mediant E-flat
major (mm. 437-39), as well as the previously noted detour into G-sharp minor (mm. 440-42).
93
Example 3.23. Te Deum, mm. 439-44, Movement 4 (vocal score). Approach to final choral cadence.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Vocal score with piano reduction by J. Suk. Berlin: N. Simrock,
1896. Public domain.
94
From the standpoint of climax, Dvořák takes quite a different approach with The
American Flag. The fortissimo opening line, with its gravely repeated, minor-inflected
harmonies, is stated by woodwinds and horns in a fashion reminiscent of the dotted figure that
has for centuries been associated with nobility.
20
However, the first “arrival” moment is actually
the piano entrance of alto solo or small group, at which point the narrative begins and a dynamic
arch is created over the course of the movement. However, as the movement progresses, there is
a marked avoidance of climactic material, at least of the sort that would stand out in the work as
a whole. The first movement derives its relative, rhetorical power from full tonic-centered
chords and brass lines emerging from unexpected harmonic territory, which can be seen by
comparing Example 3.24 (trumpet fanfares) with Example 4.28a in the following chapter (brass
bass line). The second movement, on the other hand, captures attention by its strange
juxtaposition of floating harp (eagle descending, see Example 3.25) and terrifying timpani (the
“thunder-drum of heaven”, Example 3.26).
20
The quasi-dotted rhythm occurs within the context of compound meter (12/8 time). In the opening bar,
the dotted-quarter note tied to quarter and followed by an eighth has the feeling of a double dotted figure. In the
bars that follow, quarter and eighth note values are paired, approximating the single dotted rhythm. See Example
3.10.
95
Example 3.24. The American Flag, mm. 59-65 (vocal score). Chromatic transition with trumpet fanfares
(as seen in piano RH).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
96
Example 3.25. The American Flag, mm. 178-81 (full score; II. mm. 96-99). Excerpt of second harp
solo.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
Example 3.26. The American Flag, mm. 157-61 (full score; II. mm. 75-79). Timpani solo.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
97
Perhaps the most colorful moment in the cantata occurs when the soldiers “arrive” at the
start of Movement 3 in the form of brass fanfare and a lively march which incorporates the two
previously unused instruments, snare drum and crash cymbal. But certainly, the true and single
climax of the work is seven bars from the end of the cantata as nearly full orchestra and chorus
resolve a final plagal cadence, intensified through the use of mode mixture in the iv chord (see
Example 3.27a). The harp and the vocal soloists are excluded from the ending, and the
choristers are withdrawn a bar before the orchestra actually reaches its highest pitch point over
the tonic chord (see Example 3.27b). The orchestral coda quickly arrives at a complex variation
on a plagal cadence that is further developed by a series of unabashedly chromatic chords
leading right into the final bar, with no sustain of the ultimate tonic chord (see Example 3.27c).
98
Example 3.27a. The American Flag, mm. 693-95, Finale (full score; IV. mm. 28-30). Tutti orchestra
and chorus.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
99
Example 3.27b. The American Flag, mm. 696-98, Finale (full score; IV. mm. 31-33). Tutti orchestra.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
100
Example 3.27c. The American Flag, mm. 699-701, Finale (full score; IV. mm. 34-36). Tutti orchestra.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
101
Though exciting and thought-provoking, this is unquestionably an unusual conclusion to
a patriotic work. Granted, the musical material used in the final bars has all been introduced
earlier in the work, yielding a sense of “hearkening back,” a technique used to great effect in the
powerful conclusion of Te Deum. That does not explain, however, why such unstable material
was allowed into The American Flag to begin with. One possibility is that Dvořák set out to
reinterpret, or redeem, that chromatic material (see Examples 3.14 and 3.27c) by showcasing it at
the end, perhaps as a reminder of the struggle endured by all free peoples. However, the material
most closely relates to the march of the soldiers at the outset of Movement 3, arguably the
proudest moment of the cantata (see Example 3.6). Another possibility is that Dvořák intended
chromaticism to be more associated with triumph than with angst in this setting. This is unlikely,
too, as large sections of the composition progress with little hint of intense dissonance, and
chromatic or dissonant chords are brought in specifically to depict something unusual (such as
the “myth” of how the flag was dyed) or grim (such as blood on a bayonet).
Bearing in mind Dvořák’s firmly held faith in the God to whom the text of Te Deum is
directed,
21
it seems appropriate to consider the possibility that Dvořák is making a theological
distinction in how he constructs and ends these two works. If one compares the closing bars of
Te Deum directly with those of The American Flag, several things stand out. In Te Deum, the
chorus and soloists experience exposed, harmonic struggle before arriving at a dovetailed union
with the orchestral reprise of opening material from the first movement. This coda carries itself
very confidently and, after a “flurry” of trills and a series of off-beat chords, arrives at a classic
symphonic ending replete with sustained tonic over a timpani roll. There is no question about
the power of tonic in this movement. However, in The American Flag, the nagging question of
how opening A-flat major relates to closing A major lingers in the back of one’s mind as the ear
21
See quote at the start of Introduction.
102
tries to interpret chords that continue tugging at tonic right through the end. The choir is as
much a part of the harmonic “gymnastics” as is the orchestra, which perhaps might be an
appropriate metaphor for the complicated relationship between people and their own political
history. More basic than this, though, is that while the text claims America’s flag will be the
“guard and glory of the world,” the myriad implications of that statement remained to be worked
out on the world stage. While one does not necessarily sense in Dvořák an overt distrust of the
symbol and the power behind it, the composer nonetheless seems to exhibit a different sort of
confidence in “Deum” that prompts him to project the ending of his sacred cantata out and into
eternity, without question.
Text Setting
Dvořák employs extensive text painting at various compositional levels in both Te Deum
and The American Flag. Table 3.7 indicates several notable events in the sacred cantata. From
this list, particular attention is drawn to the first instance, the orchestral introduction, which sets
the stage for the composition as a whole. In her 1989 dissertation comparing Dvořák’s Te Deum
setting with those of Berlioz, Bizet, Bruckner, and Verdi, Charlotte Kirkendall identifies no
fewer than six distinct rhythmic elements (motives and ostinati)
22
that combine to depict all
creation, both earth and heaven, venerating the “eternal Father,” every being in its own peculiar
way. The orchestra thus plays a character, or multiple characters, in the unfolding drama.
22
Kirkendall, “Techniques of Choral and Orchestral Writing in the Te Deum settings,” 146-47.
103
Table 3.7. Notable instances of text painting in Te Deum.
Likewise, Dvořák uses the chorus not only to deliver the text, but also to impersonate
characters and actions referenced in the text. For example, in mm. 75-94, the male consort of the
choir sings a three-fold echo of Sanctus: Dominus Deus Sabaoth (“Holy, Lord God of Hosts”),
which at first glance appears to be a nod to the traditional telescoping of the number three (as
Bar # [ Hymn Verse # ] Description
1-21 [ 1, 2 ]
"All the earth" worships in their peculiar ways, depicted by a
cross-rhythmic tapestry of musical motives. Each choral
section begins polyphonically, ends homophonically, suggesting
diverse means to unified end.
49-93 [ 5, 7 - 9 ]
"Sanctus" reiterated three times at various levels, very
reverently at the end of section one, and in the following
section, given as the voice of the
"apostles…prophets…martyrs," with the final iteration
presented in minor mode.
99-109 [ 11 - 13 ] "Father…Son…Holy Spirit" presented in decreasing dynamic.
122-47 [ 14, 15 ]
Christ heralded as "King of glory" and "eternal son of the
Father" by brass fanfare and dramatic (initially unaccompanied)
vocal solo.
148-85 [ 16 - 19 ]
Frequent shifts of tonal center and mode highlight mysteries of
the incarnation. Dotted rhythms suggest nobility.
163-69,
186-93
[ 20 ]
Prayer stated early by female chorus, as if to demonstrate
urgency, then reiterated in proper location by male chorus.
197-284 [ 21 - 23 ]
Bold and dramatic presentation of lines focused on "glory" and
"eternity"
285-368 [ 24, 25 ]
Softer, almost hesitant presentation of "day by day," perhaps
indicating a humble posture towards the future.
369-73 [ 26 ]
Soprano solo with high strings alone evokes a feeling of purity,
reflecting the prayer to be "kept from sin."
374-404 [ 27 ]
"Lord have mercy" presented multiple times responsorially
(similar to the liturgical us of the Greek Kyrie eleison ), but in
two distinctly contrasting characters, perhaps depicting
provision for a need and the need itself.
Text Painting in Te Deum
104
present in Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus), a common technique in church music since the
Renaissance era. However, closer examination reveals that each echo is paired with one of three
sacred bands of saints described by the soprano soloist, these being the Apostles, Prophets, and
Martyrs. Rather than simply drawing attention to the parallelism of the Tersanctus
23
and the
three groups of saints, Dvořák uses a modal shift at the final echo, almost certainly to depict the
suffering of the martyrs that is mingled with their praise (see Example 3.28). Similarly, Dvořák
has the women interject line 20, a plea for help, two lines early, as though their prayer is so
urgent they cannot be silent until the proper time when the men state the prayer following the
bass soloist’s delivery of lines 18 and 19 (see Examples 3.29a/b).
23
The traditional Latin name for the address of God as “thrice holy” (cross-reference, Isaiah 6:3).
105
Example 3.28. Te Deum, mm. 83-92, Movement 1 (vocal score). Second and third echoes of Sanctus in
male chorus.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Vocal score with piano reduction by J. Suk. Berlin: N. Simrock,
1896. Public domain.
106
Example 3.29a. Te Deum, mm. 163-65, Movement 2 (vocal score). Female chorus interjection during
bass solo.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Vocal score with piano reduction by J. Suk. Berlin: N. Simrock,
1896. Public domain.
Example 3.29b. Te Deum, mm. 185-87, Movement 2 (vocal score). Male chorus response to bass solo.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Vocal score with piano reduction by J. Suk. Berlin: N. Simrock,
1896. Public domain.
107
Regarding text underlay and metric placement in Te Deum, Dvořák takes great care to
preserve the natural syllabic stresses of the text, in nearly all cases subjecting the music to the
rhythm of the text. His attention to detail can be seen in m. 73 (see Example 3.30), wherein he
uses a gently syncopated rhythm at the eighth-note level to accommodate the multi-syllable word
apostolorum (“apostles”). Another example can be found after the opening melodic line of the
third movement, which seems to have been carefully matched to the corresponding line of text
Aeternam fac cum sanctis tuis in gloria numerari (“Make them to be numbered with thy saints in
glory everlasting”). Following a quadruple statement of this line, syncopated, short bursts of text
are encountered. Homophonically delivered, with no pitch variation in the choral parts save the
vertical spelling of a minor tonic chord, the entire focus is placed on the text itself with its
natural peculiarities of rhythm (see Example 3.31).
Example 3.30. Te Deum, mm. 72-76, Movement 1 (vocal score).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Vocal score with piano reduction by J. Suk. Berlin: N. Simrock,
1896. Public domain.
108
Example 3.31. Te Deum, mm. 235-46, Movement 3 (full score; III. mm. 34-50). Homophonic
presentation of text following call and response.
/ / / / / /
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Vocal score with piano reduction by J. Suk. Berlin: N. Simrock,
1896. Public domain.
Three of the most significant instances of non-traditional setting are readily explained
from a musical and dramatic perspective. In mm. 49-52, the word sanctus is placed at the half-
bar, with the second syllable of each iteration arriving on the following downbeats. However,
the orchestra has already set up a recurrent melodic phrase that uses ascending pitch, hairpin
dynamics, and variable surface rhythm to direct energy into the middle of each bar, so each
sanctus in effect “emerges” from the point of maximal intensity, naturally decaying into the
downbeat (see Example 3.32). This wave-like motion against the meter is actually initiated
rhythmically in the choral parts one bar prior (m. 48) and may be an attempt by the composer to
reflect emotions that would likely accompany a rapturous vision of holiness, as contrasted with
“rigid” earthly experience.
109
Example 3.32. Te Deum, mm. 46-55, Movement 1 (vocal score). Composite wave-like effect, especially
between treble instruments and chorus in mm. 49-52.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103. Vocal score with piano reduction by J. Suk. Berlin: N. Simrock,
1896. Public domain.
110
At m. 110, Dvořák places the importance of a subito forte downbeat above the traditional
use of the word Te as a pickup to Deum. The soprano entrance in m. 112 matches this
untraditional, though not incorrect, setting of the phrase in a motivic response of sorts, but all
subsequent text in the movement falls into the more traditional iambic lilt.
24
A final example of
slight misplacement supported by a logical reason occurs in mm. 369-70, wherein the second
syllable of Dignare (“Vouchsafe”) is stressed through change of register (an upward leap of a
sixth into beat 2) rather than metric placement. The downbeat placement of the first syllable
serves also to intensify the request being made.
The American Flag abounds with instances of what might be called “clever” and
“sensitive” text painting, several of which are listed on Table 3.8. Of these notable examples,
one in particular warrants close examination. In the opening bars, Lady Freedom’s introduction
by orchestra and choir carries a sense of repose, as though she has always existed thus aloft from
the world or else has been able to distance herself from whatever struggle may have
accompanied her ascendancy. Her “mountain” is depicted by an upward arch of pitches (mm.
23-24), from which height she unfurls her standard (mm. 24-25) which will shortly become the
Flag of the United States. This standard is unfurled down, rather than into a blowing breeze,
further reinforcing the image of calm and allowing for future musically-painted events to interact
with Freedom’s flag (see Example 3.33). This downward gesture associated with the first
appearance of a word directly related to the flag (“standard”) is again encountered at m. 361, and
also at mm. 691-92. This falling motif seems to indicate the gift of freedom from above which
the flag signifies, but the gesture stands in opposition to the architecture of the central motif of
24
Slavic languages tend to place emphasis on the first syllable of words and phrases. Linguistic norms of
this sort may explain why Dvořák was comfortable with this solution.
111
the composition, the “Flag theme,” which is built almost exclusively of ascending parts
(reference Example 3.21 and Image 3.2).
Table 3.8. Notable instances of text painting in The American Flag.
Text Painting in The American Flag
Bar # [ Stanza # ] "Phrase" Description
1-20, 21-
30
[ 1 ] "When
Freedom…"
Regal introduction, and calm presentation of opening text.
Suggests narrative quality and initial distance from global
unrest.
24-25
[ 1 ] "mountain" /
"unfurled"
Melody ascends for the first image, then descends as the
Freedom's flag is unfurled, as though it hangs limpid before it
is caught by winds of change.
59-68
[ 1 ] "she called…
and gave into his
mighty hand..."
Trio of trumpets give fanfare as Freedom calls the eagle.
Mysterious chromatic shifts around a common tone of A-flat
yield a feeling of suspense as the flag is given.
69-76
[ 1 ] "symbol of her
chosen land"
Functional tutti for the first time (only percussion battery
saved for later). Brass and winds dominate the closing bars.
83-114
[ 2 ] "Majestic
monarch of the cloud"
Bold, solo vocal address to the eagle is startling. Disturbance
in the harp follows, as though to indicate the eagle's rapid
descent for the commissioning. Choral reprise of each
subsequent phrase lends power and purpose to the
commission.
143-70,
231-58
[ 2 ] "thunderdrum of
heaven" / "rainbows
on the cloud of
war…victory"
Final bars of each apostrophe feature a bold timpani solo. First
dissipates, whereas second ends in major mode and leads
confidently into the march that follows.
259-360 [ 3 ]
A traditional "old world" march in several sections,
incorporating battery percussion for the first time. Ends in
minor mode.
361-74
[ 3 ] "Flag of the
brave"
Soaring tenor line starts on high A, but over an evocative
harmony, seeming to suggest a struggle inherent to the
advance of Freedom's armies.
361-406 [ 3 ]
Surface rhythm of the accompaniment increases throughout,
with a feeling of growing confidence and "double time" into
the fray.
382-90
[ 3 ] "glistening
bayonet"
Harmonies creep downward chromatically in the strings,
depicting a gruesome but unavoidable reality of close combat.
