schoenberg as performer of his own music
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 12 November 2014, At: 16:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Journal of MusicologicalResearchPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gmur20
Schoenberg as Performer of HisOwn MusicRoland Jackson aa Professor emeritus, Claremont Graduate UniversityPublished online: 31 Jan 2007.
To cite this article: Roland Jackson (2005) Schoenberg as Performer of His Own Music,Journal of Musicological Research, 24:1, 49-69, DOI: 10.1080/01411890590915494
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411890590915494
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Journal of Musicological Research, 24: 49–69, 2005Copyright © Taylor & Francis, Inc.ISSN 0141-1896 print / 1547-7304 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01411890590915494
Journal of Musicological Research241Taylor & FrancisTaylor and Francis 325 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphiaPA191060141-18961547-7304GMURTaylor & Francis, Inc.4951510.1080/014118905909154942005132Roland JacksonSchoenberg as Performer of His Own Music
SCHOENBERG AS PERFORMER OF HIS OWN MUSIC
Roland Jackson
Professor emeritus, Claremont Graduate University
Five recordings of Schoenberg conducting his own music have beenpreserved: Verklärte Nacht, “Lied der Waldtaube,” Pierrot Lunaire,Suite Op. 29, and Von Heute auf Morgen. These offer a valuableresource, showing many aspects of Schoenberg’s own approach to inter-pretation. Although produced between 1927 and 1940, the recordingsreveal that Schoenberg adhered closely to the late–Romantic tradition ofperforming that was typical at the turn of the century. Most striking isSchoenberg’s pervasive use of rubato as well as his frequent deviationsfrom his own metronomic markings. The recordings—in conjunction withhis published and rehearsal scores—also give evidence of Schoenberg’sdetailed attention to dynamic and articulative nuances, and provide amodel for Schoenberg’s use of Sprechstimme. In his writings, Schoenbergexpressed firm convictions concerning a composer’s rights, which were,as he said, confined to an adherence to the notes and rhythms. To theperformer, on the other hand, he accorded a number of freedoms (as wastypical of the time around 1900), especially those of dynamics, tempo,and timbre.
Recordings by composers of their own works offer invaluable insightsinto how their music might be performed. A few composers (for instance,Rachmaninoff or Bartók) made a considerable number of such record-ings; others did so only rarely. Among the latter was Arnold Schoenberg(1874–1951), who, despite his enormous importance in his own time, leftonly a few recorded examples of performances of his works. These fewexamples show, perhaps surprisingly, that—despite his significant fore-shadowing of future developments in twentieth-century music—his inter-pretations owe more to late–nineteenth-century traditions of performancethan they do to those of the unfolding twentieth century.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
50 Roland Jackson
Five recordings of Schoenberg conducting his own music have comedown to us.1
1. Verklärte Nacht (1899), mm. 1–200; (recorded in Berlin, 1928,orchestra unknown);
2. “Lied der Waldtaube,” Gurrelieder (1900–1901); (recorded inNew York, April 7, 1934, with Rose Bampton, soprano, and theCadillac [i.e., the NBC] Symphony Orchestra);
3. Pierrot Lunaire (1912); (recorded in Los Angeles, September24–26, 1940, with Erika Stiedry-Wagner, reciter, and Kolisch,Auber, Steuermann, Posella, and Bloch, instrumentalists);
4. Suite, Op. 29 (1925–1926); (recorded in Paris, December 15,1927, world premiere);
5. Von Heute auf Morgen (1928–1929); (recorded in Berlin, 1930,with Margot Hinnenberg-Lefèbre, soprano, and GerhardPechner, baritone, orchestra unknown).
The recordings of Verklärte Nacht, “Lied der Waldtaube” (Gurrelieder),the Suite Op. 29,2 and Von Heute auf Morgen are in the possession of theArnold Schoenberg Center, and Pierrot Lunaire has been released commer-cially by Columbia Records.3 A sixth recording, involving Schoenberg’sKol Nidre (also available at the Center), includes only the brass instru-ments playing two measures (199–200), but it is nonetheless remarkablefor preserving Schoenberg’s own comments to his orchestra during arehearsal prior to the world premiere (in Los Angeles, October 4, 1938).4
1I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. R. Wayne Shoap, former archivist in theArnold Schoenberg Institute at the University of Southern California, for aiding in theaccessing of the institute’s Schoenberg recordings and related materials and for unstintinglyoffering of his time and advice with regard to a whole range of questions. The Arnold SchoenbergInstitute has since been relocated to Vienna, where it is known as the Arnold SchoenbergCenter in Vienna (scanned copies of their holdings are currently available at http://www.schoenberg.at).
2The record cover bears the inscription “Première 1927.” Another early recording—not (asone might conjecture) a mere copy of that of 1927—appeared in France in 1947(?) on a Contre-point label: Contrepoint CO 10/13 (Paris, 1947?), 78.
3Pierrot Lunaire initially was recorded in Los Angeles, September 24, 1940, on ColumbiaM461 (71157-D/160-D), 78, and was subsequently redubbed and reissued on the following:Columbia MM 461 (71161-D/64-D) (XH23-XH30) (1948), 78; Columbia ML 4471 mono(1951), LP; Philips L 01 515 L mono (1961), LP; CBS 61 442 mono (1974), LP; Odyssey Y33791 mono (1975), LP; CBS Sony 20 AC 1887 mono (1984), LP; CBS MPK 45659 digitalmono (1989), CD. See R. Wayne Shoaf, The Schoenberg Discography, 2nd ed., revised andexpanded, with foreword by Leonard Stein (Berkeley, CA: Fallen Leaf Press, 1994).
