Nenia by Musikkforlagene

FARTEIN VALEN

Nenia for orkester, op. 18 nr. 1 Nenia for Orchestra, Op. 18 No. 1 CRITICAL EDITION

Prosjektet Fartein Valen The Fartein Valen Project Utgave ved / Edition by Norsk musikkarv Utgitt av / Published by Norsk Musikforlag A/S HovedredaktÃ¸r/Editor in Chief Bjarte Engeset

NENIA FOR ORKESTER, OP. 18 NR. 1 NENIA FOR ORCHESTRA, OP. 18 NO. 1

FARTEIN VALEN (1887â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1952)

Nenia for orkester, op. 18 nr. 1 Nenia for Orchestra, Op. 18 No. 1

Utgitt av/Edited by Bjarte Engeset

NMA-FV-002

N.M.O. 14077A

Editor in Chief, Norsk Musikkarv: Bjarte Engeset Orchestral score/parts by: Espen Ramsli Fredriksen, Thomas Erma Møller and Bjarte Engeset Graphic design: Tank design AS Music set in: Sibelius 7 Text set in: Calibre and Chronicle English translation and language consultant: Thilo Reinhard Language consultant: Gunnhild Wiggen Other contributors: Thomas Erma Møller, Jørn Fossheim Sponsored by: Kulturrådet (Arts Council of Norway) Edition by: Norsk Musikkarv (www.musikkarven.no) Published by: NORSK MUSIKFORLAG A/S (www.musikkforlagene.no) This work is published in the following editions: Score (N.M.O. 14077A /ISMN 979-0-065-14592-1) For sale Parts (N.M.O. 14077B /ISMN 979-0-065-14593-8) On hire © 1954 Lyche Musikforlag Denne utgave / This edition: © 2017 NORSK MUSIKFORLAG A/S All rights reserved

CONTENTS INNHOLD Forord Faksimiler Besetning

Preface Facsimiles Scoring

VIII XVI XXII

Nenia for Orchestra, Op. 18 No. 1 Abbreviations Critical Report

Nenia for orkester, op. 18 nr. 1 Forkortelser Kritisk rapport

16 17

VIII XVI XXII

16 17

PREFACE

hen Fartein Valen (1887–1952) began sketching Nenia in late July 1932, he was planning to include the work as the second part of a trilogy. The first part, Sonetto di Michelangelo, had recently been finished, and Valen intended to complete the trilogy with Cantico di Ringraziamento. Nenia had probably been on the composer’s mind for some time. Half a year earlier, on 25 January 1932, he had jotted down a theme with the words Nenia sulla morte d’un giovane written underneath. We find it as number 2759 of altogether 7029 themes in one of Valen’s many notebooks containing musical themes.8 Notated in treble clef here, it later found its place in the cellos, transposed two octaves down.

FØREORD

å Fartein Valen (1887–1952) byrja å skissere verket Nenia i slutten av juli 1932, hadde han ein plan om at stykket skulle vere andre del av ein triologi. Han hadde nyleg gjort ferdig det første verket, Sonetto di Michelangelo, og skulle etterpå fullføre triologien med Cantico di Ringraziamento. Nenia hadde nok vore i tankane hans ei god stund. Eit halvt år tidlegare, 25. januar 1932, hadde han skrive ned eit tema med orda Nenia sulla morte d’un giovane plassert under. Vi finn temaet i ei av Valen sine mange temaskissebøker, og det er nummerert som 2759 av 7029.1 Her var det notert i g-nøkkel, medan han seinare plasserte det i celli, to oktavar lågare.

The origin of the Latin title Nenia is mentioned neither in Valen’s musical sources nor in his correspondence. In a work list from around 1947, Valen wrote the abbreviated title Nenia for orch., but the short score and the autograph manuscript use the longer title Nenia sulla morte d’un giovane (Threnody on the Death of a Youth). In his biography of Fartein Valen,9 Olav Gurvin writes that Nenia was inspired by the ancient Hellenistic sculpture ‘The Dying Gaul’10 from 200 B.C., which Valen had seen both in Rome and as a plaster copy at the National Gallery in Oslo. Gurvin also mentions an Attic tomb at the National Gallery as a source of inspiration. He further writes that Valen eventually came to think of Nenia as a lament for all who had died young, and that this was the reason for the abridged title.11 Arvid Vollsnes’ article ‘Valen’s Mallorca Triptych’12 has shown that Valen most likely was familiar with Olav Nygard’s poem ‘The Dying Gaul’ (Døyande gallar, 1915), and in his PhD thesis on Valen’s orchestral works, Thomas Erma Møller argues that the composer may have had the English poet John Keats (1795–1821) in mind.13 Keats, who died at a young age, is the author behind the poem ‘To Hope’, the source of inspiration for the other work in Op. 18, An die Hoffnung. The Norwegian musicologist Bjarne Kortsen refers to a conversation he had with Valen about the inspiration for Nenia:

Bakgrunnen for den latinske tittelen Nenia er korkje nemnd i dei musikalske kjeldene til Valen eller i korrespondansen hans. I ei verkliste frå ca. 1947 skreiv Valen den korte tittelen, Nenia for ork. Men i particell og eigenhendig manuskript er den lengre tittelen brukt, Nenia sulla morte d’un giovane («Sørgjesong for ein ung død»). Olav Gurvin skriv i boka «Fartein Valen, en banebryter i nyere norsk musikk»2 at Nenia var inspirert av den gamle hellenistiske skulpturen «Døyande gallar»3 frå 200-talet f.Kr., som Valen hadde sett i Roma, og som gipskopi i Nasjonalgalleriet i Oslo. Gurvin nemner òg eit attisk gravmæle i Nasjonalgalleriet som ei inspirasjonskjelde. Han skriv vidare at Valen etter kvart meinte Nenia vart ein sørgjesong for alle unge døde, og at dette var grunnen til at tittelen vart korta ned.4 Arvid Vollsnes har i artikkelen «Valens Mallorca-triptyk»5 vist til at Valen truleg òg kjende diktet «Døyande gallar» (1915) av Olav Nygard. Thomas Erma Møller peikar i avhandlinga si, «Sources, Structure and Surface: Philological and Analytical Studies in Fartein Valen’s Orchestral Works», på at Valen òg kan ha tenkt på den engelske diktaren John Keats (1795–1821).6 Keats skreiv diktet «To Hope», som var inspirasjonskjelda til det andre op. 18-verket til Valen, An die Hoffnung, og Keats døydde ung. Bjarne Kortsen refererer til ein samtale han hadde med Valen om inspirasjonen for Nenia:

VIII

Later, when Valen returned to Norway, he was reminded of his impression of ‘The Dying Gaul’ when one of his nephews visited him at his home in Valestrand. Valen and his nephew (Magne Valen-Sendstad) were both sleeping in the loft when Valen suddenly awoke in the middle of the night and saw his nephew’s face lying bathed in the moonlight. The chalkwhite face of his nephew immediately reminded Valen of the statue he had seen in Rome, and at the same moment the music began to sound in his mind.14

Later, when Valen returned to Norway he was reminded of his impression of “The Dying Gaul” when one of his nephews visited him at his home in Valestrand. Valen and his nephew (Magne Valen-Sendstad) were both sleeping in the loft when Valen suddenly awoke in the middle of the night and saw his nephew’s face lying bathed in the moonlight. The chalkwhite face of his nephew immediately reminded Valen of the statue he had seen in Rome, and at the same moment the music began to sound in his mind.7