391-407
[ 3 ] "soldier
eye…springing steps"
Melody ascends and rhythm picks up, with each soldier's spirit
renewed by a glance at the flag. Pizzicato strings, partly
syncopated, seem to trace the energetic steps of the soldiers.
112
451-93
[ 3 ] "cannon-
mouthings loud"
An almost jocular presentation of this material, with strings
and battery percussion playing sofly under bass solo. Provides
a temporary feeling of distance from personal danger afforded
by firepower. An unexpected choice of orchestration and
dynamic.
462-64
[ 3 ] "sabres rise
and fall"
Melodic contour.
489-94 [ 3 ] "midnight's pall" Bass line descends to low D.
539-48 [ 3 ] "lovely…death"
Section ends with an unexpected return to major mode, stated
kindly in winds and low strings, but suddenly dissipating on an
incomplete cadence, followed by string whispers of a quickly
building storm.
558-620
[ 4 ] "Flag of the
seas"
Sudden modulation up a half step from previous section.
Shocking, fresh, with violent push and pull of wind and waves
depicted harmonically and in all parts. Melodic tri-tone
becomes increasingly prominent.
621-23
[ 4 ] "broadside's
reeling rack"
Extreme understatement in choir a cappella at pp dynamic on
unison (octave) pitch.
656-63
[ 4 ] "in triumph" /
"closing eye"
Final defiant repeated high-noted followed by chromatically
descending vocal line, ending with an upward leap (of the
soul?) over a warm, cadential-6/4 chord in major mode.
666-90
[ 5 ] "Flag of the free
heart's hope and
home" / "proud"
Reflective start to Finale before delivery of the final stanza.
Text is bold as it enters, but the supporting music is
harmonically unstable and lags behind the soloist dynamically.
Text and music line up dramatically only at the penultimate
line.
691-95
[ 5 ] "guard and glory
of the world"
Harmonic tension is maintained until the last possible moment
through chromaticism and a minor (borrowed) iv chord, which
unfurls proudly to tonic A major for the closing instrumental
coda, which itself also reprises intense chromaticism in the
penultimate bar.
113
Example 3.33. The American Flag, mm. 21-27 (vocal score). Opening bars of alto solo.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
There seems to be a profound difference in the composer’s mind between freedom as it is
given, and how that freedom interacts with those on earth who stand and fight beneath (or for) its
promise of liberty for body, mind, and spirit. The march theme paints a picture of engagement,
with emphasis on looking at the flag and from it finding strength. In the case of the dying sailor,
the flag apparently serves as a source of comfort as his closing eye in mm. 656-61 (see Example
3.34) reenacts the descent of Freedom’s flag from the first movement (m. 25-26). The most
extended and uninterrupted descending passage in the cantata occurs at ffff dynamic over the
closing lines “guard and glory,” two vividly descriptive names of the flag in two of its most
celebrated roles (mm. 691-92, see Example 3.35). But before the scale can descend a full octave,
the march theme – perhaps representative of humanity’s engagement with or pursuit of freedom
– is suddenly revived in all choral parts except the grounded bass (m. 691), as though they are
114
the very wind that causes the flag to unfurl vertically, extending its guard and glory over all “the
world” (mm. 693-95, see Example 3.27a).
25
25
There may very well be programmatic significance to the preponderance of descending melodic gestures
at the surface level, combatted by an ascending half step at the Background level and emphasis of the suspended
dominant.
115
Example 3.34. The American Flag, mm. 658-65, transition to Finale (vocal score). Descent of bass solo
line.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
116
Example 3.35. The American Flag, mm. 690-92, Finale (full score; IV. mm. 25-27). Final descent.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
Besides this overarching musical picture, there are many local events that fire the
imagination. As was seen in Example 3.25, the harp used in Movement 2 suggests the beating
wings and circling of the eagle as it descends to receive the flag (mm. 87-97, reiterated in mm.
175-85). The words “glistening bayonet” in mm. 387-89 are accompanied by creeping strings
which seem to trace the impending course of “life-blood” down its edge (see Table 3.2 and
Example 3.22). Lively pizzicato just a few bars later energize the glances and steps of each
soldier (mm. 392-406).
Canon-fire can be heard in the distance (bass drum at piano dynamic) in the somewhat
pompously accompanied solo of the cavalryman (see Example 3.36), but this resignation to the
absurdity of war and overt confidence in technological prowess (artillery) is short-lived. In one
of the most colorful instances of text painting in the cantata, the basses descend to a low D while
high strings oscillate through diminished harmonies, depicting “shoots of flame on midnight’s
pall.” (mm. 485-92, see Example 3.37).
117
Example 3.36. The American Flag, mm. 453-56, Movement 3 (full score; III. mm. 186-90). Bass solo at
forte dynamic, strings at mp, percussion at p.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
118
Example 3.37. The American Flag, mm. 487-91, Movement 3 (full score; III. mm. 221-25). Bass
descent to low D.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
The line “lovely messenger of death!” (mm. 537-40) comes at the end of an excursion
into the parallel mode of D minor and is dovetailed into a calming reprise of the first few bars of
the bass solo melody, back in major mode (mm. 540-46). This return gesture suddenly
evaporates completely, and, following a pause of two bars, a storm begins to brew in mm. 549-
58 and bursts over a violent sea in m. 559 (see Example 3.38).
119
Example 3.38. The American Flag, mm. 538-58 (vocal score). Transition into the “storm.”
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
120
The storm scene is harmonically intense, featuring chromatic half steps in melody,
accompaniment, and key progression (E-flat minor to E minor, with brief reference to the
relative major of each). The instability of the harmonic framework is exacerbated by incessant
string tremolo and brass presentation of fragments of the “ Flag theme” (still in dotted “martial”
form) coursing through the chromatically ascending wash of sound, all in 6/8 against 2/4 time
(see Example 3.39).
26
But perhaps the most arresting moment of text painting in the cantata (in
no way diminishing the glorious encounters with the triumphant flag) is the downbeat of m. 621
and the subito pianissimo delivery of the line “before the broadside’s reeling rack” (see Example
3.40). One might expect an effect like this in a modern blockbuster film, but surely not in a late
nineteenth-century patriotic cantata. The impact of the wave is so concussive and destructive
that the fury of the storm is no longer perceivable by the sailor, who has but seconds to live.
Time stands still for a moment as, with ears dully ringing, the “dying wand’rer of the sea” looks
up and sees the flag somehow still flying over him. The remainder of the section amounts to a
brightening of countenance even as physical eyes close, and this leads back to a reprise of
Freedom’s theme from the opening movement, now in the (half-step-higher, seven-accidentals-
brighter) key of A major.
26
The first 35 bars of the viola and cello lines (predominantly filled with off-beat eighth notes preceded by
grace notes) are written in 2/4 time, with occasional tremolo sixteenth notes written as sextuplets in order to
synchronize with metered tremolos in the violins, given in 6/8 time.
121
Example 3.39. The American Flag, mm. 559-64 (full score; III. mm. 293-98). Polymeter in string
accompaniment.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
122
Example 3.40. The American Flag, mm. 620-23 (vocal score). Subito pp following the fff climax of the
“storm.”
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
Dvořák’s text setting and underlay is very nearly impeccable in the case of this English
text. Shortly after taking up his post at the National Conservatory, Dvořák spoke in an interview
about how much he delighted in setting the English language as he worked on The American
Flag and how he hoped to use the language more in the future.
27
Dvořák’s careful and
successful text setting indicates either that he had a good deal of help from someone much more
fluent in English than he (likely Josef Kovařík), or else that he had already spent a significant
amount of time exploring the nuances of the English language as it is spoken. In all likelihood, it
was a combination of both. Whatever accusations of structural weakness may be leveled against
the cantata (to be addressed in the following chapter), there is no lack of evidence for the great
deal of thought and care Dvořák invested in local treatment of the text.
27
Unsigned, “A Talk with Dvořák” in The New York Evening Post (Vol. 91, October 1, 1892), 2. Beyond
the excerpt given at the start of Chapter 2, Dvořák describes inherent challenges of setting the Czech language and
expresses his interest in writing an opera in English.
CHAPTER 4: The Schenkerian Method of Analysis Applied to
Te Deum and The American Flag
The previous two chapters having been devoted to analyses of Te Deum and The
American Flag from various vantage points, the cantatas will now be examined through the lens
bequeathed to Western musicians by Heinrich Schenker (1868-1935), the Austrian theorist
whose circumspect yet reductionist approach to understanding the inner workings of tonal music
has influenced generations of theorists and composers. Though occasionally dismissed as dry,
sterile, and narrow-mindedly reductionist, Schenkerian principles are considered by many who
have studied them to be “both musical and analytical in the best way,” often yielding “musical
insights not obtainable from other methods of analysis.”
1
As there is flexibility within the
system, a brief explanation will be given regarding the chief tenets of the system and those
principles which feature most heavily in the ensuing analyses.
Definition of Terms
Schenker’s groundbreaking approach to analysis posits that all of tonal music conforms
to a strict fundamental structure, of which he identifies several key elements that contribute to its
delineation and comprehensibility. Deviation from the structure constitutes divergence from
tonality as the controlling force of the music. Therefore, a musical composition is only tonal to
the extent that it adheres to the Fundamental Structure at the Background level.
2
The composer’s
unique compositional style, on the other hand, exhibits itself at levels closer to the surface. The
1
Allen Forte and Steven E. Gilbert, Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis (New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, 1982), 2.
2
This may appear at first glance to be “self-fulfilling prophecy;” however, one must bear in mind that
Schenker arrived at his theory through descriptive means, analyzing hundreds of respected “tonal” works, before
124
following concepts and terms pertain specifically to the current study, and their explanations are
based in part upon definitions of terms offered by Alan Forte in his 1982 text Introduction to
Schenkerian Analysis.
3
Head Tone
4
(Kopfton, or “Primary Tone”): The member of the tonic triad that is asserted
melodically early in a composition as the point around which preliminary pitches revolve and
from which pitches will eventually descend towards the ultimate destination of tonic.
Urlinie (“Fundamental Line”): A descending scale traceable from the Head Tone down to the
tonic, either in a melody or across the span of an entire composition. These are reducible to one
of three patterns: 3-2-1, 5-4-3-2-1,
5
or 8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.
Bassbrechung (“Broken Bass”): The arpeggiation of a tonic triad over the course of the large-
scale harmonic progression I – (III) – V – I. III is given parenthetically because it will
sometimes be omitted, yielding an incomplete, but nonetheless viable, tonic outline.
Levels of Analysis: The identification of the various layers in which music is understood to
operate. Within each layer, certain musical events are considered more “structural” than others,
and as one descends through the levels, previously significant musical events decrease in
structural significance until the most basic outline (generative force) of the music is laid bare.
ever using the recognized structure as a tool for evaluating the structural integrity of outlying examples. Description
has traditionally preceded prescription in music theory, with composers generally being the innovators and theorists
following behind endeavoring to explain why certain musical discoveries “work;” a slight adjustment to this model
occurred in the twentieth century as composers tried to find musical applications for the “radical” theories of the
“future of music” that were posited in its early decades.
3
Forte and Gilbert, Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1982).
4
When multiple versions of a term are listed in definition, the first term provided will be the version used
throughout the remainder of the document.
5
The variation 6-5-4-3-2-1 is occasionally encountered in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century
music due to the emergence of “add-6” harmony as a substitute for pure tonic triad.
125
Foreground: Refers to musical events operating near the surface of the music. Local harmonic
associations predominate.
Middle Ground: Deals increasingly with the contour of harmonic progressions (including the
harmonic inferences of melody) and begins to reveal the far-reaching gravitational pull of tonic
and, by association, its dominant.
Background: The layers in which large-scale harmonic associations are heard, traversing even
tonicizations and modulations.
Ursatz (“Fundamental Structure”): The deepest level of analysis, comprised of the Urlinie given
in relation to the Bassbrechung. One evidence of tonality’s weakening grip on European music
in the nineteenth century is the misalignment of significant melodic and harmonic events that
formerly would have corresponded to one another.
Unfolding: An understanding of music in which horizontal events can be brought into vertical
relationship to one another at deeper layers of analysis. A surface level example would be the
manner in which a melody can be heard to imply harmony (and harmonic progression) within
itself. Adjacent vertical events must still follow the rules of traditional voice-leading.
Prolongation: The ways in which a note or chord is heard as operational over a period of musical
time without literally being present that entire time.
Anstieg (“Initial Ascent”): A prolongational technique in which a scale (generally operating in
the Middle Ground and necessarily supported by structural harmonies) is used to ascend across
126
notes of the tonic triad up to the Head Tone. The Anstieg becomes increasingly common, and
extended, as tonality begins to break down toward the end of the nineteenth century.
Arpeggiation: Another prolongational technique in which notes of the tonic triad are
consecutively given (generally in the Middle Ground), forming an ascent to the Head Tone.
Obligatory Register: The register in which the Urlinie must descend. The Head Tone may occur
in multiple registers, each of which may or may not yield a descent to tonic. However, one
register will be asserted as predominant over the others and therefore will demand tonal closure.
Register Transfer: The completion of a line (fundamental or otherwise) in a register other than
that in which it was initiated.
Zug (plural: Züge): A foreshadowing or imitation of the Urlinie which can occur at any level
and in any key but must be supported by structural harmonies. The type or length of Zug can be
indicated by an Arabic number (e.g. 5-Zug indicates a stepwise descent from < 5 > to < 1 >).
Linear Intervallic Pattern: The motion from one structurally significant harmony to another by
way of sequenced material that will generally highlight an aspect of traditional voice-leading but
may not form a cohesive harmonic progression.
Interruption (Unterbrechung): The presentation of a portion of the Urlinie, at which point the
descent is halted by an incomplete cadence
6
and the Urlinie (or Zug) must begin afresh.
Cover Tone: A color note that exists above the fundamental melodic structure and may or may
not be prolonged.
6
One of the building blocks of the Common Practice, this procedure is at work in the ubiquitous phrasal
“period” structures of the Classical era.
127
Analytic Notation: A system for indicating the relative harmonic weight of pitches across time,
with symbols rooted largely in rhythmic notation. Pitches are related to one another by the use
of stems, flags, and open or closed noteheads, and are placed across a graph in order of
appearance (some shorthand may be used). These notes may then be connected with a series of
beams and slurs to further clarify their relationship to one another, and to the central pitch-
members of the Ursatz.
Dvořák was, at his core, a traditionalist like Brahms. He was living in an era of music in
which tonality as an organizational system for music was being stretched nearly to the breaking
point.
7
Dvořák’s music feels tonal, particularly at the surface level, and carries itself with
Schubertian charm and seemingly effortless clarity. However, Dvořák’s Middle-Ground
modulations and Background progressions are far more daring and unconventional, revealing an
approach to composition that is heavily influenced by the revolutionaries of his day, particularly
Wagner and Franz Liszt (1811-1886). A rigorous tonal analysis of the two cantatas under
consideration yields fascinating material for consideration of Dvořák’s place in the history of
tonal music. The complete analytical graphs excerpted and referred to throughout the remainder
of this chapter can be found in Appendices A and B.
7
Schenker developed his theory by examining representative compositions from throughout the Common
Practice period and searching for patterns, the application of which to music of the so-called Romantic era was
largely the work of his disciples. Schenker asserted that the era of tonal music had come to a complete end (at least,
within the realm of art music) and was thus open for retrospective and comprehensive analysis. This view of the
state of music in late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Europe may at first glance appear to pull in tandem with
the ideas of his contemporary Arnold Schönberg (1874-1951), who promoted the “Emancipation of Dissonance” as
the completion of the work Beethoven had begun. Unlike Schonberg, however, Schenker viewed dissonance – even
Beethovenian dissonance – as an integral part of clarifying tonal hierarchy and control. Be that as it may, the overall
obsession of Romantic composers with the obfuscation of tonal centricity and of absolute structure in general –
typified in the late music of Richard Wagner (1813-1883) and Claude Debussy (1862-1918) and largely unchecked
up through the first two decades of the twentieth century – led inevitably to a conception of dissonance as something
that could exist satisfactorily apart from its consonant forbears. This eventual abandonment of tonality necessitated
a search for other organizational methods, such as serialism.