4The orchestra remains unidentified, although according to R. Wayne Shoap, it might verywell have been the WPA Orchestra of Los Angeles. Other possibilities include the San DiegoSymphony or the Los Angeles Philharmonic.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Schoenberg as Performer of His Own Music 51
Although Schoenberg made his recordings in the second quarter of thetwentieth century—between 1927 and 1940—his approach to perfor-mance in many ways reflects the period shortly before and after 1900, amore intensely Romantic time, when individuality reigned and performerswere given more freedom to make expressive additions of their own to amusical score. Such performances tended to be more exaggerated thanthose to which we have grown accustomed today, conditioned as we areto a more literal interpretation. Inserting tempo rubato, adopting differenttempi in accordance with the nature of a theme, and an abundance ofexpressive nuances were typical of the late–Romantic style. Each of thesetypes of musical alteration contributed to the highlighting of themes ormotives, something that had become a central feature of musical stylearound 1900. And although it is certainly true that composers duringthe latter part of the nineteenth century sought increasingly to notate thesefeatures into their written scores, such features also were often addedimprovisatorially in performances of the time.
Recordings from shortly before and after 1900 afford an importantmeans for discovering just what elements tended to be added in perfor-mances. Especially valuable are the renditions of the composers them-selves: Mahler, Scriabin, Grieg, and Debussy, among others, left recordedversions of their own works on player pianos such as the Welte-Mignon,allowing us to observe how they at times went beyond what was presentin their notated music. The same is true of Schoenberg’s recordings,which provide (along with his rehearsal scores and preserved personalcomments and writings) a rich legacy, inviting the researcher to lookdeeply into various aspects of his performance. What seems most strikingis the extent to which the recordings digress from what is present inSchoenberg’s published (or even in his rehearsal) scores.5 As such theybring to light a side of the composer hitherto unexamined, revealingaspects of his musical style he presumably deemed too obvious or toointrinsic to require being written down. An examination of Schoenberg’srecorded performances reveals his use of tempo rubato, his digressions fromhis indicated tempi, his added articulative or dynamic nuances, and hismanner of realizing Sprechstimme. They also shed light onto Schoenberg’sfeelings about the performer, as expressed in certain of his personalwritings.
5For the works considered here, Schoenberg’s most frequent publisher was Universal Edi-tion (U), the others being Birnbach (B), Boelke-Bomart (BB), Belmont (Bel), Eulenburg (E),Kalmus (K), International (I), and Schotts Söhne (S). Thus we have Verklärte Nacht (B, E, I, K,U), Gurrelieder (U, Bel), Pierrot Lunaire (U), Suite, Op. 29 (U), Von Heute auf Morgen (S), andKol Nidre (BB). The Complete Edition at present includes Von Heute auf Morgen and PierrotLunaire.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
52 Roland Jackson
SCHOENBERG AND TEMPO RUBATO
Schoenberg rarely used the word rubato, yet his performances abound inrubato effects.6 For Schoenberg, tempo rubato—the momentary hasteningor slowing down of the music—seems almost to have been used instinc-tively and, as evidenced in his recordings, was frequently present despitethe absence of specific indications in the score. This is apparent withregard not only to his own music, but to that of other composers as well.An example may be found in his recorded performance of the secondmovement of Mahler’s Symphony no. 2 by the Cadillac (or NBC) Sym-phony in 1934.7 In it Schoenberg invariably interrupts the normal rate ofmotion at the ends of important phrases or sections as a means of punctu-ating them. Example 1 provides an illustration; here the melody in thefirst violins is gradually slowed on the last four sixteenth notes of themeasure, leading gracefully into the cadence on A�. Such momentaryritards were nowhere indicated by Mahler, nor are they marked intoSchoenberg’s (conducting?) copy of Mahler’s Symphony, now in the pos-session of the Center.
While Schoenberg’s procedure here informs us specifically about hisapproach to Mahler, at the same time it casts considerable light on theperformance of his own music, the recordings of which contain numerousinstances of such unmarked ritards. Schoenberg, to be sure, frequentlymarked into his scores ritardando, molto ritardando, or their equivalents(such as sehr zurückhaltend or pesante), usually followed shortly thereaf-ter by a tempo. But what is unusual about these markings, as evidenced inthe recordings, is Schoenberg’s propensity to extend the ritards backfrom the place where they are actually indicated (often by several mea-sures), thereby making them far more emphatic. A few instances may becited:
6Richard Hudson points to Schoenberg’s extensive rubato effects in Stolen Time: TheHistory of Tempo Rubato (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1994), 356–358, singling out for discus-sion Erwartung and the Piano Concerto.
7The recording is available in the Arnold Schoenberg Institute.
Example 1. Gustav Mahler, Symphony no. 2, second movement, firstviolins, mm. 30–31.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Schoenberg as Performer of His Own Music 53
“Lied der Waldtaube,” mm. 1, 6, 15, 69, 106;Pierrot Lunaire:
No. 1, mm. 36–37—prior to a poco rit. in m. 38;No. 5, mm. 35–42—prior to a rit. in m. 43;No. 19, mm. 43–49—the conductor’s score has a molto rit. in
mm. 50–51;No. 20, mm. 28–30.