But work on Nenia was slow to begin with. The first sketch is dated Valevaag, Thursday 20 July 1932. Three days later, while Valen took his usual Sunday break from composing, he wrote to Unni Langaard, clearly feeling discouraged: ‘Nicht Kunst und Wissenschaft allein: Geduld will bei dem Werke sein’ 1 5 says Goethe. I have told myself the same many times like a hymn verse. For now I have come to a point at which things are not going so well any longer. I have finished ‘Sonetto di Michelangelo’, two lovely orchestra scores fully completed and done, and have started on ‘Nenia’ (the funeral march), but things are not going so well. Finally, there will be a ‘song of thanks’ (Cantico di ringraziamento) – but that still lies far ahead, I suppose. –

Men arbeidet med Nenia gjekk trått i starten. Den første skissa er datert Valevaag, torsdag 20. juli 1932. Tre dagar seinare hadde Valen den vanlege søndagspausen frå komponeringa og skreiv, tydeleg oppgitt, til Unni Langaard: «Nicht Kunst und Wissenschaft allein: Geduld will bei dem Werke sein,» sier Goethe. Det siger jeg mig selv mange ganger som et salmevers. For jeg er nu kommet paa et punkt, hvor det ikke gaar saa godt længer. Jeg er færdig med «Sonetto di Michelangelo», to nydelige orkesterpartiturer fuldt og fikst færdige, og er begyndt paa «Nenia» (sørgemarschen), men det gaar ikke saa godt. Tilslut skal der være en «takkesang» (Cantico di ringraziamento) – men der er vel endnu langt frem. –

LETTER FROM FARTEIN VALEN TO UNNI LANGAARD, VALEVAAG, 23 JULY 1932

The 25 pages of sketches are so precisely dated that we can see how Valen struggled for days to make progress after the first five-bar theme in bass clef. He seems to have gotten stuck in bar six. Slowly, he worked his way forward in the work, one measure at a time, but repeatedly had to return all the way to bar six. But after that, things began to loosen. The last page is dated 4 August, only slightly more than two weeks after he had started sketching the work. This is typical of Valen: he chisels out phrase by phrase in a straight line from A to Z. During the final week of sketching, as each phrase was taking shape, Valen simultaneously wrote the music into a three-stave short score. The short score is dated 27 July, i.e. seven days after beginning work on the sketches. After the last bar, the short score is dated 4 August, the same final date as the sketches. The short score contains extremely detailed information about instrumentation, dynamics, phrase marks and articulation, strong evidence that the work was completed that day. And indeed, Valen shortly after wrote to Olav Gurvin (1893–1974) that the work was ‘finished’:

BREV FRÅ FARTEIN VALEN TIL UNNI LANGAARD, VALEVAAG 23. JULI 1932

Dei 25 skissesidene er så nøye daterte at vi kan sjå korleis han sleit i dagevis med å kome vidare frå det første temaet på fem takter i bassnøkkel. Han stod liksom fast i takt seks. Etter kvart arbeidde han seg langsamt framover i verket, takt for takt, men måtte rett som det var, gå heilt attende til takt seks. Men så losna det. Siste side er datert allereie 4. august, berre litt over to veker etter han byrja skisseringa. Denne framgangsmåten er typisk for Valen; han meisla til frase for frase, lineært frå A til Å. Den siste veka av arbeidet med skisseringa skreiv han parallelt inn notane i eit particell over tre notesystem, etter kvart som kvar frase hadde fått form. Particellet er datert 27. juli, altså sju dagar etter at arbeidet med skissene starta. Bakerst er particellet datert 4. august, den same sluttdatoen som i skissematerialet. Particellet inneheld svært detaljert informasjon om instrumentasjon, dynamikk, fraseringsbogar og artikulasjon, så det må vere korrekt å seie at verket var ferdig denne dagen. Valen skreiv då også til Olav Gurvin (1893–1974) like etter sluttdateringa at verket var «færdig»:

I have worked quite hard this summer; even if at first I was not feeling so well, since I had gotten a cold while travelling. I have managed to finish ‘Sonetto di Michelangelo’, fully orchestrated, and ‘Nenia’ is finished as well, and now I am working on the final piece Song of Thanks (‘Cantico di ringraziamento’). Jeg har arbeidet ganske godt i sommer; endda jeg den første tid ikke var saa bra, da jeg hadde forkjølet mig paa reisen. Jeg har faatt færdig “Sonetto di Michelangelo”, helt instrumentert og likeledes “Nenia” er færdig, og jeg holder nu paa med det sidste stykke Takkesang (“Cantico di ringraziamento”).

LETTER FROM FARTEIN VALEN TO OLAV GURVIN, VALEVAAG, 11 AUGUST 1932

A few days later, Valen used the word ‘finished’ in the same way in two other letters to Sine Butenschøn and Unni Langaard, respectively:

BREV FRÅ FARTEIN VALEN TIL OLAV GURVIN, VALEVAAG

It has been a comfort to me that I have worked quite hard this summer. The instrumentation of ‘Sonetto di Michelangelo’ is completely finished, the same goes for ‘Nenia sulla morte d’un giovane’, and now I am working on ‘Cantico di ringraziamento’. If only I can work really hard the rest of the holiday.

11. AUGUST 1932

På same måten brukte han ordet «færdig» i to andre brev, til Sine Butenschøn og Unni Langaard, nokre dagar seinare: Det har været en trøst at jeg har været noksaa flink i sommer. «Sonetto di Michelangelo» er helt færdig instrumenteret, det samme er tilfælde med «Nenia sulla morte d’un giovane», og nu holder jeg paa med «Cantico di ringraziamento». Gid jeg bare kunde være rigtig flink resten av ferien.

LETTER FROM FARTEIN VALEN TO SINE BUTENSCHØN, VALEVAAG, 15 AUGUST 1932

BREV FRÅ FARTEIN VALEN TIL SINE BUTENSCHØN, VALEVAAG

Imagine that I have finished Nenia and come a long way with Cantico di ringraziamento (It almost sounds as beautiful as Nenia.)

15 AUGUST 1932

LETTER FROM FARTEIN VALEN TO UNNI LANGAARD, VALEVAAG, 20 AUGUST 1932

Vet De at jeg er færdig med Nenia og kommet langt paa vei med Cantico di ringraziamento (Det klinger næsten like saa vakkert som Nenia.)

Half a year was to pass before Valen wrote out the orchestra score based on all the details in the short score. Usually, Valen would write out the score as soon as he had completed the short score, but this time he wanted to finish the third work in the planned trilogy before leaving for Italy and Mallorca. The final date on the score is 23 January 1933. The same day, he wrote a letter to Agnes Hiorth from Palma de Mallorca and used the term ‘instrumentere’ (orchestrate, lit. ‘instrumentate’) about the work of transferring the music from short score to full score.

BREV FRÅ FARTEIN VALEN TIL UNNI LANGAARD, VALEVAAG 20. AUGUST 1932

Det skulle gå eit halvt år til Valen skreiv ut orkesterpartituret ved hjelp av alle detaljane i particellet. Normalt skreiv Valen ut partitura straks etter particella var ferdige, men denne gongen ville han gjerne først få ferdig det tredje verket i den planlagde triologien, før han reiste til Italia og Mallorca. Partituret er sluttdatert 23. januar 1933. Denne dagen skreiv han brev til Agnes Hiorth frå Palma de Mallorca og brukte omgrepet «instrumentere» om arbeidet frå particell til partitur.

