Paul Wittgenstein's voice and Richard Strauss's music: discovering the musical dialogue between composer and performer: to Daniel Ng Yat Chiu (1937-2013) for his generous and ongoing support of music and music research.
Along with the Bosendorfer, Dumba, Wertheimstein, and Arnstein families, the Wittgensteins stood, in fin-de-siecle Vienna, at the forefront of the cultured bourgeoisie. (7) Johannes Brahms, Clara Schumann, Richard Strauss, Gustav Mahler, Arnold Schoenberg, Pablo Casals, Eduard Hanslick, and Max Kalbeck were amongst a whole host of luminaries that frequented the Palais Wittgenstein. In imitation of aristocratic mannerisms, the Wittgensteins freely and generously dabbled in artistic patronage. Paul's father, Karl Wittgenstein, the majority shareholder of the first Austrian Iron and Steel conglomerate, paid 120,000 Kronen (then roughly 30,000 US dollars), towards the construction of the 'Secession' building, the 1897 exhibition hall for the Vienna Secession designed by Joseph Maria Olbrich. In return, Kurt Hoffmann designed two administrative buildings and redecorated Wittgenstein's 'Hochreith' hunting lodge in Lower Austria. Karl also purchased, at the Vienna Art Show in 1908, the most lavish and most expensive single object produced by the Wiener Werkstatte; a showcase with a solid silver body decorated with enamel and moonstones designed by Carl Otto Czeschka. (8) In addition, Karl's daughter, Margaret Wittgenstein-Stonborough, not only posed for Gustav Klimt in 1904 but also had her Berlin apartment designed and furnished by Hoffmann and Moser in 1905. (9) In fact, the purchases of the extended Wittgenstein family accounted for roughly 12.5 percent of the total sales volume of the Wiener Werkstatte between 1903 and 1905. (10) It is therefore not surprising that Paul Wittgenstein would, in order to rejuvenate his career, adopt the system and mechanisms of patronage his father and favorite uncle Paul so vigorously practiced. The leading composers of his time, among them most significantly, Maurice Ravel, Sergei Prokofiev, Benjamin Britten, Erich Korngold, Franz Schmidt, Alexander Tansman, Serge Bortkiewiecz, Eduard Schutt, Walter Bricht, Norman Demuth, Rudolf Braun, Hans Gal, and Ernest Walker provided Wittgenstein with the requested compositions. In addition, Wittgenstein also received two compositions for piano and orchestra from Richard Strauss, the Parergon zur Symphonia Domestica, Op. 73, and the Panathe-naenzug, Op. 74. Immediately upon receipt, composer and performer embarked on a process of modifications that reshaped the musical, structural, and interpretive aspects of both works. This compelling synthesis of musical inspiration and virtuosity not only brings into focus the relationship between performance and the musical text but also permits us to discover how the Strauss/Wittgenstein collaborations, particularly with regard to the Parergon, was initially performed and heard.
In hindsight, the reasons why the artistic partnership between Richard Strauss and Paul Wittgenstein were not entirely successful with critics, scholars, and performers are patently clear. In fact, Strauss and Wittgenstein could not intentionally have scripted a better recipe for assuring that the Parergon and, subsequently, the Panathenaenzug would, almost immediately after their premiere performances, vanish from the concert stage and rapidly submerge in an uneasy mire of critical discourse. Richard Strauss seemingly initiated this process by curiously christening the first Wittgenstein commission Parergon zur Symphonia Domestica. Undoubtedly the title was not chosen to denigrate the present work under construction, but rather, as Walter Werbeck has suggested, as a nostalgic homage to the celebrated successes he enjoyed with his earlier tone poem of the same name. (11) That a highly disparaging musical press--delightedly exulting Strauss's waning musical imagination--deliberately stressed the literal meaning of the word 'Parergon' and concordantly was unwilling to seriously engage with this, by definition, "secondary, derivative and unnecessary creative work," should not come as a surprise. A reviewer of The London Daily Telegraph cautiously declared "the work failed to arouse anything like the interest which attaches as a rule to all of Stauss's works," (12) an opinion surely influenced by the fact that the orchestral part was played by a second piano. A much more devastating verdict was penned by the Berlin critic Adolf Weissmann who writes:
Es ist sinnlos sich bei einem Werk aufzuhalten, das der Komnponist selbst als Nebenwerk bezeichnet; um so mehr als die Zahl der Nebenwerke im letzten Strauss-Dezennium das Mass des Erlaubten ubersteigt. Im Laufe seiner Tatigkeit als sinfonischer Dichter und als Opernkomponist ist ihm der Sinn fur die Architektur solcher Stucke offenbar etwas abhanden gekommen. (13)
Furthermore, since the primary motivation for composing the work did not emanate from Strauss's creative impulse, but was merely a paid-for composition assignment from an affluent and eccentric pianist, the implication that Strauss had somehow not given his best effort, still reverberates in recent scholarship. Stefan Weiss, for example, writes, "die Vermutung liegt nahe dass Strauss diese Werke nicht nur fur, sondern auch mit der linken Hand komponiert habe." (14)
The patron Paul Wittgenstein did not fare significantly better among contemporary music critics and colleagues. Albert Sassmann, who recently sampled newspaper reviews and personal opinions on Wittgenstein's performances suggests, that views were evenly divided among the general public and music critics on one hand, and colleagues on the other. The general public and music critics, with the benign condescension and injudicious embarrassment relating to his disability, admired Wittgenstein's determination. (15) Yet the majority of his colleagues condemned his performances and interpretations. The Viennese pianist Friedrich Wuhrer reports, "Wir in Oesterreich nehmen Herrn W. nicht Ernst. Ein cholerischer Neurasteniker, reich, anmassend und als Pianist miserable." (16) Siegfried Rapp who writes, "Ich bin aufs hochste entsetzt und enttauscht uber Wittgensteins Spiel; das ist ja gar kein Pianist! Wittgenstein ist nunmehr fur mich lediglich ein reicher Dilettant, der es sich leisten konnte, bei den beruhmtesten Komponisten seiner Zeit Werke zu bestellen ..." nevertheless echoes Wuhrer's opinion. (17) Leopold Godowsky, furthermore, produced a devastating summary judgment that addressed not only the pianist's wanting technical abilities but also hinted at Wittgenstein's lack of musical taste. On commission from Wittgenstein, Godowsky was working on a left-hand composition entitled Kontrapunktische Paraphrase fur die linke Hand allein uber den Schatz-Walzer aus dem Zigeunerbaron von Johann Strauss, a work completed in Paris on 7 June 1928. Anticipating Wittgenstein's reaction to his technically highly challenging piece, Godowsky wrote to his wife on 6 May 1928, "It is good music, very likely too good for Wittgenstein." (18) Godowsky seems to have guessed right, as Wittgenstein, who had exclusive performing rights for three years, only gave two public performance of the composition in the small Austrian towns of Krems and Klagenfurt, which prompted Godowsky to eventually change the dedication to Simon Barere. (19) Even his own sister Margaret, after attending a New York recital in 1942, confided to their brother Ludwig that "[Paul's] playing has become much worse. It is eine Vergewaltigung [rape]," and we can only guess as to whether she meant his interaction with the instrument or his interpretation of the music. (20) Personal animosities and professional jealousies aside, Wittgenstein emerges as a pianist of rather modest abilities and suspect musical sensibilities, a fact I believe, the pianist himself was keenly aware of.
For Strauss, the Wittgenstein commission meant a rather uneasy compositional return to the piano concerto, a genre that he himself had declared obsolete, and one that had seen no further efforts since the completion of the D-minor Burlesque almost forty years ago. For Wittgenstein, however, the piano concerto was intimately connected and deeply embedded within his historicist conception of music, virtuosity and tradition, and based on his rather naive belief in a timeless, unchanging substance, validity and aesthetic of the musical past. (21) Groomed by Theodore Leschetizky and Malvine Bree to become what Jim Samson referred to as a performer of Romantic virtuosity, his principle intent was to dazzle, delight and astonish his audience--and that was when he still had two hands. (22) Wittgenstein persistently reclaimed this ambition following the loss of his right arm by producing hundreds of left-hand arrangements that endeavored to factually and aurally replicate the repertory that he once possessed with two hands. This process of arranging solo, chamber and concerto repertories, some of which were included in his three-volume School for the Left Hand published by Universal in 1957, resulted in a pronounced intensification towards a brand of virtuosity that celebrated the technical accomplishments of his special circumstances over the musical substance of the performed repertory. "The greatest satisfaction in my life," he once remarked, was to "play pieces with only one hand that others could not manage with two." (23) The decisive arbiter between Wittgenstein's retrospective conception, which rather severely clashed with the often relativist and ironic historicism practiced by Strauss, was, according to the musical press, provided by the substantial financial incentive offered by Wittgenstein's commission. Weissmann suggested, that "man wird bei aller Hochachtung fur Strauss, mehr die gelungene Finanzoperation, als die von ihm geleistete Arbeit zu ruhmen haben. (24) Although exact monetary figures were held in the strictest of confidence, Strauss along with all other composer's commissioned to produce works for Wittgenstein were, according to the pianist, "royally compensated for their efforts." (25)
The Wittgenstein/Strauss collaborations might still have been able to overcome the attached stigma and its pianistic restriction to a single hand, if Wittgenstein would have allowed them to freely enter into the concert repertory. Instead, he negotiated for exclusive performing rights, which he frequently misrepresented and misquoted, and covetously safeguarded what he considered his personal property by meticulously collecting conducting scores and orchestral parts after each concert performance. This method of assuring exclusivity prevented others, at least initially, from performing 'his compositions' and also restricted access to these sources to rehearsals and performances--singular events really--in which Wittgenstein personally participated.