128
Initial Assessment: Te Deum
A preliminary glance at Dvořák’s Te Deum may lead the examiner to conclude that it is a
tonal work by virtue of its beginning and ending in the “key” of G, major mode. However, the
post-modern ear, when engaged, is sometimes indiscriminating regarding the manner in which
tonal centricity is established, this being a result of immersion in neo-tonal and minimalist
procedures rather than a conceptual or visceral understanding of what constitutes true adherence
to the traditional tonal system as established on the basis of scalar hierarchy, the norm in the
Common Practice period. If Dvořák’s Te Deum is in fact a tonal work, the manner in which the
composer engages with – and ultimately pays homage to – the traditional tonal system shows a
side of the system that is at once flexible and fragile.
Dvořák constructs a non-traditional but conceptually simple harmonic plan which, on
paper at least, reinforces G (in the major mode) as tonic. From the perspective of key
progression, Dvořák outlines an augmented descending triad, with the most prominent key
centers being G major, E-flat major, and B minor/major, with eventual return to G major. The
four major sections (movements) of the work are laid out along these lines. From a Schenkerian
perspective, which describes how we hear progression away from and back to tonic, this poses a
problem.
The traditional key progression, something approximating I (G) – III (B) – V (D) – I (G),
places great emphasis on the relationship between dominant and tonic, a relationship that appears
to be circumvented in Dvořák’s arrangement of keys. Dvořák’s arrangement suggests a
prioritization of mediant key relationship over dominant relationship. However, there can be no
convincing establishment of tonic as a point of departure and a necessary point of return on the
basis of thirds, due to the multiple common chord tones between tonic and submediant/mediant
129
chords (or corresponding key areas). The posited “tonic” may just as well be passed over again
by third progression as be deemed a satisfactory resting place at the end of a harmonic journey.
Thus, in order for Te Deum to be deemed a tonal composition in the strict sense, there must be a
deeper level of organization upon which the higher, more readily apparent and intriguing
structures rest. This deeper layer does in fact exist and can be recognized through use of
Schenkerian principles.
Analysis: Te Deum
The key of G major is established locally at the start and conclusion of Te Deum through
traditional harmonic progressions stressing predominant, dominant, and tonic chords. Taking
this as a point of departure, the question at hand is whether it can be demonstrated that this
composition adheres to a tonal model as a whole or uses some other method of organization to
hold it together and make it intelligible to the listener. If the former, Schenker theory demands
three fundamental elements: a Head Tone, established melodically; an Urlinie, descending (or
demonstrating intention to descend) to tonic over the course of the work,
8
with each tone
controlling the portion of the work over which it presides; and a Bassbrechung, reinforcing the
descent of the Urlinie. Figure 4.1, a distillation of several layers of analysis, shows an Ursatz
that satisfies these criteria.
8
One of the evidences of the breakdown of tonality in the Romantic period is the increasing number of
pieces that do not allow the Urlinie to complete its descent.
130
Figure 4.1. Te Deum, Ursatz.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix B.
Dvořák achieves the head-tone < 3 > quite early, as it emerges out of the arpeggiated G-
major triad (with added sixth) that constitutes the greater part of the first movement. As
indicated at the various levels of analysis, the Urlinie is a < 3 – 2 – 1 > descent. Dvořák
establishes the Head Tone in three registers (see Figure 4.2), with the central register (dealt with
primarily by the chorus) being the “obligatory” register and that in which the final descent will
occur. The obligatory Head Tone is stated nearly immediately as the choir enters, but there is a
separate approach to the mirrored Head Tone in the register above that gives the opening section
its shape and dramatic flair. Dvořák uses a combination of arpeggiation and Anstieg, visible at
the deep Middle-Ground level (see Figure 4.3), to arrive boldly at the high B (in strings at m. 47
and reestablished at m. 120), which will be resolved near the end of the work by the soprano
soloist in conjunction with the orchestra in m. 428. The lower B is established most clearly by
the choral basses repeatedly singing the lowest voice of a first inversion triad in m. 15 and
following. This mirrored Head Tone is resolved by the bass soloist simultaneously with the
soprano in mm. 428-429 (see Figure 4.2). The Urlinie does not finally descend until very near
the end of the work, with the mirrored registers resolving first over a plagal progression (mm.
131
425-29) and the central “obligatory” register resolving with a more conclusive V-I progression
(mm. 443-44).
Figure 4.2. Te Deum, Background level.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix B.
Figure 4.3. Te Deum, Head Tones at deep Middle-Ground level.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix B.
One of the characteristic aspects of the work, then, is how Dvořák maintains the < 3 >
Head Tone as operative from Movement 1 through the interior movements and into Movement 4,
without losing interest or direction. He does this in a variety of ways. Dvořák employs as
waypoints keys that are friendly to the melodic tone B, namely G major at the start, B minor
throughout Movement 3, and B major at the start of Movement 4. Many keys are visited and
132
abandoned over the course of the work, but these stand out by virtue of their prominent
placement at the start of movements and their relative duration within those movements.
Dvořák also allows himself the flexibility of using the lower neighbor to B (B-flat) to
maintain the line but add chromatic interest. Movement 2 deals primarily with this B-flat and the
tone is resolved upwards to the correct Head Tone in Movement 3 to allow for a more traditional
descent later in the work. This neighbor-tone relationship between B and B-flat, and the mode
mixture it implies, is one of the ways in which the composer achieves unity within the work as a
whole. From the beginning, Dvořák foreshadows a generous use of modal mixture (generally
bringing the minor or “flatted” mode into the major) with his brief excursion into the key of G
minor in the opening movement, m. 87 and following (see Example 3.28). The corresponding
linear relationship – that of the lower chromatic neighbor – is simultaneously introduced. It is
precisely this motion between B and B-flat, introduced locally in the first movement, that allows
for the remarkably long prolongation of the Head Tone (< 3 > in G major) when applied to
movement key structure.
Another way in which Dvořák brings unity to the cantata across four movements is
through the use of Zug (false descent), operating at various levels. 5-Züge, 3-Züge, and even a
6-Zug serve as foreshadowing and reminders of where the music is headed (from < 3 > to < 1 >).
At the Background level (see Figure 4.2), one can easily trace the most significant Zug, which
occurs in the voices mirroring the Urlinie at an octave above and below. These both arrive at < 1
> slightly early and over an unexpected plagal harmony.
9
At the deep Middle-Ground level (see
Figure 4.4), two more Züge emerge. The first is initiated with the first note of the soprano solo
in the middle section of Movement 1 (m. 56) and resolved down near the end of that section
9
In this case, the A < 2 > is considered to be structurally supported by virtue of the allowable plagal
function of the II (ii) chord at this stage in the Romantic period.
133
(mm. 105-06). The other Zug apparent at this level of graphing operates over roughly the same
number of bars (mm. 369-425) but is unlike most of the other Züge in that it stresses < 2 >,
projecting it across the temporary keys of D major and F major before finding resolution
corresponding to the final modulation to G major.
Figure 4.4. Te Deum, Deep Middle-Ground level.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix B.
Another important Zug comes to light in the high Middle-Ground level after m. 56 (see
Figure 4.5). This descending line takes as its “faux-head-tone” the pitch E, or < 6 > in the key of
134
G major.
10
In this case, however, < 6 > emerges as significant mainly due to Dvořák’s
occasional use of major-pentatonic inflection throughout the work and is not structural, per se.
Figure 4.5. Te Deum, 6-Züge at the high Middle-Ground level.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix B.
Several chromatically-lowered Züge are scattered throughout the cantata, such as the 6-
Zug initiated at m. 88 (see Figure 4.5). These give at least temporary credence to the idea that
the Urlinie may well pass through the B-flat on its way to A and finally G. The lowered pitches
invariably resolve upward, however, and serve as a series of local guides to the over-arching
harmonic structure in which the prolonged B-flat melodic tone returns to B-natural in m. 199
(see Figure 4.4), thus serving as an elaborate expansion of the Head Tone (neighbor function at
multiple levels), rather than a passing tone.
One could conceivably read this composition as being structured around a < 6 – 5 – 4 – 3
– 2 – 1 > Urlinie, but this would necessitate a rather unsatisfying treatment of the < 4 >. The
most allowable structural support for < 4 > would be the plagal cadence at m. 425 (see Figure
10
While far less common than 8-, 5-, and 3-Züge, the 6-Zug (and Urlinie) begins to emerge towards the end
of the nineteenth century as composers begin to experiment with scales and add-note harmonies used in a structural
manner (such as in the French music that preceded the birth of Jazz in New Orleans).
135
4.2), but this is much too late in the work for proper balance and would require a suspension of
either < 6 > or < 5 > through the first three movements, either of which could work in several
local instances, but neither of which are convincing across long spans. This may be taken as a
note of caution against over-emphasis of pentatonicism by the analyst or performer. Dvořák did
not appear to have this in mind as any sort of structural basis of its unfolding and conclusion.
Other items may be readily drawn from the high Middle-Ground analysis. The voice
exchange at m. 88 is a rare example of contrapuntal procedure in Dvořák’s work. The linear
intervallic pattern between mm. 171-86 demonstrates Dvořák’s use of intense chromaticism to
move from one tonal location to another; in this case, the composer makes an otherwise
relatively simple shift from E-flat minor to relative major G-flat (see Figure 4.6).
Figure 4.6. Te Deum, Key change via highly chromatic sequencing.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix B.
Abrupt common-tone modulations and rapid-fire pivots are reflected in the myriad of key
changes present in the work, though only a handful of keys bear true significance in terms of the
overall structure. The others are used in a transitory manner. One can also see occurring over
and again the half-step chromatic neighbor, visible at various layers and in various keys.
Perhaps the most intriguing element, however, is the major (through mixture) plagal cadence at
136
m. 330 (see Figure 4.8), a cadence which is foreshadowing the structural minor (through
mixture) plagal cadence at m. 427 (see Figure 4.9). One can also see how these plagal events
were previously hinted at in mm. 49-52 (see Figure 4.7).
Figures 4.7 (left), 4.8 (middle), and 4.9 (right). Te Deum, plagal activity at the high Middle-Ground
level.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix B.
Initial Assessment: The American Flag
The American Flag poses a particular challenge to the analyst due to its internal tension
between two tonal worlds – A-flat major and A major, with their respective related keys. If this
is truly a tonal work, clear distinction must be made between the two primary keys, with one
exerting control over its “opponent,” and over all other harmonic events, at the Background
level. Even more than in Te Deum, the focus of this cantata appears to be on the half step, as was
noted in the motivic analysis in Chapter 3. If Dvořák is conceiving of the tonal areas A-flat and
A as relating to one another by half step, a necessary resolution is implied. The pivotal question,
then, is which is the “neighbor tone (key),” and which the primary? While the most probable
137
solution would be A-flat resolving up to A, the order in which the keys are presented, other
solutions must be considered as well.
Keeping in mind the construction of a major scale (this cantata is undoubtedly of Ionian
character, albeit utilizing mode mixture throughout), the tension-resolution relationship bound up
within the half step can be either of the ascending type (ti – do relationship) or descending (fa –
mi). In the opening bars of The American Flag, one can see a deliberate chromatic line moving
downward from m. 4 into m. 5 in an inner voice, the first moment in which attention is drawn
specifically to the half step (see Example 4.1).
11
By contrast, the complete lower neighbor
figure imbedded in the “Flag theme,” itself the generative source of nearly all material in the
work, is configured to emphasize upward resolution, using ti – do within the key of A-flat major
in its first statement in m. 7 (see Example 4.1, and compare to Example 3.21 for correct metric
placement). Certainly, a motif can be inverted by the composer at any level of development;
however, inversion is less likely at the deepest structural level. As there are three notes in a
complete neighbor figure and only two primary keys asserted in the cantata, the most perplexing
issue is whether the composition as a whole starts on the strong tone (key) or on the neighbor
tone (key).
11
Through the use of mode mixture, the le – sol resolution of Aeolian mode is implied.
138
Example 4.1. The American Flag, mm. 1-24 (vocal score). First movement introduction.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
139
A valuable source available to modern researchers regarding Dvořák’s compositional
process for this cantata is the sketchbook he used while in Vysoká in the summer of 1892. The
preliminary sketch of The American Flag is far more complete than the Te Deum sketch,
presumably because Dvořák knew he would not immediately be moving to the orchestration
phase and needed to have his ideas well preserved until after the voyage across the Atlantic.
This, and the length of time spent working on the sketch (see Table 1.1),
12
would seem to allow
for careful consideration of all major points of the composition and a relatively fixed idea of
what the final product would be. Far from clarifying matters, however, Dvořák’s sketchbook
reveals an original plan to use A-flat major as both a departure and arrival point, with A major
serving as an extended journey in the middle of the cantata which would have constituted a clear
working out of the complete neighbor tone figure of the “Flag theme,” though in inverted form.
As it is, Dvořák ultimately decided to close the work in A major, most likely in the process of
orchestration,
13
yielding a single ascending half step over the course of the work.
The Schenkerian analysis described below takes as its launching point the assumption
that the key of A major is viewed by the composer as a destination, more a reflection of the
musical forces at work than of the composer’s initial sketched ideas. This analytical decision
reflects consideration of various melodic and harmonic lines that can be drawn through the
composition and the search for one upon which all other events can hang. Interpreting A major
as an arrival point also proves consistent with certain key programmatic elements in the cantata,
such as the literal interruption by and arrival of the marching soldiers at the start of Movement 3
(m. 259), bringing with them a new tonal landscape. Similarly, the gravity of the opening flat-
12
Most likely over a month.
13
No notes or corrections are made in the sketchbook (which he likely would have kept accessible on the
ocean voyage) that would indicate a change in plans for the tonal structure prior to starting the orchestration.
140
imbued F-minor chords, which locally are brought up to their relative major A-flat by m. 6, sets
up an expectation that the low will be raised up (see Example 4.1). Though the first instances of
mode mixture encountered in mm. 1-20 deal with the lowering of certain tones (m. 4 and m. 9,
for example), the majority of shifts throughout the work move from minor mode to major or, if
the reverse, are part of a complete lower neighbor figure that will eventually return the third to its
major relationship to tonic.
Analysis: The American Flag
Though it may give the impression of straightforward harmonic progression at the surface
level, The American Flag is considerably more complex at the Middle and Background levels.
What holds the composition together, despite its somewhat disorienting opening two movements,
is the solid establishment of < 5 > as the Head Tone at the start of Movement 3, followed by an
Urlinie distributed more or less evenly across the latter half of the work (see Figure 4.10).
Movements 1 and 2, while not direct participants in the descent of the Urlinie, nonetheless play a
critical role in establishing < 5 > (E-flat at the outset) as the focal point. The shift from E-flat to
E near the end of Movement 2 (m. 235) uses the element of surprise to place even more attention
on < 5 > (now natural above a C root) and where it will lead (see Example 4.2). The
reestablishment of perfect fifth root relationship to < 5 > at m. 275 is exhilarating and
confidence-building (see Example 3.6).
141
Figure 4.10. The American Flag, Ursatz.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix A.
142
Example 4.2. The American Flag, mm. 229-40 (vocal score). Introduction of structural E in melody.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
143
Following m. 275, the listener is able to begin tracing the descent of the Urlinie. < 4 > is
announced by the arrival of the cavalry in m. 451, with the key of D major being closely related
to true-tonic
14
A major, and quite far removed from the initial key of A-flat major. The melodic
D, introduced in m. 454, is sustained through a modal shift into D minor (m. 495) and back again
briefly to D major (m. 540). The E-flat-minor passage that follows is distressing on a number of
levels, though this disturbance is appropriate to the subject matter (a deadly storm threatening the
flag and those who sail under it). The problem is most visible at the Background level (see
Figure 4.11), where a gaping hole is left in the treble line over an E-flat bass note. The melodic
D is gravely threatened here, and if E-flat minor were not passed through in relatively short order
(27 bars), the integrity of melodic D may have collapsed from the strain, or else been interpreted
as an incomplete neighbor finally allowing a return to E-flat. This latter possibility is made
compelling by Dvořák’s surface-level stress of A-flat minor and C-flat major in relationship to
E-flat in mm. 559-62, recapping the progression encountered in mm. 8-14. The upward
chromatic root shift to E (in minor mode) is reassuring in the sense that it puts E-flat in its proper
place as a transitory event. However, confidence is not fully restored until E minor is resolved
up to its relative major in mm. 600-01, with melodic D < 4 > (bass/tenor) reemerging over a G-
major tonic (see Example 4.3).