I have been orchestrating and making a fair copy of the score to Cantico, and I also had to orchestrate Nenia, which I did not get to this summer. Tonight I finished it. LETTER FROM FARTEIN VALEN TO AGNES HIORTH, PALMA DE MA

Jeg har holdt paa at instrumentere og renskrive partituret til Cantico og saa maatte jeg ogsaa instrumentere Nenia, som jeg ikke fik gjort isommer. I aften blev jeg færdig med den.

LLORCA, 23 JANUARY 1933

From the very outset, Nenia was dedicated to Else Christie Kielland (1903–1993), a painter Valen had known since autumn of 1925. The dedication is written into the short score.

BREV FRÅ FARTEIN VALEN TIL AGNES HIORTH, PALMA DE MALLORCA, 23. JANUAR 1933

Nenia var heilt frå starten tileigna kunstmalar Else Christie Kielland (1903–1993), som Valen hadde kjent sidan hausten 1925. Tileigninga står i particellet.

The numbering of Nenia as ‘opus 17 No. 2’ was entered into all the early sources in delicate handwriting. But a couple of years later, Valen abandoned the idea of a trilogy and rearranged the opus numbers. He also made corresponding changes in the sources by crossing out words and adding the new numbering Op. 18 No. 1 to tie the work together with An die Hoffnung, Op. 18 No. 2. The composer considered the two pairs of works in Op. 17 and 18 as a coherent unit each. In a draft to a letter (probably from July 1934), Valen lists Sonetto di Michelangelo and Cantico di Ringraziamento as Op. 17 No. 1 and 2. He further writes about these two works:

Nummereringa av Nenia som «opus 17 nr. 2» var sirleg skrive øvst i alle dei tidlege kjeldene. Men han forlot ideen om triologien eit par år seinare og ordna då opusnummera annleis. Også i kjeldene endra han dei, med overstrykingar og nye nummer. Han gav då Nenia nummereringa op. 18 nr. 1 og knytte slik verket saman med An die Hoffnung op. 18 nr. 2. Han såg desse to para i op. 17 og 18 som kvar for seg samanhengande. I ein brevkladd (truleg frå juli 1934) lista han opp Sonetto di Michelangelo og Cantico di Ringraziamento som op. 17 nr. 1 og 2. Han skreiv vidare om desse to verka:

The two pieces belong together in spirit, albeit not thematically, and are best performed together. LETTER FROM FARTEIN VALEN TO MR. DAHLIN [R. ROGAL-LEVITZSKY], JULY 1934

Die beiden Stücken gehören von ihrem Geist her zusammen, nicht aber thematisch und sollten am besten zusammen gespielt werden.

This letter, too, lists Nenia and An die Hoffnung as Op. 18 No. 1 and 2. About the latter, Valen wrote: ‘Es gehört mit dem vorhergehenden Stück zusammen’ (it belongs together with the preceding piece).

BREV FRÅ FARTEIN VALEN TIL HERR DAHLIN [R. ROGAL-LEVITZSKY], JULI 1934

Også i dette brevet hadde Nenia og An die Hoffnung nummereringa op. 18 nr. 1 og 2. Valen skreiv om sistnemnde: «Es gehört mit dem vorhergehenden Stück zusammen».

PERFORMANCE HISTORY In January 1934, the work was planned to be performed in Oslo. In a letter of 23 November 1933, Valen asked his sister Sigrid to send him the score. But the performance was cancelled, and Valen never got to hear the work. Not until twenty years later, the year of Valen’s death, did Odd Grüner-Hegge conduct the Filharmonisk Selskaps Orkester (today’s Oslo Philharmonic) in a performance on 2 May 1952 without the composer being present. The work was immediately played da capo. The programme included works by five contemporary Norwegian composers. In addition to Valen’s work, the orchestra performed Norsk dans (Norwegian Dance) by Øistein Sommerfeldt, Symphony No. 1 by Eivind Groven, Noregs-songen (Norway Song) by Klaus Egge and an excerpt from Arne Eggen’s opera Cymbelin. Several critics mentioned that few people had attended, speculating that the programming may have been the cause. Most of them felt that Valen’s work was in a class of its own, heartfelt and expressive. Even though it was the oldest work on the programme, a number of critics nonetheless believed it to be the most modernistic among all the works, without being difficult to listen to.

FRAMFØRINGSHISTORIE. I januar 1934 skulle verket framførast i Oslo. Valen ba i eit brev 23. november 1933 søstera Sigrid om å sende partituret til han. Men framføringa vart avlyst, og Valen fekk aldri sjølv høyrt verket. Først tjue år seinare, det året Valen døydde, dirigerte Odd Grüner-Hegge Filharmonisk Selskaps Orkester (Oslo-Filharmonien) i urframføringa, 2. mai 1952, utan at Valen var til stades. Verket vart straks spela da capo. Det var fem verk av samtidige norske komponistar med på programmet til denne konserten. I tillegg til Valenverket framførte orkesteret Norsk dans av Øistein Sommerfeldt, Symfoni nr. 1 av Eivind Groven, Noregs-songen av Klaus Egge og eit utdrag frå Arne Eggen sin opera Cymbelin. Fleire kritikarar nemnde at det var få folk i salen og trudde årsaken kanskje var programmeringa. Dei fleste meinte verket til Valen stod i ei særstilling, inderleg og uttrykksfullt. Sjølv om det var eldst, hevda fleire kritikarar at det likevel var det mest modernistiske av verka, utan å vere vanskeleg å lytte til.

The oldest composition was ‘Nenia’ by Fartein Valen (Op. 18 from 1932). Kept in the same style as Valen’s other short orchestral pieces, but distinctly softer and milder, this sensitive, highly expressive composition with its clear, calm

Den eldste komposisjonen var «Nenia» av Fartein Valen (Op. 18 fra 1932). Holdt i samme stil som Valens øvrige korte orkesterstykker, men klanglig betydelig mykere og

and broad lines was so well received that conductor Odd Grüner-Hegge immediately had to play it da capo. REIMAR RIEFLING IN VERDENS GANG, 3 MAY 1952

The only work that may have seemed ‘difficult’ to opponents of new music, Valen’s short symphonic composition ‘Nenia’ from the early 1930s, was so uncommonly clear and soft in its lines that it could hardly be a major problem for an attentive and alert listener to follow the characteristic voices throughout this simple and pure lament and be captivated by the powerful atmosphere of the composition. Valen spins the voices into an intense climax, he solves the formal aspects of the work successfully and ends the work while the thematic material remains fresh. As mentioned earlier, few people were in attendance at the University Aula yesterday, but the atmosphere was good. Fartein Valen did not come, but the other composers were present and received their good share of the applause, for which they politely thanked in sundry ways.

mildere, slo denne følsomme, sterkt ekspressive komposisjon med de klare, rolige, vide linjespennene så godt an at dirigenten Odd Grüner-Hegge straks kunne ta den da capo. REIMAR RIEFLING I VERDENS GANG, 3. MAI 1952

Det eneste verket som kanskje kunne virke «vanskelig» på motstandere av ny musikk, Valens korte symfoniske arbeid «Nenia» fra begynnelsen av 1930-årene, var så ualminnelig klart og mykt i linjeføringen at det neppe kunne være noe større problem for en våken og oppmerksom tilhører å følge de karakteristiske stemmer gjennom den enkle og rene sørgesangen og la seg fange inn av den sterke stemningen i komposisjonen. Valen spinner stemmene fram til et intenst klimaks, han løser den formelle siden av saken på en vellykt måte og slutter av mens det tematiske stoffet er friskt. Det var som sagt ikke mange mennesker i Aulaen igår, men stemningen var god. Fartein Valen kom ikke, men de andre komponistene var tilstede og fikk sin gode del av applausen, den de takket pent for på ymse vis.