Repeated requests to gain access to the commissioned repertory, whether Wittgenstein actually had performed it or not, were rudely and brusquely denied. Wittgenstein writes to Siegfried Rapp on 28 June 1949, "Was Ihren Wunsch betrifft, die fuer mich geschriebenen Klavier-Konzerte zur Auffuehrung zu bekommen, muss ich Ihnen leider rundweg nein sagen. (26) A renewed rejection reached Rapp on 5 June 1950, "Sie schreiben, 'Sie sind nicht erbaut dass irgendein anderer Klavierspieler (den Namen habe ich vergessen) das Ravel Konzert spielt.' Sie sind nicht erbaut, der es nicht bestellt und nicht gezahlt hat, als wenn Sie ein Anrecht darauf haetten. Und jetzt wollen Sie noch andere fuer mich geschriebene Werke, die ich bestellt u. die ich gezahlt habe. Aber ich sehe gar nicht ein mit welchem Recht." (27) In fact, Wittgenstein, as we will see later, would not hesitate to engage legal representation in his effort to prevent these scores from ever reaching the public, both preventing them from entering and establishing a continuous presence in the concerto repertory and hiding them from critical interpretation, criticism, and scholarship. In essence, Wittgenstein deprived the Strauss compositions--among numerous others--of the essential and necessary mechanisms for a successful transition from the musical text to the musical work. After Wittgenstein's death in 1961, his widow, Hilde Schania, acting in the spirit of her late husband, stored his entire musical estate in a factory warehouse for 40 years. (28) Hilde's heirs eventually decided to allow the collection to reach the public, and a major auction house offered the archive for sale in 2003. By 2004, the vast majority of the Paul Wittgenstein musical archive and library had made its way into the hands of a private Hong Kong collector. (29)
This extensive and unique archive comprises autograph and scribal manuscripts to most works commissioned by Wittgenstein, including multiple sets of orchestral parts and conducting scores used throughout his extensive performing career that contain Wittgenstein's alternate readings and the interpretive markings of prominent conductors, among them Bruno Walter, Franz Schalk, Maurice Ravel, and Franz Schmidt. In addition, the archive holds thousands of volumes of printed music--the results of decades of collecting activity by the Wittgenstein family in general--including antiquarian items and first editions that contain music ranging from Beethoven, Czerny, Spohr and Thalberg to Richard Strauss, Pfitzner, Korngold and Ravel Of particular interest are a considerable number of scores that disclose Wittgenstein's two-handed pianistic development, detailing the pianist's arduous path towards his initial debut as a two-handed pianist in December 1913, and the methodological and pedagogical subtleties of his teachers Leschetizky and Bree. These very same scores frequently served Wittgenstein as the basis for creating the new personalized repertory for his left hand. As such, Wittgenstein's transcriptions are not merely a commentary or tribute to specific composers or genres, but are a highly concentrated and focused effort at recapturing and reconquering of the repertory that he had once possessed with two hands. Supplementing these printed scores are sketch- and notebooks containing technical studies and transcriptions for the left hand that eventually will find their way into the School for the Left Hand. An extensive collection of memorabilia additionally produces a photographic and documentary record of Paul's life and career. It includes a miscellany of materials that range from photographs of his ancestry and immediate family to those taken during his time as a prisoner of war in the Soviet Union. Prior to auction, the Wittgenstein archive was apparently carefully scrutinized by the family and the majority of the letters and documents pertaining to his immediate family, including an extensive correspondence with his brother Ludwig, were removed from consignment. As such, the archive is presently limited to letters and documents of a predominantly historical nature, such as letters to and from his aunt Emilie von Brucke, or the 1839 marriage license granted to his grandfather Hermann Wittgenstein and Franziska [Fanny] Figdor. Finally, concert programs, promotional literature, posters, newspaper clippings and articles, detailing Wittgenstein's performing career and the performed repertory, as well as an account of his two concert tours in the Soviet Union, augment and complement the holdings of this virtually untapped and vast archive.
With regard to Richard Strauss, (30) the Wittgenstein Archive initially provides a rare glimpse into the secretive contractual agreements and dealings between Wittgenstein and Richard Strauss, seen in Illustration 1.
On 4 July 1950, the Garmisch attorney and long-time confidant of Richard Strauss, Dr. Karl Roesen, acting on behalf of Dr. Franz Strauss, officially responded to an inquiry from Paul Wittgenstein's New York solicitors. Wittgenstein apparently had once again, quite naively, attempted to retain control over the repertory beyond the contractually agreed terms. Roesen's reply brusquely clarified the copyright situation, and he quickly moved to establish the validity of the two attached copies of the contracts. Since the original documents were missing from both Wittgenstein's and Strauss' personal records, Roesen's copies were based on an initial set of copies produced by Strauss's Berlin publisher, Bote & Bock, to which he had access. The Parergon contract, reproduced in Illustration 2, with the title typed over an originally handwritten lettering that was unquestionably used as a means of identification, stipulates that Herr Strauss would write a composition for piano left-hand with orchestral accompaniment, and that the work would be completed by January 1, 1925. Significantly, the contractual terms specifically ask for a piano left-hand composition with orchestra, rather than a piano concerto for the left hand. This ambivalence in part, I believe, had a direct and significant influence on the way Strauss envisioned and approached this first Wittgenstein commission. It stimulated a hybrid genre, one that nevertheless reveals a much closer affinity to the tone poem rather than adhering to the conventions of the piano concerto.
Contractually, Wittgenstein claimed exclusive performing rights for 3 years, whereas Strauss retained all copy and intellectual rights. If Strauss were to unexpectedly die, Wittgenstein could claim a full refund, or alternately, if sketches for the work had advanced far enough, a different hand could complete the composition. Although the terms of the agreement appear to be fairly standard, including the non-disclosure of the honorarium, the date, 22 December 1923, is significant. Since the programmatic inspiration for the work seemingly originated in his son's recovery from a serious illness, which befell him during his honeymoon in Egypt in early 1924, Strauss, at the time of signing the contract knew neither the name of the composition, nor what precise musical approach he would take. This means that the musical conception for the work, after Strauss had completed the autobiographical Intermezzo and before work on Agyptische Helena began in earnest, gradually started to take shape in early 1924.
Fortunately, an additional source, documenting various stages for the Parergon, together with drafts for Act II of the Agyptische Helena, is currently housed in the Wittgenstein Archive of the Octavian Society. Richard Strauss presented this source, an autograph sketchbook unknown to Strauss scholarship, as a gift to Wittgenstein on 7 April 1926. (31) It bears the inscription "Skizze zu Parergon fur Piano und Orchester" on the outer cover, and the inside cover contains the title "Klavierconcert," the quatrain 'Zenith und Nadir' by Friedrich Schiller, and an effusive dedication to the patron, "Paul Wittgenstein zur Erinnerung an seinen aufrichtig ergebenen Dr Richard Strauss," (32) as seen in Illustrations 3 and 4.
In his analytical and source-critical study on the Metamorphosen, Tim Jackson revealed that Strauss customarily did not fill a sketchbook systematically from the beginning to end. Rather, leaving a complement of blank pages in the middle to expand on material already entered, he frequently enters sketches at the front of the sketchbook and then leaps to the end. (33) This manner of drafting is confirmed by the musical layout presented in the Parergon sketchbook. The first eight pages, which appear under the overall heading "Leiden und Genesung" (Suffering and Recovery), comprise a lead-pencil draft of the initial F sharp minor section, the "Leiden" portion of the Parergon in short score, seen in Table 1. (34) In the sketchbook, this is physically but not chronologically followed by drafts for the second Act of the Agyptische Helena. (35) A fairly continuous lead-pencil draft of the "Genesung" section of the Parergon occupies the rest of the sketchbook. The musical material for the "Genesung," however, is drafted from the inside out, as seen in Table 2. That is, it tunnels retrograde from the final F major measures of the work, drafted on page 29 of the sketchbook, via the intermediate symphonic developmental section in F sharp major, towards the chorale-like F major segment entitled "Wallfahrt" (Pilgrimage), seen in Table 2. This layout does suggest, that Strauss initially drafted the "Leiden" section of the work, and then proceeded back-to front with the "Genesung" portion, drafting backwards from page 46 to 29. Finally, Strauss placed the draft for the second Act of Helena between the Parergon sections on the pages he had initially left blank. Strauss confirms this scenario in a letter to Hugo von Hoffmannsthal from January 29, 1925, in which he writes, "habe jetzt ein Klavierkonzert vollendet und beginne langsam, mich mit dem 2. Akt der 'Helena' zu beschaftigen." (36) Strauss's letter indirectly not only confirms the contents of the Parergon sketchbook, but also establishes a solid time frame, the years 1924/25, for this source.
