Berg Three Pieces Op. 6
Lawrence Chalmers
revised - reduced orchestrstions) instrumentation
listings?
david...@aol.com
Berg’s Three Pieces for Orchestra, Op. 6:
> Can someone direct me to a site that lists both versions (original and
> revised - reduced orchestrstions) instrumentation
> listings?
Larry, you sure are obsessed with Berg’s Op. 6, not that that’s a bad
thing. To my knowledge, there is no revision of Op. 6 let alone a
reduced orchestration: in fact, Berg never heard the piece
performed. The Three Pieces would be an astonishing achievement by
any measure, but -- given Berg’s lack of experience with writing for
large orchestra when he wrote it -- it’s nothing short of miraculous.
That being said, Boulez claims that the piece poses serious balance
problems in rehearsal precisely because of its teeming textures
despite the fact that Berg had taken up the practice, borrowed from
Schoenberg, of identifying the principal and secondary parts in his
score with “Hauptstimme” and “Nebenstimme” respectively.
You may be thinking of Schoenberg’s Five Orchestral Pieces, op. 16
(1909), written five years earlier than the Berg pieces (1914-15).
The Five Pieces were composed for a massive orchestra, and Schoenberg
later made a version for a more reduced ensemble to help ensure
performances: even today, performances of the original version are
comparatively rare. Even today, recordings of the original version
are rare.
-david gable
Steve de Mena
> On Oct 21, 5:59 pm, law...@webtv.net (Lawrence Chalmers) asked about
> Berg’s Three Pieces for Orchestra, Op. 6:
>
>> Can someone direct me to a site that lists both versions (original and
>> revised - reduced orchestrstions) instrumentation
>> listings?
>
> Larry, you sure are obsessed with Berg’s Op. 6, not that that’s a bad
> thing. To my knowledge, there is no revision of Op. 6 let alone a
> reduced orchestration: in fact, Berg never heard the piece
> performed. The Three Pieces would be an astonishing achievement by
> any measure, but -- given Berg’s lack of experience with writing for
> large orchestra when he wrote it -- it’s nothing short of miraculous.
> That being said, Boulez claims that the piece poses serious balance
> problems in rehearsal precisely because of its teeming textures
> despite the fact that Berg had taken up the practice, borrowed from
> Schoenberg, of identifying the principal and secondary parts in his
> score with “Hauptstimme” and “Nebenstimme” respectively.
I thought the Three Pieces for Orchestra, Op.6 were from 1913-14 and
the version normally heard today is a revised version from 1929. I
don't have any details on the revision or orchestration differences.
Are you sure Berg never heard it performed?
Steve
MiNe 109
law...@webtv.net (Lawrence Chalmers) wrote:
There's a half-hour lost to google. The Bryan R. Simms "A Guide to
Research" lists a 1923 facsimile of the manuscript: Universal Edition
(7396).
Stephen
david...@aol.com
Grove (early 80’s; not the current version) gives the date of
composition for the Three Pieces, op. 6, as 1914-15. The preface to
the miniature score and Douglas Jarman give slightly different
accounts. It’s clear from footnotes that Jarman is basing his account
at least in part on Willi Reich and on Berg’s correspondence:
“A short time [after a visit to Schoenberg in Berlin in June, 1913],
in Trahütten, Styria, where his wife’s family owned an estate, [Berg]
began to compose the Orchesterstücke. They were intended as a present
for Schoenberg’s 40th birthday (13 September 1914) and were doubtless
finished on time, for the score gives August 1914 as the date of
completion. However, the fair copy of at least the second piece
(which cannot be precisely chronologically fixed in any case), dragged
on until 1915.”
- F.S. [?], Preface to the Philharmonia miniature score of the 1929
“Neufassung” (Universal Edition)
“At the beginning of June of [1913], Berg visited Schoenberg in Berlin
[…] Berg had certainly returned from Berlin by July 4 […] At any rate,
Berg began work on the Präludium of the Three Orchestral Pieces op. 6
in the month following his visit to Schoenberg, and by July of the
following year (1914) was far enough advanced to tell Webern of his
hopes of completing the score for Schoenberg’s birthday on 13
September. The scores of the Marsch and the Präludium were finished
in time for fair copies to be sent off to Schoenberg on 8 September.