PAULINE HALL IN DAGBLADET, 3 MAY 1952

Writing for the daily Aftenposten, Day Winding Sørensen felt that Nenia was the best work on the programme and asserted that ‘painful sensitivity’ was typical of Valen: In a class of its own was Fartein Valens’s ‘Nenia’, Op. 18, which dates all the way back to 1932. It is a fairly short work for small orchestra. The burgeoning play of motives that wind their way through broadly spun melodic lines reverberate with the curiously intense, almost painful sensitivity that is a profound characteristic of Valen’s music.

PAULINE HALL IN DAGBLADET, 3. MAI 1952

Dag Winding Sørensen i Aftenposten meinte nok Nenia var det beste verket på konserten og hevda «smertelig følsomhet» var typisk for Valen: I en særklasse stod Fartein Valens «Nenia», Op. 18, som skriver seg helt fra 1932. Det er et ganske kort verk for liten orkesterbesetning. Det spirende spill av motiver som fletter seg mellom de vidt utspunne melodiske linjer klinger med den eiendommelig intense, nesten smertelige følsomhet som er et dyptgående karaktertrekk i Valens musikk.

DAG WINDING SØRENSEN IN AFTENPOSTEN, 3 MAY 1952

Several other critics also used words like ‘pain’ and ‘painful, even though Børre Qvamme’s wording may be interpreted as slightly ironic: Valen’s ‘Nenia’ has not previously been performed at the Philharmonic. More than his other orchestral works from the early 1930s, ‘Nenia’ gives the impression of a mind that, in an urge to achieve the highest intensity, stretches the strings to the bursting point. There is an expressivity that at times can be painful to both nerves and ears, especially if one is sensitive to higher overtones. But at the same time there is something rarefied and precise about the work, an economy of means that is evocative of a classical epigram.

DAG WINDING SØRENSEN I AFTENPOSTEN, 3. MAI 1952

Fleire andre kritikarar brukte også ord som «smerte» og «pine», sjølv om Børre Qvamme sin ordbruk kanskje kan lesast som litt ironisk: Valens «Nenia» har ikke vært oppført tidligere i Filharmoniske. Mer enn de andre orkesterverkene hans fra begynnelsen av 1930-årene gir «Nenia» inntrykk av et sinn som i trangen til å oppnå den høieste intensitet spenner strengene til bristepunktet. Det er en ekspressivitet som til sine tider kan være pinefull både for nerver og ører, særlig hvis en er følsom for høyere overtoner. Men samtidig er det over verket en knapphet og presisjon, en økonomisering med midlene som bringer tanken hen på et klassisk epigram.

BØRRE QVAMME IN MORGENBLADET, 3 MAY 1952

BØRRE QVAMME I MORGENBLADET, 3. MAI 1952

XII

Fartein Valens ‘Nenia’ was written in 1932, but has not been played at the Philharmonic before. A fine composition with clear lines that are easy to follow, thanks to the transparent orchestration. The musical expression has a painful character. THORLEIF EKEN IN MORGENPOSTEN, 5 MAY 1952

Fartein Valens «Nenia» er skrevet i 1932, men ikke blitt spilt i Filharmoniske før. En fin komposisjon med klare linjer som er lett å følge, takket være den gjennomsiktige orkestreringen. Det musikalske uttrykk har en var smertefylt karakter.

Erling Westher, Valen’s piano teacher, distinguished himself as an advocate of his student’s music: Sadly, there were few listeners at the University Aula on Friday night. Whether the reason can be found in the fact that exclusively new Norwegian works were performed shall be left unsaid, but there is much to suggest it. The pieces that were performed should certainly not scare away anyone, even Fartein Valens ‘Nenia’ was no more ‘incomprehensible’ that with some goodwill one should at least be able to listen one’s way to the intense yearning and the warm, heartfelt earnestness that characterizes the composition. Incidentally, it was an excellent idea by Odd GrünerHegge to repeat it immediately. [...] Fartein Valen’s ‘Nenia’ Op. 18 No. 1 ( first performance) is an intense work that fills the mind with something earnest and sublime. The pining intensity in the strings shows that the composer knows the orchestra, and when moreover his compositional language is so utterly borne by a truly great gift, the result is bound to be an experience. It is a shame that so many concertgoers are completely ignorant of this. Although Valen’s compositions represent a world of sound completely unlike the one by which the audience usually abides, one should gradually, without reflecting too much or looking for explanations, try to give these new expressive devices a chance. Most people assume a dismissive attitude without the slightest notion of or experience with what is actually happening. But this is how it has always been, of course.

THORLEIF EKEN I MORGENPOSTEN, 5. MAI 1952

Erling Westher, klaverlæraren til Valen, markerte seg som ein forkjempar for musikken til eleven sin: Det var sørgelig få tilhørere i Aulaen fredag kveld. Om årsaken er å finne i at det ble oppført utelukkende nye norske verker, skal være usagt, men meget tyder på det. De ting som ble framført skulle såvisst ikke skremme noen, selv Fartein Valens «Nenia» var ikke mer «uforståelig» enn at man med god vilje måtte kunne lytte seg til ihvertfall det intense sug og det varme, inderlige alvor som preger komposisjonen. Det var forresten et utmerket innfall av Odd Grüner-Hegge å gjenta den umiddelbart. […] Fartein Valens «Nenia» op. 18 nr. 1 (1.g) er et intenst arbeid som bringer noe alvorlig og opphøyet inn i sinnet. Den sugende intensitet hos strykerne viser at komponisten kjenner orkestret, og når dertil kommer at hans tonespråk er så helt igjennom båret oppe av den virkelig store begavelse, må resultatet bli en opplevelse. Det er synd at såvidt mange konsertgjengere er helt utenfor her. Selv om Valens komposisjoner representerer en klangverden helt forskjellig fra den publikum jevnt avfinner seg med, burde man forsøke etterhvert, uten å reflektere for meget eller søke forklaringer å la de nye virkemidler få en sjangse. De fleste stiller seg avvisende, uten på noen måte å ha anelse om eller erfaring for hva som egentlig skjer. Men slik har det jo alltid vært.