The overall conception of the Parergon is encapsulated in the programmatic metaphor "Leiden und Genesung," which Strauss places at the head of his drafts. It not only establishes the bi-part partition of the work, immediately apparent in the sketchbook, but also creates, as Gunther Brosche has suggested elsewhere, a poetic theme that is immediately associated with individual keys. (37) The two predominant key areas, F sharp minor for the "Leiden" and F major for the "Genesung," are in a semi-tone relationship, in which, according to Walter Werbeck, the ominous C-sharp sounded in the muted brass at the beginning of the work, represents a central axis in a harmonic and formal sense. (38) This harmonic relationship in turn substantially influences Strauss's choice of rhythms, melodies, and harmonies. It furthermore governs almost subconsciously, as becomes discernible in the Parergon sketchbook, a number of structural, formal, and musical decisions. (39)
Much of the drafted "Leiden" section is concerned with a recasting of the musical past, as it prominently features the Child Theme quotation from the Symphonia Domestica. The jarring harmonies and turbulent chromatic descents are already fully realized in the draft, and give way to another self-quotation, this time the Child Theme from his autobiographical Intermezzo. (40) Numerous revisions and alterations present an ultimately discarded transitional passage on page 2, before the Child Themes, alternately sounding against the ever-present C-sharp, give way to a cadence in F sharp major. This cadence in turn, visible on page 3, gives rise to an accompanimental pattern, which will eventually become the rhythmic impetus for an entire musical section, described as "Besserung" (Improvement) by Stefan Weiss. (41) Although the rhythmic contour and the tonality of this section are already present, the actual "Recovery Theme" will first appear only on page 47. In the first three pages of the sketchbook, Strauss had presented a highly condensed, and in many aspects remarkably similar version of the slow introduction, together with the works projected harmonic continuation. (42) On the following page, Strauss doubles back and begins to draft an alternate transition passage to precede the material drafted on page 2, and page 5 in turn, doubles back to page 4 to continue the transition draft. This draft terminates quite unexpectedly and abruptly in a C major passage, subtitled "Glocken in Munchen" (Bells in Munich), by Strauss. Page 6 and much of page 7 are occupied with an extensive, almost complete continuity of the slow introduction, however, still missing the "Recovery Theme," for the solo piano. At this point, I believe, Strauss halted the initial drafting process for this first conception of the "Leiden."
Having established F sharp minor for the slow introduction, and the parallel F sharp major for a yet-to-be worked out section, he must have realized that a concluding C major "Glocken," although bearing an obvious harmonic relationship--the dominant preparation--for the "Genesung" component, would, on the one hand, seriously undermine the prominence and role of the mediating C-sharp. On the other hand, the inclusion of a bright and silvery sounding C major within the "Leiden" would violate the dramaturgy of the program, since the healthy child becomes the center of musical attention only in the "Genesung" section. As a result, Strauss discarded the "Glocken," and at a later stage began to look for an alternate ending to the "Leiden." This ending, I believe, is hinted at in the sketchbook passages labeled "Coda" on pages 7 and 8, and 48 and 47, respectively. The former pages bring back both Child Themes in F sharp major and subsequently connect to the continuity draft from page 4. In addition, Strauss lays the foundation, via an extensive web of procedural and structural symbols as well as written instructions, for a "Coda" to this "Besserung" section. Page 48 in turn, discloses a tonally highly unstable musical miscellanea, akin to the developmental portion that follows the F sharp major section, while the written instruction "Coda" connects the presentation of the "Recovery Theme" at once to page 8, and for its presentation in the final version, to page 43.
Finally, on page 46, we find the chorale-like segment entitled "Wallfahrt," a theme of pastoral character firmly drafted in F major that commences the "Genesung" component. This is followed by a passage inscribed "Nachsatz" by Strauss. (43) The reminder of the "Genesung" section now unfolds in quick succession, although Strauss frequently doubles back on himself, until the final chords of the Coda are reached on page 29. From a musical perspective, the Parergon represents a compositional retrospective that, as Walter Werbeck has suggested, does not pay homage to the Symphonia Domestica, but to the entire tone-poem genre. (44) The Parergon sketchbook furthermore, not only embodies the shared mutual origins for both the Parergon and Helena but also gives us the opportunity to observe how Strauss envisioned the function and interaction of the solo instrument.
After the opening orchestral introduction, the piano makes its first appearance with a sforzando recasting of the dark chromatic descent heard in the opening. This fleeting quasi-expository gesture, initiated on the offbeat and set over a pianissimo orchestral pedal, is repeated three times, accelerated in intensity and linearly expanded into the outer ranges of the instrument. From then on, however, the piano is used almost continuously in passagework of extreme technical difficulties, as arpeggiated flourishes struggle to be heard over the thick and elaborate orchestration. It soon becomes apparent that Strauss was not interested in a concerted dialogue between the orchestra and the piano, but considered the solo instrument to be part of the overall orchestral texture. The immediate musical result generates a curious hybrid of genres. It recalls the lush orchestral sonorities and thematic language of his earlier tone poem and features a solo part that refuses, despite its highly virtuosic musical style, to yield focus in favor of the qualities of the performer. In his initial version of the Parergon, Strauss squarely emphasized musical substance over the technical accomplishments of the performer, the musical whole rather than the pianistic moment, and the collective rather than the individual.
In the aforementioned correspondence with Hofmannsthal, Strauss reports that he delivered the Parergon to Wittgenstein towards the end of January 1925. (45) Roughly six months later, (46) on 18 June 1925, Wittgenstein, with an eye towards the premiere performance already scheduled for 16 October of the same year, negotiated and paid for an addendum to the original contract, seen in Illustration 2. Envisioning a resounding success of the work, Wittgenstein extended his exclusive performing rights from three to six years. During this six-year period, Strauss could neither publish the work, nor arrange the solo part for piano two-hands. In fact, the contract further stipulates that Strauss, for the duration of the contract, was not allowed to make an arrangement for any other instrument. This special clause in the addendum suggests that Wittgenstein seemingly understood the nature and quality of the solo part supplied by Strauss. As the result of a predominantly horizontal conception, that is a linear dimension of the piano line, his solo part could easily lend itself to be arranged for a variety of other instruments. Rather than idiomatically written for the piano, Strauss had supplied him with a part that was idiomatically written for the left hand. What Wittgenstein clearly desired, however, was a piano part that produced, aided by his rather sophisticated pedaling technique, a vertically sounding simultaneity of bass and treble registers, in essence, one hand accompanying itself. With an almost pathological urge for attention, Wittgenstein craved to be at the center of the musical discourse. Throughout his left-handed performing career, he incessantly adjusted the balance between the orchestra and the piano by liberally removing instrumental lines or extensive orchestral passages from the commissioned scores. Although this aspect of Wittgenstein's editorial method originated with the 1924 Concerto by Rudolf Braun, he applied it with increased regularity and intensity to his entire repertory. Wittgenstein's primary motivation is unambiguously detailed in his correspondence with Maurice Ravel. On 7 March 1932, the composer condemned the alterations and removal of extensive orchestral passages as well as the addition of several solo cadenzas by the performer, by sending a formal and legally binding contract to Wittgenstein. Ravel plainly demanded that his Concerto for the Left Hand was henceforth to be played strictly as written. Wittgenstein replied as follows:
As for a formal commitment to play your work henceforth strictly as it is written, that is completely out of the question. No self-respecting artist could accept such a condition. All pianists make modifications, large or small, in each concerto we play. Such a formal commitment would be intolerable: I could be held accountable for every imprecise sixteenth note and every quarter-rest, which I omitted or added ... You write indignantly and ironically that I want to be 'put in the spotlight.' But, dear Maitre, you have explained it perfectly; that is precisely the special reason I asked you to write a concerto in the first place. Indeed, I wish to be put in the spotlight. What other objective could I have had!" (47)
Of paramount importance to Wittgenstein was not merely his desire to be heard over the orchestral forces, but also his aspiration to be the visual focal point on stage. Wittgenstein steadfastly demanded a pseudo-aristocratic role as leading actor--one he was certainly used to playing in life--on the musical stage as well. And this issue, besides the obvious musical connotations, I believe, is being addressed in the final clause of the addendum for the Strauss Parergon. It contractually obliged Strauss to provide a dedicated Cadenza --specified for piano solo--to be inserted between the "Leiden" and "Genesung" sections.
Strauss seemingly reacted with a good bit of sarcasm towards Wittgenstein's legal demand. His musical responses surface in a fragmentary cadenza leading into the F major "Wallfahrt" section. (48) Preceded by a miniature development of the more cheerful and optimistic variant of the Child Theme quotation from the Symphonia Domestica, which had already heralded an earlier momentary convalescence in F sharp major, Strauss sheepishly delays the entrance of the "Wallfahrt" by prolonging the cadential dominant-seventh harmony, and slotting in a mere five measures that are, just as the addendum demanded, dedicated to the solo piano. Strauss also provided Wittgenstein with an alternative reading for the F major "Wallfahrt" section. (49) In this source--a photographic reproduction of the amended "Wallfahrt" passage suggested by Strauss is found in the Sotheby catalogue--the composer separated individual melodic phrases of the "Wallfahrt," in the manner of a Bach chorale, by fermatas. (50) Each fermata then gives rise to what Strauss calls "Passagen," that is, solo passagework for piano left-hand to be supplied by Wittgenstein. To aid Wittgenstein's process of virtuosic elaboration, Strauss harmonizes each one of the held pitches, in hopes of keeping the pianist on the correct harmonic trail. After Wittgenstein faithfully copied Strauss's "Wallfahrt" melody, fermatas included, he immediately began to realize the composer's suggestions, by drafting an assortment of highly virtuosic musical modules, seen in Illustrations 5 and 6.