14
The term “true tonic” is coined by the author to refer to a tonic departure or arrival point that exerts
maximal authority over the work. The term “tonic” is insufficient in this study due to the duration and intensity of
clashes between strong key areas. In The American Flag in particular, the quest for “true tonic” is an important part
of the overall structure.
144
Figure 4.11. The American Flag, Background level.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix A.
145
Example 4.3. The American Flag, mm. 596-601 (vocal score). Harmonic confirmation of < 4 >.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
Immediately, however, another unstable passage is encountered, with dominant,
diminished, and half-diminished chords driving the music upward harmonically until a melodic
E is reached and clung to by the choral parts in m. 621 and following (see Example 3.38). This
return to < 5 > is significant, though not as a part of the Urlinie. The awaited melodic arrival at
146
< 3 > occurs in m. 649, though its structural harmonic support does not materialize until several
bars later in m. 662. Still < 5 > lingers on above, explicitly stated again by both the bass soloist
and sopranos in m. 662 at the same moment support is garnered for the operative C-sharp
introduced earlier (see Example 3.34).
The descent from < 3 > to < 2 > occurs with the eventual resolution of the cadential 6/4
chord (introduced at m. 662 and expanded in mm. 666-91) to a dominant chord at the end of m.
692 (see Example 4.4). Beats three and four of m. 692 are extremely volatile, as < 2 > is finally
stated but almost immediately abandoned in favor of < 1 >, the ultimate destination implied at m.
693 but established firmly at m. 695 (see Example 3.27a). The intensity of this sudden harmonic
acceleration apparently necessitates a buffer between the V and I chords. The N6/4 chord at mm.
693-94 is presumably employed to rebalance and even diffuse a portion of the energy amassed
throughout the Finale with its chromatic tugging against – but consistent reinforcement of – the
cadential-6/4 chord in A major.
147
Example 4.4. The American Flag, mm. 690-92 (vocal score). Final descent.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
The significance of < 5 > extends beyond its critical role as Head Tone. There is
undoubtedly an aural spotlight shined on (local) < 5 > in mm. 5-7, with the same tone reinforced
in mm. 17-18 and, an octave lower, in mm. 19-22. Eventually this tone is reinterpreted as the
pre-cursor, or lower neighbor, to the actual Head Tone which is revealed at m. 235 (see Figure
4.11). < 5 > is never completely abandoned, however. In high register wherein it was first
introduced, it maintains a consistent presence throughout the cantata without indication of
wanting to descend in the same manner as the Urlinie operating an octave below. This is
148
confirmed through the D-major / D-minor portion of the third movement, where focus is
maintained on the obligatory register as the women’s voices descend into m. 540 (see Example
3.38).
A programmatic interpretation helps to deal with the E in m. 662, nearly overstated in
multiple registers. Here the closing eye of the dying sailor, depicted by a surface-level Zug, is
made glad by the still-flying splendors of the flag (see suspended E in Example 3.34). Another
iconic moment of the cantata, the final plagal cadence in mm. 693-95, involves an implied
statement of the cover tone as the soprano F dramatically leaps up to a high A rather than
“correctly” resolving to E, causing the ear to fill in the missing tone and, in a sense, bringing the
listener into the experience of the flag (see Example 3.27a). The suspended E is reinforced once
more in the final two bars of the work as Flute 2 presents it in high register. Thus, < 5 > may be
understood as an extended cover tone that extends throughout the cantata, perhaps a
programmatic nod to Freedom’s flag waving over humanity.
Other notable events can be seen at the Background level of analysis (see Figure 4.11).
The mediant key motion from A-flat major to C minor at m. 83 allows for the melodic E-flat to
be altered later by mode mixture and turned into the actual Head Tone at m. 235. Attention is
drawn to the dotted line connecting the treble E to the bass A forty bars later, which is an
example of the straining of vertical relationship between structurally significant melodic and
harmonic events that was becoming increasingly the norm in late nineteenth-century music. The
move through C minor / major to A major involves two common tone modulations and a modal
shift, two favorite techniques of the composer (and of one of his models, Schubert).
15
It also
15
Emanuel Rubin, “Dvořák at the National Conservatory” in Dvo řák in America: 1892-1895, ed. John C.
Tibbetts (Portland: Amadeus Press, 1993), 71.
149
breaks up what would have been structural parallel fifths between the melodic and harmonic
ascent from A-flat major to A major.
Also apparent from Figure 4.11, the bass line motion (representing tonal shifts) from D
through E-flat to E in mm. 451-586 is reminiscent of the motivic chromatic descent in mm. 4-5.
Through inversion, the bass motion reorients the chromaticism to arrive at E, supporting the most
important melodic pitch in the work. Near the end of the cantata, C-sharp < 3 > is established in
the Urlinie at m. 649, well before sufficient harmonic support is provided, which serves as yet
another example of strain upon tonal structure.
In the deep Middle Ground (see Figure 4.12), a significant 5-Zug emerges at m. 363.
Given its placement at roughly the half-way point of the work and its incorporation of a thematic
spinning out of the “Flag theme” in martial fashion (see Example 4.5), one may well consider
this Zug an encapsulation of the entire third movement and the listener’s best clue to the structure
of the work as a whole. At the same level in mm. 601-19, motion from D to E-flat to E, now part
of an unstable chromatic ascent, presents itself as an echo of the bass (key) motion seen in the
Background level. One can also see woven into the final section of the cantata a chromatic upper
neighbor tone to < 5 > both in high register and in the bass line, which serves to acknowledge
and counter-balance the initial ascent to < 5 > via the chromatic lower neighbor (E-flat) early in
the work.
150
Figure 4.12. The American Flag, Deep Middle-Ground level.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix A.
151
Example 4.5. The American Flag, mm. 388-407 (vocal score). Melodic expansion of the “Flag theme”
in the tenor solo portion of the march.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
152
In the high Middle Ground, one begins to see recurrent local harmonic progressions,
some of which mirror Background events. The memorable opening bars of the work, while
seeming to emerge from F-minor tonic, are better understood as a vi – V – I progression that
recurs almost verbatim, though with expansion, in the final approach to true tonic after m. 649
(the vi-chord and anticipation of V can be seen in Example 3.34). At this level of analysis, the
transposed restatement of that progression in mm. 9-16 may be understood as still relating itself
to opening tonic A-flat major through mode-mixture, though at the surface level, it would read as
an abrupt transposition by common tone intended to disorient the listener temporarily. In either
case, the return to E-flat as the central melodic note in m. 17 is both expected and refreshing, and
the maintenance of modal mixture through m. 20 makes the return of C in m. 21 most appealing
(see Figure 4.13).
Figure 4.13. The American Flag, High Middle-Ground level, excerpt.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix A.
The falling triad seen in the bass line in mm. 17-22 (see Example 4.1) foreshadows and
provides the basic structure for the < 5-4-3-2-1 > Urlinie to be encountered later. This reverse-
stacked triad also features prominently in the march at the opening of Movement 3 (mm. 259-
75), at which point E < 5 > has been established as the Head Tone (see Example 4.6). It can also
be seen at the surface level in mm. 283-86 and mm. 390-91 (see Example 4.5).
153
Example 4.6. The American Flag, mm. 259-76, opening of Movement 3 (vocal score). Descending bass
line outlining tonic triad.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
The first vocal melody, narrated by alto solo or small group in mm. 23-45, proves at this
level to be a 5-Zug with register transfer. The temporary interruption of the melody at the half-
way point foreshadows a similar (and extended) interruption in the Finale, at m. 674 (see
Example 4.7). In the first instance, the conclusiveness of the Zug is weakened as the remainder
of the descent is tossed into high register at the last second. This sudden renewal of surface-level
melodic energy begs a choral response, however, and this is given in the form of a reiteration of
154
mm. 23-30. The register transfer also demonstrates that both low and high register will figure
prominently in the work as a whole. In the Finale reprise of the opening hymn-like melody, the
point of interruption in m. 674 coincides precisely with that in m. 30, but this melodic tone also
happens to be the C-sharp established shortly before as < 3 > of the Urlinie (mm. 649 and 662).
This partial Zug (see Figure 4.14) serves now to recapitulate the third movement, and indeed, the
entirety of the work preceding. The Zug also prepares the listener to appreciate remaining < 3-2-
1 > of the Urlinie, yielding an enhanced experience of the “final descent.”
Figure 4.14. The American Flag, High Middle-Ground excerpt, highlighting late partial Zug.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix A.
155
Example 4.7. The American Flag, mm. 666-74, opening of Finale (vocal score). Temporary interruption
of melodic descent.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
Back in Movement 1, there is a clever nod to D major in m. 66, which will later be
revealed as the structural harmonic support for < 4 > at m. 451.
16
By root motion of a fifth, D
moves for a brief moment to G minor at m. 68, but this is quickly reworked into a dominant-
seventh chord leading back to A-flat major on the downbeat of the next bar (see Example 4.8a).
The harmonic (bass) relationship between G and A-flat is an interesting one, and does seem to
give forewarning of the far more significant, structural tonal shift from A-flat major to A major,
this also featuring an intermediary harmony (or key area, rather).
16
This gesture calls to mind the use of a B-double-flat-major chord in m. 40, with a marginal note of A dur
foreshadowing an even more important event.
156
Example 4.8a. The American Flag, mm. 66-70, Movement 1 (vocal score). Resolution of chromatic
detour, initiating choral descent.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
157
Immediately after the chromatic detour of mm. 63-68, another Zug is encountered in mm.
69-73 (see Examples 4.8a/b), now with obligatory and high registers coupled together. Although
the soprano line seems to indicate an 8-Zug passing through the entire octave, the operative
melody is actually located in the tenor part (obligatory), and this stresses the E-flat as the
controlling pitch for the first two bars of that melody. This can be compared to the final Zug of
the cantata, occurring in the orchestral reprise of mm. 69-71 which immediately follows the
completion of the Urlinie in m. 695. In this final statement in true tonic, the Tpt 1 part proudly
reprises the tenor melody from m. 69, while simultaneously the < 5 > cover tone is stressed. The
cover tone also serves as the launching point for a final upward chromatic approach to tonic in
m. 700, mirrored by a descending chromatic line in the bass (see Examples 3.27b/c).
Example 4.8b. The American Flag, mm. 71-73, Movement 1 (vocal score). Choral descent, cont’d.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
158
Also apparent from the High Middle-Ground level of analysis is Dvořák’s use of
dominant suspension as a unifying idea. The over-arching cover tone being the most prominent
example, dominant suspension can be seen on a more local scale at the start of Movement 3 (see
Figure 4.15) and each of the transitions into the two sections that follow (as seen in Figures 4.16
and 4.17, respectively). In the latter example, the suspended dominant is suddenly shifted up a
semitone, causing the following section to spin off tempestuously in an unexpected direction.
Figures 4.15 (left), 4.16 (middle), and 4.17 (right). The American Flag, Excerpts of high Middle-Ground
analysis showing instances of suspended dominant.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix A.
Similarly, Dvořák crafts several prominent melodies using phrase groups held open by
half-cadences and then closed with an authentic cadence on (local) tonic. Not only do the initial
phrases cadence on dominant in each instance, but the melodic note coinciding to each cadence
is also (local) < 5 >. This configuration occurs in both halves of Movement 2 (bass solo
followed by choral parts, mm. 99-146 and 187-234); the minor portion of the march in
Movement 3 (mm. 332-50); the opening of the tenor solo (mm. 361-91, dovetailing into the start
of the more significant melody to follow); the tenor soloist’s martial statement of the “Flag
theme” itself, along with the choral reprise (mm. 392-407 and mm. 407-422); and the minor
159
portion of the second bass solo, with choral reprise (mm. 495-516 and mm. 518-40). In all, there
are very few melodic phrases that do not themselves, or when paired, end on local < 5>. The
best example of a melody that does not favor < 5 > is Freedom’s hymn-like tune in the first
movement (mm. 23-45, see Example 4.9), this most likely because < 5 > is clearly established at
the start of each of the two large phrases and one of the probable purposes of the melody is to
prelude the Urlinie, favoring a mid-point cadence with < 3 > in the melody.
Example 4.9. The American Flag, mm. 21-47, Movement 1 (vocal score). Alto solo line.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
160
Additional examples of Zug can be seen in Movement 2 (mm. 131-46) as well as in the
corresponding passage in the second half of that movement. A truncated version of the
important Zug in mm. 363-407 is encountered in mm. 407-22, choral parts, though in this case,
< 4 > is implied at the half-cadence rather than explicitly stated in the choral parts (stated
instrumentally instead). One can also see Foreground “faux”-Züge beginning to emerge, such as
in mm. 343-46 and mm. 658-61. They are not full-fledged Züge for lack of structural harmonic
support.
17
Still in the high Middle Ground, Dvořák’s proclivity for chromatic mediant chord and
key relationships becomes more locally apparent, such as at m. 303 and following (see Figure
4.18). At the Foreground level, this would constitute an abrupt key change to F-sharp major via
common tone, with return to A major facilitated by a sequence of first inversion chords
reminiscent of those in mm. 22-25. Another example is in the solo and choral tags in the second
half of Movement 2, specifically mm. 235-247, with the latter necessarily incorporating an
augmented triad due to raised < 5 > (foreshadowed enharmonically in m. 63). A climactic
repercussion of this relationship, used simultaneously as an expansion of the final cadential-6/4
chord, is the F-major interlude at mm. 683-88. Upward motion to a natural (major) III chord at
the start of the tenor solo (mm. 369-70) is not entirely unexpected due to that chord’s having
been prepared diatonically in the previous section (mm. 327-60).
17
The descending lines at mm. 276, 320, and 423 are likewise not technically considered Züge, as they
serve to compose out a key tone, in this case < 5 >, rather than draw attention to local < 1 > via scalar descent with
harmonic support.
161
Figure 4.18. The American Flag, Mediant relationship at the high Middle-Ground level.
Source: See complete analysis in Appendix A.
Diatonic mediant relationships, especially standard harmonic motion from minor to
relative major III, or from minor down to diatonic VI, are in abundance throughout the cantata,
occurring at the phrasal and sectional levels, and even between movements. Upward mediant
transition is first introduced in mm. 1-6. Downward mediant transition is integral to the reverse-
stacked triad in mm. 21-22 (wherein a temporarily implied C-minor chord is reinterpreted by the
addition of an even lower root). Examples of diatonic mediant relationships include m. 3 (a
downward relationship imbedded in a larger upward gesture); mm. 53-56 (relating major to
relative minor below); mm. 115-18, mm. 147-59, and mm. 203-06; mm. 259-75 (emphasis on iii
bridging gap between V and I); mm. 295-302 (facilitating move to chromatic mediant F-sharp
major); mm. 327-33 (emphasis on III bridging gap between i and V); and both mm. 559-82 and
mm. 586-601 (each falling within an overarching upward chromatic motion).
Another element that can be traced through high Middle-Ground analysis is the melodic
use of < 6 >. At the start of the composition, one can see local < 6 > stated in relationship to
local < 5 >, moving down as a whole tone in upper register and filled in with a chromatic passing
tone in lower register in mm. 4-5 (see Example 4.1). This motion from (local, Foreground) < 6 >
to < 5 > is echoed in mm. 9-13. Prominent use of < 6 > can also be seen in m. 24, where it
162
stands out as the seventh of a half-diminished vii chord and is suspended into the following bar.
< 6 > is especially noticeable in the opening march and tenor solo of Movement 3, where it
occurs both diatonically and in chromatically lowered form as part of an extended dominant
harmony (m. 281 and 384, respectively). In both cases, downward resolution is required. Also
in the tenor solo (mm. 361-68), < 6 > is incorporated into a chromatic neighbor chord, dissonant
against C. Finally, the soprano line in m. 662 gives perhaps the most exposed and impactful
statement of < 6 >, falling as it does over a structural harmony (see Example 3.34). However,
this is still presented as a tendency tone requiring immediate resolution.
