Danish Classical Music
Edition·S music¬sound¬art
DALBERG
Scherzo op. 6 for strygeorkester / for string orchestra (1914)
Partitur / Score
Kritisk udgave ved / Critical edition by Bendt Viinholt Nielsen
Copenhagen 2024
Nancy Dalberg: Scherzo op. 6
Kritisk udgave ved / Critical edition by Bendt Viinholt Nielsen
DCM Editor-in-chief: Thomas Husted Kirkegaard © 2024 Edition·S
Editorial assistant: Ole Ugilt Jensen
Music engraving: Ole Ugilt Jensen
Cover design: Tobias Røder
Layout: Rudiger Meyer
Udarbejdet og udgivet med støte fra Augustinus Fonden / Prepared and published with support from The Augustinus Foundation
Edition·S | music¬sound¬art
Worsaaesvej 19, 5th floor
DK–1972 Frederiksberg
Denmark https://edition-s.dk/
Edition·S’s virksomhed støttes af Statens Kunstfond / Edition·S is supported by The Danish Arts Foundation.
DCM 061
ISBN 978-87-970723-6-3
ISMN 979-0-706839-18-9
Varighed / Duration: 11 min.
Indhold / Contents
Danish Classical Music iv Biografi / Biography v Forord / Preface vi Faksimiler / Facsimiles viii
Scherzo op. 6 11
Abbreviations 24
Critical Commentary 25
Danish Classical Music
Udgivelsesserien Danish Classical Music (DCM) har til formål at tilgængeliggøre dansk musikalsk kulturarv i pålidelige og gennemarbejdede praktisk-videnskabelige nodeeditioner for musikere og forskere i ind- og udland. Således er ambitionen at overtage stafeten fra Dansk Center for Musikudgivelse, som opererede som et forskningscenter under Det Kgl. Bibliotek, 2009-2019. Centeret udgav praktisk-videnskabelige editioner af høj filologisk kvalitet, og siden lukningen af centeret er denne opgave ikke blevet varetaget – men behovet er ikke blevet mindre.
Mens Dansk Center for Musikudgivelse fungerede som et center med ansate medarbejdere er forholdene for det nye DCM anderledes: Her er tale om selvstændige og individuelt finansierede projekter under DCM-paraplyen. Derfor er der ikke blevet udarbejdet et nyt sæt redaktionelle retningslinjer – i stedet videreføres de retningslinjer, som blev formuleret af Dansk Center for Musikudgivelse. De eneste ændringer fra retningslinjerne er layoutmæssige, og så er der i DCM-udgivelserne tilføjet en kort biografisk introduktion til komponisten.
De redaktionelle retningslinjer sikrer udgivelsernes høje og konsistente editionsfilologiske niveau og grundindstillingen til udgivelsesarbejdet kan sammenfates i nogle få, centrale punkter.
Om “praktisk-videnskabelige editioner”
Med begrebet “praktisk-videnskabelige editioner” sigtes der til, at udgivelserne skal være praktisk anvendelige for musikere, uden at musikerne nødvendigvis skal forholde sig til redaktørens arbejde og filologiske overvejelser. Derfor er selve nodesiden “ren” og uden fodnoter eller lignende. Samtidig er udgivelserne videnskabelige, idet interesserede læsere kan finde den nødvendige information om det editionsfilologiske arbejde i tekstdele placeret før og efter nodedelen: Før nodedelen bringes en introduktion til værket, dets tilblivelses- og receptionshistorie samt generelle kommentarer til det filologiske arbejde (eksempelvis nogle særlige udfordringer eller valg); efter nodedelen følger en grundig kildebeskrivelse og en oversigt over redaktionelle ændringer, deres begrundelse i kilderne samt information om varianter.
Om redaktørens rolle
Som James Grier skriver i bogen The Critical Editing of Music fra 1996, så er al editionsfilologisk arbejde også et fortolkningsarbejde, ideelt set baseret på grundige, kritiske og historisk forankrede studier af kildematerialet. Idéen om at den videnskabelige edition videregiver den “eneste rigtige” version af værket er en fiktion: Ofte vil redaktører komme frem til varierende udlægninger af et værk, og ofte kan der argumenteres lige godt for den ene læsning som den anden. Det er derfor vigtigt at bevæggrunden for de enkelte valg er tydeliggjort i oversigten over redaktionelle retelser.
I serien undgås såkaldte “eklektiske” editioner, en sammenblanding af forskellige kilder, der kan resultere i en version af værket, der aldrig har eksisteret fra komponistens hånd. Der bestemmes derfor altid en hovedkilde, som editionen er baseret på, mens varianter kan bruges som hjemmel ved retelser af klare fejl.
Thomas Husted Kirkegaard, ph.d.
Danish Classical Music
The publication series Danish Classical Music (DCM) aims to make Danish musical heritage accessible for musicians and researchers in Denmark and abroad by providing reliable and meticulous practical-scholarly music editions. The ambition is thus to take over the baton from the Danish Centre for Music Publication which operated as a research centre under the Royal Library from 2009 to 2019. The centre published practical-scholarly editions of high philological quality, and since the closure of the centre, this task has not been undertaken – but the need has not diminished.