These isolated and sequentially labeled passages, which correspond in order with the fermatas indicated by Strauss, address a wealth of piano-technical issues that were meant to showcase the prowess of Wittgenstein's left hand. Among them the arpeggiated ascent covering the entire range of the piano in the passage labeled A, the descending tritone passage drafted in B, the lilting, chromatically ascending Barcarole figures seen in E, or the chromatically ascending run shown in the passage labeled F. At the top of the following page--an old title page for one of Wittgenstein's numerous arrangements--the drafting continues with a module that now shows an ascending tritone pattern that after the range of a mere octave descends via an assortment of major and minor sixths. The two-octave passage labeled C, presents a florid mixture of ascending and descending intervals, all anchored by a bass pedal, and rapid arpeggiation, drafted under the heading D, races towards a fermata climax. After Wittgenstein had finished drafting these six modules for their intended inclusion within the F major "Wallfahrt," he suddenly changed his mind. Whether he questioned the charring juxtaposition produced by the rapid vacillation between the chorale tune and the piano-technical pyrotechnics, or whether he sensed the mildly ironic tone of Strauss's Bach reference--a clear homage to the high priest of left-hand pianists--fact is, he flatly rejected both of Strauss's suggestions. Empowered by an uncompromising sense of ownership, he swiftly began to take a more prominent and active role in the structural and performing aspects of this commission. Instead of applying his modules to the "Wallfahrt," Wittgenstein utilizes them to elaborate on Strauss's cadenza fragment, as he duly indicates in the written heading "Vor der F Dur Stelle im Parergon," and "F Dur--Anfang zur Cadenz," which unquestionably identifies the first statement of the "Wallfahrt." The heading "Fis Dur Cadenz auf den Parergon vorher" suggests that Wittgenstein also contemplated a Cadenza addition before the F sharp major statement of the "Wallfahrt," and that the rapid argeggiation he had drafted earlier in module D might lead directly, via the fermata on B natural, into that section. Wittgenstein consistently performed his own elaborated cadenza, and one such performance is documented in a rare recording of the Parergon under the direction of Eric Simon, produced for Boston Records in 1959.51 In this studio recording, Wittgenstein squeezed variants of modules A, B, C and D between the first and last measures of the miniature Cadenza supplied by Strauss.
Having thus expanded on the linear virtuoso capabilities of his left hand, Wittgenstein now turned his attention towards producing the sounding simultaneity of bass and treble registers I mentioned earlier. He eagerly appropriates the entire "Wallfahrt" statement for himself, showcasing not only some of the technical solutions for overcoming his physical limitations, but also according himself a prominent and dominating visual position on stage. Rather than having the F major "Wallfahrt" statement chanted by the full wind group, Wittgenstein fashions, and in the Boston recording performs, an arrangement for solo piano left-hand, seen in Illustrations 7 and 8.
Aided by Strauss's close-position orchestral writing, which Wittgenstein approaches via the piano reduction by Otto Singer, the performer produces an arrangement in which the thumb of the left hand, gingerly negotiating the "Wallfahrt" tune, takes over the role and function of the entire right hand. (52) Curiously, however, Wittgenstein also places an internal melody, outlining chordal harmonies, on weak beats in the inner voice. The resulting unexpected accents, specifically as they seem to shadow pitches already sounded in a strong metric positions, were undoubtedly envisioned to fill the metrical silence. Visually as well as aurally, specifically in the recording by Wittgenstein, this arrangement creates a rather poor aural illusion of simultaneity and a disquieting sense of metric distortion. In his publication for the Austrian Institute, Wittgenstein does provide a hint of how this particular passage is to be performed. It involves the proper use of the pedal, and in this instant, the skillful application of the half change. This technique has the chord frozen in place, with the subsequent pitch instantaneously following at a decreased dynamic level. (53) Wittgenstein also prepared extensive and elaborate additional arrangements of the "Wallfahrt," statements, with the one in F sharp major shown in Illustration 9.
In this version, the "Wallfahrt" is not merely harmonized, but fluidly supported by a broken-chord accompaniment that was meant to cover the entire range of the keyboard, as can be seen in the third system and via the inscription at the bottom of the page. As a consequence, the single hand plays the legato tune, while accompanying itself with arpeggios, and at the same time providing a bass pedal. The arrangement of the first "Wallfahrt" statement, particularly through the inclusion of an additional inner voice, had given the impression of needing two hands. This illusion is now further magnified, as the F sharp arrangement conveys the impression of needing three. I don't believe that Wittgenstein informed Strauss of the changes he had made, as the conducting scores and orchestral parts, prepared on Wittgenstein's instructions, neatly show twenty-eight measures of rest for the entire orchestra at both statements of the "Wallfahrt." As a result, it seems reasonable to assume that audiences and critics during the initial performances of the work in 1925, in Dresden, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Berlin, and Leipzig, listened to and critiqued Wittgenstein's arrangement of the composition.
The Parergon, however, did undergo one more transformation. Richard Strauss, as the concertmaster's part duly records, attended rehearsals for the work in Vienna on 15 February 1926. Without a doubt, Wittgenstein's adjustments must have been at the center of a rather heated discussion. The performer probably claimed that he had not changed the essence of the piece, but simply accorded the piano a more prominent role in the overall orchestral texture. (54) Strauss, on the other hand, must have seen Wittgenstein's arrangement as violating the function of the musical text, which it attempted to interpret. In the end, however, the two artists reached a compromise. Strauss sanctioned Wittgenstein's elaboration of the cadenza and his solo statement of the F major "Wall-fahrt." The full wind group would then repeat the theme in its original orchestration, with Wittgenstein providing a piano counterpoint developed from the accompanimental figures to his F sharp major "Wallfahrt" draft, plus or minus the glissandi passages. And finally, after thinning the orchestral texture throughout, it was agreed that Wittgenstein would not participate at all in the sounding of the F sharp major "Wallfahrt" statement, and concordantly, the twenty-eight measure rests are deleted from all orchestral parts and the original instrumentation reinstated.
Exactly one month later, on 15 March 1926, Strauss and Wittgenstein signed a second contract titled Panathenaenzug (Procession in honor of Athena), with the origins of this agreement firmly rooted in the disagreements of 15 February. (55) Strauss presented Wittgenstein with the Parergon sketchbook, and he also initiated, as the performer reports in an interview for the Musical Courier in 1939, this second composition. "About ten years ago ... calling my manager to him, at a time I was on tour, Strauss told him that he knew I was not entirely satisfied with the pianistic opportunities of the first work he had written for me, and that he had an idea for a set of variations on a bass--a passacaglia--which would be wider in range and more brilliant." (56) A single sketch leaf that Strauss sent to Wittgenstein from Prague on 23 March 1926--currently housed in the Wittgenstein Archive--presents clear evidence of this intention. Referring back to the contract, the draft discloses four statements of the passacaglia bass with slightly varied harmonization and differing rhythmic organization. More importantly, however, the draft emphasized, at least to Wittgenstein's left hand, a more idiomatically pianistic approach, as widely spaced chords provide a massively enriched soundscape. (57) Strauss handed the finished score to Wittgenstein in February 1927, and on 16 January 1928 Bruno Walter lead the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra in the premier performance. (58) In the Parergon, Wittgenstein had significantly extended the cadenza furnished by Strauss, and he had provided himself with an additional solo passage. In the Panathenaenzug, however, Wittgenstein's alterations are so copious that the applied changes would yield a markedly different and transformed composition. (59)
Was Wittgenstein, to use Richard Taruskin's lingo, just another keyboard acrobat who aspired to godlike status? Or was his method of wrestling additional cadenzas from the genius scores modeled on his understanding of the cooperative endeavor between his Great-Grand-Uncle Joseph Joachim and his contribution to the Brahms Violin concerto, which erroneously assumed that the performer had complete freedom in regards to making changes to the text and composing the cadenza to the first movement? Clearly, Wittgenstein regarded virtuosity as a natural outcome of his quest for autonomy, overcoming not only the instrument but also his own physical limitations as well. He understood, and so did Richard Strauss that performance embodies the interaction of multiple agencies. It is a multidimensional structure that incorporates, among others, virtuosity as a critical agent inherent in the phenomenology of performance. The oversimplification that "live" performance entails and invites visual as well as auditory perception does acquire dialogic meaning--viewed here in Mikhail Bakhtin's formulation, (60) when posited with a one-armed pianist trying to recapture a performing career at the explosive dawn of a new dynamic visual media. Wittgenstein sought to reintroduce and extend a perceived equilibrium of artistic collaboration between composer and performer, but unable to partake in the paradigm shift of performing practice demanded by the positivist aspects of neoclassical modernism, found in Richard Strauss a sympathetic yet reluctant collaborator.
Predota, Georg (1)
(1.) Georg Predota is a Fellow of the Octavian Society and also serves as the managing director of Arts Sense, a Hong Kong-based company providing musical, editorial, artistic and contextual services to the Pearl River region and beyond.
(2.) Richard Taruskin, Text and Act: Essays on Music and Performance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 28.
(3.) Nicholas Cook, "Words about Music, or Analysis versus Performance," in Theory into Practice: Composition, Performance and the Listening Experience, ed. Nicholas Cook, Peter Johnson, Hans Zender (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), p. 7.
(4.) Scholarly and performing disciplines have in recent decades experienced a proliferation of studies and monographs devoted to the emergence, transmission and social implications of the "Work Concept." Among the most influential, and most debated, are: Lydia Goehr, The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works. An Essay in the Philosophy of Music (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992). Roman Ingarden, The Work of Music and the Problem of its Identity, ed. Jean G. Harrell, trans. Adam Czerniawski (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), and extensive collections of essays that investigate the interests, values and presumptions of culture and society with regard to Western classical and popular music, see The Musical Work: Reality or Invention? ed. Michael Talbot (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), and Music, Culture, and Society: A Reader, ed. Derek B. Scott (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), et. al.