ERLING WESTHER IN ARBEIDERBLADET, 5 MAY 1952

Following this successful first performance, Nenia has been included in many orchestra programmes. In 1972 the work was recorded for the first time by the Oslo Philharmonic Orchestra with Miltiades Caridis (1923–1998) conducting. Two years after its premiere, the score and parts to Nenia were published by Lyche & Co. in Drammen (1954). The Lyche & Co. edition was based on a manuscript copy from 1934 signed ‘H.S.’, one of Valen’s copyists in the 1930s, rather than on Valen’s own manuscript. The copy has flaws and discrepancies in several areas where the manuscript is logical and consistent. Therefore, this new edition by Norwegian Musi-

ERLING WESTHER I ARBEIDERBLADET, 5. MAI 1952

Etter denne vellukka urframføringa har Nenia stått på mange orkesterprogram. I 1972 vart verket spela inn for første gong, av Oslo-Filharmonien, med Miltiades Caridis (1923–1998) som dirigent. To år etter premieren vart Nenia publisert i partitur og stemmer av forlaget Lyche & Co. i Drammen (1954). Noteutgåva frå Lyche & Co. var basert på ein kopi skrive av kopisten H.S. i 1934 og ikkje på Valen sitt eigenhendige manuskript. På ei rekkje punkt har denne kopien manglar og avvik der manuskriptet er logisk og konsistent. Norsk musikkarv og Norsk Musikforlag si nyutgåve fyller difor eit vesentleg behov, mellom anna fordi ho har manuskriptet til Valen

XIII

cal Heritage and Norsk Musikforlag fulfils an important need, among other things by using Valen’s manuscript as the main source. The most challenging issue in preparing this edition has consisted of pitch material in the short score that is not found in the manuscript score. In some cases, such as in bar 6, the cello part is clearly missing a note in both Valen’s score and the Lyche & Co. edition. Close examination of the short score and the other sources shows that this note was accidentally omitted due to a page break. In other cases, Valen may have deliberately thinned out and removed voices that were present in the short score. All assessments of such issues are detailed in the Critical Report, together with variants from the various sources.

som primærkjelde. Den mest krevjande problemstillinga i arbeidet med utgåva har vore situasjonane der vi finn notar i particellet som ikkje står i manuskriptpartituret. I nokre tilfelle, som til dømes i takt 6, manglar det heilt klart ein note i cello i både partituret til Valen og i utgåva frå Lyche & Co. Eit nærstudium av particellet og dei andre kjeldene syner at denne noten har falle bort på grunn av eit sideskift. I andre tilfelle kan Valen sjølv heilt medvite ha tynna ut og fjerna stemmer som sto i particellet. Alle vurderingar kring slik problematikk er plassert i den kritiske rapporten, saman med variantar frå dei ulike kjeldene.

Bjarte Engeset English translation: Thilo Reinhard

Bjarte Engeset

Notes Fartein Valen, Thematic notebook (Nos. 2671–2766), National Library of Norway, Mus.ms. 4557. Persistent link: http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_ digimanus_128212 8

Notar

Fartein Valen: Hefte med tema (Nr. 2671-2766), National Library of Norway, Mus. ms. 4557. Persistent link: http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_digimanus_128212 1

The original sculpture is lost, but survives today as an ancient Roman marble copy at the Capitoline Museum in Rome, Italy. 10

Olav Gurvin, Fartein Valen. En banebryter i nyere norsk musikk (Lyche, 1962).

Olav Gurvin, Fartein Valen. En banebryter i nyere norsk musikk (Lyche, 1962), p. 100. 11

Denne skulpturen er tapt, men finnast i dag som ein antikk romersk marmorkopi, oppbevara ved Kapitolmusea i Roma. 3

Arvid Vollsnes, ‘Valens Mallorca-triptyk’ in Et eget århundre – norsk orkestermusikk, 1905–2005, ed. Arvid Vollsnes (Forlaget Press, 2005). 12

Olav Gurvin, Fartein Valen. En banebryter i nyere norsk musikk (Lyche, 1962), s. 100. 4

Thomas Erma Møller, Sources, Structure and Surface: Philological and Analytical Studies in Fartein Valen’s Orchestral Works (University of Oslo, 2017), p. 56. 13

Arvid Vollsnes, «Valens Mallorca-triptyk», i Et eget århundre—norsk orkestermusikk, 1905–2005, ed. Arvid Vollsnes (Forlaget Press, 2005). 5

Thomas Erma Møller: Sources, Structure and Surface: Philological and Analytical Studies in Fartein Valen’s Orchestral Works (University of Oslo 2017), s. 56. 6

Olav Gurvin, Fartein Valen. En banebryter i nyere norsk musikk (Lyche, 1962).

Bjarne Kortsen, Fartein Valen, Vol. II (Tanum, 1965), p. 202.

‘Not science only and consummate art, patience must also bear her part’ (Anna Swanwick, transl.). 15

Bjarne Kortsen: Fartein Valen, Bind II (Tanum, 1965), s. 202.

Letter excerpts from Database of Fartein Valen’s Letters (ed. Arvid O. Vollsnes), Department of Musicology, University of Oslo, 2004. The letters are kept at the National Library of Norway

Brevsitata er henta frå Database over Fartein Valens brever (red. Arvid O. Vollsnes), Institutt for musikvitenskap, Universitetet i Oslo, 2004. Breva er oppbevart ved Nasjonalbiblioteket.

XIV

NENIA FOR ORCHESTRA, OP. 18, AUTOGRAPH, SKETCHES.. SOURCE S. THE SCORE IS KEPT AT THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF NORWAY, MUS.MS. 45181:E.

XVI

NENIA FOR ORCHESTRA, OP. 18, AUTOGRAPH, SHORT SCORE. SOURCE A. THE SHORT SCORE IS KEPT AT THE THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF NORWAY, MUS.MS. 45181:D.

XVII

NENIA FOR ORCHESTRA, OP. 18, AUTOGRAPH SCORE. SOURCE B. THE SCORE IS KEPT AT THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF NORWAY, MUS.MS. 2917A.

XVIII

NENIA FOR ORCHESTRA, OP. 18, COPY. SOURCE C. THE SCORE IS KEPT AT THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF NORWAY, MUS.MS. 2917C.

XIX

Nenia for orkester, op. 18 nr. 1 Nenia for Orchestra, Op. 18 No. 1

BESETNING/ORCHESTRA 2 Flauti 2 Oboi 2 Clarinetti (in Do) 2 Fagotti Corno (in Do) Tromba (in Do) Violini I. II. Viole Violoncelli Contrabbassi

Nenia Moderato

2 Flauti

° C &

∑

Fartein Valen, Op. 18 No. 1

∑

II.

n œ nœ pp

nœ

bœbœ œ ˙ 3

2 Oboi

∑

2 Clarinetti in Do

∑

2 Fagotti

∑

Corno in Do

° C &

∑

Tromba in Do

¢&

∑

Violini I.

° C &

∑

Moderato

Violini II.

Viole

Violoncelli

Contrabbassi

∑ b˙™ pp

∑ œ™ œ ˙ ™

∑

b˙ œ ™n œ ˙ ∑

∑

∑ œ

¯ ˙™

∑ w

∑

b˙ ™ pp

∑

œ™ œ ˙ ™ ∑

œ ™nœ ∑ ∑

∑

1 pp

Œ #œ #œ nœ nœ n œ œ ˙ ° <b>˙ & Ó ∑ 3

Fl.

Ob.

Cl. (Do)

∑ ∑

nœ 3œ œ w œ 2Ó Œ

nœ nœ

∑

3 2

∑

3 2

™ C˙ ∑

∑

CŒ

∑

nœ nœ nœ fp

∑

3 2

∑

° Cor. (Do) &

∑

3 2

∑

¢&

∑

3 2

∑

1 3 2Ó

Fg.

Tba. (Do)

Vln. I

° &

∑

3 2

∑

3 2

∑

3 2

Vc.

∑

Vle.