While the Danish Centre for Music Publication functioned as a centre with dedicated employees, the conditions for the new DCM are different: it comprises of independent projects funded individually under the DCM framework. Therefore, a new set of editorial guidelines has not been developed – instead, the guidelines formulated by the Danish Centre for Music Publication are being sustained. The only changes to the guidelines relate to layout, and in DCM publications a brief biographical introduction of the composer is added.
The editorial guidelines ensure a high and consistent level of philological quality in the publications, and the fundamental editorial approach can be summarized in a few key points.
On “practical-scholarly editions”
The term “practical-scholarly editions” refers to the aim of making the publications practically useful for musicians without requiring them to engage directly with the editor’s work and philological considerations. The sheet music is therefore “clean”, without footnotes or similar additions. At the same time, the publications are scholarly in nature, as interested readers can find the necessary information about the philological work in sections placed before and after the sheet music: Prior to the sheet music, there is an introduction to the work, its genesis and reception history, as well as general comments on the philological work (such as specific challenges or choices). After the sheet music, a thorough description of sources and an overview of editorial changes, their justification based on the sources, and information about variants are presented.
On the role of the editor
As James Grier writes in his book The Critical Editing of Music from 1996, all philological work is also an act of interpretation, ideally based on thorough, critical, and historically grounded studies of the source material. The notion that the scholarly edition presents the “only correct” version of a work is a fiction: Editors often arrive at varying interpretations of a piece, and equally compelling arguments can often be made for different readings. Therefore, it is important to clarify the rationale behind each choice in the overview of editorial revisions.
The series avoids so-called “eclectic” editions, which involve a mixture of different sources and may result in a version of the work that never existed in the composer’s hand. Therefore, a primary source is always determined as the basis for the edition, while variants can be used as evidence for correcting clear errors.
Thomas Husted Kirkegaard, Ph.D
Biografi
Nancy Dalberg (1881-1949) blev født Nancy Hansen i 1881 på godset Bødstrup i nærheden af Slagelse. Hendes far, Christian D.A. Hansen (1843-1916), var en særdeles succesfuld forretningsmand, der udviklede produkter til mejeribranchen, og Dalberg voksede derfor op i en familie, hvor der ikke manglede økonomiske ressourcer. I 1882 flytede familien ind på det nyerhvervede gods Mullerup på Sydfyn, hvor Dalberg voksede op. I 1901, da hun var 17 år gammel, blev hun gift med ingeniørofficeren og portrætmaleren Erik Dalberg (18751945). Hun modtog klaverundervisning af én af tidens mest anerkendte klaverlærere, Ove Christiansen (1856-1909), og i 1909-11 studerede hun komposition hos den norske komponist Johan Svendsen (1840-1911). Hun var formentlig også elev af komponisten Fini Henriques (1867-1940) før hun i 1913 blev elev af tidens helt store musiknavn, Carl Nielsen (1865-1931). Igennem tiden udviklede Dalberg og Nielsen et tætere professionelt forhold, og Nielsen dirigerede eller medvirkede som violinist i opførelsen af adskillige af hendes værker. Han bad hende også hjælpe med at instrumentere sine værker Alladin og Fynsk Foraar Dalberg fik opført en række sange i 1911, og hendes første strygekvartet blev opført i hendes hjem – med Carl Nielsen på violin – i 1914, men hendes egentlige offentlige debut som komponist kom i 1915, hvor hun holdt en såkaldt kompositionskoncert i Odd Fellow Palæet, kun med hendes værker på programmet. Hun holdt endnu en kompositionskoncert i 1918 og en tredje i 1922. Ved disse koncerter blev blandt andet hendes strygekvarteter, sange og flere orkesterværker – ikke mindst symfonien – opført. Generelt blev Dalbergs musik modtaget godt, men anmelderne undlod sjældent at kommentere på hendes køn, ofte fordi de var overraskede over, at en kvinde kunne komponere så godt.
I vinterhalvåret 1922-23 havde hun et ophold i Algeriet, fordi hun var plaget af helbredsproblemer, blandt andet gigtsmerter. Her blev hun inspireret af nomadefolkets musik og nedskrev melodier, der siden blev til værket Arabisk Musik fra Sahara Efter hjemkomsten begyndte hun at komponere en opera over Selma Lägerlöfs (1858-1940) Gösta Berlings Saga, men da Lägerlöf allerede havde givet italienske Riccardo Zandonai (1883-1944) tilladelse til at komponere en opera over denne historie, måte Dalberg opgive det – dog efterlod hun sig sangen Marianna Sinclairs Sang fra dete arbejde.
I 1929 afholdt Dalberg sin ferde og i 1937 sin sidste kompositionskoncert. Stilmæssigt bevægede Dalberg sig fra det senromantiske og ind i det moderne. I hendes musik findes både svungne, romantiske melodier og korte, repetitive motiver. Sidstnævnte træk blev af samtidens anmeldere ofte kritiseret men kan også høres som en moderne kvalitet i Dalbergs musik.
Biography
Nancy Dalberg (1881 – 1949) was born Nancy Hansen in 1881 at the estate of Bødstrup near Slagelse. Her father, Christian D.A. Hansen (1843 – 1916), was a highly successful businessman who developed products for the dairy industry, meaning that Dalberg grew up in a family with no lack of financial resources. In 1882, the family moved to the newly acquired estate of Mullerup in South Funen, where Dalberg grew up.