(5.) Wittgenstein's pianistic debut, reviewed by Max Kalbeck in the Neues Wiener Tageblatt, took place on December 1, 1913. Together with the Wiener Tonkunstler Orchester under the direction of Oskar Nedbal, Wittgenstein performed: John Field, Concerto in A flat major, Felix Mendelssohn, Serenade for Piano and Orchestra, Josef Labor, Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Czerny, and Franz Liszt, Concerto in E-flat major.
(6.) Wittgenstein's vigorous involvement in reshaping the commissioned repertory elicited a vicissitude of responses from composers, none more fervently than the one he received from Maurice Ravel, see Georg Predota, "Badgering the Creative Genius: Paul Wittgenstein and the Prerogative of Musical Patronage," in Empty Sleeve, ed. Irene Suchy, Allan Janik, and Georg Predota (Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 2006) pp. 71-101.
(7.) For a concise summary of Vienna's cultural and artistic habits, see Carl Schorske, Fin-de-siecle Vienna: Politics and Culture (New York: Knopf, 1980). Additional background information with special reference and emphasis on the Wittgenstein family is provided by Irene Suchy, "Sein Werk--Die Musik des Produzenten-Musikers Paul Wittgenstein," in Empty Sleeve, pp. 13-36.
(8.) An insightful overview of the artistic strands that combined to produce the concept of the Wiener Werkstatte is given by Gabriele Fahr-Becker, Wiener Werkstatte 1903-1932 (Koln: Benedikt-Taschen Verlag, 1995).
(9.) The life-size painting of Margaret Wittgenstein, commissioned by her mother Leopoldine Kalmus to commemorate Margaret's wedding to Jerome Stonborough, is currently housed in the Neue Pinakotek in Munich. Recently, the Neue Galerie-Museum for German and Austrian Art in New York, as part of an exhibition devoted to Josef Hoffmann Interiors, exhibited the master bedroom from the Wittgenstein-Stonborough Berlin residence, see Josef Hoffmann: Interiors 1902-1913, ed. Christian Witt-Dorring (New York: Prestel, 2007). An initial attempt to illuminate and interpret the societal and humanitarian accomplishments of Margaret Wittgenstein-Stonborough appeared only in 2003, in Ursula Prokop, Margaret Stonborough-Wittgenstein. Bauherrin, Intellektuelle, Mazenin (Wien: Bohlau Verlag, 2003). Ursula Prokop also summarized the complex rapport between Margaret and Paul Wittgenstein, in "Paul Wittgenstein und Margaret Stonborough: Zur Komplexitat der geschwisterlichen Beziehungsgeflechte innerhalb der Familie Wittgenstein," in Empty Sleeve, pp. 45-52.
(10.) Quoted from Suchy, Empty Sleeve, p. 15.
(11.) Walter Werbeck, "Richard Strauss und Paul Wittgenstein: Zu den Klavierkonzerten fur die linke Hand Paregon zur Symphonia Domestica op. 73 und Panathenaenzug op. 74," in Osterreichische Musikzeitschrift 54, Heft 7/8 (1999), p. 20.
(12.) This unsigned review was reprinted in The New York Times (September 19, 1926).
(13.) Adolf Weissmann, "Berlin," Die Musik 18, Heft 3 (1925/26), p. 228. "It makes no sense to discuss this work, which the composer himself declared to be a mere appendage. This is especially true because during the last ten years, the number of Strauss appendages has exceeded the permissible. During his tenure as symphonic poet and opera composer, Strauss seemingly has lost the sense of architecture demanded by such pieces."
(14.) Stefan Weiss, "Einstimmige Ablehnung ist Ehrensache: Programm und Kunstlertrotz in Richard Strauss' Klavierkonzerten der 1920er Jahre," in Richard Strauss. Essays zu Leben und Werk, ed. Michael Heinemann, Matthias Herrmann, Stefan Weiss (Laaber: Laaber-Verlag 2002) p. 202. "It might be suggested that Strauss composed these works not only for, but also with the left hand."
(15.) Albert Sassmann, "... alles, was nur moglich ist, aufzufinden und auszugraben: Paul Wittgenstein und die Klavier-Sololiterature fur die linke Hand allein," in Empty Sleeve, p. 121. Sassmann provides a historiographical investigation of composing for piano left hand, a tradition that clearly does not begin nor end with Paul Wittgenstein. His soon to be published dissertation, which includes an extensive and far-reaching repertory index, will without doubt, become a standard reference work. Albert Sassmann, "Technik und Asthetik der Klaviermusik fur die Linke Hand Allein" [Ph.D. dissertation, Academia de Muzica "Gheorghe Dima" Cluj-Napoca, 2006].
(16.) This passage originates in a letter from Friedrich Wuhrer to Siegfried Rapp, and is quoted in Sassmann, Empty Sleeve, p. 119. "In Vienna, nobody takes Wittgenstein seriously. He is choleric, rich, nervous, impertinent, and utterly miserable as a pianist."
(17.) Ibid., p. 118. "I am deeply appalled and disappointed by Wittgenstein's playing. He is no pianist! Wittgenstein is merely a rich amateur who could afford to commission the most famous composers of his time ... "
(18.) Quoted from Jeremy Nicholas, Godowsky: The Pianist's Pianist (Hexham: Appian Publication & Recordings, 1989), p. 256.
(19.) The Octavian Society currently holds the photographic reproduction of the composer's autograph. This source confirms that Wittgenstein invested considerable time and effort in studying the piece, however, overwhelmed by some of the most technically challenging passages--which he initially deleted from the score --decided to drop the piece from his performing repertory.
(20.) Quoted from Ludwig Wittgenstein: Wittgenstein Familienbriefe, ed. Brian McGuinness (Wien: HolderPichler-Temsky, 1997) p. 91.
(21.) In his most recent publication, Walter Frisch excellently discussed how composers in the German-Austrian sphere relied, rejected or interpreted their musical, cultural and artistic heritage to participate in or reject the various streams of musical modernism. Walter Frisch, German Modernism: Music and the Arts (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005). It is worth remembering, however, that performers on behalf of specific composers, vigorously and sometimes militantly participated in this debate.
(22.) Jim Samson, Virtuosity and the Musical Work: The Transcendental Studies of Liszt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003). Much of the present day interest in performing studies and the concept of virtuosity, although seemingly restricted to English language scholarship, had already been formulated by Tomi Makela, "Virtuositat und Werkcharakter. Eine analytische und theoretische Untersuchung zur Virtuositat in den Klavierkonzerten der Hochromantik," Berliner Musikwissenschaftliche Arbeiten 37, ed. Carl Dahlhaus, Rudolf Stephan (Munchen: Katzbichler 1989).
(23.) This remark surfaces in a letter that Mrs. Erna Otten-Attermann, student of Wittgenstein's during the 1930's and 40's wrote to the pioneer of Paul Wittgenstein scholarship E. Fred Flindell. Quoted from E. Fred Flindell, "Paul Wittgenstein (1887-1961): Patron and Pianist," Music Review 32/2, (1971), p. 113.
(24.) Weissmann, "Berlin," p. 228. "With all due respect for Strauss, we must rank the admiration for his financial success over the quality of the work."
(25.) When Siegfried Rapp approached Wittgenstein in 1949/50 for a copy of the Paul Hindemith Klaviermusik mit Orchester and Benjamin Britten's Diversions on a Theme, Wittgenstein replied, "die Stucke sind von mir bestellt und honoriert (zu deutsch bezahlt), worden, nach heutigen Begriffen sogar maerchenhaft hoch bezahlt ... " These works were commissioned and, in plain English, paid for by myself; I dare say, I spent a pretty penny. Quoted from Giselher Schubert, "Hindemiths Klaviermusik mit Orchester fur Paul Wittgenstein: Eine Entdeckung mit Hindernissen," in Empty Sleeve, pp. 171-72.
(26.) Schubert, Empty Sleeve, p. 171. "I must flatly deny your request to perform the piano concertos that have been written for me." Wittgenstein himself never performed Paul Hindemith's Klaviermusik, Sergei Prokofiev's Piano Concerto No. 4, Norman Demuth's Piano Concerto or the Concert Piece by Alexander Tansman.
(27.) Ibid., p. 172. "You write, 'YOU are not interested for the Ravel Concerto to be played by another pianist,' whose name I have forgotten. You are not interested; you who have not commissioned nor paid for them, as if you would have some inalienable right. And now you would like to perform additional concertos which I have commissioned, and which I have paid for. I do not intend to recognize your claims of authority."
(28.) Hilde Schania allowed Fred Flindell access to the Wittgenstein Archive in the 1960's and his impressions are published in "Paul Wittgenstein (1887-1961): Patron and Pianist," in Music Review 32/2, (1971), pp. 107-27, "Ursprung und Geschichte der Sammlung Wittgenstein im 19. Jahrhundert," in Die Musikforschung 22 (1969), pp. 298-314, and "Dokumente aus der Sammlung Paul Wittgenstein," in Die Musikforschung 24/4 (1971), pp. 422-31.