A final thread that must be examined is the use of lowered < 7 >, which occurs in three
primary locations. First, in mm. 327-30 (echoed in mm. 335-338), the use of lowered (natural)
< 7 > and omission of < 2 > and < 6 > infers the minor pentatonic scale, the only explicit
reference to pentatonicism in the cantata, and a short-lived one at that (see Example 4.10). The
second occurrence is perhaps more intriguing, as it is inserted into the otherwise major mode of
A (mm. 361-368, see Example 3.16). However, its recurrence at m. 369 as part of an applied
chord to natural (major) III is not nearly as striking on account of those exact chords having been
used in the prior section (mm. 327-342). The restatement of material from mm. 361-68 at the
end of the tenor solo (mm. 430-37) is more rewarding on the whole, as lowered < 7 > is shortly
thereafter raised back up to diatonic < 7 > in the register wherein it was initial altered (m. 442,
see Example 4.11).
163
Example 4.10. The American Flag, mm. 327-30, Movement 3 (vocal score). Minor pentatonicism.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
Example 4.11. The American Flag, mm. 430-45, Movement 3 (vocal score). End of tenor solo.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
The third and, in the author’s opinion, most thrilling use of lowered < 7 > is found in m.
691 (see Example 4.12). While the G in this example can easily be explained as part of an
applied dominant to the IV chord which follows (all of which is stated over an E pedal tone), the
dramatic effectiveness of the gesture comes from its proximity to the four-note phrase A – G-
sharp – F-sharp – E (and its inversion), stated instrumentally in the two bars prior. The soprano
statement of the four-note phrase, but with G altered, garners attention separate from its role in
plagal inflection and wonderfully rounds off the harmonic journey through various parallel major
and minor modes.
164
Example 4.12. The American Flag, mm. 687-92, Finale (vocal score). Resolution of cadential-6/4, with
plagal inflection.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
CHAPTER 5: Implications and Extensions of Analytical Comparison
Harmonic Evaluation
When laying the previous analyses alongside one another, one can readily appreciate
many similarities, and some key differences, between the two cantatas. To begin with, they both
conform to the Schenkerian model and can, by that standard at least, be considered fully tonal
works. The fact that The American Flag does not begin and end in the same key, or even in
related keys, does not preclude it from being considered tonal; on the contrary, it is the very
power of the tonal system that is able to hold the composition intact despite its internal tension
(see Figure 4.11). By the same token, Te Deum proves to be tonal not on the basis of its starting
and ending point, but rather in how the fundamental structure unfolds, with suspended < 3 >
expanded by lower neighbor and then finally resolved down to < 1 > via a long-awaited perfect
authentic cadence (see Figure 4.2).
Having acknowledged the relative ease with which both cantatas conform to tonal theory,
it must also be recognized that The American Flag does so less readily. The question of key
center poses a particular challenge. It would be very difficult to make any cohesive argument for
A-flat as true tonic, requiring explanation of the motion to A major as a programmatic (or other
such) flourish. And yet this is precisely how the composer seems to have initially conceived of
the work. The sketch indicates that he fully intended to return to A-flat major at the Finale (see
Image 2.11). The composition itself, however, seems to have insisted on moving in a different
direction later in Dvořák’s (undocumented) compositional process (see Image 2.12). It is almost
incongruous to presume that the same mind that arranged such a compelling journey from A-flat
major to A major over the first half of the cantata would not have done so fully intending that A
166
major be the ultimate – though certainly challenged along the way – destination. It is quite
possible that, in the process of writing this work, Dvořák stumbled upon a new understanding of
tonality, one which allowed him to come to terms with the power of inference over explicit
statement, something with which Wagner had been experimenting for decades. The question of
whether The American Flag begins on the primary note or on the lower neighbor is, then, not
only a matter of perspective, but also of hearing the argument to its conclusion.
Continuing with the comparison, in both works Dvořák makes use of diatonic and
chromatic mediant key relationships. The American Flag uses these primarily as means to
traverse territory between fifths (emphasizing dominant relationship). Te Deum, on the other
hand, incorporates mediant relationship deeply into the structured expansion of tonic (G major),
in effect challenging the centrality of the dominant-tonic relationship. Indeed, Te Deum gives an
overall impression of “not having departed from home,” arising from the descending augmented
triad formed by the primary key centers, a construction that emphasizes common tone
modulation and leads directly back to where it started without necessitating any significant
struggle between dominant and tonic. The “resolution” from V to I at the end feels in some ways
like an afterthought or a formality, particularly when compared to the carefully treated cadential-
6/4 figure leading into and defining most of the Finale in The American Flag. There may be a
theological explanation for this. As is made very clear in the opening movement of Te Deum,
Creation, represented by a complex web of interdependent lines coursing through choir and
orchestra, is unified in its praise of God. In essence, the battle was won before it began, and the
cantata is simply a wondering journey in light of that assurance.
By contrast, a battle is only beginning as one enters into the world of The American Flag,
and the listener is dogged until the end by the question of whether one tonal world can actually
167
be exchanged for another, brighter one. Even the Finale entertains the question of return to A-
flat major (mm. 675-80, see Example 5.1). Assurance of arrival and stasis is withheld until
seven bars from the end (m. 695, see Example 3.27a), and even after that point, the harmonic
instability of the final three measures serves as a reminder that freedom is not promised
indiscriminately and can only be maintained with conscious effort (see Example 3.27c).
168
Example 5.1. The American Flag, mm. 675-81, Finale (vocal score). False dominant pedal.
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102. Vocal score with piano reduction by A. Dvořák. New
York: G. Schirmer, 1895. Public domain.
Both cantatas incorporate plagal cadences, though Te Deum to a greater extent. This
stands to reason, as the plagal cadence has for centuries been associated with sacred music.
Dvořák’s use of a very similar form of the cadence – a neighbor chord in inversion, colored by
169
minor mode mixture – near the end of both works seems to indicate a particular delight in the
effect created (see Examples 3.9 and 3.11 for comparison). This plagal cadence, very
appropriate to the subject matter in the Latin hymn text, by the same token suggests a certain
religiosity in Dvořák’s engagement of the patriotic text. This may help to explain the very
hymn-like atmosphere cultivated at the start of The American Flag
1
and the chromatic plagal
reference in the final bars (see Example 3.14).
2
From a theoretical perspective, however, the
reasons for employing the cadence in each instance are very different in terms of the multi-level
needs presented in the music (see Chapter 4). Therefore, unlikely as it seems, his use of the
technique in two major works conceived roughly simultaneously may in fact have been purely
coincidental.
Scholars have frequently noted that Dvořák’s use of pentatonicism and a lowered seventh
scale degree in music composed throughout the early 1890s seems to indicate an American
influence (even from long-distance) upon his music. Te Deum tends to incorporate the former,
while The American Flag stresses the latter. However, from a Schenkerian perspective, neither
of these elements factor deeply into the structure of the works.
Tonally speaking, the prominent E in the first movement and closing bars of Te Deum
does not receive structural support in connection with G major. Granted, it is emphasized
through a sudden modulation to A major at m. 21 (see Example 3.8), but this new, temporary
tonal center actually minimizes the relationship of E to the home key of G major, relegating it to
an applied function (V of major II), eventually replaced by its lower neighbor, D (< 5 >).
Indeed, < 6 > is always related to < 5 > rather than < 1 > at the surface level, and this combined
1
Once again, the overture to Wagner’s Parsifal seems a valid comparison.
2
In this case, a Neapolitan-sixth chord (flat major II, first inversion) is substituted for the traditional IV.
170
with the frequent use of < 4 > (nonexistent in the pentatonic scale) waters down the effect
considerably.
Similarly, lowered < 7 > in The American Flag is used so infrequently that it strikes one
as a means to arrest the listener’s attention at key moments in the music rather than any
consistent effort to engage with the musical culture of the “New World.” Structurally, such
effects do not bear much weight and are readily explained as applied or neighbor tones.
Certainly, one can and must consider the immediate impact upon the listener of such melodic
stresses or alterations; however, in these particular cases, other effects demand much greater
attention. Beyond this, Beckerman and others assert that these and other allegedly “American”
characteristics are also present in European folk music.
3
Without correspondence from or
interviews with Dvořák alluding to his reasoning in incorporating such elements, it seems
prudent to assume Dvořák was writing as he felt best served the text, as was his custom, rather
than to please an as yet unknown audience.
Moving deeper into a discussion of how these two cantatas figure into the state of tonality
near the end of the nineteenth century, it is imperative to recognize the significance of the
separation between certain key melodic and harmonic events in both works. In the Classical
period, the golden age of harmonic clarity, a melodic event (along the Urlinie) generally
corresponded directly to a harmonic support. In Dvořák’s Te Deum, the Head Tone < 3 > is
prolonged not simply by exploration of keys wherein it comfortably resides, but rather by its own
chromatic alteration. In The American Flag, the Head Tone is not even arrived at until 1/3 of the
way into the composition (m. 235), and its local support (C major) has little to do with either the
opening key of the cantata or the true tonic to follow several bars later, at which point structural
3
Michael Beckerman, “Dvořák’s Pentatonic Landscape” in Rethinking Dvo řák: Views from Five Centuries,
ed. David R. Beveridge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 250.
171
support is finally provided and the Urlinie fully engaged. If not for the motion into D major at
m. 451, supporting the descent of the Urlinie to < 4 >, the listener would be forced to understand
the work as presenting a melodic oscillation between lowered < 5 > and natural < 5 >. This is
not inconceivable, as examples abound of nineteenth-century compositions which never fully
resolve their respective Fundamental Lines. Such lack of resolution would be difficult to
imagine in the present case, not so much because of Dvořák’s tendencies towards traditionalism,
but because of the texts he is dealing with and the personal convictions he expressed about each.
His attitude towards faith and patriotism did not allow for such open-ended treatment of the
subject matter at hand. But even within a traditionalist framework, Dvořák found, or insisted
upon, a remarkable degree of flexibility.
One area in which Dvořák took particular liberties was that of surface-level harmonic
progression. The American Flag is full of short passages in which the composer takes a
circuitous, albeit rapid, trek through harmonically ambiguous territory, only to arrive at a
perfectly logical and, in hindsight, “predictable” point. Examples include the build-up to the
climax of the opening movement (mm. 59-68, see Example 4.8a) and the corresponding passage
in the Finale (mm. 675-82, see Example 5.1). The prime and more extended example of
Dvořák’s harmonic adventurousness in these cantatas, however, occurs in the second movement
of Te Deum. Over the course of 39 bars (roughly two minutes of music), Dvořák makes what
ultimately amounts to a very simple transition from the key of E-flat minor to its relative major,
G-flat (which will in turn serve enharmonically as the dominant to B minor, the key of the
following movement). Between mm. 148 and 187, however, the composer traverses no fewer
than six tonal centers, many of these presented in both major and minor mode. Mode mixture,
deceptive resolution, enharmonic reinterpretation, and common-tone mediated chromatic shifts
172
are just a few of the methods he employs in accomplishing a colorful and mysterious transition
that essentially encompasses the entire movement. The success of this passage actually hinges
upon the simplicity of the ultimate (Background) progression; indeed, the two work in tandem.
This tension between clarity and experimentation is evident in Dvořák’s formal choices as well.
Formal Evaluation
When one considers the formal construction Te Deum and The American Flag, the
question naturally arises as to whether these works are better understood as programmatic or as
absolute music, or as a combination of the two. Preliminary to this question, though, is whether
these cantatas ought to be considered sectional, single-movement works or true multi-movement
works. Dvořák’s autograph scores offer clues, but no definitive answers.
At the macro-level, both cantatas certainly bear a resemblance to symphonic form.
4
This
is most readily apparent when one compares large sections of the music, considering aspects
such as tempi, meter, the number of sections, and how these are delineated. For example, Te
Deum is divided into four distinct sections of roughly equivalent length and weight, with tempo
progression as follows: Allegro moderato maestoso (with a meno mosso middle section) /
Lento maestoso / Vivace / Lento (with più mosso to Tempo Primo). Dvořák’s section titles in
The American Flag are far less consistent, however, with the seven dramatic section titles (e.g.
“Second Apostrophe to the Flag”) carrying much greater musical significance than the three
movement numbers given in his autograph score (with the latter half of the piece, including the
later named “Finale,” existing under the Roman number “III”). One must bear in mind, though,
that many nineteenth-century composers were actively searching for ways to transcend even the
4
Nick Strimple “The Choral Works: Te Deum and ‘The American Flag” in Dvo řák in America: 1892-
1895, ed. John C. Tibbetts (Portland: Amadeus Press, 1993), 195-98. In this essay, Strimple provides simple, clear
diagrams of text division that highlight this symphonic view of the works.
173
self-imposed formal divisions within the traditional sonata, quartet, concerto, or symphony, the
primary goal being to heighten impact through the tying together of ideas at multiple levels.
Beethoven experimented with cyclic form, Liszt with thematic transformation, and Wagner with
Leitmotiv and Gesamtkunstwerk. By the end of the century, a single movement of any
composition could scarcely be understood apart from the larger work in which it was initially
conceived.
That said, Dvořák’s two “pre-American” cantatas most definitely exhibit a tendency
towards clear sectioning and bold contrasts, likely stemming from the composer’s engagement of
the text. The composer’s use of interruption and abrupt key changes as delineation techniques
seem to indicate, on the surface at least, a delight in the direct juxtaposition of substantially
unrelated ideas, yielding something akin to “movements.” On the other hand, thematic
transformation seems to frame the composer’s thoughts to a much greater degree than any of the
absolute forms typically associated with the movements of a Classical symphony (sonata-allegro,
minute/scherzo and trio, rondo, etc.). By avoiding recognizable forms and obvious “breaks in
the action,” the composer gains greater flexibility in terms of treatment of core thematic material
and greater traction in maintaining focus on the overarching messages of each text. In all
likelihood, these cantatas are dramatically effective precisely because so many elements of the
musical construction mirror the unbroken chain of thought binding each text together from the
inside. From a Schenkerian perspective, the harmonic cohesiveness of these cantatas, regardless
of where section breaks are indicated, argues strongly for treatment of each as a single-
movement work. This has practical implications for how to handle the actual release (with
fermata) between mm. 196 and 197 in Te Deum, and the section break between mm. 82 and 83 in
174
The American Flag. In the latter case, a literal break may even be unadvisable (see Examples 3.1
and 3.2).
Returning to the question of whether the term “absolute” or “programmatic” may be
accurately applied to these cantatas, it is interesting to note that both compositional approaches
are part of the same spectrum, each having a complicated relationship to narrative. Absolute
music intentionally distances itself from explicit narrative but still relies heavily on gestures that
relate very directly to emotional states or transformations, attempting to connect directly to the
listener in their current situation. Program music, on the other hand, embraces “story” or
“scenario” through musical gestures but, in so doing, brings in foreign characters, thereby
distancing itself from the listener. The presence of actual text in a musical work – that is, text
used primarily for its literal or metaphorical meaning rather than for sonic or abstract effect – can
pull the absolute and programmatic ends of the spectrum into much closer proximity than would
be possible otherwise. Words are unavoidably representational (anti-absolute); however, when
words are set to music, the listener is brought into direct dialogue with ideas through personal
comprehension and intellectual response (an extra-programmatic experience). Dvořák seems
intent upon constructing these cantatas in such a way that absolute concepts (such as formal
clarity, motivic development, and rounded gestures) are bent to intersect with programmatic
inferences (through orchestration, rhythmic association, distinction between narrative and
character voices, and creation of backdrops for unfolding action).
The American Flag is replete with instances both of situational painting (pictorialism) as
well as of specific text painting, the former in particular lending itself towards a programmatic
framework. The “march” (m. 259) and “storm” (m. 549) in Movement 3, for example, could
hardly be conceived of as anything but parts of an unfolding drama. Similarly, character
175
references abound in Te Deum, with the chorus in particular not only delivering text or singing
on behalf of another, but in fact singing as the people of God themselves (the Te Deum text is in
fact expressed solely in second-person). However, it is not likely that either cantata would have
as deep of a programmatic impact if not for a strong alliance with harmonic logic, especially
given the pervasive surface and mid-level dependence on traditional tonal progressions counter-
balanced by many unexpected harmonic detours along the way. As was demonstrated by means
of Schenkerian analysis (as described in Chapter 4), tonal structure plays a significant role in the
organization of both compositions. In that sense, either cantata could conceivably withstand
scrutiny even if section titles were nonexistent and text unintelligible (or removed completely).