In 1901, at the age of 17, she married the engineering officer and portrait painter Erik Dalberg (1875 – 1945). She received piano lessons from one of the most renowned piano teachers of the time, Ove Christiansen (1856 – 1909), and from 1909 to 1911 studied composition with the Norwegian composer Johan Svendsen (1840 – 1911). She was presumably also a student of the composer Fini Henriques (1867–1940) before, in 1913, becoming a student of the most prominent Danish musician of the time, Carl Nielsen (1865 – 1931). Over time, Dalberg and Nielsen developed a closer professional relationship, and Nielsen conducted or participated as a violinist in the performance of several of her works. He also asked her to help orchestrate his works Aladdin and Springtime on Funen
Dalberg had several of her songs performed in 1911, and her first string quartet was performed at her home – with Carl Nielsen on violin – in 1914, but her true public debut as a composer came in 1915 when she held a so-called composition concert at the Odd Fellow Palace in Copenhagen, with only her works on the programme. She held another composition concert in 1918 and a third in 1922. At these concerts, her string quartets, songs, and several orchestral works – most notably the symphony – were performed. Generally, Dalberg’s music was well received, but critics rarely failed to comment on her gender, often surprised that a woman was able to compose so well.
During the winter of 1922 – 23, she took up residence in Algeria due to health problems, amongst them arthritis. Here, she was inspired by the music of nomadic people and wrote down melodies, which later became the work Arabic Music from the Sahara. Upon her return, she began composing an opera based on Selma Lagerlöf’s (1858 – 1940) Gösta Berling’s Saga, but since Lagerlöf had already granted the Italian composer Riccardo Zandonai (1883 – 1944) permission to compose an opera on this story, Dalberg had to give it up – however the song Marianna Sinclair’s Song remains from this work.
In 1929, Dalberg held her fourth composition concert, and in 1937, her last. Stylistically, Dalberg moved from the late romantic and into the modern. In her music, one finds both sweeping, romantic melodies and short, repetitive motifs. The later feature was often criticized by contemporary critics but can also be heard as a modern quality in Dalberg’s music.
Forord
Nancy Dalbergs Scherzo for strygeorkester blev til i 1914 og blev uropført ved komponistens “Kompositions-Aften” den 8. november 1915 i Odd Fellow Palæets Mindre Sal. Det var Dalbergs første offentlige fremtræden som komponist. Her opførtes Strygekvartet Nr. 1 i d-mol, en række sange, to stykker for cello og klaver samt til slut Scherzo for strygeorkester, fremført af “et mindre Strygeorkester” under ledelse af Carl Nielsen. Det var ikke hverdagskost, at en 34-årig, kvindelig komponist debuterede med et fuldt og ambitiøst koncertprogram. Flere københavnske kritikere tog i deres anmeldelser udgangspunkt i dete faktum, men ingen af dem var helt overbevist om, at en kvindelig komponist alene kunne løfte en hel aftens program. “Musikhistorien kan ikke opvise en kvindelig Komponist af Betydning. Men maaske vil ogsaa dete Forhold efterhaanden undergaa Forandringer”, noterede Social-Demokraten 1 Det blev ifølge Politikens Axel Kjerulf “en meget lang og ret anstrengende Koncert”. 2 Kjerulf mente, at Nancy Dalberg havde slået et for stort brød op, og at hun havde stået sig bedre ved at vælge et mere beskedent program: “Thi det, der var af godt og dygtigt, druknede i en fortvivlende Masse Ligegyldighed. Man kan vanskeligt en hel Aften sidde og beundre en Dames energiske Skrivefærdighed, og maa trætes unægtelig af disse mange Tilløb, som kun i faa Tilfælde fører til Maalet, endda dete Maal laa et Sted ude i det Blaa – ingen kunde rigtig finde hvor!”. Kjerulf var den absolut mest negative blandt de hele syv tilstedeværende københavnske dagbladsanmeldere. De fleste anslog en mere imødekommende, om end tidstypisk, tone: “Der er det gode ved Fru Dalberg, at hun er lidet sentimental, lidet kvindagtig i sin Musik. Hun skriver løs med en behagelig Frejdighed og faar ofte noget ret originalt ud af sine Kompositioner”, læste man i København 3 En af de få kvinder blandt tidens musikanmeldere, Hedevig Quiding, indledte sin anmeldelse i Folkets Avis således: “Det største Kompliment, man kan give den iaftes […] debuterende unge Nancy Dalberg er, at hun ikke er Spor af kvindagtig i sin Musik. I og for sig kunde ligesaa godt en Mand have skrevet disse Ting”. 4
Den forbeholdne Axel Kjerulf kaldte Scherzo for strygeorkester for “kvik og klangfuld”, og Hedevig Quiding mente, den var “helt fikst gjort”. Kun Nationaltidendes Gustav Hetsch ofrede lidt mere spalteplads på værket:
[…] gode Egenskaber besad [ligeledes] den “Scherzo” for Strygeorkester, der slutede Aftenen, og som Fruens Lærer, Hr. Carl Nielsen personlig dirigerede. Det var tilmed et godt opbygget, morsomt tænkt og dygtigt gennemført Stykke Musik, der indenfor sin knappe Form rummede velafbalancerede Kontrastvirkninger. Det var kun rimeligt, at denne Scherzo gjorde stor Lykke, saa megen, at Komponistinden selv maatte vise sig. 5
Et noget større strygeorkester var til rådighed den 14. marts 1918 i Odd Fellow-Palæets Store Sal ved “Fru Nancy Dalbergs og Frk. Agnethe Tobiesen[s] Orkester-Koncert under Direktion af Komponisten Carl Nielsen”. 6 Afslutningsvis opførtes Eugen d’Alberts Klaverkoncert nr. 2 op. 12 med Agnethe Tobiesen som solist, mens første del af programmet var helliget Nancy Dalbergs kompositioner. Først Symfoni i cis-mol, dernæst to mindre stykker: Scherzo
1 Usigneret, Social-Demokraten 8.11.1915.
2 “Ax. K.” (Axel Kjerulf), Politiken 9.11.1915.