(29.) Prior to auction, a scribal copy of the Hindemith Klaviermusik was privately sold by the Wittgenstein family to the Hindemith-Institute in Frankfurt/Main. The auction house divided the remaining Wittgenstein materials into individual lots and sold them separately, among them letters, postcards and photographs of Johannes Brahms, a photographic copy of the first version of the Diversions on a Theme by Benjamin Britten, an autograph musical quotation by Carl Czerny, two autograph letters from Erich Wolfgang Korngold to Paul Wittgenstein, letters and autograph manuscripts by Theodor Leschetizky, fifty musical manuscripts by Josef Labor, autograph and typed letters, as well as a scribal manuscript of the Fourth Piano Concerto by Sergei Prokofiev, autograph manuscripts by Moriz und Felix Rosenthal, letters by Franz Schmidt, Eduard Schutt, a handbill for a concert given by Clara Wieck, and autograph manuscripts by Robert Schumann, several musical drafts, a sketch book and letters by Richard Strauss, the autograph manuscript of the Concerto for Piano Left Hand by Karl Weigl, and the Music Archive and Library of Paul Wittgenstein. Sotheby's: Music including the Paul Wittgenstein Archive (London: Thursday 22 May 2003). A brief summary of the Wittgenstein Archive and Library appeared in: Georg Predota, "Paul Wittgenstein arrives in Hong Kong," in: Austria in and around the Pearl of the Orient, ed. Gordian Gaeta (Hong Kong: MCCM Creations, 2004), pp. 154-60.
(30.) The Octavian Society holds several sources related to the Parergon, among them: Two manuscript piano reductions by Otto Singer with alterations, modifications and performing instructions by Wittgenstein; The scribal manuscript of the piano-solo part, extensively annotated by Wittgenstein; Four ozalid reproductions of the scribal full score used as conducting scores throughout Wittgenstein's performing career in Europe and North America; Two complete sets of scribal manuscript orchestral parts, including the one used at the premier of the work in Dresden on 16. October 1925 under Fritz Busch, and two copies of a private printing by Waldheim-Eberle "Als Manuscript gedruckt," of Otto Singer's "Klavierauszug." With regard to the Panathenaenzug, the archive holds an autograph scribal score with extensive alterations and modifications by Wittgenstein; The Autograph scribal 2-piano reduction with performing instructions by Wittgenstein, and two complete complete sets of scribal manuscript orchestral parts, including the one used at the premier of the work in Berlin on 16 January 1928 under Bruno Walter.
(31.) Since this particular sketchbook passed directly from Richard Strauss to Paul Wittgenstein, it is not mentioned by Trenner, nor discussed in any other bibliographic or biographical content. This oblong music notebook, nine staves per page, is paginated throughout 1-48. It measures approximately 13 x 17.5 centimeters and is bound in limp, light-blue board with a taped red-cloth spine. A printed label on the front cover discloses that it was purchased from "Max Liebers Musikhaus, Freiburg in Breisgau." This type of pocket sketchbook, as described in Franz Trenner, Die Skizzenbucher von Richard Strauss (Tutzing: Schneider, 1977), p. V, is entirely consistent with the ones Strauss used during his Vienna years. Furthermore, the musical content suggests that the Parergon sketchbook might reasonably be situated between Tr. 61, which contains impressions gathered on his second journey to South America and Die schweigsame Frau, and Tr. 62, which contains the first known sketches for Helena. Ibid., pp. 74-75.
(32.) "For Paul Wittgenstein in memory of a sincerely devoted Dr Richard Strauss"
(33.) Timothy L. Jackson, "The Metamorphosis of the Metamorphosen: New Analytical and Source-Critical Discoveries," in Richard Strauss: New Perspectives on the Composer and His Work, ed. Bryan Gilliam (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992), pp. 193-241.
(34.) This table, along with table 2, summarizes the layout of the Parergon portions of the sketchbook. It provides relevant page numbers and the musical and thematic layout of individual systems along with projected performing forces. The sketchbook content is then compared to rehearsal numbers in the modern edition of the work, Richard Strauss Edition/Orchesterwerke: Konzerte und Konzertstucke II, vol. 23 (Frankfurt: Verlag Dr. Richard Strauss & Co. KG, 1999), which represents a reprint of the 1964 Hawkes & Son (London) edition. Finally, the table provides an overview of individual key-areas, and also presents some brief commentary with inscriptions in the hand of Richard Strauss reproduced in italics.
(35.) The Helena draft comprises twenty pages of an extended continuity draft in short score, running from page 11 to page 28. It extends from Helena's "Zweite Brautenacht" until Menelas "O susses Gebild zu truglicher Wonne." This draft, written in short score is continuous, but not always in order with Strauss frequently doubling back on himself. Most significant, however, is the appearance of an alternate sixteen-measure prelude for the second act, located on page 10. This Prelude, which differs completely from the published version, was destined to replace the four ink-measures originally drafted on page 11, with additional revisions for material originally drafted on page 11 entered on page 9. Together with Strauss's dedication page, the beginning of the Helena draft is reproduced in Sotheby's: Music including the Paul Wittgenstein Archive, p. 124.
(36.) Richard Strauss-Hugo von Hofmannsthal Briefwechsel, ed. Willi Schuh (Zurich: Atlantis Verlag 1952), p. 534. "I have just finished a piano concerto and I am beginning to engage with the second Act of Helena.
(37.) Gunter Brosche, "Ol und Butterschmalz: Beobachtungen zur Arbeitsweise von Richard Strauss anhand seiner ersten Skizzen im Rosenkavalier-Text," in Richard Strauss-Blatter Heft 35 (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, Juni 1996), pp. 25-34.
(38.) Walter Werbeck, "Richard Strauss und Paul Wittgenstein," p. 20.
(39.) In his sketch study on Richard Strauss's "Winterweihe," Tim Jackson, exploring the relationship between voice-leading and the meaning of the poetic text, provides compelling evidence that the gamut of compositional and musical techniques employed by Strauss serve the overriding "Geisterbrucken" metaphor, and that the rules of voice-leading guided and necessitated an extensive dialectic process of revision. Tim Jackson, "Richard Strauss' Winterweihe: An Analysis and Study of the Sketches," in Richard Strauss-Blatter Heft 17 (Tutzing: Hans Schneider Juni 1987,) pp. 28-60.
(40.) Norman Del pointed out the intervallic and rhythmic connection, see Del Mar, Richard Strauss: A Critical Commentary on his Life and Works (New York: Cornell University Press, 1969), vol. 2, pp. 286-7.
(41.) Stefan Weiss, "Einstimmige Ablehnung ist Ehrensache," p. 205.
(42.) The bottom systems of page 3 presents material that at once seems related to both the Parergon and the Agyptische Helena, although none of the drafts will eventually be taken over into the final version. It is not surprising that the auction catalogue describes this source, as "an anvil on which both works were forged." Sotheby's: Music including the Paul Wittgenstein Archive, p. 125.
(43.) Norman Del Mar identified this particular passage as "Soaring Melody," in Del Mar, Richard Strauss, p. 288.
(44.) Walter Werbeck, "Richard Strauss und Paul Wittgenstein," p. 20.
(45.) Richard Strauss-Hugo von Hofmannsthal Briefwechsel, p. 534.
(46.) Wittgenstein took a comparatively long time to study new pieces. His modus operandi is disclosed in a letter to Ernest Walker on May 4, 1933, after having received the Variations on an Original Theme for Pianoforte (left hand), Clarinet, Violin, Viola, and Violoncello. "I will begin at once with the learning of the piano part; as far as I could judge after only looking at it, I think I will be able to play it decently after a couple of months. The first part of studying, just to get through the whole thing, is rather quickly done, but after that I have always to leave it for some weeks, then work at it again, than again an interruption, and that always takes rather a long time. I can't work at the same composition without interruption for a very long time; or else it gets worse instead of better. I am only telling you that in order to explain why I want so long a time to study a comparatively short work." This letter is currently held at Balliol College, Oxford.
(47.) Reprinted in Arbie Orenstein, A Ravel Reader: Correspondence, Articles, Interviews (New York: Columbia University Press 1990), p. 594.
(48.) The Parergon sketchbook provides no indications that, prior to Wittgenstein's legal demand, Strauss envisioned any kind of extensive solo-passages for the piano.
(49.) This "Wallfahrt" alternate, in Strauss's hand, originates in a working manuscript for the Parergon. Together with annotations and revisions to the piano part by Wittgenstein, it was originally part of the Wittgenstein Nachlass, and auctioned by Sothey's. It is currently not held by the Octavian Society.
(50.) Sotheby's: Music including the Paul Wittgenstein Archive, p. 128.
(51.) This recording, produced by the Boston Records Company, was available under Boston B412, or alternately, Boston BST 1011.
(52.) In 1958, the Austrian Institute in New York invited Wittgenstein to lecture on his experiences as a left-hand pianist, and the resulting talk was published under the title Ueber einarmiges Klavierspiel (New York: Austrian Institute, Inc., 1959). For the published version, Wittgenstein provides, among other musical excerpts, the beginning of his left-hand arrangement of the "Wallfahrt" theme.
(53.) In the preface to his School for the Left Hand, published by Universal in 1957, which still represents the most comprehensive and exhaustive didactic instruction for left-hand pianists to date, Wittgenstein discloses other special techniques, including the simultaneous use of the third and fourth finger, and even the use of the fist for especially forceful accents.
(54.) Wittgenstein sought, in very similar language, to justify his alterations to the Ravel concerto. He writes to the composers, "I have in no way changed the essence of your work. I have only changed the instrumentation." Orenstein, A Ravel Reader, p. 594. The same justification must also have been at the center of his arrangement of the orchestral support for military band, specified for a performance of the Ravel concerto on January 3, 1943 at West Point under the baton of Captain Francis E. Resta.
(55.) The Octavian Society also holds a copy of this contract.
(56.) K. H. "Paul Wittgenstein Tells of Franz Schmidt, Who Dedicated Major Works to Him," Musical Courier, (December 1, 1939).
(57.) A photographic reproduction of this sketch leaf can be found in Sotheby's: Music including the Paul Wittgenstein Archive, p. 127. This leaf is briefly discussed in Werbeck, "Richard Strauss und Paul Wittgenstein," p. 20.