Other verbal expressions in German or Italian can constitute a means ofsignaling momentary changes of pace; some examples follow:
espressivo (e.g., Verklärte Nacht, m. 18), a slight slowing;ruhiger (e.g., Von Heute auf Morgen, m. 851), slower;wesentlich ruhiger (e.g., Von Heute auf Morgen, m. 289), consider-
ably slower;steigernd (e.g., Verklärte Nacht, m. 24, 31), faster.
Another marking that affects the pace is the crescendo, which often isassociated with a slight hastening. These various indications occur oftenin Schoenberg’s music and can now be interpreted more precisely in lightof his recorded realizations.
Turning to Schoenberg’s performance of his own works, VerklärteNacht—of which the first 200 measures are preserved in his recording—offers a useful starting point, providing a window into his unique mannerof introducing rubato. To be sure, rubato is more markedly present in thisearly work (it was completed in 1899) than in his later compositions. Atthe time of the recording in 1928, Schoenberg would have have beenworking from his orchestral version of 1917. Many of the rubato changesintroduced spontaneously in the 1928 recording are not included in the1917 score, and were subsequently added by the composer in Italian intothe 1943 revised edition. Only the calando (=diminuendo and perhapsritardando) in m. 41 runs contrary to Schoenberg’s earlier indicationaccelerando, although the metronomic indications provided in the twoscores are both surprisingly faster than those in the recordings (see Table 1).
Schoenberg commences at MM. o = 52 in his recording, but already inm. 3, the last part of the measure is slightly slowed (52 to 48) due to aminiscule lingering on beat 4, probably calculated to set apart the repeatof the motive on the last sixteenth note. A similar effect recurs in m. 13,only somewhat more intensified (56 to 46). The espressivo in m. 18 isaccompanied by a slight lessening (to 44), the steigernd in m. 24 by a slightincrease (to 54), and the steigernd (i.e., crescendo) in m. 31 and continuingcrescendo in m. 32 by an even greater increase (60 to 69). This culminates in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
54 Roland Jackson
an even greater acceleration (to 72) in mm. 36–37, as the melodic line reachesits crest (see Example 2).8 Also noteworthy is Schoenberg’s extending back-ward by a full measure the ritard marked in m. 47, making it more pro-nounced (a Schoenbergian characteristic mentioned above).
What this performance of Verklärte Nacht displays most conspicu-ously is its continual fluctuation of the pace. Schoenberg seems through-out his career to have remained averse to the idea of maintaining strictmetrical exactness; for example, as late as 1948 he said, “almost every-where in Europe music is played in a stiff, inflexible metre—not in atempo, i.e., according to a yardstick of freely measured quantities.”9 Theexpression “freely measured quantities” is indicative for Schoenberg, andhe made this a central aspect of his approach to performance. Consider,for example, what Marcel Dick, one of Schoenberg’s performers, had tosay about his rehearsals:
8The crescendo with a rising melodic line (and decrescendo with a falling line) had alreadybeen advocated by Pierre Baillot in his L’art du violon, nouvelle méthode (Paris, 1834).
9“Today’s Manner of Performing Classical Music of the So-Called ‘Romantic’ Type”(1948), as reproduced in Style and Idea: Selected Writings of Arnold Schoenberg, ed. LeonardStein (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975), 320.
Table 1. Verklärte Nacht: Tempos and Indications, Published and RecordedVersions (mm. 1–50)
m. Tempo (1917 ed.) Actual tempo (1928 rec.) Additions (1943 rev. ed.)
1 sehr langsam MM. o = 523 52/48 [changes within]
13 56/46 [changes within]17 4818 espress 4421 rit.24 steigernd 5425 [rit.] poco a poco accelerando27 rit.28 molto rit.29 etwas bewegter 56 poco più mosso31 steigernd, cresc. 60 [and accel.]32 cresc. 69 poco accelerando34 [o = 96, S’s conducting score] moderato [o = 84]37 72 [top of mel. contour]39 [rit.] rit…40 [a tempo] a tempo41 [rising scale, accel.] calando45 6346 [unmarked rit.]47 rit. [rit.] rit.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Schoenberg as Performer of His Own Music 55
He was terribly meticulous about rhythms… And when you finally gotit … he says, “Yes, but it sounds stiff and … it has to be free … andnot in a strait jacket.”10
It seems significant in this regard that later recordings of VerklärteNacht by other conductors, such as Robert Craft and David Atherton,tend to be more consistent in their pace than Schoenberg’s had been (see
10Cited in Joan Allen Smith, Schoenberg and His Circle: A Viennese Portrait (New York:Schirmer Books, 1975), 112.
Example 2. Schoenberg, Verklärte Nacht, mm. 3–37; metronomicfluctuations.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
56 Roland Jackson
Table 2).11 Both Craft and Atherton, of course, were able to profit fromSchoenberg’s 1943 edition, with its added directives. But with respect toSchoenberg’s initial tempo of 52, Craft is rather more rapid (at 63),whereas Atherton is slower (at 44). Both adhere more strictly to theiroriginal tempo, however, accelerating only at particular moments—incontrast to Schoenberg’s more pervasively fluctuating realization.