3 “S.A.” (Sophus Andersen), København 9.11.1915.
4 “Hedevig Quiding”, Folkets Avis (København) 10.11.1915.
5 “–st–ts–.” (Gustav Hetsch), Nationaltidende 9.11.1915 Enslydende, men usigneret i Dagbladet (København) samme dag.
6 Koncertprogram, Det Kgl. Bibliotek, Danske Afdeling (Småtryk).
Preface
Nancy Dalberg’s Scherzo for string orchestra was writen in 1914 and premiered at the composer’s “Composition Evening” on 8 November 1915 in the Small Hall of the Odd Fellow Palace. It was Dalberg’s first public appearance as a composer. The performance included the String Quartet No. 1 in D minor, a series of songs, two pieces for cello and piano and finally the Scherzo for string orchestra, performed by “a small string orchestra” conducted by Carl Nielsen.
It was not a common occurrence for a 34-year-old female composer to debut with a full and ambitious concert programme. Several Copenhagen critics took this as a starting point in their reviews, but none of them were entirely convinced that a female composer alone could carry off an entire evening’s programme. “Music history cannot exhibit a female composer of importance. But perhaps this situation will also gradually undergo changes”, noted Social-Demokraten. 1 According to Politiken’s Axel Kjerulf, it was “a very long and rather strenuous concert”. 2 Kjerulf believed that Nancy Dalberg had set the bar too high and that she would have done beter by choosing a more modest programme: “Because what was good and skilful was drowned in a discouraging mass of indifference. One can hardly sit for a whole evening admiring a lady’s energetic writing skills, and one must undeniably get tired of these many atempts, which only in a few cases lead to the goal, and even this goal lay somewhere out in the blue – no one could really find where!” Kjerulf was by far the most negative of the seven Copenhagen newspaper reviewers present. Most of them adopted a more welcoming, albeit typical, tone: “The good thing about Mrs Dalberg is that she is not overly sentimental, not particularly feminine in her music. She writes freely with an agreeable freedom and often gets something quite original out of her compositions”, one read in København. 3 One of the few women among the music critics of the time, Hedevig Quiding, began her review in Folkets Avis as follows: “The greatest compliment one can give to tonight’s […] debuting young Nancy Dalberg is that there is no trace of the feminine in her music. In and of itself, a man could just as well have written these things”. 4
The reserved Axel Kjerulf called the Scherzo for string orchestra “quick and sonorous”, and Hedevig Quiding thought it was “quite cleverly done”. Only Gustav Hetsch of Nationaltidende devoted a litle more space to the work:
[…] good qualities were [also] possessed by the “Scherzo” for string orchestra, which concluded the evening, and which the lady’s teacher, Mr. Carl Nielsen, personally conducted. It was also a well-structured, amusingly conceived and skillfully executed piece of music, which contained well-balanced contrasting effects within its concise form. It was only fitting that this scherzo was a great success, so much so that the composer had to show herself. 5
A somewhat larger string orchestra was available on 14 March, 1918 in the Great Hall of the Odd Fellows Palace for “Mrs. Nancy Dalberg’s and Ms. Agnethe Tobiesen’s Orchestra Concert under the direction of the composer Carl Nielsen”. 6 Finally, Eugen d’Albert’s Piano Concerto No. 2, Op. 12, was performed
1 Unsigned, Social-Demokraten 8 Nov. 1915.
2 “Ax. K.” (Axel Kjerulf), Politiken 9 Nov. 1915.
3 “S.A.” (Sophus Andersen), København 9 Nov. 1915.
4 “Hedevig Quiding”, Folkets Avis (Copenhagen) 10 Nov. 1915.
5 “–st–ts–.” (Gustav Hetsch), Nationaltidende 9 Nov. 1915 Homophone, but unsigned in Dagbladet (Copenhagen) the same day.
6 Concert programme, The Royal Danish Library, Danish Department (Pamph lets).
for strygeorkester og Capriccio. Hverken ved førsteopførelsen 1915 og ved denne anden opførelse var scherzoens opusnummer (6) anført i koncertprogrammet.