(58.) Reviews of the initial performances were not favorable, and soon colored the reception history of the work. Del Mar writes, "It is a curious, even perplexing work. In its proportions, its duration of nearly the half hour, its fantastic demands on the one-armed soloist who, as in the Parergon, rarely has a single bar's respite from his Herculean labours, it should rate as a major accomplishment in any composer's output. In the event, however, for all its ingenuity Panathenaenzug savours strongly of note-spinning." Del Mar, Richard Strauss, vol. 2, p. 294. However, Ulrich Konrad convincingly demonstrated that Strauss took considerable care, not only in his choice of programmatic subject but also in his musical craftsmanship. Konrad wholly dismisses the notion that Strauss, because he was working for an affluent and eccentric pianist, had somehow not given his best effort. Ulrich Konrad, "Passacaglia und Symphonische Dichtung. Der Panathenaenzug, op. 74 von Richard Stauss," in Das Klavierkonzert in Osterreich und Deutschland von 1900-1945, Schwerpunkt: Werke fur Paul Wittgenstein, ed. Carmen Ottner (Vienna: Doblinger, 2009) pp. 177-99.
(59.) In my essay "Badgering the Creative Genius," p. 97, I have suggested that Wittgenstein's 'version' more successfully conveyed and mediated an inherited concerto tradition by communicating a distinctly profiled alternation between orchestra and soloist. Wittgenstein's arrangement declared that tradition--at least the way he saw it pertaining to the concerto--was right, and Strauss wrong.
(60.) Mikhail Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981).
TABLE 1 Richard Strauss, Sketchbook to Parergon: Drafts for "Leiden" Parergon Musical Layout Richard Strauss Sketchbook and Contents Edition, vol. 23, 1999 p.1 Systems 1-3: From the Orchestral beginning to introduction- 5mm. after  Child Theme, Domestica System 4: Piano introduction- Incipit "Child Theme," Intermezzo p.2 Systems 1-2: From pick-up Piano transition- to  to 1m. Chromatic after  figuration Systems 2-3: Orchestra and Piano--"Child Theme," Domestica System 3: Piano/ Orchestra-"Child Theme," Intermezzo/ Child Theme, Domestica p.3 System 1: From 2mm. Orchestra + Piano- after  to Cadential passage; 4mm. Before accompaniment to  the "Recovery Theme" Systems 2 and 4: Agyptische Helena p.4 System 1-2: From 2mm. Orchestra/Piano- before  to "Child Theme," 1m. before  Domestica/ Introductory Figuration System 3: From  to 1m. Orchestra/Piano- after  "Child Theme," Intermezzo and Child Theme, Domestica, extension. System 4: From  to 1m. Piano--"Child after  Theme," Intermezzo System 4: Figuration From 3mm. After  to 4mm. after  p.5 System 1: Orchestra- Introductory Figuration System 2: From 2mm. Piano/Orchestra- after  to "Child Theme," 3mm. after  Intermezzo/ Child Theme, Domestica System 3: Piano- From 4mm. "Child Theme," (3rd beat of Intermezzo the measure) after  to 1m. after  (up to the 1st beat of the measure) System 4: [Orchestra]- Glocken in Munchen p.6 Systems 1-4: From 1m. Piano--Chromatic after  to figuration, 3mm. after  Child Theme, Intermezzo p.7 Systems 1-2: From 1m. after Piano--"Child  to  Theme," From pick-up Domestica, to  to extension 1m. after  System 3: Orchestra-- Child Theme, Intermezzo p.8 System 1: From 1m. Orchestra-- after  to Extension of 1m. before  the "Recovery Theme" System 1: "Coda" insertion System 2: Piano From pick-up to and Orchestra- 2 mm. After Recovery Theme,  to 2mm. extension before  System 3: Piano From approximately and Orchestra- 1m. Before Recovery Theme,  to 2mm. extension before  Parergon Musical Layout Key Area(s) Sketchbook and Contents p.1 Systems 1-3: F sharp minor Orchestral introduction- Child Theme, Domestica System 4: Piano introduction- Incipit "Child Theme," Intermezzo p.2 Systems 1-2: F sharp minor; Piano transition- modulating Chromatic figuration Systems 2-3: Orchestra and Piano--"Child Theme," Domestica System 3: Piano/ Orchestra-"Child Theme," Intermezzo/ Child Theme, Domestica p.3 System 1: F sharp major Orchestra + Piano- Cadential passage; accompaniment to the "Recovery Theme" Systems 2 and 4: Agyptische Helena p.4 System 1-2: F sharp minor; Orchestra/Piano- modulating "Child Theme," Domestica/ Introductory Figuration System 3: Orchestra/Piano- "Child Theme," Intermezzo and Child Theme, Domestica, extension. System 4: Piano--"Child Theme," Intermezzo System 4: Figuration p.5 System 1: F sharp minor; Orchestra- modulating; Introductory Figuration System 2: Piano/Orchestra- "Child Theme," Intermezzo/ Child Theme, Domestica System 3: Piano- "Child Theme," Intermezzo System 4: C major [Orchestra]- Glocken in Munchen p.6 Systems 1-4: F sharp minor Piano--Chromatic figuration, Child Theme, Intermezzo p.7 Systems 1-2: F sharp major Piano--"Child Theme," Domestica, extension System 3: Orchestra-- Child Theme, Intermezzo p.8 System 1: F sharp major Orchestra-- Extension of the "Recovery Theme" System 1: "Coda" insertion System 2: Piano G major and Orchestra- Recovery Theme, extension System 3: Piano and Orchestra- Recovery Theme, extension Parergon Musical Layout Remarks Sketchbook and Contents p.1 Systems 1-3: Strauss Orchestral Title, Leiden introduction- und Genesung Child Theme, Continuity Domestica draft with System 4: Piano written introduction- instructions Incipit "Child and procedural, Theme," structural Intermezzo symbols. p.2 Systems 1-2: Continuity Piano transition- draft with Chromatic alternate figuration piano transition, Systems 2-3: written Orchestra and instructions and Piano--"Child notational Theme," Domestica abbreviations. System 3: Piano/ Orchestra-"Child Theme," Intermezzo/ Child Theme, Domestica p.3 System 1: Continuity draft Orchestra + Piano- terminates with a Cadential passage; cadence in F sharp accompaniment to major and incipit the "Recovery for the "Recovery Theme" Section." Systems 2 and 4: Agyptische Helena p.4 System 1-2: Continuity draft Orchestra/Piano- of the transition; "Child Theme," the material on the Domestica/ first system, Introductory does not appear Figuration in the published System 3: version. Orchestra/Piano- "Child Theme," Intermezzo and Child Theme, Domestica, extension. System 4: Piano--"Child Theme," Intermezzo System 4: Figuration p.5 System 1: Draft, doubling Orchestra- back via symbol Introductory to p.4 system 4. Figuration Continuity draft System 2: of the transition; Piano/Orchestra- ending with Glocken "Child Theme," in Munchen not Intermezzo/ taken over in the Child Theme, final version. Domestica System 3: Piano- "Child Theme," Intermezzo System 4: [Orchestra]- Glocken in Munchen p.6 Systems 1-4: Continuity draft Piano--Chromatic of the piano figuration, solo part; Child Theme, "Recovery Intermezzo Theme" still missing. p.7 Systems 1-2: Continuity Piano--"Child draft of piano Theme," solo part Domestica, continues from extension p.6. Final measures System 3: connecting back Orchestra-- to p.4. Strauss's Child Theme, inscription Intermezzo Coda, Fis dur and Espres. Tutti Orch. p.8 System 1: Strauss's Orchestra-- inscription Extension of Orchester u. the "Recovery dann Coda, Theme" System 1: "Coda" G dur insertion System 2: Piano Continuity and Orchestra- draft with Recovery Theme, alternate extension transition and passages; Strauss inscription oder System 3: Piano Continuity and Orchestra- draft with Recovery Theme, alternate extension passages, and Strauss's inscriptions nach dem Hohepunkt, and Beginn der Krisis. TABLE 2 Richard Strauss, Sketchbook to Parergon: Drafts for "Genesung" Parergon Musical Layout Richard Key Area(s) Sketchbook and Contents Strauss Edition, vol. 23, 1999 p.48 System 1: Unstable "Recovery Theme" and Child Theme, Domestica System 2: "Child Theme," Domestica System 3-4: "Recovery Theme" and Train Schedule p.47 System 1: Orchestra or Piano?- Recovery Theme Systems 3-4: From 3mm. after F major Orchestra or  to 2mm. Piano?- before  Recovery Theme and "Wallfahrt;" Piano-- Recovery Theme p.46 Systems 1-4: From 4mm. after F major Orchestra-  to 2mm. "Wallfahrt" after  p.45 Systems 1-3: From pick-up F major Nachsatz to  System 4: to  From incomplete approximately "Child Theme," 2mm. before Domestica  to 1m. and "Recovery after  Theme" System 5: From 2mm. "Child Theme," before  Intermezzo, to 1m. "Recovery Theme" After  and "Child Theme," Domestica p.44 System 1: From  to F Major Piano--"Child 4mm. After Theme,"  Intermezzo; "Recovery Theme" System 2: "Nachsatz" and "Child Theme," Intermezzo System 3: Insertion: "Wallfahrt Variant" and "Child Theme," Domestica System 4: "Child Theme," Domestica, "Nachsatz" and "Child Theme," Intermezzo System 5: "Nachsatz," "Child Theme," Intermezzo and "Child Theme," Domestica p.43 Systems 1-4: From 4mm. F Major Orchestra/ before  Piano- to 5mm. Wallfahrt After  Variant and Orchestra- "Nachsatz" p.42 Systems 1-3: From 6mm. F major Orchestra- after  "Nachsatz" to  System 4: Orchestra or Piano?