The best course, then, would seem to highlight “programmatic” elements in every way possible,
using the text as a guide, but always relating the dramatic phrases to the “absolute” harmonic and
formal undergirding.
Evaluation of Editions Available
Regarding the availability of reliable performance editions, Te Deum has been released
by no fewer than five companies in vocal-score format, of which the 2004 release by Bärenreiter
Praha is the critical performing edition. According to Jonathan Green,
5
full score and parts for
Te Deum are available from Bärenreiter, Kalmus, Supraphon, and Simrock, of which the
Supraphon (published in 1969 as part of the Dvořák Complete Edition) is the critical edition and
is currently held and distributed by Bärenreiter Praha. The ready availability of these materials
almost guarantees ongoing performance.
5
Jonathan Green, A Conductor’s Guide to Nineteenth-Century Choral-Orchestral Works (Plymouth, UK:
Scarecrow Press, 2008), 163.
176
The American Flag, on the other hand, had no edition (subsequent to G. Schirmer’s 1895
publication of the vocal score) in print until Bärenreiter Praha released a full score, parts, and
vocal score in 2003 (for rental only). In the course of examination of the full score for the
purpose of this document, various errors were noted and have been recorded in Appendix C and
communicated directly to the publisher. Appendix D provides a short list of discrepancies that
exist between the 1895 G. Schirmer edition and the 2003 Bärenreiter edition.
6
In 2016, in
conjunction with doctoral research and performance, Kyle Zeuch transcribed Dvořák’s original
orchestration for organ and chamber ensemble, an edition he created with the expressed purpose
of making the cantata more accessible.
7
Two early hand-written editions of the full score of The American Flag are known to
exist, though the dates and origins of these scores are unknown. Bärenreiter Praha holds an early
hand-written copy of the full score that was once used by Supraphon (see Image 5.1). This
version was, according to Bärenreiter’s response to the author’s inquiry, deemed unsuitable for
continued use in performance, leading to Bärenreiter’s creation of a new edition in 2003.
Supraphon’s hand-written score and accompanying parts were likely those used in the 1976 and
1995 recordings of the cantata.
8
6
Only variations that have significant bearing on performance preparation are discussed.
7
Kyle Zeuch, “Antonín Dvořák’s Cantata, The American Flag, Op. 102. Performance Solutions in a
Modern Context” (DMA diss., Michigan State University, 2017), 1-2.
8
See Bibliography for recording information.
177
178
Image 5.1. The American Flag, hand-prepared full score of unknown origin, formerly held by
Supraphon. Cover page and p. 1.
Source: Held by Bärenreiter Praha. Used with permission.
179
The other version, once held by Tams’ Musical Library in New York City (see Image
5.2), currently resides in a special collection of the Talbott Library at Rider University. This
score presents particular challenges to the researcher in that it diverges quite extensively from the
instrumentation, and in a few cases actual pitch content, of both Dvořák’s autograph score and
the hand-written edition held by Supraphon. In one especially notable instance, the editor
9
of the
Tams’ score corrects what this author believes to be a misreading by other editors of the point in
Dvořák’s autograph score that corresponds to m. 499 (third movement, bass solo, fifth bar after
shift to D minor), which can be seen in Image 5.3.
9
“Arranger” may be a more appropriate term, given the extent of re-orchestration.
180
181
Image 5.2. The American Flag, hand-prepared full score of unknown origin, formerly held by Tams’
Musical Library. Cover page and p. 1.
Source: Held by Talbott Library, Westminster Choir College, Rider University.
182
Image 5.3. The American Flag, autograph full score, p. 58 (given). Excerpt of D-minor section in
Movement 3, corresponding to mm. 496-506 (flutes, clarinets, and trumpets over bass solo over low
strings).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, partitura. Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
183
Dvořák deletes two bars of music in this section. A literal rendering of the correction
Dvořák noted – the approach taken by the editors of both the Editio Supraphon hand-written
edition (see Image 5.4) and the new Bärenreiter Praha edition (see Example 5.2) – yields a bass
line that conflicts with both Dvořák’s own piano reduction (see Image 5.5) and with the seven
otherwise identical iterations of that same short melody that follow. It would be uncharacteristic
of Dvořák intentionally to present an idea in a certain form and then completely disregard that
form in subsequent references. In this case, the extreme clarity with which the section as a
whole is laid out logically demands literal restatement of material, albeit with register switched
and instrumentation reassigned.
10
On the other hand, it is highly characteristic of Dvořák to
make mistakes in his notation, which is almost certainly what occurred in this instance.
Image 5.4. The American Flag, hand-prepared full score of unknown origin, formerly held by
Supraphon, p. 90 (given). Excerpt corresponding to mm. 498-500 (cello over bass part, standard clefs, D-
minor key signature).
Source: Held by Bärenreiter Praha. Used with permission.
10
Any variation would be expected in a later iteration, if it existed at all.
184
Example 5.2. The American Flag, mm. 498-99, middle of Movement 3, excerpt of full score (viola over
cello part, standard clefs, D-minor key signature).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102. Full score. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2003. Used with permission.
Image 5.5. The American Flag, piano reduction autograph, p. 13 (given). Excerpt corresponding to mm.
495-500 (treble over bass clef).
Source: Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, klavier. New York: Autograph, 1893. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague. Used with permission.
In Image 5.3, Dvořák was likely in the process of working out precisely what length of
pause should occur between each solo statement of the text. This led to an inadvertent
misalignment of the cello part with the parts above. The fourth, fifth, and sixth bars (beginning
with quarter rest and slurred pickup marked pp) were most likely the first of the cello line to be
penned and are in fact identical to the subsequent iterations of that material. Dvořák either
realized a misalignment or (more likely) changed his mind about a previously intended pause and
decided to shorten the space between each cello “solo” statement. This required him to delete
the fifth bar. He then attempted to salvage the fourth bar by quickly adding a quarter rest and
185
three pitches (no slur) in the third bar and overlaying two eighth notes (no staccati) over beat 1 of
the fourth bar. He drew a beam that carried into the beat-2 figure but forgot to mark out the final
sixteenth note, his eye being on the correct conclusion of the line already present in the sixth bar.
This or some similar explanation seems far more plausible than Dvořák’s marking out a
previously simple statement of the material and rearranging it for no apparent reason.
Unfortunately, in an effort to remain true to the autograph score in the absence of any fair copy
or published edition overseen by the composer, damage has been done to what was almost
certainly the original intent of the composer, and this editorial misjudgment is now recorded on
two major record labels.
In light of the aforementioned errors in the most recent (and only) published full-score
edition of The American Flag, the author advocates strongly for a detailed comparison of all
sources available, with a greater degree of flexibility and care in determining Dvořák’s actual
intent for the final product. The results of such a comparative analysis, which is well-outside the
scope of this particular paper, would likely lead either to correction of the current Bärenreiter
edition, the release by Bärenreiter of an errata list, or the creation of a complete new critical
edition. The likelihood of the latter occurring is very slight given the negligible demand for the
work by performers; however, for the cantata to be taken seriously by ensembles and directors
able to perform the work at a high level – a critical factor if public perception of the work is to be
changed – an accurate edition of the work must be available.
Extensions, Responses, and Avenues for Further Research
Before drawing final conclusions from the research described above, it seems appropriate
to address a variety of issues raised and questions begged by the work of scholars who have
186
previously studied the two works at hand. There is little if any evidence in Dvořák’s
correspondence, sketches, autograph scores, or the music itself, that either of these compositions
was intended to be experimental in the realm of incorporating real or imagined “American
elements.” Incorporation of pentatonicism and the lowering of the seventh scale degree may be
an indication that Dvořák was trying to “connect” with his new American audience by
incorporating sounds with which they would readily identify – certainly, he would later reference
both as defining characteristics of the Native American and African American music he
encouraged as the basis for the new American school of composition – but these elements
already existed in mainland Europe, in Great Britain, and in some of Dvořák’s own music of
previous decades. If the works were influenced by Dvořák’s thoughts on America itself, the
effect on the music is subtle at most. Far more evident are his musings on musical form,
experimentation which would impact his later work, both during the American period and
afterwards.
The question of where Te Deum and The American Flag fall in Dvořák’s compositional
evolution, and whether they together (or individually) hold a place of any great significance, is a
complicated one. Dvořák had already proven himself a master composer in virtually every
popular genre at that time, but several of his most revered works had yet to be written (for
example, his Symphony No. 9 “From the New World,” “American” string quartet, cello
concerto, and opera Rusalka, among others). One can view Dvořák’s time in America as a
turning point in his writing, as he makes a relatively sharp turn away from traditional classical
forms and towards programmatic music at precisely this point in his life. Michael Beckerman
argues that the Symphony in E minor “From the New World” actually has a program behind it
187
based on the Song of Hiawatha by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882).
11
There are even
hints in English concert reviews of the Eighth Symphony, presumably based on interviews with
or other comments by Dvořák, that the composer had a program in mind for that piece as well.
12
The last major concert work Dvořák wrote based on absolute forms was his Cello Concerto
(1894-95).
13
Following this work and a couple of chamber pieces, Dvořák wrote five symphonic
poems (he had written a cycle of three such “concert overtures” immediately before traveling to
America) and then turned exclusively to opera in his remaining years.
Nick Strimple has posited that the “pre-American” cantatas were part of an experiment,
as Dvořák tried to settle on a working relationship between text and musical form. In his
contribution to the book Dvořák in America, Strimple suggests that:
Dvořák’s thinking in Te Deum is still guided by ideas of abstract [musical] form. Ignoring the
Latin hymn’s natural divisions, he subjugates the text to the architecture, projecting broad
emotions in general, though deeply felt, terms. In The American Flag, however, the form loosens
to embrace the higher priorities of the text, portraying specific emotions and events through text-
painting and thematic transformation – processes that are to figure prominently in the symphonic
poems. Seen in this context, the two “American” choral works figures as an important pivot in
the composer’s shift toward a more overtly programmatic music.
14
Strimple’s observations regarding the different approach taken in the setting of the sacred text
versus the patriotic poem seem accurate and help to explain the unconventional – if symphonic
writing is in the composer’s mind – sectioning of musical material in the latter case. However,
Strimple’s assessment that the composer “subjugates the text to the architecture” in the former
11
Michael Beckerman, “The Dance of Pau-Puk-Keewis” in Dvo řák in America: 1892-1895, ed. John C.
Tibbetts (Portland: Amadeus Press, 1993), 211.
12
The author is grateful to David Beveridge for sharing with him the content of these reviews and drawing
attention to their significance.
13
The Cello Concerto may also have served as something of a memorial piece for the death of his wife’s
sister, incorporating a song that some believe was written for her many years prior.
14
Strimple, “The Choral Works,” 201.
188
case should perhaps be qualified. Compared with settings of Te Deum by other Romantic-era
greats like Berlioz and Verdi, the Czech composer’s work actually falls on the more conservative
side of text treatment, in that he confines his manipulation of the text to very slight reordering of
lines (generally for use of a key line as a “refrain”); two cases of non-traditional text division;
and the addition of a doxology at the end of the work.
This final alteration seems to indicate that Dvořák is quite concerned with expressing the
text in a sensitive but impactful manner. Rather than obscuring the meaning of the hymn’s final
lines by forcing them to comply with the composer’s wishes for an exuberant ending (reflecting
one of the overarching messages of the hymn), Dvořák carefully selects a text that can serve this
function while connecting with many of the important themes presented in the hymn. It is the
opinion of this author that, in both this case and with The American Flag, Dvořák was in fact
remaining true to each text, to the extent he understood and was able to identify with them, with
considerations of musical form following from that understanding and commitment to
communication. This reinforces the ideas presented earlier (on the basis of musical analysis) that
Dvořák intended for the works to be heard in more of single-movement fashion than with
unnecessarily exaggerated breaks between sections. While this in itself does not preclude the
sections from being considered self-contained “movements,” the distinction is nonetheless
significant from a performance perspective. Emphasis of the absolute structure(s) drawn upon
for these works must inevitably be balanced by discussion of the myriad of ways in which the
composer breaks from standard macro- and micro-forms as he works with these texts.
If the cantatas in question were part of a conscious experiment in musical form, and
indeed the “hinge” upon which Dvořák’s turn to music of exclusively programmatic nature
hangs – a weighty claim indeed – one would expect to find hints of Dvořák’s changing
189
perspective in the composer’s correspondence and other compositions of that time. While much
research remains to be done in this area, three points of order come to mind in terms of framing
the discussion. First, as mentioned in Chapter 2, Dvořák was very private concerning his
compositional work and process, yet he was constantly working over musical material in his
mind and also made a point of jotting down promising ideas or breakthroughs. The composer’s
sketches of both small and large works, then, likely hold valuable information pertinent to this
question of formal development. A cross-examination of sketches and autograph scores
produced roughly between the years of 1885 and 1895, with particular attention to marginal
notes and any large-scale alterations, may reveal trains of thought related to formal
experimentation of the sort seemingly occurring in Te Deum and The American Flag.
Second, a study should be made of Dvořák’s treatment of text (with relationship to form)
in opera libretti as compared to the libretti used for his early cantatas. It may be premature to
assume that the composer’s experiments with form were restricted to the later cantatas; and while
music composed for opera tends on the whole to be more pictorial and dramatic, with formal
choices revolving around emotional states and advancement of the plot, there may be value in
examining Dvořák’s operas with an eye towards understanding how absolute forms may
influence even these musical decisions.
Finally, one should not overlook the existence of programmatic music scattered
throughout Dvořák’s output, which shines a different light on the composer’s transition into his
final period. Šourek points to Dvořák’s piano-duet cycle From the Bohemian Woods and the
Hussite Overture (both from 1883) as evidence that he by no means avoided program music, “in
spite of his being highly adept in absolute music.”
15
Leoš Janáček wrote, “I was among those
15
Otakar Šourek, Antonín Dvo řák: His Life and Works (Prague: Orbis, 1952), 25.
190
who in Dvořák’s compositions always felt and recognized all the signs of great expressive
powers for dramatic music.”
16
One of Dvořák’s students quotes the composer as saying, “I have
often thought about it and I am sorry that I am not a poet myself. If I could write poetry, I should
write the text [and]…know how it would look in the score.”
17
And Dvořák himself, in an
interview near the end of his life, said, “I consider opera the most suitable form for the nation …
[publishers] look on me as a composer of symphonies and yet I proved to them long years ago
that my main bias is towards dramatic creation.”
18
Whatever the compositional “shift” Dvořák
made in the mid-1890s, it was apparently not without premeditation, and it was consistent with
the fervent love of country he exhibited throughout his life. It may be discovered in time that a
programmatic tendency runs through even more of Dvořák’s early output than academic and
performance communities now realize.
Much has been written and said about the rapid appeal of Dvořák’s music with audiences
of classical music worldwide, a phenomenon that, remarkably, has not significantly changed
from his time to the present day. It is quite possible that, beyond Dvořák’s mastery of
orchestration, harmonic adventurousness, and the seemingly effortless ability to spin out such
beloved melodies as those contained in the seventh Humoresque in G-flat (Op. 101)
19
and the
Largo movement of the Ninth Symphony,
20
there is an additional element that causes audiences
to connect with his music. Phrases like “profound simplicity,” “deep-rooted honesty,” “love of
home,” and “world of color” dance around that elusive element but can hardly capture its full
16
Otakar Šourek, Dvořák: Letters and Reminiscences (Prague: Artia, 1954), 224. Excerpted from
Janáček’s essay “Czech Musical Trends.”
17
Ibid, 195. Excerpted from “My First Lesson with Dvořák” by Josef Michl.
18
Ibid,, 223. Excerpted from the 1904 interview with the composer, “Die Reichswehr,” in the Vienna
Daily.
19
Summer, 1894, while on summer vacation back home in his beloved Vysoká, Bohemia.
20
Spring, 1893, in New York City before departing for summer vacation in Spillville, Iowa.
