This

Lied has the structure of a classical A|BA. It can be understood either way as a Rounded Binary or
Small Ternary.

EXPOSITION
ANTECEDENT
BASIC IDEA
A Romanesca Stepwise (notice A in I6/4 instead
of G# in III. Similar harmonization to “à la CONTRASTING IDEA
---- Sammartini”) Fenaroli (V-I/V-I)

semitone tone

Tears/Sighs Motive (x) Paronomasia motive (z1) Paronomasia/Blumen motive (z2)

(SprieBen)Falling tears Motive (y) Bass motive 4th down (Retr.) Bass motive 4th up

A Maj: I I 2 VI I 6/4 IV I V7 I
The poem is a two strophes song (a Romance with two quatrains), and the rhyme seems to be abab. As an interpretative analysis certain aspects of the poem
retain this abab form translated into other ways; like the idea of oneself and pain in the verses 1, 3(basic ideas), versus the choral/multiplicity and joy of
2,4(contrasting ideas). All of this happens during the first strophe/quatrain, using rhetoric figures as paronomasia, alliteration and parallelism. The structure,
rhythm, rhetorical and rhyme of the poem are being reflected as a compact mirror metaphor in the musical structure (see score structural analysis), and also this
compactness it is applied to motivic relations between the words and their meanings. See (y)motive Romanesca with the octave descent as a metaphor of tears
and (x) motive as an almost recitative phrase with a little inflexion at the end, imitating when someone speaks with tears or sighs with inevitable pain, both a
musical description of the text.

CONSEQUENT
BASIC IDEA
Romanesca
CONTRASTING IDEA
Fenaroli (V-I/V-I) B

z1’ z2’ (z2’)

(x) (z1’) (z2’) (z1’)

(y)
V I I 2 VI I 6/4 IV I V7 I V I EMaj:I
H.C PAC H.C PAC

In the second verse, the relations are made using paronomasia and alliteration (viel blühen-C# BB-de Blumen-C#AA, motive
z1,z2, or the Blumen motive) and the same at the fourth verse (both 2 and 4 are contr.i.). Also, there is a polarity IV-I/V-I
between the bass motive falling a perfect fourth(sad verse1,3/b.i.) and a sort of retrogradation of the bass motive rising (joy
verse2,4/contr.i.). In the melody we can see the semitone inflexion as sadness and singularity in b.i., opposed to two semitones/
tone (and even more subsequently) as plurality and joy accompanied by pivoting harmony V-I-V-I (Fenaroli). The parallelism
relations can be seen obviously between antecedent and consequent.
 A’
CONTRASTING MIDDLE
NEW BASIC IDEA (Almost equal than B.I.) NEW CONTRASTING IDEA
Romanesca(Partial) Monte ?

Mi-------- contra—Fa (1st half of Monte?) Half Cadence(2ond half of Monte?)
in V-E Major

dim.
(z2’’)
(x’) transformed into conditional (x’) partial (z2’’)

(y) (y’) imitation

dim.

(I) I 2 VI I 6/4 VII7/V (V6/5/V) Vm III V/II III V/II A:V7/IV

H.C ? H.C.?
This contrasting middle surprises because the listener may expect continuation schemas or something different, and in fact, it can be perceived
as different. Instead Schumann begins again with a Romanesca, a typical opening gambit , but this time at the dominant in E major (although
beginning at the key of the dominant is not new obviously,in fact, is the most common thing) with the melody bringing a fifth of the chord and
not the third as before. It is remarkable at m.9,10: the expected resolution is B major; instead, Schumann choose B minor to reflect the
conversion of the loved person into a “Kindchen” (B minor at m.10). This metamorphosis effect is emphasised by the transformation of the VII/
V with a minor 7th to a diminished 7th, followed by the course of motivic imitation (previous bass Romanesca motive) leading to a V6/5/V and
resolving to B minor. Also notice this Monte, since many Montes in the 19th century is not anymore a “school monte (V(F#)-I(B)) and one tone
above III(G#)-V/II(C#) instead of the second part as a V-I again)”. Here Schumann expands the melodic register until a perfect fourth like the
bass associated cadential-motive) and then subsequently imitated by the bass leading to an unexpected H.C.-C#Major as V/II, like a magic trick
for a present with flowers (followed again by the “Blumen” associated motive).
REEXPOSITION
CONSEQUENT
BASIC IDEA CONTRASTING IDEA
Ponte(instead of Romanesca) Fenaroli

( V7/IV) IV I V7 I V7 I
H.C PAC
The re-exposition with A as V7/IV, repeating the chord for so to create tension and not resolving until m.14 can be interpreted as a music analogy of the wait in
the text (in Schemata theory this Ponte takes place instead of a Romanesca that appears in the others b.i.). In the melody, there is an embellishment of a
descending bordadura forming a triolet. Curiously there is a poetical and musical (partial) paronomasia between m.10 and 14 with iv major to minor (see green
circles, text: Kindchen-Klingen). Also, notice the fifth upwards at the same m.14, usually in the others b.i. was a fourth downwards; in this case, a possible
intention is to create parallelism of the melody at m.10-11. But for me, what’s capturing mostly the attention is the fact that the voice never ends into a PAC
always in an H.C., then comes the piano with the PAC (except m.12) repeating the motive (z2’) as a memory, maybe like the sound waiting to enter outside the
window, perhaps the song of the nightingale chorus...

Manel Ribera
mribera@[Link]
[Link] Music analysis
Prof. of Techniques of Composition
ESMUC(University School of Music of Catalonia)