- "Wallfahrt Variant" p.41 Systems 1-2: From pick-up to F major Orchestra-  to "Child Theme," approximately Domestica 1m. after  System 3: From  Orchestra-- to 1m. Before "Recovery  Theme" System 4: Orchestra and/or Piano?-- "Child Theme," Domestica p.40 Systems 1-3: F major Piano or Orchestra?- "Wallfahrt Variant" and "Child Theme," Domestica p.39 System 1: From 1m. F major Orchestra-- after  Recovery Theme to 3mm. System 2: after  Orchestra-- "Recovery Theme" and "Child Theme," Intermezzo Systems 3-4: Orchestra-- "Child Theme," Domestica p.38 System 1: From pick-up F major Orchestra-- to 2mm. Nachsatz and after  "Child Theme," Domestica System 2: to  Orchestra-- "Child Theme," Intermezzo and Incipit "Recovery Theme" System 3: Orchestra-- Incipit "Recovery Theme" p.37 System 1: From 2mm. F major Orchestra-- after  "Wallfahrt to 3mm. Variant" before Systems 2-3:  Orchestra- "Nachsatz" System 4: Orchestra- "Nachsatz", continuation p.36 Systems 1-4: From 8mm. F major Piano-- before  "Wallfahrt to 1m. Variant" after  p.35 Systems 1-2: From 2mm. F major Orchestra- before  "Recovery to 4mm. after Theme,"  extension System 2: Orchestra-- "Child Theme," Domestica, "Child Theme," Intermezzo and "Nachsatz" System 3: Orchestra-- "Child Theme," Intermezzo and "Nachsatz" System 4: Orchestra-- "Child Theme," Intermezzo p.34 Systems 1-3: From 6mm. after F sharp Orchestra--  to 3mm. major "Child Theme," after  Intermezzo F sharp major and "Wallfahrt" p.33 Systems 1-2: From 3mm. after F major Orchestra--  to 1m. "Child Theme," after  Domestica p.32 Systems 1-2: From 3mm. F sharp Orchestra- after  to major "Wallfahrt" 2mm. before  System 2: From 1m. Before F major Orchestra-  to 5mm. "Wallfahrt" Before  Systems 2-3: From 4mm. before F major Orchestra/  to 5mm. Piano- before  "Recovery (pick-up at Theme" the end of "Recovery system 2) Theme" p.31 System 1: From approximately F major Orchestra-- 4mm. Before "Recovery  to Theme" 5mm. Before Systems 2-4:  Orchestra-- "Child Theme," Intermezzo p.30 Systems 1-4: From upbeat F major Orchestra-- to  to 5mm. "Child Theme," after  Domestica and "Child Theme," Intermezzo p.29 Systems 1-2: From 6mm. Orchestra-- after  to "Child Theme," 3mm. after  Intermezzo Systems 3-4: From  to F major Orchestra- the end "Recovery Theme Fragment," "Wallfahrt Variant" and "Nachsatz" Parergon Musical Layout Remarks Sketchbook and Contents p.48 System 1: Musical "Recovery miscellanea Theme" and of early Child Theme, continuity Domestica draft System 2: for alternate "Child connection Theme," between Domestica Leiden and System 3-4: "Genesung." "Recovery Theme" and Train Schedule p.47 System 1: Miscellanea Orchestra drafts for or Piano?- "Recovery Theme" Recovery including Theme alternate Systems 3-4: connection Orchestra or between "Leiden" Piano?- and "Genesung" Recovery Theme sections indicated and "Wallfahrt;" by Coda and musical Piano-- continuity Recovery via Seite 43. Theme p.46 Systems 1-4: Continuity draft Orchestra- of the "Wallfahrt "Wallfahrt" Section." Inscribed Wallfahrt. The musical material continues on p.47, end of system 3. p.45 Systems 1-3: Continuity draft Nachsatz of an early System 4: version of the incomplete Nachsatz. Strauss "Child Theme," begins this draft Domestica on system 5, and "Recovery continues via Theme" an insert on System 5: system 4, and "Child Theme," indicates a Intermezzo, connection to "Recovery Theme" Seite 39. and "Child Theme," Domestica p.44 System 1: Overlapping Piano--"Child Nachsatz, shared Theme," between p.38 Intermezzo; and p.44. Strauss "Recovery Theme" writes Seite 38 System 2: and Engfuhrung "Nachsatz" and mit N. Alternate "Child Theme," canceled passages. Intermezzo System 3: Insertion: "Wallfahrt Variant" and "Child Theme," Domestica System 4: "Child Theme," Domestica, "Nachsatz" and "Child Theme," Intermezzo System 5: "Nachsatz," "Child Theme," Intermezzo and "Child Theme," Domestica p.43 Systems 1-4: Extensive continuity Orchestra/ draft of the first Piano- "Wallfahrt Variant Wallfahrt Section in F." The Variant and musical material Orchestra- on this page "Nachsatz" continues on p.42. p.42 Systems 1-3: Continuity draft of Orchestra- "Symphonic "Nachsatz" Development," connecting to p.41 System 4: via ++ and to Seite Orchestra or 40. Page includes Piano?- written instructions "Wallfahrt about modulation Variant" sequence, stretto and performance, nach Gis moll, dann nach H moll, Coda, and Cis, dann Engfuhrung mit Cis and Grosses Diminuendo auf Cis p.41 Systems 1-2: Miscellanea page, Orchestra- including "Symphonic "Child Theme," Development; The Domestica musical content in systems 1-2 represents an early draft of material seen on p.30. System 3: The musical content Orchestra-- in system 3 follows "Recovery the musical content Theme" in system 3 on p.42, as indicated by a sign ++ in Strauss's hand. After System 4: the double bar at the Orchestra end of system 4, and/or Strauss writes Piano?-- Triumphale and "Child Theme," Stretta. Domestica p.40 Systems 1-3: Alternate continuity Piano or draft for "Symphonic Orchestra?- Development," Strauss "Wallfahrt indicating G moll and Variant" and substitute passages "Child Theme," with oder. Domestica p.39 System 1: Continuity draft Orchestra-- of the "Symphonic Recovery Theme Development". Strauss System 2: reverses the Orchestra-- direction of the "Recovery sketches by leading Theme" and p.38 into p.39. "Child Theme," Intermezzo Systems 3-4: Orchestra-- "Child Theme," Domestica p.38 System 1: Continuity draft Orchestra-- of the "Symphonic Nachsatz and Development." The "Child Theme," musical content Domestica continues on p.39, as System 2: indicated by an Orchestra-- [right arrow] inscribed "Child Theme," by Strauss. Overlapping Intermezzo "Nachsatz" shared and Incipit between p.38 and p.44. "Recovery Theme" System 3: Orchestra-- Incipit "Recovery Theme" p.37 System 1: Extensive continuity Orchestra-- draft of the "Wallfahrt "Wallfahrt Variant Variant" Section." Strauss Systems 2-3: reverses the direction Orchestra- of the sketches by "Nachsatz" leading p.36 into p.37. System 4: Orchestra- "Nachsatz", continuation p.36 Systems 1-4: Extensive continuity Piano-- draft of the "Wallfahrt "Wallfahrt Variant Section." The Variant" musical material continues on p.37. p.35 Systems 1-2: Continuity draft Orchestra- of the Stretta, "Recovery combing three Theme," extension System 2: themes and leading Orchestra-- into the F sharp "Child Theme," major "Wallfahrt Domestica, Section." "Child Theme," Intermezzo and "Nachsatz" System 3: The musical material Orchestra-- continues on p.34. "Child Theme," Intermezzo and "Nachsatz" System 4: Orchestra-- "Child Theme," Intermezzo p.34 Systems 1-3: Stretta; Continuity Orchestra-- draft of the F sharp "Child Theme," major "Wallfahrt Intermezzo Section." The musical and "Wallfahrt" material on this page continues on p.32 p.33 Systems 1-2: This passage follows Orchestra-- the musical material "Child Theme," on p.29, systems 1-2. Domestica Strauss indicates the continuation through matching symbols. p.32 Systems 1-2: Extensive continuity Orchestra- draft of the F sharp "Wallfahrt" major "Wallfahrt System 2: Section" modulating to Orchestra- the final F major "Wallfahrt" section. The musical Systems 2-3: material on this page Orchestra/ continues on p.31. Piano- "Recovery Theme" "Recovery Theme" p.31 System 1: Extensive continuity Orchestra-- draft of the "Recovery transition to Theme" the coda. The musical Systems 2-4: material on this page Orchestra-- continues on p.30. "Child Theme," Intermezzo p.30 Systems 1-4: Extensive continuity Orchestra-- draft of the transition "Child Theme," to the coda. The musical Domestica material on this page and "Child continues on p.29. Theme," Intermezzo p.29 Systems 1-2: Continuity draft of the Orchestra-- transition to the coda; "Child Theme," Strauss indicates Intermezzo connection to Seite 33. Systems 3-4: Final measures of the Orchestra- coda; cadential and "Recovery motivic passages. Theme Fragment," "Wallfahrt Variant" and "Nachsatz"
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Fontes Artis Musicae|
|Date:||Apr 1, 2014|
|Previous Article:||Digital opera and ballet: a case study of international collaboration.|
|Next Article:||Le fonds Adolphe Jullien conserve a la bibliotheque historique de la ville de Paris.|