The score of Reigen […] was not finished until the early summer of
1915. The precise date when Reigen was completed is not known but the
work was certainly finished in short score by 13 July 1915 when Berg
wrote to Webern, ‘I must finally finish the third of the Three
Orchestral Pieces -- that is to say, write out the score and bring it,
nicely copied out, back to Vienna for Schoenberg.’ A copy of Reigen
had been sent to Schoenberg by 5 August 1915.”
- Douglas Jarman, The Music of Alban Berg (University of California
Press, 1979), p. 7.
As for the meaning of “Neufassung 1929,” it literally means “new
edition, 1929,” of course, but a new edition doesn’t necessarily mean
a revised edition let alone a rescoring on the order of Schoenberg’s
reduction of the Op. 16 pieces: even a corrected edition would be a
new edition. I’ve never seen it claimed that Berg ever revised the
Three Pieces. Perle doesn’t mention any revision in his New Grove
article. Jarman doesn’t mention a revision in the book cited above.
Boulez has never mentioned any revision in any of his little chats
about the problems with balances in the Op. 6 and doesn’t do so in the
encyclopedia article on Berg he wrote in the early 50’s.
As for whether Berg ever heard the pieces performed, he certainly
could have. Webern led the premiere of two of the pieces in Berlin in
1923 and the first performance of all three pieces took place in
1930. Nevertheless, a friend of mine claims Berg never heard the
pieces: I’ll have to ask him again what makes him say that. I’m now
somewhat skeptical because it seems as if Perle would mention that,
while Webern played the pieces, Berg was unable to attend or
whatever. (I’ve got half a dozen books on Berg lying around here, but
none of them are synoptic biographies. I don’t even have The New
Grove Second Viennese School handy: had to phone a friend to see what
Perle said there.)
-david gable
JAC
> david7ga...@aol.com wrote:
> > ...Boulez claims that the piece poses serious balance
> > problems in rehearsal precisely because of its teeming textures
> > despite the fact that Berg had taken up the practice, borrowed from
> > Schoenberg, of identifying the principal and secondary parts in his
> > score with “Hauptstimme” and “Nebenstimme” respectively.
I'm inclined to believe Boulez on this. The "H" and "N" signs are
useful convey the relative importance of lines, but they don't really
solve balance problems inherent in the scoring (if any such exist).
> I thought the Three Pieces for Orchestra, Op.6 were from 1913-14 and
> the version normally heard today is a revised version from 1929. I
> don't have any details on the revision or orchestration differences.
> Are you sure Berg never heard it performed?
According to the work-list in the New Grove, the pieces were completed
in 1914-15, the first two movements being premiered by Webern in
Berlin in 1923 and the set of 3 first conducted by Schüler in
Oldenburg in 1930. (I can't speak as to whether Berg heard these or
other performances.) It says nothing of a revision -- which doesn't
mean such a thing never happened, but the NG is generally careful to
provide such information. I myself never heard of a new version of
them, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything; there's plenty I
don't know.
JAC
david...@aol.com
6, 23 August 1914, presumably refers to the completion of the scoring
of that movement. The second movement was not sent off to Schoenberg
until 12 months later, just about the time of Berg’s induction into
the army.”
- George Perle, article on Berg in New Grove Second Viennese School
(Norton, early 80’s)
“Three Pieces, orch, 1914-15”
- work list accompanying above cited article
No mention of any revision in this article.
-david gable
Lawrence Chalmers
Levine version with BPO its listed with that Neufassung thing and in
some google listings as version for reduced orchestra,
which forms the basis of my question.
Also the notes in the Gatti version mention that there are no less than
five hammerblows. Of all the versions I've heard the Levine seems to
make this very evident. The other performances seem to have
percussions sounds of loud cracks on the tympani and bass drum
where I think the hammerblows are.
Yes, this work is dense, which is one reason why I have so many
recordings.
I saw the score a long time ago with the H and N highlights but don't
remember
a part for hammerstrokes. Although
I don't read music too well, I am going to get a miniature score to use
as a listening aid to a work that has always had an intense emotional
appeal to me.