Anmelderne koncentrerede sig naturligt nok om symfonien, den første symfoni komponeret af en kvindelig, dansk komponist. I Berlingske Tidende fandt anmelderen Alfred Tofft anledning til at fremsæte en generel karakteristik af Dalberg, hvis musik ikke imponerede ham: “Der er paafaldende lidt Friskhed over hendes Musik, som arbejder sig rundt i nervøse Zigzaglinier. […] Men Evner har Fru Dalberg tydelig nok og en vis Dygtighed tillige. Enkeltheder lykkes undertiden helt smukt, men Lys, Plastik, Helhed, mangler endnu i hendes Musik.” 7 Politiken anmeldte kun symfonien, og ikke just i rosende vendinger. 8 Scherzoen synes kun at være omtalt i Nationaltidende, hvor Gustav Hetsch denne gang kaldte den “en noget tam og blodfatig, men elskværdig ‘Scherzo’ for Strygere”. 9 Nancy Dalberg var elev hos Carl Nielsen på den tid, hvor scherzoen blev til. 10 Den foreliggende partiturkladde, ufuldstændigt udført med blæk og suppleret med utallige blyantsrettelser og -tilføjelser er højst tænkeligt et resultat af en gennemgang af værket, Dalberg har foretaget sammen med sin lærer forud for opførelsen i 1915. 11 Visse fordoblinger af celloen i kontrabasstemmen er sletet, og tempo- og karakterangivelser er, ligesom mange buer og andre detaljer, tilføjet. Ved den efterfølgende renskrivning af partituret ændrede og tilføjede Dalberg yderligere mange ting. Partituret blev benyttet ved de to omtalte opførelser under Carl Nielsen, de eneste der kendes i Dalbergs tid. Nielsens dirigentanmærkninger med fed blyant og blå farvestift ses i partituret. 12 Ved den første opførelse 1915 havde komponisten selv udskrevet orkesterstemmerne. 13 Ved opførelsen 1918 var der behov for ekstra stemmer, som blev udført i januar 1918 af en professionel nodeskriver. 14 Det renskrevne partitur er værkets hovedkilde, men både partiturkladden og Dalbergs egenhændige orkesterstemmer bidrager til udgaven her. Kladden tjener som referencekilde i forbindelse med frasering, artikulation og dynamik, mens de mange detaljer, som Dalberg har indført i orkesterstemmerne, kompleterer værket i væsentlig grad og tjener til verifikation af uklare detaljer i det renskrevne partitur.
Bendt Viinholt Nielsen
with Agnethe Tobiesen as soloist, while the first part of the programme was devoted to Nancy Dalberg’s compositions. First, the Symphony in C-sharp minor, then two smaller pieces: Scherzo for string orchestra and Capriccio. Neither at the first performance in 1915 nor at this second performance was the scherzo’s opus number (6) listed in the concert programme.
The reviewers naturally concentrated on the symphony, the first symphony composed by a female Danish composer. In Berlingske Tidende, reviewer Alfred Tofft used the occasion to present a general characterization of Dalberg, whose music did not impress him: “There is a striking lack of freshness in her music, which works its way around in nervous zigzag lines. […] But Mrs. Dalberg clearly has abilities and a certain skill as well. Details are sometimes beautifully achieved, but light, plasticity, wholeness are still lacking in her music.” 7 Politiken only reviewed the symphony, and not exactly in laudatory terms. 8 The scherzo seems to have been mentioned only in Nationaltidende, where Gustav Hetsch this time called it “a somewhat tame and anaemic, but amiable ‘Scherzo’ for strings.” 9
Nancy Dalberg was a student of Carl Nielsen at the time the scherzo was composed. 10 The present draft score, incompletely executed in ink and supplemented with countless pencil corrections and additions, is most likely the result of a review of the work that Dalberg made together with her teacher prior to the performance in 1915. 11 Certain doublings of the cello in the double bass part have been deleted, and tempo and character indications have been added, as well as many slurs and other details. In the subsequent fair copying of the score, Dalberg further changed and added many things. The score was used for the two performances mentioned under Carl Nielsen, the only ones known from Dalberg’s time. Nielsen’s conductor’s notes in bold pencil and blue crayon can be seen in the score. 12 For the first performance in 1915, the composer had written out the orchestral parts herself. 13 For the 1918 performance, additional parts were needed, which were produced in January 1918 by a professional copyist. 14 The fair-copied score is the work’s main source, but both the draft score and Dalberg’s autograph orchestral parts contribute to the edition here. The draft serves as a reference source in connection with phrasing, articulation and dynamics, while the many details that Dalberg introduced into the orchestral parts complement the work to a significant extent and serve to verify unclear details in the fair copy of the score.
7 “A.T.” (Alfred Tofft), Berlingske Tidende, Aften 15.3.1918.
8 Koncerten blev anmeldt af “Ax K.” (Axel Kjerulf), Politiken 15.3.1918.
9 “–st–ts–.” (Gustav Hetsch), Nationaltidende 15.3.1918.
10 Lisbeth Ahlgren Jensen, Hilda Sehested og Nancy Dalberg, Danske Komponister, bind 4 (København: Multivers, 2019), 110.
11 Kilde C
12 Kilde A
13 Kilde B1
14 Kilde B2
7 “A.T.” (Alfred Tofft), Berlingske Tidende, Aften 15 Mar. 1918.
8 The concert was reviewed by “Ax K.” (Axel Kjerulf), Politiken 15 Mar. 1918.
9 “–st–ts–.” (Gustav Hetsch), Nationaltidende 15 Mar. 1918.
10 Lisbeth Ahlgren Jensen, Hilda Sehested og Nancy Dalberg, Danske Komponister, vol. 4 (Copenhagen: Multivers, 2019), 110.