Schoenberg’s use of rubato, his ever-present ritards and accelerandos,both marked and unmarked, place him squarely within the late–Romantictradition. As Mathis Lussy had indicated in 1874, some performers digressedin this regard in nearly every phrase.12 But it was the composer Franz Lisztwho earlier played a key role in establishing shifts of pace as a routine proce-dure. He very much opposed, for instance, the mechanical up-and-downbeating of many conductors of his time, and he emphasized the impor-tance of shaping an entire phrase rather than being concerned about thebeats of a measure.13 He also wrote that the introduction of rubato was some-thing that could be left to the taste and momentary feeling of gifted players.14
SCHOENBERG AND THE METRONOME
The latter part of the nineteenth century saw an increasing distrust of themetronome. Liszt, for example, wrote that a metronomical performance
11Robert Craft, Canadian Broadcasting Symphony Orchestra, Columbia Masterworksrecording M25 694 (ms 6531/32), stereo (1963), LP; David Atherton, London Sinfonietta,Decca recordings SXLK 6660/64, stereo (1974) LP, and SDD 519, stereo (1977), LP.
12Traité de l’expression musicale (Paris, 1874; 8/1904; Eng. 1885), 163.13[“Preface”], 12 Symphonische Dichtungen (Weimar, 1856).14Gesammelte Schriften (Leipzig, 1882), v, 231.
Table 2. Verklärte Nacht: Tempi in Performances by Craft and Atherton(mm. 1–50)
m. Indication Craft recording Atherton recording
1 sehr langsam MM. o = 63 MM. o = 4417 cresc. [rit.] 48–4618 espressivo 63 4421 rit. [ignores rit.]24 steigernd 5426 [slight accel.]28 6329 etwas bewegter 8834 [1943: moderato = 84] 69–7237 9640 80 [slower]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Schoenberg as Performer of His Own Music 57
was not only tiresome but nonsensical.15 Wagner gave up the metronomeentirely after Tannhäuser in favor of verbal indications. Even the moreconservative Brahms indicated that the “metronome is of no value,” and“as far at least as my experience goes, everybody has sooner or later with-drawn his metronome marks”; he himself did so in his Ein deutschesRequiem.16
This was the background against which Schoenberg formulated hisideas concerning the metronome and, although he provided markings formany of his works, he seems to have done so only reluctantly, warning inthe prefaces to many of them that “the metronomic indications are not tobe taken literally, but only as a suggestion.”17
Schoenberg’s recordings reveal that he frequently digressed from hisown “suggested” markings, sometimes to a considerable extent. Perhapsin recognition of such disparities, he once wrote:
As an interpreter of his own works the composer sets a standard morethrough the way his performance alters than for example through thetempi he is supposed to have taken.18
A finalization of tempo appears to have given Schoenberg some diffi-culty, and he frequently changed his mind as he proceeded from thesketches19 to the published scores. In the end, the recordings show stillother tempi.
We can take Pierrot Lunaire as a case in point. The sketches mostoften display a tempo designation (in German), followed by a note thatcorresponds with the basic beat. The published score adds metronomicnumbers, which are sometimes adjusted in the rehearsal score; the record-ings exhibit still other tempi (see Table 3). For number 1, published withthe indication o = ca. 66, the rehearsal score shows “76” in red pencil,whereas the recording proceeds at only 60. In his sketch for number 14,Schoenberg initially stipulated nicht langsam, whereas the publicationreverts to langsame o = ca. 56 and the recorded version is at 46. For num-ber 16, the sketch shows sehr rasche o, the published score ziemlich rascho ca. 126, and the recording is taken at 104. Number 20 has leicht bewegte c,
15Ibid.16Bernard D. Sherman, “Tempos and Proportions in Brahms: Period Evidence,” Early
Music 25 (1997), 463.17Point 7 in the prefaces to works published by Universal Edition (for example to the Suite,
op. 29, 1927). Subsequently this recommendation was reproduced by Schirmer when this com-pany took over Schoenberg publications after World War II.
18“Mechanical Musical Instruments,” in Style and Idea, 328.19Schoenberg’s sketches for the works considered in this paper are now in the possession of
the Arnold Schoenberg Center in Vienna.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
58 Roland Jackson
whereas the published score adds c ca. 126–132, and the recording is real-ized at c = 88–92. In numbers 4 and 15, we find the expression “in quitevariable movement” (abwechslungsreal and in abwechslungsrealenBewegung, respectively) added to the rehearsal score, in recognition thatthe piece calls for changing tempi throughout.
What is perhaps most unexpected about the recordings is how fre-quently their tempi are slower than those indicated in the scores, oftenmarkedly so. In Pierrot Lunaire, for example, several movements aretaken at 75 percent or less than the tempo called for in the publishedscore (see Table 4). Many of the tempi in Von Heute auf Morgen are evenmore startling (see Table 5). Here the sections at mm. 254, 283, 483, 522,938, and 991 are at half (or almost half) the published marking. The numberof incidences seems to preclude the possibility of misprints in the score(e.g., � instead of o at m. 254).