Cb.

nœnœ œ

b˙

3w 2

& n˙

Vln. II

¯ n˙ ™

#œ Œ ‰ j nœ #œ #œ C nœ

nœnœb˙

Fl.

° &

∑

Ob.

Cl. (Do)

b œ bœ œ ˙ pp

Cl. (Do)

∑

Œ Ó

œ bœ b œ ˙ Œ #œ #œ nœ

II.

Œ Ó

nœ

œ˙

∑

Cor. (Do)

° &

∑

Tba. (Do)

¢&

∑

Fg.

Vln. I

° & &

∑

œ n œ œ #œ nœ n-œ œ œ 3 n œ nœ b˙

#˙ ™ ∑

∑

-˙ nœ œ œ œ nœ n n œ nœ bœ # œ nœ n˙ n œ

pp Vln. II

∑

cresc.

∑

nœ n œ Œ nœ p cresc.

Vle.

Vc.

∑

Cb.

∑

b˙™ p

œ ™ nœ n˙ ™ ∑ ∑

cresc.

œ™n œ ∑ ∑

Fl.

∑

° &

∑

n œ nœ nœ bœ bœ œ ˙ & Œ I.

Ob.

∑

Cl. (Do)

œ bœ bœ

∑ ˙

∑

‰ j nœ bœ nœ nœ œ n œ nœ # œ #œ

∑

Cor. (Do)

° &

∑

Tba. (Do)

¢&

∑

Fg.

Vln. I

° nœ nœ œ w & # œ #œ 3

Vln. II

Vle.

Vc.

Cb.

bœ bœ œ ˙ 3

n˙

bœ ˙ ‰≈R

∑

b˙

∑

∑ œ nœ œ #œ nœ n-œ

n˙

nœ n œ œ#œ œ œ 3

∑ œ nœ n œ nœ b˙

nœ nœ n œ nœ

∑

Fl.

° &

∑

Ob.

Cl. (Do)

Fg.

∑

# œ nœ n˙ ™

nœ

nœ nœ bœ bœ

? a2 ¢ b˙ ™

œ™ nœ ˙ ™

œ ™ nœ n˙

b˙

n˙ ™ f

° Cor. (Do) &

∑

¢&

∑

Tba. (Do)

Vln. I

° œ &

#œ # œ nœ

∑

Vln. II

Vle.

nœ n œ Œ nœ

nœ n œ œ ˙ 3

b˙™

nœ nœ œ 3

∑

nœ nœ #œ Œ

∑

bœ

#œ

n˙

nœ œ œ

#˙ ™

#œ nœ nœ nœ nœ ˙ 3

Vc.

∑

Cb.

∑

Fl.

° &

∑

Ob.

& <b>˙

Cl. (Do)

œ n œ n œ #œ ™ nœn œ ? J ¢ 3 a2

Fg.

œ n œ œ nœ bw #œ

° Cor. (Do) &

∑

¢&

∑

Tba. (Do)

Vln. I

œ n œ n œ #œ œ b œ œ nœ

™ ° #˙ & &

Vln. II

nœ

œ nœ

#œ

nœnœ b˙ bœ

nœ bœ bœ p

nœnœ pp

nœnœ n œnœ b˙

nœnœ œ

œnœ b˙ ™

nœnœ n œnœb˙

Vle.

∑

Vc.

∑

Cb.

∑

° &

∑

Ob.

∑

Cl. (Do)

∑

? œ Œ

∑

° Cor. (Do) &

∑

¢&

∑

Fl.

Fg.

Tba. (Do)

4 Vln. I

° & b˙ ™

œ™nœ ˙ ™

œ ™ nœ n˙

b˙

cresc.

œ #œ œ n œ ™™ n œr œ™™ # œr # ˙ 3

cresc.

Vle.

Cb.

∑

? Œ nœ nœ nœ

Vc.

b œ ™™ œ œ ™™ n œ R R

& œ ™™ nœr œ™™ nœr n˙ ™

Vln. II

n˙ ™

∑ 3

bœ bœ œ ˙ ∑

∑

#-˙

nœ

cresc.

∑

nœ

œ˙

cresc.

∑

n˙

∑ Œ #œ #œ nœ

cresc.

w cresc.

∑

Fl.

° & Ó

3 2

∑

Ob.

b˙

b œ ™™ œ œ ™™ n œ ˙ R 23 R

∑

nœnœ nœ nœ C Ó nnœœ nœ bœ̇ bœ œ ˙ bœ bœ nœ̇ ‰ Œ J Œ #œ nœ 3

3 Œ Ó 2 & Œ nœ nœ nœ œ ∑ mf cresc.

n œ œ b œ ™™ b œ n œ ? Œ nœ 23 œ bœ bœ C n œ ¢ #œ 3 mf

cresc.

œ œ ™™ R

nœ n˙ R

b˙ nœ ‰

∑

3 2

∑

¢&

∑

3 2

∑

Vln. I

b˙

5 n ˙ b œ ™™ œ œ ™™ n œ ˙ ° R 23 R & f

B Ó

Vle.

œ #œ #œ

cresc.

f cresc.

3 C nœ nœ Œ #œ 23 #œ nœ nœ nœ œ œ #œ

n œ œ b œ ™™ b œ n œ 3 œ bœ bœ C 2 ff

f cresc.

Vc.

Cb.

œ nœ nœ nœ

nœ nœ nœ bœbœ œ 3 œbœbœ œ nœ nœ n œ C n œnœ nœ b˙ 2 &

Vln. II

nœ n œ œ #œ ∑

3 2

nœ nœ

cresc.

° Cor. (Do) & Tba. (Do)

nœ

∑

Fg.

œ #œ #œ

cresc.

Cl. (Do)

œ nœ nœ nœ

nœ nœ

bœ bœ nœ

nœ b œ œ

œ œ ™™ R

nœ n˙ R

œ nœ b˙

∑

œnœ œ 3

f cresc.

nœ

∑

n œ nœ

Fl.

° &

nœnœ

nœnœ b˙

œ n˙

nœ nœ b˙

n œ n œ œ nœn˙ ™ #œ 3

∑

Ob.

Fg.

∑ 3

& #œ nœb˙

nœnœ œ

Cl. (Do)

#œ n œ # œ # œ nœ nœ nœ #œ

f œ œ ? b˙ n˙ ™ nœnœ nœ bœ n˙ ¢ II.

∑

nœnœ œ 3

nœnœb œ

#œ ™

∑

r r œ œ ™™ nœ

bœ ™™ p

∑

∑ nœn˙ J

∑

° Cor. (Do) &

∑

¢&

∑

Tba. (Do)

Vln. I

° &

nœ œ

nœnœ

nœnœ b˙

nœ nœ b˙

n˙

œ œœ 3

nœb ˙ n œ #œ nœnœ œ nœ nœ nœ #œnœ #œ #œ 3

& #œ nœb˙

Vln. II

Vle.

Vc.

b˙ œ

nœ nœ

Cb.

∑

bœ ™™ f

r nœ œ™™

r nœ n˙

b˙

nœ œ ™™ R

nœ ˙ R

b˙

nœn˙ J

n˙ n œ b œ œ bœ ™™

œ nœnœ œ b œ #œ œ

™

nœ œ œ #œ ™

n˙ ™

™ #œnœn˙

∑

n -˙ ™ Œ

Fl.

° & #œ œb˙ ™ p

& n˙

Ob.