11 Source C
12 Source A.
13 Source B1
14 Source B2
Bendt Viinholt Nielsen
Faksimiles
Facsimiles
Faksimile 1
Partiturrenskrift (autograf), s. 8 (kilde A), t. 132-145. På dete sted, ved overgangen mellem Scherzo vivo-delen og Andante, ses Carl Nielsens dirigentanmærkning med fed blyantsskrift. Dalberg havde i renskriften indføjet en hel takt som begyndelse på Andanten, men Nielsen har slettet takten frem til optakten, sådan som det står i partiturkladden (kilde B) (jfr. Faksimile 2).
Facsimile 1
Score manuscript (autograph), p. 8 (source A), bb. 132 – 145. At this point, at the transition between the Scherzo vivo section and the Andante, Carl Nielsen’s conductor’s note is seen in bold pencil. Dalberg had inserted a whole bar in the manuscript as the beginning of the Andante, but Nielsen has deleted the bar up to the upbeat, as it also stands in the draft score (source B) (cf. Facsimile 2).
Faksimile 2
Partiturkladde (autograf med blæk og blyant); s. 9 (kilde B), t. 138-153.
Begyndelsen af Andante-afsnitet (oprindeligt kaldt Andante sostenuto). Mellem cfr. L og cfr. M har Dalberg ændret satsen ganske væsentligt, sandsynligvis under vejledning af Carl Nielsen, som var hendes kompositionslærer omkring det tidspunkt, hvor værket blev til (1914).
Facsimile 2
Score draft (autograph in ink and pencil); p. 9 (source B), bb. 138 – 153.
Beginning of the Andante section (originally called Andante sostenuto). Between cfr. L and cfr. M, Dalberg has changed the movement quite significantly, probably under the guidance of Carl Nielsen, who was her composition teacher around the time the work was composed (1914).
Orkesterbesætning / Instrumentation
Violini 1
Viole
Violoncelli Contrabbassi
Scherzo for strygeorkester op.
Abbreviations
b. bar
bb. bars
cb. contrabbasso div. divisi
marc. marcato mark ND Nancy Dalberg p. page pp. pages
stacc. staccato ten. tenuto mark
vl. violino vcl. violoncello vla. viola
Critical commentary
Description of sources
A Score (autograph)
B Parts (autograph and transcript)
C Draft score
A Score (autograph)
DK–Kk, Royal Danish Library (Music Collection). Nancy Dalbergs samling (MAms 6183; mu 0108.2000).
Title on binding (pasted-on label): “1914 / Scherzo / for / Strygeorkester / af / Nancy Dalberg / Op. 6.”
34.3×25.5 cm. 6 leaves with 12 pages of writing numbered [1], 2-12.
Autograph fair copy in ink bound in hard cover with a title label. Additions in pencil and blue crayon; conductor’s annotations in pencil and blue crayon.
Paper type: 16 staves (without manufacturer’s name).
B Parts (autograph and transcript)
DK–Kk, Royal Danish Library (Music Collection). Nancy Dalbergs samling (MAms 6184; mu 0108.2000).
Title (autograph): “[…] Scherzo / for / Strygeorkester / af / Nancy Dalberg”
1) Parts in autograph:
Violin 1: no.1 (2 copies), no. 2, no. 5, no. 6; Violin 2: no. 1, no. 2; Viola: no. 1, no. 2; Cello: no. 1 (no Double bass). Each part comprises 4 unnumbered pp. 35.8×27 cm.
Paper types: B.&H. Nr.1. E. / 6.13 (12 staves), B.&H. Nr.1. E. / 11.13. (12 staves, B.&H. Nr.1. E. / 6.14. (12 staves) and 12 staves without manufacturer’s name.
2) Duplicate parts in transcript, dated “24/1 18” and “26/1 18” and signed with the copyist’s monogram: “JA”:
Violin 1: no. 3, no. 4 (paginated 1 – 4); Violin 2: no. 3, no. 4, no. 5 (paginated 1 – 4); Viola: no. 3, no. 4 (paginated 1 – 4); Cello: no. 2, no. 3 (paginated 1 – 3); Double bass: no. 1, no. 2, no. 3 (paginated 1 – 3).
34.8 × 25,8 cm.
Paper type: 12 staves without manufacturer’s name.
With some autograph additions (in ink). The parts are copied from the autograph parts.
C Draft score
DK–Kk, Royal Danish Library (Music Collection). Nancy Dalbergs samling (MAms 6184; mu 0108.2000).
Title on cover: “Nancy Dalberg. / […] / Scherzo for Strygeorkester / […]”
Heading on the first page of music: “Scherzo / for Strygere” 35 × 26 cm. 7 leaves with 13 pages of writing numbered: [1], 2 – 13 (back page blank).
Placed in a cover (a double sheet of music paper) which also includes the set of parts (B).
Autograph in ink with corrections in pencil and additions of slurs, articulation marks, and tempo and character indications in pencil, all of which is considered to be in autograph.
Paper type: 16 staves without manufacturer’s name.
Autograph note in pencil on the title page: “Partitur findes indbundet ogsaa! / og andre Stemmer ?” (“Score also extant in a bound copy” [= A] / “and another set of parts?” [only C is known]).