Table 3. Successive Tempi in Pierrot Lunaire (Sketches, Scores, Recordings)
no. Sketch Published score Rehearsal score Recording
1 bewegt (o = ca. 66) –76 o = 604 mässige o mässige (o = ca. 66) fliessend aber abwechslungs
real (o = 60–92)o = 76
8 sehr langsams o gehende (o = ca. 88) o = 8814 nicht langsam langsame (o = ca. 56) o = 4615 mässig bewegte o mässig bewegte
(o = 56–70)in abwechslungs-realen
Bewegungo = 56–60
16 sehr rasche o ziemlich rasch (o = ca. 126)
o = 104
17 (c = ca. 120) 132 c = 104–10820 leicht bewegte c leicht bewegte
(c = ca.126–132)c = 88–92 (100)
Table 4. Pierrot lunaire Published and Recorded Tempi
no. Tempo in the score Tempo in the recording
3. o 152 o 10812. o 120 o 8813. o 120 o 8816. o 126 o 10417. c 126 (132 in reh. score) c 104–10818. c 144 c 10419. c 120–132 o 94–11420. c 126–132 c 88–92 (100)21. o 120 o 92
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Schoenberg as Performer of His Own Music 59
Also to be noted in Table 5 are the following: mm. 289, wherewesentlich ruhiger (essentially calmer) evokes a tempo at half the speedof the preceding; 301, where “Tempo I” is realized at about half the speedof the preceding “Tempo I” (in m. 294); 834, where (exceptionally)Schoenberg performs more rapidly than the published marking; 851,which is slower than the preceding measure, despite the admonition “notslower” (nicht langsamer) in the score; and 1041, performed at abouttwo-thirds the published marking.
Were Schoenberg’s conspicuously slower tempi a result of uncertain-ties surrounding an initial performance? He seems to imply as much bythe following:
Nowadays I take everything in my works a basic degree quicker thanat the earliest performances, when, partly for technical reasons (diffi-cult and inadequate dynamics), partly to obtain flexibility, I con-sciously and unconsciously took everything much too slowly.20
This, however, was written in 1926, prior to any of his recorded perfor-mances (which date from between 1927 and 1940). “At the earliest per-formances” might be pertinent to the Suite, Op. 29, which presumablywas recorded at the time of the premiere in Paris, December 15, 1927. Init, Schoenberg’s tempi are certainly slower than his markings. Mostremarkable is the second movement and variation 1 in the third move-ment, both of which are realized at half (or less) of the designatedtempo. Were the metronomic values in the printed score meant to be an
20“Mechanical Musical Instruments,” in Style and Idea, 326.
Table 5. Von Heute auf Morgen, Published and Recorded Tempi
m. Tempo in the score Tempo in the recording
254 � 96 o 96283 o 126 o 69–72289 wesentlich ruhiger c 80294 o 126 o 112301 Tempo 1 c ca. 96–108483 o 126 (wie Takt 283) c 112 (slower than 283)493 (theme = that of 294) o 112 (about = to 294)522 Ruhig � 100 o 100834 Breit o. 72 o. 88851 Nicht langsamer bloss ruhiger o 88 o 70–75940 � 84 o 84991 o. 60 o. 331041 o 152 o 100
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
60 Roland Jackson
eighth note (second movement) and a quarter note (third movement,variation 1)? Table 6 shows the tempi of the first three movements asmarked in the printed score and as realized in Schoenberg’s recordedperformance.
Schoenberg’s quote is less pertinent to Pierrot Lunaire, however,which was recorded considerably later (1940) than his earliest renditions(between 1912 and 1924). In spite of its lateness, many of the movementsare unusually slow with respect to his own markings.
Among the most striking of Schoenberg’s changes is his according of afresh tempo to subsidiary themes within a movement, even though suchdigressions are rarely indicated through metronome markings.21 Thefourth movement (Gigue) of the Suite, Op. 29, affords a notable example(see Table 7). Here Schoenberg commences at 92 (a lessening from hisindication in the score), but with the appearance of differing thematicideas. In mm. 23 and 48, he diverges considerably from this openingspeed, in each instance adopting a pace he apparently deemed moreappropriate to the themes in question.
Comparing David Atherton’s recording of the Gigue, we are struck byhis quicker pace (one more in accord with Schoenberg’s marking of“about 100, but preferably quicker”). At the same time Atherton, likeSchoenberg, also slows his tempo correspondingly at mm. 23 and 48 (seeTable 7).
Schoenberg, in the slowing of his tempi for subsidiary themes, onceagain adheres to a late–Romantic tradition, one that seems to have
21Concerning such unnotated changes, Schoenberg wrote in “Today’s Manner of Perform-ing Classical Music” (Style and Idea, 320) that “suppressing all emotional qualities and allunnotated changes of tempo and expression … came to Europe by way of America, where noold culture regulated presentation, but where a certain frigidity of feeling reduced all musicalexpression.“
Table 6. Suite, Op. 29, Recorded Tempi in Movements 1, 2, and 3
mvt. Tempo in the score Tempo in the recording
1. o. = 72 o. = 66(m. 68) c = 132 c = 92
2. o = 80 c = 723. o = c. 126 o = 84–88
(var. 1) � = 104 o = 104(var. 2) o = ca. 80 o = 66–72(var. 3) c = 100 c = 80(var. 4) c = 144 c = 138(return of th.) [o = 126] o = 76, then 96
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Schoenberg as Performer of His Own Music 61
stemmed primarily from Wagner, who, according to Henry Smart in hisLondon concerts of 1855, “[reduced] the speed of an allegro—say in anoverture or the first movement—fully one third on the entrance of thecantabile phrases.”22 In the Gigue, Schoenberg’s theme at m. 23 was simi-larly lessened in speed by about a third, while that at m. 48 was even slower,reduced by almost half the original tempo. The convention of performingsecondary themes more slowly—although not to this extreme—goes back tothe earlier nineteenth century. Hummel (in 1828) wrote, concerning the“singing [“cantante”] passages in an allegro,” that they “should be deliveredwith some yielding, in order to give them the necessary feeling.”23
SCHOENBERG AND EXPRESSIVE MARKINGS
The late nineteenth century saw a steady increase in the use of expressivemarkings: articulative, accentual, or dynamic, of which the frequent inser-tion of swells and diminuendos was especially typical.24 Such markingswent hand in hand with the rising importance of motivic ideas, as theymade these more individualized and more readily distinguishable fromone another.