Cl. (Do)

Fg.

Cor. (Do)

∑

b˙

nœ

∑

nœ Œ nœ nœ

∑

r bœ ™™ œr œ ™™ nœ ˙ pp

Tba. (Do)

¢&

Vln. I

° &

∑

b˙ ™

nœ

∑

#œ œ nœ nœ œ

∑

Œ nœ nœ #œ nœ bœ œ ˙ 3

∑

Vle.

∑

Vc.

? ˙

∑

Cb.

∑

nœ p

Œ ?

Vln. II

∑

6 nœ nœ bœ œ #œ # œ n œ Œ Œ

bœ nœ œ œ

° & Ó

b >œ ™™ œ R

n œ nœ œ œ

bœ ™™ > p

r œ˙

bœ bœ œ œ œ œ ˙

œ ™™

Fl.

∑

° & &

Ob.

∑

b˙

cresc.

œ ™™ nœ n˙ ™ R

œ n œ œ #œ ™ 3

cresc.

nœ n˙ J

w f

nœ & nœ nœ nnœœ n œ Œ nœ

Cl. (Do)

Fg.

Œ Ó #œ f

∑

r œ˙

∑

nœ #nœœ Œ f

#œ œ nœ œ 3

∑

7 Vln. I

∑

° &

∑

nœ ææ

Œ #œææ

nœ ææ

Œ #œææ

Vln. II

cresc.

∑

¢&

nœ œ œ

cresc.

°? ™™ bœ Cor. (Do) > Tba. (Do)

b œ nœ œ n b œ̇ nœ œ Ó

œ R

Vle.

∑

Vc.

∑

∑ Œ

nœ n œ #œ

cresc.

nœ #œ nœ

pizz.

∑

n˙ n œ #œ

nœ n œ #œ p

Cb.

∑

cresc.

œ nœ œ œ #œ œ nœ nœ 3

∑

b˙™

Fl.

° & &

Ob.

8 Œ

n # œ n œ̇ #œ &nœ

Cl. (Do)

Fg.

? #œ nœ nœ ¢

œ œ r œ œ™™

° Cor. (Do) & bœ ™™ mf

Tba. (Do)

¢&

nœ ææ

nœ #æœ ææ æ

Œ nœ

nœ nœ

nœ ææ

∑

∑ Ó

∑

nœ nœ

b˙ r œ bw bœ ™™

nœ nœ

Vln. I

° &

& næœ æ

Vln. II

Vle.

Vc.

Cb.

#œ ææ

#œ nœ æ æ

nœ #æœ ææ æ

nœ ææ

f hervortretend (ausdrucksvoll)

r œ œ™™

r œ b˙ ™

œ™ œ

nœ nœ

nœ nœ æ æ æ æ ˙ ææ

bœ ææ

8 #œ œ b˙ æ æ ææ ff

n˙ ææ nœ

nœ nœ n œ ‰ æ næœ æ ‰ æ æœ æ

∑

? #œ nœ nœ

œ nœ

nœ nœ

r nœ

n˙ ææ

r n œ œ™™

b œ ™™

nœ nœ

b˙

∑

∑ nœ nœ

b œ ™™ ff

bœ ™™ ff

r n œ œ™™

r nœ

nœ œ ™™ R

nœ R

Fl. I.

° & &

Fl. II.

Ob.

Cor. (Do)

Tba. (Do)

Vln. I

bœ ™ ff

œ˙ J

nœ nœ

˙™

nœ n œ n œ nœ

nœ ∑

∑

∑ b˙

n˙

∑

bœ ™ œ ˙

Vle.

∑

Vc.

n˙

? n˙

bœ ™ œ ˙ bœ ™ œ ˙

œ ™nœ n˙

nœ ˙ æJ ææ

∑

œnœnœ#œ nœn˙ ° æ æ æ æ æ ææ & 3

nœnœ œ

n œ ™ b œ ˙™

∑

nœ œ nœ œ bœ ™ #œ nœ nœ œ ˙ œ

∑

¢& ˙ ™

nœ

∑

bœ ™ & ææ

Cb.

nœ bœbœ œ n œ nœ nœnœ b˙

° &

Vln. II

Cl. (Do)

Fg.

œnœ œ#œ œn˙

b˙

œ ææ nœ nœ ææ ææ ˙™ ææ

n˙ ™

∑

nœ ææ

nœ bœbœ œ n œ n œ æ æ æ æ æ n œ næœ æ ææ æ æ

nœ ææ

nœ n œ n œ nœ æ ææ ææ ææ æ

∑

nœ ™ bœ æ æ

∑

n œ nœ nœ b˙ ææ

nœnœ œ æ ææ 3

˙™ ææ ∑

b˙

nœ œ nœ œ nœ nœ b-œ ™ œ ˙ #œ œ

b-œ ™ œ ˙

b˙

nœ œ nœ œ nœ nœ b-œ ™ œ ˙ #œ œ

b-œ ™ œ ˙

Fl. I.

° & &

Fl. II.

bœ ™ œ ™# œ ˙™

œ˙ J

∑ œ œ œ #œ œ n ˙ 3

∑

∑ bœ ™™

œ œ™™ nœ R R

∑

° Cor. (Do) &

∑

Ob.

Cl. (Do)

Fg.

° bæœ ™ &

B Œ

nœ nœ œ 3

? œ

Vc.

Cb.

? œ

n˙

nœnœ œ 3

b œ bœ œ ˙

œ ˙

∑

nœ

#œ nœ b˙

nœ nœ œ b œ ™™

r r n œ n˙ œ œ™™

b˙

nœ nœ œ bœ ™™

r r n œ n˙ œ œ™™

b˙

#œ nœ b˙

nœ

œ ™ # œ ˙™ æ æ ææ &

Vle.

nœ n œ

#œ #œ nœ

nœ ˙ æJ ææ

n˙

Œ nœ

Vln. II

∑

bœ œ ˙ Tba. (Do) ¢& bœ

Vln. I

∑

Fl.

n œ nœ nœ bœ bœ œ ˙ Œ

rit.

∑

° & & n˙

b˙

œ bœ bœ

∑

Cor. (Do)

° &

∑

Tba. (Do)

¢&

∑

Ob.

Cl. (Do)

Fg.

Vln. I

° &

b œ ™™

œ œ ™™ n œ n ˙ R R

B <b>œ

Vle.

Vc.

? <b>œ

Cb.

rit.