Commentary on the edition – evaluation of the sources
The main source for the edition is the final autograph score (A). Additions of dynamics and articulation in pencil and blue crayon are considered authentic as these details were included in the autograph parts (B1) produced for the first performance in 1915. In the parts, the composer added a number of supplementary details that are not found in the score. Some of these additions contradict the score, but in most cases they add valuable information to the work in the form of articulation, expression and dynamics. In general, the edition adopts all relevant additional details from the parts. No autograph copy of the double bass part is extant, but since the duplicate
parts (B2) were produced from the existing autograph parts and supplied with autograph additions, we must assume that the transcribed double bass parts contain authentic information. Additions by musicians are left out of consideration.
Among the editorial challenges is the lack of consistency that the composer displays in connection with phrasing. The slurs are irregular and in many cases, the composer’s intention is difficult to determine. The same phrase or motive can appear in two or three differently slurred versions. The editor has endeavoured to arrive at as consistent and uniform a solution as the source material allows.
Both the fair-copied score (A) and the draft score (C) exhibit many irregular and faintly indicated staccato dots and dynamic hairpins.
The draft score (C) serves partly as a reference source in connection with, for example, ambiguously placed slurs in the final score (A), and partly as a supplementary source where details seem to have been overlooked by the composer when preparing the new score.
Unequally notated hairpins have in general been adjusted tacitly, and a few guiding naturals have been added without documentation.
Editorial emendations and alternative readings
Bar Part Comment
1 vcl. B1: leggiero (not in other parts)
5 vl.2 slur added by analogy with b. 3 and vcl.
7 vl.2 top part, notes 1 – 2: stacc. added as in B1 vl.2 lower part, notes 1 – 3: staccato added by analogy with vle. and vcl.
8 vle. c added as in B1 and by analogy with vl.1 bb.7 – 8
9 vl.2 notes 1 – 3: staccato added as in B1 and by analogy with vle., vcl. and cb.
10 vl.1 B1: slur continues to b. 11 note 1 (in A, the slur has been abbreviated)
11 vl.2 notes 1 – 3: stacc. added as in B1 and by analogy with vle. 13, 14 vle. last note: stacc. added as in B1 and by analogy with vl.2
24 – Tranq: is in C (ND) and in A added in blue crayon (conductor’s hand), cf. a tempo in b. 33 cb. d added by analogy with vl.1,2 and vcl. B2: m (no d)
28 vle. d added as in B1 and by analogy with vl.1
29 vcl. d added as in B1 and by analogy with vle.
29 – 31 cb. d and p added as in B2
30 vle. p added as in B1
31 vle. B1: d
vcl. p added as in B1
33 vl.1 last note: stacc. added by analogy with vcl. and b. 1 vle. notes 1 – 3: stacc. added by analogy with vcl.
38 vl.1 notes 3 – 4: stacc. added as in B1 vcl. note 3: stacc. added by analogy with vl.1 (bb. 36, 48, 52) and vle. (b. 41)
40 vcl. note 1: div. (and unis.) added in accordance with C
44 vl.2 note 3: stacc. added by analogy with vl.1 (bb. 36, 48, 52) and vle. (b. 41)
46 vl.1 note 1: marc. added as in B1
47 – in C, scherzando is clearly a general character indication, while in A, scherzando is written in quite small leters only above the vl.1 – part
52 vl.2 vle. notes 1 – 3: stacc. omitted and slur added as in B1 (where a correction in ink has been made)
54 vle. m added by analogy with vcl.
57 – 58 vl.2 B1: c (no c in bb. 55 – 56)
58 cb. note 1: marc. added as in B2
64 vl.1 notes 1 – 2: slur added as in B1 and by analogy with bb. 61 and 62
66 vcl. dim. added by analogy with vl.1, vl.2 and vle. and in accordance with C
72 – 73 vl.1 c d added as in B1
74 vl.2 div. (and unis.) added in accordance with C vle. div. (and unis.) added by analogy with vl.2
80 vl.2 div. (and unis.) added in accordance with C
88 – rall. originally indicated in b. 89 as rit., but altered in A, B1 and C vcl. cb. notes 1 – 3: slur added as in B1 (vcl.) and by analogy with vl.1
90 –
B1 , C: più lento
90 – 97 vl.2 stacc. added as in B1 and by analogy with vl.1
90, 91 vcl. div. (and unis.) added in accordance with C (no indication in C in vle. b.90)
92, 95, 96 vcl. B1: notes 1 – 3: slur (not in vle.; not in B2: cb.)
98 vcl. notes 1 – 3: ten. added as in B1
100 vcl. cb.
meno f added by analogy with vl.1, 2 and vle.
104 – rall. added as in B1 (only indicated in vle.) and as a consequence of a tempo in b. 107, which is in A and in B1
101 – 102 vl.2 dim. d added by analogy with vl.1
109 – tranquillo is in C (ND) and added in A (conductor’s hand)
111 vl.1 espress. added as in B1
115 vl.1. notes 1 – 3: slur added as in B1 and by analogy with b. 111
117 vl.1 c added as in B1 and by analogy with the other strings vle. c emended from b. 115 to b. 117 as in B1 and by analogy with vl.2, vcl. and cb.
118 – 122 vcl.
B1: marc. (instead of ten.)