191
effect. It seems logical to this author that the music of Dvořák feels alive and fresh to each new
generation because so much of it is celebratory, which intersects directly with real life and
cultivates a spirit of gratitude. Visual art and art music often tend towards criticism of culture,
exploration of or indulgence in the most controversial aspects of culture, or a shameless
backdrop for expression of personal struggle or discontent. Dvořák’s music, on the other hand,
seems to emerge from a spirit of gratitude and contentment, which is remarkable considering the
many familial and professional challenges he faced through his life. Dvořák’s uniquely positive
and curious outlook on life may itself be considered the “program” for his music in general, and
in that sense, the shift towards overtly and exclusively programmatic music in the1890s is not
shocking in the least, for it is merely the bringing to light of a long-standing connection in
Dvořák’s mind between music and story.
In response to the inferences and outright claims put forth by scholars and concert
reviewers alike regarding the inferiority of The American Flag in relationship to Te Deum and
other large works by the composer, the author would make the following observations. Dvořák
neither rushed through the compositional process for the patriotic cantata (see Chapter 1), nor
delayed its completion any longer than might be considered “reasonable” given his trans-Atlantic
relocation, nor was under any obligation to champion the performance of the work in light of the
much more pressing creative and educational work in which he was involved between the years
of 1893 and 1895. On the contrary, Dvořák seems to have taken a genuine interest in the
patriotic text provided to him, and was equally fascinated by the culture it represented both
before and during most of his stay in America. Yes, Dvořák left the United States less than three
weeks before the premiere of the patriotic cantata, which has been touted as Dvořák’s
“disavowal” of the piece; however, given the personal and financial circumstances leading up to
192
his sudden departure, this would seem rather to confirm the urgency he felt in returning to
Bohemia, an urgency that readily overcame any sense of propriety in fulfilling the terms of his
contract and participating in the premiere of a major work. It is quite possible that Dvořák came
to associate The American Flag with both the exhilarating and frustrating aspects of his
American pilgrimage, and with that chapter of his life complete, he was more than ready to leave
the work behind, though with some protection of publication rights. This in no way confirms the
composer’s thoughts, positive or negative, on the piece itself.
Valid points have been made by Zeuch and others regarding real disadvantages dealt to
the work on account of certain circumstances surrounding its premiere, among which are
Dvořák’s lack of presence at the occasion; an apparent lack of adequate performance
preparation; and unavoidable (and perhaps subconscious) comparison of the cantata to the wildly
successful Symphony “From the New World” (which did not as yet exist at the premiere of Te
Deum). One of the more convincing arguments for why the work never gained traction in the
United States or abroad has to do with the text itself, which is unabashedly imperialistic, a line of
thought developed by Strimple in his 1993 essay. Zeuch throws a cautionary flag on this point,
drawing attention to the role that poem played in American education around the turn of the
previous century, as well as to the unique role the cantata can serve today as a period piece and
reflection of a real time and mentality in American history. It is conceivable that, as the global
culture continues to shift in its relationship to ideals of political correctness, audiences may be
increasingly receptive to or demanding of the public presentation of controversial ideas such as
those presented in The American Flag, at least as a launching point for discussion of current
affairs and how history may shed light on a path forward.
193
From a theoretical perspective, the main focus of the preceding chapters, The American
Flag can easily stand up to the far more celebrated Te Deum in terms of quality and originality.
All things considered, the patriotic cantata is in fact more daring in its overall harmonic
progression and more thought-provoking in its resolution of internal tensions. Strimple cites
Otakar Šourek as condemning The American Flag as “the weakest of [Dvořák’s] works.”
21
But
this statement of Šourek’s, in context of the encyclopedia article in which it was originally
written, refers to The American Flag in relationship to the rest of Dvořák’s choral-orchestral
works. In fact, Šourek has much to say in praise of the American cantata,
22
particularly with
regard to its dramatic unfolding and motivic development. His statement in Grove’s Dictionary
(as quoted by Strimple) would perhaps be better understood to hail the quality of Dvořák’s
cantatas in general, of which The American Flag, in that author’s mind at least, is less like a true
masterpiece than some others. Without question, though, The American Flag is a tightly
constructed piece with a great deal of textural, melodic, harmonic, and dynamic variety
contained within. Regardless of its current suitability for performance (or lack thereof, as the
case very well may be), the cantata has many compelling features that warrant attention by
enthusiasts of late Romantic music, and the work of Antonín Dvořák in particular.
21
Strimple, “The Choral Works,” 199-200.
22
Otakar Šourek, Život a dílo Antonína Dvo řáka [The life and works of Dvořák] (Prague, 1916-33; i–ii,
3/1954–5; iii–iv, 2/1956–7).
CONCLUSION
In the preceding chapters, the origins and inner workings of Dvořák’s Te Deum and The
American Flag have been explored, with the goal not only of understanding each in greater detail
but also of determining whether the latter has suffered ill repute and neglect on account of some
musical weakness or lack of originality. In Chapter 1, a brief history of Dvořák’s education and
professional development was given, retracing the path that led him to share some of his best
artistic years with late-nineteenth-century students and audiences United States. Additional
attention was devoted to the details surrounding the commissioning and composition of the two
cantatas at hand.
In Chapter 2, primary sources pertaining to the actual creation of each cantata were
examined, with Dvořák’s sketches serving as the focal point. Points at which final product
diverged from preliminary sketch were highlighted for each work. Chapter 3 presented the
results of several layers of individual and comparative analysis, including textual, formal,
harmonic, motivic, coloristic, and dramatic.
In Chapter 4, procedures of Schenkerian analysis were applied to each cantata in turn.
Methods of pitch organization and harmonic progression were drawn out through comparison of
the various levels of analysis. Attention was drawn to the overarching problem and solution
presented in each work, which for Te Deum revolved around the tension between descending
chromatic mediant progression and the structural interval of a perfect fifth. In The American
Flag, the pressing question involved the complex relationship between two seemingly conflicting
tonal areas, namely an initial tonic of A-flat major, and a closing “true tonic” of A major.
Chapter 5 revisited certain key themes of Chapters 2 through 3 and presented several conclusions
while opening avenues for further research.
195
If there is one recurring theme that has emerged from the examination of these cantatas
and their sketches through a Schenkerian lens, it is that both cantatas were approached with a
great deal of harmonic adventurousness tempered by the sensibility of a mature composer.
Neither work stands above the other with regards to conformity to the chosen schema (tonality)
or of creativity within that self-imposed structure. The harmonic vocabulary is consistent
throughout each work and appropriate to the subject matter. The melodic material is similarly
organically conceived yet remarkably fresh and interesting as it unfolds. Whatever The
American Flag may lack in terms of instant appeal, it more than makes up for in what this author
considers to be memorable moments and a bold, well-paced ending.
Te Deum, in some ways the less adventurous of the two cantatas, nonetheless rightfully
holds its place as a genuine and powerful expression of an ancient yet enduring text. However,
from a theoretical perspective, the all-too-common inference that The American Flag has been
rejected by history on account of its being an inferior composition simply does not stand. Far
better explanations have been posited, such as Dvořák’s uncertainty regarding how the piece
would be received in Europe (interpreted as a lack of confidence in the piece itself), but even
these are predicated on misunderstanding of the work at some point in history.
Kyle Zeuch, Nick Strimple, and others are of the opinion that the piece is dragged down
by a controversial text, something that was being recognized even in the decades immediately
following its inception. However, Zeuch also makes the excellent point that an intelligent
audience ought to be trusted with controversial subject matter, and the responsibility is on the
conductor to frame the presentation in such a way that the ideas encountered, historical or
otherwise, can be respectfully evaluated and engaged with. Indeed, there has always been a
place and an audience for controversial works, particularly in America. In actuality, no single
196
reason stands out as a primary explanation for the failure of this cantata to achieve success
during the composer’s lifetime or afterward. But it certainly appears that a critical mass of
strikes against the work was reached in a very short amount of time after its inception, leading to
an uphill battle against prevailing winds of “taste” for those who would see The American Flag
finally gain rightful recognition as a well-crafted, and in many ways unique, cantata by the
beloved Czech composer.
Regardless of the reasons for society’s neglect of The American Flag up until the present,
there are a host of reasons to engage with the work. In addition to holding a significant place as
the last of Dvořák’s cantatas,
1
and potentially (as future research may reveal) being a key pivot
point in his compositional development, The American Flag also provides an invaluable window
into a unique time in history when the ideas of continental Europe and bustling America were
coming more and more into direct contact, through civil and artistic rather than military means.
The musical significance of Dvořák’s time in the United States, and of these cantatas and other
masterworks written around that time, is incidental to that confluence of ideas. In that sense,
both Te Deum and The American Flag allow us to interact with those ideas in our own time. The
past should be critiqued, most definitely, but never forgotten.
The so-called “pre-American cantatas” hardly sum up the entirety of Dvořák’s feelings
towards and understanding of America, as yet both were in their infancy when he undertook to
write these works. Criticism has occasionally been leveled against the works, insisting that they
are not American enough, or at all. This would seem to impose an unfair expectation that a
Czech composer, setting his gaze towards what was theretofore uncharted territory for most
Europeans, should have been better able to anticipate what he would find there. They are
American to the extent that they were written specifically for American audiences, as no
1
Excepting the short Festival Chorus of 1900.
197
previous piece of the composer’s had been. Certain harmonic and melodic elements would seem
to constitute a conscious effort to approximate an “American sound” (a few of these having been
discussed at length earlier in this document), but as Beckerman mused in 1996, “No one has yet
been able to articulate what, precisely, is American about Dvořák’s works, and I shall fail as
well, although I hope in a new way.”
2
Perhaps a better approach, then, would be to view these two inaugural works as musical
letters to a foreign land, seeking commonality of thought, and inaugurating a period of very real
change in the composer’s style.
3
And after three years in that land, one can see a similar gesture
in his cello concerto as the composer reaches back towards his homeland with the imprint of the
“New World” upon him but his love of Bohemia only intensified and clarified. That
indefatigable spirit of the composer working out his motto of “God, Love, and Country”
4
may be
part of what rings so true with audiences of his music around the world, then and now. With
many of the initial obstacles to consideration of The American Flag now removed by time,
perhaps that spirit can be recognized in its pages as well.
As music has always been intended to be experienced, understood, and appreciated on a
sonic level first and foremost,
5
this paper and any compelling arguments contained herein is a
poor substitute for actual performance, and may in fact be tantamount to putting the “stripes in
front of the stars.” It is perhaps impossible to pass final judgment on The American Flag until
more performances and recordings have been made. The concert-going public is all but
2
Michael B. Beckerman, “Dvořák’s Pentatonic Landscape” in Rethinking Dvo řák: Views from Five
Centuries, ed. David R. Beveridge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 250.
3
Ibid., 250.
4
Otakar Šourek, Dvořák: Letters and Reminiscences (Prague: Artia, 1954), 88. Excerpted from letter to A.
Gobl, December 31, 1884. See longer quotation at the start of Chapter 1.
5
Certainly the visual aspect of music, both in notation and performance, is significant as well. But it has
never been of “primary” importance.
198
oblivious to the work’s existence, and it seems appropriate to say that the cantata has not yet had
opportunity to “spread its wings.” The hope of this author is that research into Dvořák’s
American Period will continue and that appreciation for the theoretical quality of the works
produced during that time will increase and be well-documented in various languages and media.
But as regards keeping The American Flag itself alive, that will depend entirely on the
willingness of performers to tackle its many challenges and share its glories with the world.
“Follow the gleam.”
- Attributed to A. Dvořák by his student,
John Spencer Camp
6
6
John Spencer Camp, “Dvořák As I Knew Him,” The Etude, Vol. 39, No. 5 (May 1921): 310.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books / Chapters
Beckerman, Michael B. “Dvořák’s Pentatonic Landscape” in Rethinking Dvo řák: Views from
Five Centuries, edited by David R. Beveridge, 245-54. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
____________. New Worlds of Dvo řák: Searching in American for the Composer’s Inner Life.
New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003.
____________. “The Dance of Pau-Puk-Keewis and the Song of Chibiabos: Reflections on the
Scherzo of Dvořák’s Symphony “From the New World” in Dvo řák in America: 1892-
1895, edited by John C. Tibbetts, 210-27. Portland: Amadeus Press, 1993.
Beveridge, David R., ed. Rethinking Dvo řák: Views from Five Centuries. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1996.
Burghauser, Jarmil. “‘My Country, ’Tis of Thee’” in Dvo řák in America: 1892-1895, edited by
John C. Tibbetts, 203-08. Portland: Amadeus Press, 1993.
Clapham, John. Antonín Dvo řák: Musician and Craftsman. New York: St. Martin’s Press,
1966.
____________. Dvo řák. London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979.
Forte, Allen and Steven E. Gilbert. Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 1982.
Green, Jonathan. A Conductor’s Guide to Nineteenth-Century Choral-Orchestral Works.
Plymouth, UK: Scarecrow Press, 2008.
Ivanov, Miroslav. In Dvo řák’s Footsteps: Musical Journeys in the New World. Translated by
Stania Slahor. Edited by Leon Karel. Missouri: The Thomas Jefferson University Press,
1995.
Jeffers, Ron. Translations and Annotations of Choral Repertoire: Volume 1: Sacred Latin Texts.
Oregon: earthsongs, 1988.
Melville-Mason, Graham. “From London to New York: Dvořák’s Introduction to America” in
Dvo řák in America: 1892-1895, edited by John C. Tibbetts, 27-32. Portland: Amadeus
Press, 1993.
Nová, Kateřina, and Veronika Vejvodová, eds. Three Years with the Maestro: An American
remembers Antonín Dvo řák. Translated by Adam Prentis. Prague: Národní museum,
2016.
200
Rubin, Emanuel, “Dvořák at the National Conservatory” in Dvořák in America:
1892-1895, edited by John C. Tibbetts, 53-81. Portland: Amadeus Press, 1993.
Šourek, Otakar. Antonín Dvo řák: His Life and Works. Prague: Orbis, 1952.
____________. Život a dílo Antonína Dvo řáka [The life and works of Dvořák]. Prague, 1916-
33; i–ii, 3/1954–5; iii–iv, 2/1956–7.
____________, ed. Antonín Dvo řák: Letters and Reminiscences. Translated by Roberta
Finlayson Samsour. Prague: Artia, 1954.
Strimple, Nick. “The Choral Works: Te Deum and ‘The American Flag’” in Dvo řák in America:
1892-1895, edited by John C. Tibbetts, 193-201. Portland: Amadeus Press, 1993.
Articles
Beckerman, Michael. “Dvořák’s American Schubert.” Studia minora Facultatis philosphicae
Universtitatis Bruensis 39, 2000, series 35, Brno, Masaryk University, 2001.
Camp, John Spencer. “Dvořák As I Knew Him.” The Etude, Vol. 39, No. 5 (May 1921): 310.
Clapham, John. “Dvořák on the American Scene.” 19th-Century Music, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Summer
1981): 16-23.
____________. “Dvořák’s Musical Directorship in New York.” Music and Letters, Vol. 48, No.
1 (January 1967): 40-51.
____________. “Dvořák’s Musical Directorship in New York: A Postscript.” Music and
Letters, Vol. 59, No. 1 (January 1978): 19-27.
____________. “The National Origins of Dvořák’s Art.” Proceedings of the Royal Musical
Association, 89th Session (1962-63): 75-88.
Guthmiller, John. “The Choral Music of Antonín Dvořák: A Sesquicentennial Review.” The
Choral Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3 (October 1991): 7-14.
Döge, Klaus. “Dvořák, Antonín (Leopold).” Oxford Music Online. Accessed March 15, 2017.
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/512
22?q=dvorak&search=quick&pos=1&_start=1#firsthit
Holländer, Hans and Theodore Baker. “Modern Czechoslovakian Music.” The Musical
Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 3 (July 1934): 302-11.
Huneker, James. “Antonín Dvořák.” Steeplejack, 1920.
201
Lowenbach, Jan. “Czechoslovak Composers and Musicians in America.” The Musical
Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3 (July 1943): 313-28.
“Music in America.” The Musical Times and Singing Class Circular, Vol. 33, No. 598 (Dec. 1,
1892): 742.