And a lifelong wish will be fulfilled when I get to hear this live with
MTT/SFSO
(programmed with a Copland work). I missed a previous opportunity when
it was programmed I think with a Gershwin piece. This season it will be
repeated as part of a Berg/Schubert festival. I probably will hear it a
second time....
That Berg never heard these performed is heartbreaking to ponder, but I
guess a lot of composers have experienced this.
Any recommendations for a Berg biography other than Redlich's which I
read way back in the 60's.
Steve de Mena
> Thanks for the feedback. What I had in mind was how, in the James
> Levine version with BPO its listed with that Neufassung thing and in
> some google listings as version for reduced orchestra,
> which forms the basis of my question.
> Also the notes in the Gatti version mention that there are no less than
> five hammerblows. Of all the versions I've heard the Levine seems to
> make this very evident. The other performances seem to have
> percussions sounds of loud cracks on the tympani and bass drum
> where I think the hammerblows are.
That Levine/BPO CD on DG is terrific. I particularly like the Webern
6 Pieces for Orchestra.
FYI - The single entry for the Three Pieces for Orchestra, Op.6 in
"Orchesral Music - A Handbook", Fourth Edition, by David Daniels is:
Three Pieces for Orchestra, Op.6 (Drei Orchesterstücke) 19'
4[all/pic] 4[1.2.3.4/Eh] 5 [1.2.3/Ebcl.4bcl] 4[1.2.3.cbn] - 6 4 4 1 -
2tmp+6 - 2hp - cel - str
perc: bd w/ cym, cym, sd, td, tri, tamtam, gong, glock, xyl, large hammer
Revised 1929
Contents - Praeludium (Prelude); Reigen (Round Dance); Marsch (March)
mvt durations: 4' 6' 9'
Universal
Universal's listing: http://tinyurl.com/6gdeyr
Steve
Alexandros Rigas
The only time I heard live Berg's op. 6 was during my first and only
visit to Carnegie Hall back in 2001 where Boulez conducted the LSO in
a program with the Berg, a new piece by Neuwirth and for conclusion
Mahler's 6th! A GIGANTIC program, don't you think!! And bear in mind
that I had just flew from Europe the previous day...
By the way, I have never seen any concert program other than the
above, where Mahler 6 is not the only work performed. Excepted also
the US premiere with Mitropoulos in Dec 1947 where the Gershwin PC
was played (and sadly this one was only broadcast...).
Best
Alex
Overmeyer
> That Levine/BPO CD on DG is terrific. I particularly like the Webern
> 6 Pieces for Orchestra.
>
> FYI - The single entry for the Three Pieces for Orchestra, Op.6 in
> "Orchesral Music - A Handbook", Fourth Edition, by David Daniels is:
>
> Three Pieces for Orchestra, Op.6 (Drei Orchesterstücke) 19'
> 4[all/pic] 4[1.2.3.4/Eh] 5 [1.2.3/Ebcl.4bcl] 4[1.2.3.cbn] - 6 4 4 1 -
> 2tmp+6 - 2hp - cel - str
> perc: bd w/ cym, cym, sd, td, tri, tamtam, gong, glock, xyl, large hammer
> Revised 1929
> Contents - Praeludium (Prelude); Reigen (Round Dance); Marsch (March)
> mvt durations: 4' 6' 9'
> Universal
>
> Universal's listing: http://tinyurl.com/6gdeyr
>
> Steve
While you're already there, Steve, could you look up the following:
1. Anton Webern - Six Pieces, for large orchestra, opus 6
2. Anton Webern - Five Pieces for orchestra, opus 10
3. Anton Webern - Five Pieces for orchestra (1913) [related to op. 10,
first pub. 1971, edited by Friedrich Cerha.]
4. Arnold Schönberg - Fünf Orchesterstücke [5 Pieces for Orchestra],
op. 16 (1909)
5. Alban Berg - Three Pieces for Orchestra, Op. 6
Thank you!!!!!
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:44821561-b843-40d4-841d-
0a6d87...@u28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> By the way, I have never seen any concert program other than the
> above, where Mahler 6 is not the only work performed. Excepted also
> the US premiere with Mitropoulos in Dec 1947 where the Gershwin PC
> was played (and sadly this one was only broadcast...).