126 – rall. is in C (ND) and added in A (conductor’s hand)
124 vl.1 dolce added as in B1
128 cb. p added by analogy with the other instruments
130 vl.2 note 1: emended from e to q by analogy with the other instruments (notational error in A)
c added as in B1 and by analogy with vl.1
132 vl.1 note 3: emended from e to s r as in B1 (in which a correction was made) and by analogy with b. 9
vl.2 vcl. cb. notes 1 – 3: stacc. added as in B1 and by analogy with vle. and b. 9 vl.1 note 4: stacc. added as in B1 and by analogy with b. 9
133 vl.1 B1: slur from note 1 ends at b. 134 note 1 B1: c d (no f)
vle. B1: note 2: marc.
133 – 135 vl.2 stacc. added as in B1 and by analogy with vle.
134 cb. notes 2 – 4: slur added by analogy with vcl.
137 vl.1 f emended from b. 137 to b. 138 as in B1 and by analogy with the other instruments cb. marc. added by analogy with the other instruments
137 – 138 – In C, the Andante section begins with the vl.1 upbeat to b. 138; in A and in B1, a full bar before b. 138 was indicated (vl.1: r r r e), but later crossed over in accordance with C
138 vl.1 cantabile, tranq. added as in B1
145 vcl. slur added by analogy with the other instruments
147 vl.2 note 1 – 2: slur added as in B1 and by analogy with notes 3 – 4
149 vl.2 d added by analogy with vl.1, vle. and vcl. vle. slur emended from notes 2 – 5 to notes 2 – 4 (notes 4 – 5: note repetition) (originally there was a divisi at notes 2 – 5, which is still in B1 but eliminated in A; the slur was not corrected accordingly)
152 vl.1 vle. c added as in B1 and by analogy with vl.2 and vcl.
154 –
B1: agitato
vcl. B1: espressivo molto
156 – 157 vl.1
c d added as in B1 and by analogy with vcl.
157 vl.2 Solo and m added as in B1
vcl. note 1: marc. added as in B1
158 – 159 vl.2 espress. and c d added as in B1
160 vcl. espress. added as in B1
162 cb. last note: fermata added by analogy with the other instruments
163 vl.1 B1: più mosso e dolce espressivo
164 – 165 vl.1 slur added by analogy with b. 163 and
165 – 166 vle. slur added by analogy with vl.1
166 vl.1 slur added as in B1 and by analogy with b. 164
167 – 168 vl.1 slurs adjusted as in B1 (in A, the positions of the slurs are unclear)
168 vl.2 notes 2 – 3: slur added as in B1
169 vl.1 p omited in accordance with C and B1 (p makes no sense in combination with the c hairpin)
vcl.
B1: c (not in vl.2 and vle.)
170, 171 vcl. B1: d (not in vl.2 and vle.)
172 – energetico emended to energico as in B1 – C: Tempo di marcia (forgoten in A?)
174 vcl.
B1: notes 2 – 6: c (not in vle. in B1; inconsistent with A)
175 vcl. B1: notes 1 – 4: d (not in vle. in B1)
176 vle. vcl. note 1: marc added in vcl. as in B1 and in vle. by analogy with vcl.
176, 177 vle. vcl. notes 1 – 2 and notes 5 – 6: slurs added as in B1 cb. marc. added as in B2
178 vcl. note 1: marc. added by analogy with vle.
179, 180 vl.1 vl.2 d f added as in B1
vle. vcl.
180
note 1: marc. added as in B1 and by analogy with b. 178 note 5: marc. added as in B1 (in vle., marc. is misplaced at the last note)
cb. notes 1 – 2: q e emended to e e with marc. as in B2
vl.1 vle. vcl. B1: penultimate note (harmony): s followed by r (both with fermata) (not in B1 vl.2)
181 – (Andante) added as in B1
vl.1 vl.2
beginning of slur emended from b. 182 note 1 to b. 181 last note as in B1 and by analogy with bb. 138, 146
vle. last note (harmony): beginning of slur emended from b. 182 note 1 as in B1 and by analogy with vl.1 and vl.2
cb. c added by analogy with the other instruments
182 vl.1 vl.2 vle. slur emended from note 4 to note 5 as in B1 and by analogy with bb. 139, 147
183
vl.1
B1: one slur from note 1 to b. 184 note 1
vle. notes 1 – 2: slur added as in B1
cb. slur added by analogy with the other instruments and in accordance with C
184 vle. d added by analogy with the other instruments
vcl. end point of slur emended from note 4 to note 5 as in B1 and by analogy with vle.
185 vcl. div. added as in B1
vcl. cb m added by analogy with vl.1, vl. 2 and vle. (b. 184)
cb. end point of slur emended from note 5 to note 6 as in B2
186 vcl.
186 – 187 vl.1
187 vl.2
vle.
B1: harmonies 3 – 4: c (inconsistent with the other instruments)
B1: slur from b. 185 ends at note 1
B1: harmonies 3 – 4: slur ends at harmony 4 (no continuation to b. 187)
B1: one slur from b. 186 note 5 to b. 187 last note
B1: slur begins at note 1 (b. 186 last note not slurred)
B1: slurs notes 1 – 4 and ?5 – 8 (b. 186 last note not slurred)
188 vle. notes 1 – 4: slur added by analogy with b. 167 and vcl. bb. 188, 189
vcl.
B1: harmony 1: d followed by c at notes 2 – 5 (inconsistent with the other instruments)