Rubin, Emanuel. “Thurber and the National Conservatory of Music.” American Music, Vol. 8,
No. 3 (Autumn 1990): 294-325.
Sawyer, Frank J. “The Tendencies of Modern Harmony as Exemplified in the Works of Dvořák
and Grieg.” Proceedings of the Musical Association, 22nd Session (1895-96): 53-88.
Strimple, Nick. “The Choral Works of Antonín Dvořák: An Annotated Discography.” The
Choral Journal, Vol. 36, No. 9 (April 1997): 45-52.
Taylor, Benedict. “Modal Four-Note Pitch Collections in the Music of Dvořák’s American
Period.” Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Spring 2010): 44-59.
Thurber, Jeannette M. “Dvořák as I Knew Him.” The Étude, November, 1919.
Dissertations
Kirkendall, Charlotte Nawrocki. “Techniques of Choral and Orchestral Writing in the Te Deum
settings of Berlioz, Bizet, Bruckner, Dvořák, and Verdi.” DMA diss., University of
Cincinnatti, 1989.
Zeuch, Kyle. “Antonín Dvořák’s Cantata, The American Flag, Op. 102. Performance Solutions
in a Modern Context.” DMA diss., Michigan State University, 2017.
Published Scores
Busch, Carl. The American Flag. New York: The H. W. Gray Co., 1909.
Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor / The American Flag, Op. 102: Partitura / Full Score.
Edited by Jan Kachlík. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha, 2003. [for rental only]
Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103: Choral Score. Piano reduction by Josef Suk. Berlin:
N. Simrock, 1896.
Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103: Choral Score. Kalmus / Alfred. [reprint of Simrock,
1896]
Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103: Full Score. Florida: Edwin F. Kalmus & Co., Inc.
[reprint of Simrock, 1896]
202
Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103: Full Score. Edited by František Bartoš. Prague:
Editio Supraphon, 1969.
Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103: Vocal Score. Piano reduction by Han Theill. Frankfurt:
C. F. Peters, 1989.
Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103: Vocal Score. Critical Edition. Prague: Bärenreiter Praha,
2004.
Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103/B.176: Vocal Score. Edited by Carl Simpson. Piano
reduction by Josef Suk. Illinois: Serenissima Music, Inc., 2005.
Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum: The New Novello Choral Edition. Revised by Michael Pilkington.
London: Novello, 2003.
Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102: Vocal Score. Piano reduction by A. Dvořák.
New York: G. Schirmer, 1895.
Unpublished Scores and Related Documents
Drake, Joseph Rodman, Charles DuKay, Antonín Dvořák, and Unknown. Americký prapor,
libretto (typed libretto and supporting documents, with the composer’s markings). New
York / Vysoká, 1892. Held by Narodní Muzeum in Prague, catalogue number S226-900.
Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102. Full score, origin unknown. Previously
held by Supraphon in Prague. Currently held by Bärenreiter Praha. [ Contains various
rehearsal markings. ]
Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, partitura (full score). Vysoká: Autograph, 1892.
Held by Narodní Muzeum in Prague, catalogue number S76-1462.
Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, partitura (full score, fragment, included with
sketches for a symphony in B minor). Vysoká/NY: Autograph, 1892. Held by Narodní
Muzeum in Prague, catalogue number S76-1485.
Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, skica (full score, sketch). Vysoká: Autograph,
1892. Held by Narodní Muzeum in Prague, catalogue number S76-1463.
Dvořák, Antonín. Americký prapor, Op. 102, klavier (piano reduction). New York:
Autograph, 1893. Held by Narodní Muzeum in Prague, catalogue number S76-1674.
Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, partitura (full score). Vysoká: Autograph, 1892. Held by
Narodní Muzeum in Prague, catalogue number S76-1458.
Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, partitura (full score, fragment). Vysoká: Autograph,
203
1892. Held by Narodní Muzeum in Prague, catalogue number S76-1459.
Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, skica (full score, sketch). Vysoká: Autograph, 1892.
Held by Narodní Muzeum in Prague, catalogue number S76-1460.
Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, skica (sketch, fragment). Vysoká: Autograph, 1892.
Held by Narodní Muzeum in Prague, catalogue number S76-1461.
Dvořák, Antonín. Te Deum, Op. 103, klavier (piano reduction, fragment). Vysoká:
Autograph,1892. Held by Narodní Muzeum in Prague, catalogue number S76-1709.
Dvořák, Antonín. The American Flag, Op. 102, director’s score. Origin unknown. Previously
held by Arthur W. Tams’ Musical Library in New York. Currently held in special
collections at Talbott Library, Westminster Choir College, Rider University. [ Contains
various discrepancies in orchestration from Dvořák’s autograph. ]
Miscellaneous
Croaker and Co. “The American Flag.” The New York Evening Post, May 29, 1819: 2.
Dvořák, Antonín. Dvořák: Symphony No. 5, “Carnival” Overture, The American Flag. With
Andrew Davis, Zubin Mehta, and Michael Tilson Thomas. Sony, Essential
Classics. B0000062DQ. CD. 1998.
Dvořák, Antonín. Antonín Dvo řák: Te Deum, American Suite, Old Folks At Home; The
American Flag. With Prague Radio Symphony Orchestra, Vladimír Válek, and
Pavel Kühn. Clarton. CQ 0031-2 231. CD. 1995.
Hutton, Geoffrey. “The American Flag by Antonín Dvořák: A Case for Performance.” Masters
thesis, Ball State University, 2015.
Unsigned. “A Talk with Dvořák.” The New York Evening Post, Vol. 91, Oct. 1, 1892: 2.
Winter, Robert and Peter Bogdanoff. From the New World: A Celebrated Composer’s
American Odyssey. ArtsInteractive. DVD. 2016.
204
APPENDIX A
Schenkerian analysis of The American Flag
205
206
207
208
209
210
APPENDIX B
Schenkerian analysis of Te Deum
211
212
213
214
APPENDIX C
Errata Observed in the Published Full Score of The American Flag
(Bärenreiter Praha, Edition 2003)
Page 7 / m. 50, beats 3-4 / Tenor 2 – missing slur
[ Page 15 / m. 1, pickup / Bass solo – spacing of text, “Ma-jes-tic” obscured ]
Page 21 / m. 55, first grace note / Bass solo – A-sharp in original, matching winds
Page 23 / m. 67, grace notes / Bass solo – not in original, would presumably match A-sharp
in m. 55
Page 34-35 / mm. 155, 159, 161, 163-64 / Flute 1 – natural sign should be indicated for upper
note of each trill, matching Violin 1 (suggested for Ob 1 and Cl 1 as well)
Page 36 / mm. 175-76 / Timpani – measures are reversed (m. 175 should begin on C, and m. 176
on G)
Page 41 / m. 25 / Bass Drum and Crash Cymbal – should be a whole rest
[ Page 47 / mm. 69-75 / Horn 2 – beam mistakenly extended from m. 76 ]
Page 47 / mm. 77 / Double Bass – “arco” unnecessary and confusing
Page 50 / m. 119, beat 2 / Flute, Oboe, Clarinet – no sharp for upper note of G-sharp trill, but
sharp should be placed over/under every B trill (see strings, mm. 117-18)
Page 60 / m. 202, beat 2 / Violin 1 – upper note of double stop on final eighth note should be E
[ Page 63 / m. 219, beat 1 / Flute 1 – Triplet beam unnecessarily angled ]
Page 65 / mm. 232-33 / Cello – pitches and articulation should match mm. 238-39 and following,
dynamic should be placed at m. 232, beat 2 (erroneous reading of correction in autograph score)
Page 69 / m. 292 / Timpani – B-flat (misreading of autograph)
Page 72 / m. 311 / Viola – dotted half notes in 16
th
tremolo (sextuplets)
Page 77 / m. 340, downbeat / Cello – courtesy accidental on G unnecessary and confusing
Page 79 / m. 348, downbeat / low strings and brass – courtesy accidentals on A and C
unnecessary and confusing
215
Page 81 / m. 352, beat 2 / low strings and brass – courtesy accidental on D unnecessary, should
be placed on E instead
Page 81 / m. 354, beat 1 / low strings – courtesy accidental on E unnecessary and confusing
216
APPENDIX D
Notable Discrepancies Observed Between the Full Score (Bärenreiter Praha, Edition 2003)
and Vocal Score (G. Schirmer, Edition 1895) of The American Flag *
Bars 6-8 and 14-16
In the opening bars of the first movement / section of the work, the first and second
statements of the primary melodic motif are shifted back one beat in the vocal score (dotted-
quarter-note tied to eighth-note rather than dotted-half tied to eighth). This diverges from
Dvořák’s autograph full score (and thus from the Bärenreiter edition) but is consistent with the
composer’s own piano reduction in sketch form. Possibly an oversight, this discrepancy may
also reflect an intentional effort by the composer to create a more pianistic line in the vocal
version (reducing the inevitable decay of the dotted half at tempo Lento maestoso).
Bars 451-88 [Mvmt. 3, mm. 187-228], bass solo
In both Dvořák’s autograph full score and autograph piano reduction, he opts to maintain
an A-major key signature through the D-major portion of the bass solo (44 bars). Schirmer
changes the key signature to two sharps one bar prior to the bass solo entrance, corresponding to
the change in accompaniment, presumably for ease of reading. However, this places more
emphasis on the “section break” than the composer may have intended.
Bar 679 [Finale, m. 14], bass solo
In both Dvořák’s autograph full score and autograph piano reduction, A-flat major is
given or enharmonically inferred in this bar (though a sharp before the pitch B is missing in the
vocal solo line of the full score). Schirmer opts to give this measure in A-flat minor (with vocal
217
solo B corresponding to what become C-flats in the piano accompaniment). However, this was
almost certainly not the composer’s intention.
* The author has not yet had the opportunity to examine (in its entirety) the vocal score
released with Bärenreiter’s 2003 edition. Editor Jan Kachlík seems to have opted to
follow the full score in each of the cases given.
218
APPENDIX E
A Letter Received by the Author *
June 17, 2017
Dear Mr. Fryml,
I´m sending you lots of greetings from Prague.
As far as your letter is concerned, I can tell you the following: except of opera works I´ve
conducted all Dvořák´s orchestral compositions. Czech publisher Supraphon has published the
complet of all Dvořák´s 9 symphonies, and also Symphonic poems and Slavonic Dances among
others. I´ve also recorded lots of other compositions with the Radio Prague Symphony Orchestra.
I´ve met with "Americký prapor" - "American Flag" in 1995. Unfortunately this Dvořák´s work
has been quite neglected in our country. It´s a pity,for this is a typical Dvořák with rich
invention, colourful instrumentation, and as to my opinion with masterly written choir aswell.
In case you are going to conduct this work, let me mention few comments resulting from my
lifelong experiences:
I thoroughly study every beat, I find the place and instruments, which need special attention. I do
insist on exact intonation and rythm, I strictly follow the author´s notation. If possible, I
participate on choir rehearsals, and some spots which are more difficult, I dare to conduct with
the piano. After individual soloist´s previous preparation I always corepete personally. Since the
first rehearsal I try to keep the same tempo, same dymamics.
My recording of Americcká vlajka had been created in Dvořák´s hall in Prague, in the residence
of the Czech Philharmony Orchestra in 1995, and was published on CD by Co. Clarton.
The concert performance of the work has taken place in St. Nicholas church on the Old Town
square in Prague in May 1995.
I personally recommend to present this Dvořák´s work, same as his other vocal and spiritual
compositions, if possible, in temple spaces. Acoustic will increase achievement of the performers
aswell as the impression of Dvořák´s music imbeeded by his strong faith in God. In listener´s
souls it will leave strong and unforgettable impression.
Dear Mr. Fryml, I wish you a lot of success in your creditable work in the position of Director of
Choral Activities. You have my thanks for your interest in - as I´ve mentioned before - in our
country quite neglected musical work, which, except of it´s high musical quality simultaneously
demonstrates our respect for the people of the USA.
Sincerely with all my best wishes
Vladimír Válek
* The author communicated with Maestro Válek through his wife, Hana Válková.
English not being the first language of either, the above letter was translated from
Czech to English by a third party prior to being sent.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
It is unusual for a major choral-orchestral work, particularly one by a composer of such international renown as Antonín Dvořák, to languish in obscurity, even after energetic attempts to bring about its revival. However, this is the current state of Dvořák’s cantata The American Flag, and there does not seem to be any major shift in popular opinion regarding the work (or awareness of it, as the case may be) on the horizon, at least in the United States. The American Flag is one of two cantatas written by Dvořák during the months immediately preceding and overlapping with the start of his tenure as head of the National Conservatory in New York City (1892-1895). The other work, Te Deum, has achieved the success one would expect of a late work penned by the master composer, and its quality has been all but taken for granted by audiences and theorists alike. The central purpose of this paper is to address the many hasty, and often faulty, assumptions regarding the relative structural integrity of Te Deum versus The American Flag, and to harness the results of theoretical analysis to formulate a defense for performance of the latter work that may supplement those presented by previous scholars. This will be accomplished by a review of the correspondence related to the commissioning of the works
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A conductor’s guide to the original organ version of Antonín Dvořák’s Mass in D major, opus 86, including a critical comparison of the published editions
PDF
In search for a deeper understanding of Emma Lou Diemer’s compositional style through the analysis of her shorter choral works for mixed chorus since 1987
PDF
A study of Nick Strimple’s compositional life with an emphasis on his work Pentecost
PDF
The Antiochian Orthodox Church of North America: vocal music and choral practice
PDF
The development of Taiwanese choral music in the twenty-first century
PDF
A conductor’s guide to select choral works composed by Hyo-Won Woo between 2012 and 2018
PDF
The influence of the Australian landscape and indigenous Aboriginal music and traditions on Australian choral music: a study of choral works by nine Australian composers
PDF
The sacred choral works of Samuel Coleridge-Taylor
PDF
Using music to heal Catholic-Jewish relations: an analysis of Stephen Paulus' post-Holocaust oratorio, To Be Certain of the Dawn
PDF
A survey of the unaccompanied choral music of Wolfram Buchenberg
PDF
Sing on: The life, pedagogy, and contributions to choral music of Dr. Jo-Michael Scheibe
PDF
The life of Rudolf Mauersberger and an analysis of Wie liegt die Stadt so wüst and Dresdner Requiem
PDF
Charles C. Hirt at the University of Southern California: significant contributions and an enduring legacy
PDF
An analysis of two choral compositions with strings by Tarik O'Regan
PDF
A companion guide to Nick Strimple’s Choral Music in the Nineteenth Century: a research and repertoire guide for nineteenth century small form choral works for mixed voices
PDF
Leon Levitch's Song of Dreams: the testimony of a survivor
PDF
Music in worship in the Churches of Christ and choral music performance in Church of Christ affiliated colleges and universities
PDF
Three periods in Frank Martin's compositional evolution as exemplified in Messe pour double choeur, In Terra Pax and Requiem
PDF
Surmounting oppression in the choral music of Petr Eben: an analysis of the Missa adventus et quadragesimae
PDF
Anglican chant in the twentieth-century: Genesis, harmonic development, and style
Asset Metadata
Creator
Fryml, Nathaniel Josef
(author)
Core Title
In the shadow of Te Deum: An analytical response to the history of disregard surrounding Antonín Dvořák's patriotic cantata, The American flag
School
Thornton School of Music
Degree
Doctor of Musical Arts
Degree Program
Choral Music
Publication Date
01/18/2018
Defense Date
01/18/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Bohemia,Czech,Dvořák,Jeanette Thurber,National Conservatory,New York,North America,OAI-PMH Harvest,Schenker,Schenkerian Analysis,Te Deum,The American Flag
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Scheibe, Jo-Michael (
committee chair
), Grases, Cristian (
committee member
), Sparks, Tram (
committee member
)
Creator Email
fryml@usc.edu,nfryml@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-462690
Unique identifier
UC11266440
Identifier
etd-FrymlNatha-5961.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-462690 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-FrymlNatha-5961.pdf
Dmrecord
462690
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Fryml, Nathaniel Josef
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
Bohemia
Czech
Dvořák
Jeanette Thurber
National Conservatory
Schenker
Schenkerian Analysis
Te Deum
The American Flag