Sometime in the '80s I caught a performance by the orchestra of the
University of Wisconsin at Madison, conducted by Catherine Comet (a Boulez
protegée, if memory serves). The first piece on the program was a student
composition, then the first two movements of the Mahler, then intermission,
then the remaining Mahler. Not a good idea, but what should they have done?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Steve de Mena
Will try and work on this tonight, if you don't see a reply tonight
email me tomorrow to remind me. Is your email correct?
Steve
Lawrence Chalmers
among us, who make sharing and growth
a truly joyful experience. I thank you all so much!
Steve de Mena
I sent the info to you in an email.
Steve
Overmeyer
Thank you, Steve, SO MUCH! I received the e-mail!!
david...@aol.com
[snip]
Steve,
Is there a standard reference that lists instrumentations for more or
less standard orchestral fare, or did you just happen to have all of
the scores in question? If the former, I'd love to know about it.
-david gable
Overmeyer
Yes, there is. SIMON SMITH recommended it to me a while ago, but I
haven't bought it because I fear the next version will be out soon (I
don't know that for sure):
David Daniels: Orchestral Music
A true standard for orchestra librarians.
ron...@usa.net
Daniels' book (in its fourth edition) was published in 2005, and based
on previous time spans of editions, will not be updated in print form
for at least another 6-8 years. But just announced is an online
version of the book containing much more information than the print
version, as well as monthly updates. The downside: it will cost $65/
year. For those in the orchestra information business, this fee is
paltry, but for others it might be a deal breaker.
For further information: http://www.orchestralmusic.com.
Ron Whitaker
Steve de Mena
David,
Yes, there is a standard reference. I ordered it a month or two as I
thought it would be a nice addition to my library:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0810856743
Orchestral Music: A Handbook (Hardcover)
by David Daniels (Author)
$53.60
Hardcover: 640 pages
Publisher: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.; 4 edition (October 28, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0810856743
ISBN-13: 978-0810856745
Steve
david...@aol.com
about David Daniel’s book. You shouldn’t have told me about it: now
I’ll have to pick it up!!!
-david gable
Overmeyer
published by Universal.
The book claims that the Fifth, e.g., is published by Peters, yet
their site does not list it.
Kip Williams
If you don't mind printing it yourself from a PDF, IMSLP has it in full
score, or reductions for one (O. Singer) or two (A. Stradal) pianos.
http://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.5_%28Mahler%2C_Gustav%29
Free downloads.
Kip W
david...@aol.com
The first publications of the Mahler symphonies were by several
different publishers including Peters and Universal. I think the 5th
and 6th, at least, were originally published by Peters. I'm
reasonably certain that Universal published the 9th symphony.
-david gable
Eric Grunin
> published by Universal.
Universal published study scores of at least #1 and #9 -- I have them
here.
Regards,
Eric Grunin
www.grunin.com/eroica
Overmeyer
Blumine: Presser
Second: Kalmus, Luck's, Universal
Third: Kalmus, Universal
Fourth: Kalmus, Luck's Universal
Fifth: Kalmus, Peters
Adagietto: Kalmus, Luck's, Peters
Sixth: Kahnt, Kalmus
Seventh: Bote & Bock, Kalmus
Eighth: Kalmus, Universal
Ninth: Kalmus, Universal
Tenth: AMP, Faber, Universal, Luck's (depending on version)
http://universaledition.com/truman/en_templates/paste.php3?template=werk_list&komp_uid=448&page=2
Mr. Mike
> I'm
>reasonably certain that Universal published the 9th symphony.
It did ... I once owned a four-hands piano version of this work
published by UE.
Richard Schultz
: The first publications of the Mahler symphonies were by several
: different publishers including Peters and Universal. I think the 5th
: and 6th, at least, were originally published by Peters. I'm
: reasonably certain that Universal published the 9th symphony.
The 5th was originally published by Peters, the 6th (as well as its
Mahler-spuervised revisions) by C. F. Kahnt.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"We cannot see how any of his music can long survive him."
-- From the New York Daily Tribune obituary of Gustav Mahler