Schoenberg continued in this propensity and seems to have added anumber of markings of his own, such as the combinative nuances shown
22Henry Smart, Review, London Times (June 17, 1855).23Johann Nepomuk Hummel, Ausführliche theoretish-praktische Anweisung zum Piano-Forte-
Spiel (Vienna, 1828); A Complete Theoretical and Practical Course of Instruction on the Art ofPlaying the Piano Forte (London, 1829), 417–418.
24The frequency of markings seems to have reached a culmination in a composer such asReger, whose mature works show nearly every note or chord in a musical continuity to benuanced or dynamically gradated in some fashion. A further late-century manifestation can beobserved in “instructive” musical editions of earlier music (e.g., by Siegmund Lebert or Hansvon Bülow), which impose an excess of markings on earlier music, including even that ofBach.
Table 7. Suite, Op. 29 Tempi in the Fourth Movement (Gigue)
m. Tempo (score) Schoenberg recording Atherton recording
1 o. = ca. 100 (aber eher etwas rascher) o. = 92 o. = 112–11623 o. = 63 o. = 8438 o. = 80–8448 o. = 48 o. = 6051 o. = 7264 Tempo I o. = 80 o. = 112–11684 (theme = m. 23) o. = 58 o. = 84
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
62 Roland Jackson
in Figures 1b and c, which require considerable discrimination on the partof a performer.25
The study of Schoenberg’s recordings allows us to observe more fullyhis manner of interpreting his own special markings, as well as the variousother markings he drew upon. For instance, the straight line appears inconjunction with the repeated notes in the second viola and second celloparts in the beginning measures of Verklärte Nacht (see Example 3),forming an ostinato background that allows these instruments to stand outmore pointedly within the polyphonic texture. Here, the recording has aparticular value in that it shows that Schoenberg, aside from following hisstated meaning—the lengthening of a note—also introduces a slight begin-ning accent followed by a rapid decrescendo toward the end of each ofthe notes.
Another marking Schoenberg sometimes drew upon was the short swelland diminuendo (< >) on individual notes, as in the English horn solo atthe beginning of “Lied der Waldtaube” (Gurrelieder), where four of thenotes are so marked (see Example 4). During the nineteenth century, the
25Among a list of nuances Schoenberg provided for his works published by Universal andSchirmer (aside from the three shown here) are the following, each with its own particular sym-bol: “accented like a strong beat,” “unaccented like a weak beat,” “hard, heavy, martelé (forshort notes),” “light, elastic, thrown,” and “not to be weakened, and often even to be broughtout (mainly on upbeats).”
Figure 1. Some detailed markings used by Schoenberg.
a. – the note should be lengthened (tenuto and portato)
b. – the note should be accented and lengthened
c. – the note should be well held-out (ist gut aushalten), but nonetheless separated from the note following by a small pause or interruption.
'
.
Example 3. Schoenberg, Verklärte Nacht, second viola and second cello,m. 1.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Schoenberg as Performer of His Own Music 63
short swell and diminuendo had become a common nuance; inheritedfrom the earlier messa di voce, it acquired an accentual significance, espe-cially in string playing, where it also sometimes had the meaning of amomentary vibrato. In Schoenberg’s recorded interpretation, the sign wasrealized simply as a quick decrescendo. Here again the ritard (sehrzurückhaltend) is extended back into the preceding measure, as was typi-cal in Schoenberg’s performances.
In his rehearsal copy of this work, Schoenberg also displays a concernfor a clear separation between successive musical ideas by marking inwith red pencil a curving line following the English horn’s melody, therebysetting it apart from the onset of the new motive beginning in tripletthirty-second notes in the piccolo and clarinet in E�.
Rather unusual is Schoenberg’s introduction of the sign < > in connectionwith a single chord played on the piano in m. 34 of the “Valse de Chopin” ofPierrot Lunaire (see Example 5), because in this instance, the sign could nothave been associated with any swelling or diminuendo. On the recording,Schoenberg appears to have interpreted it simply as a slight accentuation.
This example, limited to the piano,26 brings to the fore Schoenberg’s pre-dilection for highly detailed markings. Each successive chord in the pianopart is differentiated both dynamically (moving through pp, swell, sf, andpp) and articulatively (proceeding through sustained, staccato, staccato,
26In the movement “Valse de Chopin,” the voice’s Sprechstimme is also accompanied by theflute and bass clarinet (or clarinet).
Example 4. Schoenberg, “Lied der Waldtaube” (Gurrelieder), mm. 1–3.
�
Example 5. Schoenberg, Pierrot lunaire, “Valse de Chopin,” mm. 33–34(piano part only).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
64 Roland Jackson
elongated, and presumably accented chords). On the basis of the recording,it seems evident that the composer wanted each of these nuances to be heard,and for the parts to be balanced against one another. An equality between theparts and the formation of a contrapuntal whole was Schoenberg’s apparentideal, something he expressed in his writings, two of which follow:
The highest principle for all reproduction of music would have to be …that every note is really heard, and that all sounds … stand out clearlyfrom one another.27
[F]or an interpretation to be in keeping with our technique [that ofcontemporary rather than of baroque music] one must expect to hearall the parts with equal prominence.28
As Smith points out, Schoenberg’s “total concentration and involvementwith even the smallest details caused him difficulties in rehearsing.”29 This isborne out in the recording that preserves Schoenberg’s conductorial direc-tions during part of a rehearsal of Kol Nidre in Los Angeles in 1938.30
Oh yes. This I would like to hear, trombones and bass tub … and thetuba. Please, in 99, the first … the second and third beats are legato, andshould be [inaudible] … let us say quasi dolce. Yes? Not too loud. Butthen comes two very short staccatos. Don’t make them too long please.Yes? You accompany this sung [inaudible] melody. Yes? And it’s tooquick to the melody. And the staccato does not mean characteristic. See… Listen please! It serves only so that one hears better the singer. Youknow? And it needs very short notes, but not accented: bump, bump.Yes? So then please now play 99 and 100.
“Legato … quasi dolce … very short staccatos … so that one hears betterthe singers”—such references reveal a musician intent on achieving themost minute of differences and on attaining just the right balance betweenthe instruments and singers, while at the same time keeping the lowerbrass distinctive through their articulations.
Schoenberg’s conducting scores, or Handexemplare, also available inthe Center, form a valuable adjunct to the study of his performances. They
27“Essay on Performance,” reproduced in Style and Idea, 319.28“Mechanical Musical Instruments,” reproduced in Style and Idea, 327.29Smith, Schoenberg and His Circle, 115.30Cited in The Schoenberg Era: Schoenberg the Man, an unpublished transcript from a radio
series, originally broadcast April 20, 1981, and distributed by the Public Broadcasting Associa-tion, p. 36.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Schoenberg as Performer of His Own Music 65
contain various additions (in colored pencil) entered during or prior torehearsals, offering a rare glimpse into the last-minute concerns of a com-poser preparing for a performance. In them his most typical considerationwas the attaining of just the right dynamic balance between the parts, afew instances of which are cited in Figure 2.31
SCHOENBERG AND SPRECHSTIMME
Schoenberg’s detailed description of Sprechstimme in Pierrot Lunaireapparently goes beyond that of any previous user of the device.32 In theVorwort to the published version (Universal Edition), he sets forth the fol-lowing key points:
The melody given in the speaking voice through notes … is not meantto be sung… The sung tone maintains unchangeably the pitch; thespeaking tone indeed approximates it, but then abandons it immedi-ately by falling or climbing. 33
31For further information concerning these scores, see Jeremy McBride, “Schoenberg’sAnnotated Handexemplare,” Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute 5 (1981), 183–202.
32The earliest examples of the device, most notably in Humperdinck, are described in somedetail by Sharon Mabry in Vocal Problems in the Performance of Pierrot Lunaire, Op. 21 byArnold Schoenberg (DMA paper, Peabody College, 1977).
33“Die in der Sprechstimme durch Noten angegebene Melodie ist . . . nicht zum Singenbestimmt ... der Sprechton gibt [die Tonhöhe] zwar an, verläβt sie aber durch Fallen oderSteigen sofort wieder.”
Figure 2. Some dynamic changes in Schoenberg’s rehearsal scores.
Pierrot Lunaire
11. (m. 1) cresc. is crossed out
19. (m.22) p < is added in the cello
(m. 40-41) ff is added in the cello (between hairpins)
Verklärte Nacht
(m. 138) fpp is substituted for fp
(m. 188) ff is substituted for f
Suite, Op. 29
2nd Mvt. (m. 90) p is added in the viola
(m. 99) f is added in the viola and cello
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
66 Roland Jackson
The principal idea here is that the “spoken part” should approxi-mate speaking rather than singing. In this light, the story of AlmaMahler takes on added significance. She recounted that Schoenbergonce heard Pierrot Lunaire “sung” by Marya Freund (directed byMilhaud) and scarcely recognized the result as his own work.34 Hersinging was obviously contrary to his directives, which call for a formof heighted speech, wherein the notated pitches are to be approximated,then immediately slid away from, upward or downward, as happens inactual speech. In Schoenberg’s recording, the Sprechstimme is presentedby Erika Stiedry-Wagner, who follows the contour of the notes withoutmatching the pitches. Only on the lengthier syllables, however, is the slid-ing at all apparent, and it is almost invariably downward. Most of the notesare clipped short, lending the recitation its supernormal effect, in which thevoice part is markedly set apart from the more normal sounds of theaccompanying instruments.35
Schoenberg’s approach may be elucidated by contrasting it with a pri-marily “sung” performance, as heard in a recent recording by PhylissBryn-Julson made in Frankfurt in 1991.36 In an excerpt from No. 2 (“Col-umbine”), mm. 17–26 (see Example 6), we observe Stiedry-Wagner fol-lowing the general shape of the notated melody, with some exceptions (on“zu lindern,” for instance, she ascends rather than descends), althoughnone of the given pitches are replicated. Downward slides give anuncanny emphasis to the lengthier syllables—Stro-me, wei-βen, and wun-der-ro-sen—while the remaining syllables are too brief to permit anynoticeable sliding.
Bryn-Julson’s approach could not be more different. Hers is a “sung”realization, apparently more akin to Marya Freund’s (mentioned above).Bryn-Julson reproduces the given notes throughout and almost entirelyavoids any slides away from the pitches. Only on one syllable, wei-(βen,is a downward slide introduced, and this is more in the nature of a
34As reported in Smith, Schoenberg and His Circle, 88.35The gliding between pitches in Sprechstimme is suggestive of the portamento, a vocal
technique prominent during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but the two areessentially different. In portamento, the gliding points up the pitch arrived at, whereas inSprechstimme it emphasizes the pitch (or approximated pitch) being left and moves to no par-ticular point of termination. Schoenberg seems to have had a general antipathy toward the por-tamento. In a marginal note added to the Genesis Suite (1945), he made it clear that—at least inthis work—portamento was to be avoided altogether: “always without Hollywood style ofvibrato and portamento, even large intervals must not be connected by gliding, but if necessaryby stretching. This gliding is of a detestable sentimentality.” It is of note that Schoenberg’s ownrecordings contain no evidences of portamento.
36On RCA Victor with Peter Eötvös conducting the Ensemble Modern, Opera House,Frankfurt, December 9–15, 1991. Recorded on RCA Victor Red Seal 09026 61179-2, digitalstereo, 1993, CD.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Schoenberg as Performer of His Own Music 67
pronounced portamento proceeding from a’ directly down to c#’ (neithersinger pays heed to the f#). Bryn-Julson suggests a speech-like quality byadopting semi-breathless, nonsustaining tones.
The emotional impact of these two performances is greatly affected bythe singers’ interpretation of Sprechstimme. Aside from Stiedry-Wagner’scloser adherence to Schoenberg’s idea of the technique, the singer alsoconveys—moreso than does Bryn-Julson—a quality of the macabre orgrotesque well suited to the sense of Albert Giraud’s poetry, on which thissong cycle is based.
SCHOENBERG AND THE PERFORMER
Schoenberg felt that a performer should respect the composer’s idea abouta musical work in preparing a realization of it: “Interpreters rights, arethere not also author’s rights? Does not the author, too, have a claim to
Example 6. Schoenberg, Pierrot lunaire, "Columbine," mm. 17–26, real-izations of Sprechstimme by Stiedry-Wagner (indicated above the staff) andBryn-Julson (indicated below the staff)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
68 Roland Jackson
make clear his opinion about the realization of his work[?]”37 At the sametime, he also embraced the late–Romantic attitude of according consider-able leeway to the performer. Going beyond other writers of the earlytwentieth century, Schoenberg spelled out and made quite explicit theperformer’s—as opposed to the composer’s—contribution:
For the true product of the mind—the musical idea, the unalterable—is established in the relationship between pitches and time divisions.But all other things—dynamics, tempo, timbre, and the character,clarity, effect, etc., which they produce—are really no more than theperformer’s resources, serving to make the idea comprehensible andadmitting of variations.38
This indicates what in Schoenberg’s mind constituted the true divi-sion between the composer and the performer—that is, a distinctionbetween the musical substance as formulated by the composer (thepitches and time divisions) and the performer’s freedom to vary this sub-stance in his or her presentation of the work. To the composer belongs“the true product of the mind,” to the performer a wide range of possibil-ities for the enhancing of this product of mind, including the dynamics,tempo, and timbre, as well as (more abstractly) the character, clarity, andeffect. Such a difference quite possibly explains why Schoenberg indi-cated that in his own performances—undoubtedly including those ofthe present recordings—there could be no finalized version, that his orany other composer’s performance “can by no means remain the finallyvalid one.”
insofar as the mechanization of music [through recordings] … states asits main aim the establishment by composers of a definitive interpreta-tion, I should see so advantage in it, but rather, loss, since the com-poser’s interpretation can by no means remain the finally valid one.39
It is unfortunate that we have only one version of each of Schoenberg’srecorded works. Had he left more than one, how much more we wouldknow about the kinds of freedoms he would have condoned or favored.What seems most likely, though, is that he would not have advocated thatother performers slavishly duplicate his own interpretations.
Schoenberg’s recordings remain of inestimable value. They do notrequire imitation of their particulars, but they do provide guidelines of a
37“About Metronome Markings (1926),” cited in Style and Idea, 342.38Mechanical Musical Instruments,” in Style and Idea, 326.39“Mechanical Musical Instruments,” in Style and Idea, 328.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Schoenberg as Performer of His Own Music 69
general sort as to what was most meaningful to the composer: the momentaryslowings and hastenings, the taking of themes at differing tempi accord-ing to their character, and the adding of nuances to individual notes,thereby individualizing more markedly the musical ideas. AlthoughSchoenberg’s approach is rather more exaggerated or “Romantic” thanmodern taste might readily accept (witness the more staid or regularrecordings by Craft, Atherton, and others), it seems nonetheless emi-nently worthwhile to resurrect his early-century manner in the interest ofremaining faithful to his vision. The recordings provide us an opportunityto enter into Schoenberg’s time, an era more intense and more extreme inmany ways than the one to which we have grown accustomed. Moreimportantly, they offer us a model that can be followed, if not in the letterat least in the spirit.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn O
ntar
io]
at 1
6:56
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14