∑

Vln. II

b˙

˙™

∑ ∑

˙™

∑

j n œj œ Œ bœ Œ n œ œ™

pizz.

bœ ™ pp

∑

ABBREVIATIONS b. bar bb. bars br. brass Cb. Contrabbassi Cl. Clarinetto Cor. Corno espr. espressivo Fg. Fagotto Fl. Flauto Instr. Instrument(s) Ob. Oboe N-Onm National Library of Norway, Oslo stacc. staccato marking(s) str. strings ten. tenuto marking(s) Tba. Tromba Vln. Violini Vle. Viole Vc. Violoncelli ww. woodwinds

SOURCES

CRITICAL REPORT

Nenia for Orchestra, Op. 18 No. 1 s Sketches, autograph A Short score, autograph B Score, autograph C Score, copy CPTS Parts, copy D Printed score, first edition (Lyche) DPTS Printed parts, first edition (Lyche)

he principles for a critical edition of Fartein Valen’s works as part of Norwegian Musical Heritage were established by the Fartein Valen Project at the Uni versity of Oslo and largely correspond to the editorial guidelines for Johan Svendsens Verker. In addition, general discussions among the Nordic Musical Heritage Network have furnished important contributions. For a full account of these editing principles, please visit the Norwegian Musical Heritage web page: www.musikkarven.no. For each edition of a work by Valen, a primary source is chosen as a point of reference for the list of editorial emendations and alternative readings. For practical and philological reasons, all sources are listed in what is believed to be their chronological order and attributed a capital letter in bold type (A, B, C, D, etc.). Text sources (t) and sketches (s) are treated separately since they tend to impact the critical edition less directly. The list of emendations and alternative readings provides information about the critical editing of the work. It accounts for all changes made by the editor to the primary source. It also lists all variant readings from other sources considered relevant by the editor. Negative variants are only included when they are directly relevant to the work and its critical editing. All comments regarding variant readings begin with a letter in bold type identifying the source in which the variant occurs. All other comments refer to emendations. Most of Valen’s sources are housed at the National Library of Norway and are available in high-resolution digital scans on the library’s web page: www.nb.no.

Source s Sketches, autograph N-Onm Mus.ms. 4518 1e 26 pages, 27x34.5 cm Pagination: 1–26 Printed music paper, 16 staves, marked B.C. No. 5 Above the first page of sketches: Nenia / Fartein Valen op 17 nr 2 Upper left hand corner of the first page: 20 juli 1932 Mostly systems of three connected staves Many different date entries. Final date: 4 aug 1932 14 instrumentation markings Written in pencil (Fartein Valen)

Source A Short score, autograph N-Onm Mus.ms. 4518 1d Title page: Nenia sulla morte d’un giovane / for orkester / Fartein Valen / Op 18 nr 1. 8 pages, 27x34 cm Pagination of pages with music: 1–6 Printed music paper – title page and blank page: 10 staves, marked B.C. No 1 10 Lin. Rest of the score: 12 staves, marked Nr. 3. F. 12 Mostly systems of three connected staves Top of the first page of music: Til Else Christie Kielland / Nenia / sulla morte d’un giovane / Fartein Valen / op. 18 nr 1 After the short score: 4 aug 1932 Extensive instrumentation markings Written in ink (Fartein Valen)

The following conventions have been used: • ‘By analogy with’ is used when something has been added, emended or omitted by analogy with a passage in the primary source. • ‘As in’ is used when something has been added, emended or omitted to correspond to the same place in another source. • ‘In accordance with’ is used when something has been added, emended or omitted to correspond with a secondary source. • ‘Note 1’ refers to the first main note in a bar. Grace notes are not included. • Pitch is expressed as written in the parts, including transposing instruments. • Middle c is defined as c’. Octave positions above middle c are specified as c’’, c’’’, etc. Octave positions below middle c are specified as c, C, C1, C2, etc.

Cantico di Ringraziamento Paginated Printed music paper, 10 staves, marked SKALA Nr. 1 Parts marked by performers with different writing tools Written in ink (H. S.)

Source B Score, autograph N-Onm Mus.ms. 2917a. Title page: Nenia sulla morte d’un giovane / for orkester / Fartein Valen op 18 nr 1. Second title page: Nenia / sulla morte d’un giovane / für Orchester / Partitur / Fartein Valen op 17 nr 1. 24 pages, 27.2x35 cm Pagination of pages with music: 1–16 Printed music paper – title page and blank page: 12 staves, marked Nr. 3. F. 12. Second title page and blank page: 16 staves, marked Nr. 5. F. 16. Rest of the score: 12 staves, marked Nr. 3. F. 12, except two of the blank pages at the end: 16 staves marked Nr. 5. F. 16. Above the score: Til Else Christie Kielland / Nenia / sulla morte d’un giovane Fartein Valen op 17 nr 1 After the score: Palma de Mallorca / 23 jan 1933 In pencil after the score: ca 4 1/2 min. Additions in pencil most likely by a conductor Rehearsal numbers added in red crayon Written in ink (Fartein Valen)

Source D Printed score, first edition (Lyche) Drammen 1954 Title page: EDITION / Lyche / No. 262 / FARTEIN / VALEN / NENIA / Opus 18 no. 1 Full score Top of the first page of music: TO ELSE CHRISTIE KIELLAND / NENIA / Fartein Valen, op. 18 no. 1 After the score: Komp. 1932

Source DPTS Printed parts, first edition (Lyche) Drammen 1954

Source C

EVALUATION OF THE SOURCES

Score, copy N-Onm Mus.ms. 2917c. Title page: Nenia / sulla morte d’un giovane / for orkester / Fartein Valen op 18 nr 1. [Written in pencil by Fartein Valen] 16 pages, 26x33 cm Pagination of pages with music: 1–15 Printed music paper, 14 staves, marked Skala Nr. 3 Above the score (written in pencil by Fartein Valen): Til Else Christie Kielland / Nenia Above the score in blue ink: Durata 5 min. After the score: H.S. / 1934 Additions in red and blue crayon, most likely by a conductor. Further additions in pencil that are a mixture of conductor markings and more proof-like additions Written in ink (H. S.)

The sketches for Nenia, Op. 18 nr. 1 (Source s) consist of 25 pages, written in pencil by Valen. They include daily dates from 20 July to 4 August 1932. Although the final three bars are not included in the sketch material, it is not very likely that any sketches are missing today. The sketches include 14 instrumentation markings such as ‘cello’, ‘flute’, etc. With few exceptions, the final score follows these indications. The sketches provide a detailed insight into Valen’s compositional process. They also offer some clues to Valen’s concept of phrasing, since he usually focused on one or two phrases a day, often spending many days on shaping each single phrase. Starting in the second week of sketching, the short score (Source A) was written in parallel with the sketches, and both share the same final date. In any evaluation of Valen’s sources, the short score is of great importance. Valen typically included so much information on orchestration, articulation, slurs and dynamics that one can say the work was completed the day the short score was finished. This is borne out by that fact that Valen used the word ‘ferdig’ (finished) about his work in several letters written right after completing the short score to Nenia. Untypical for Valen, however, is the fact that the autograph score (Source B) was not written out until half a year later. Usually, the composer would write out the score as soon as he had finished the short score. The reason for the delay on this particular occasion was probably Valen’s wish to complete

Source CPTS Parts, copy N-Onm Mus.ms. 4517 1a. Top of the first pages of music: Op. 17. no. 2. / Nenia. sulla morte d’un giovane. 142 pages, 25.5x34.5 cm Violino I (x4), Violino II (x4), Viola (x2), Cello (x2), Basso (x3), Flauto 1mo, Flauto 2do, Oboe 1mo, Oboe 2do, Clar. 1mo, Clar. 2do, Fagott 1mo, Fagott 2do, Horn, Horn in F, Tromba Bound together with parts for Sonetto di Michelangelo and

the third work in his planned trilogy before leaving Valevaag and Norway for a trip to Spain and Mallorca. There is nothing to indicate, however, that the six-month gap in time and place between the short score and the final score led to a lack of interest or concentration. The autograph score is neatly written and many details from the short score are subtly refined. Not a single pitch was changed or copied incorrectly in the process. The autograph score contains a number of additions, probably inserted by a conductor in order to highlight various elements and render the score more readable. Rehearsal numbers were added in red crayon. Some of the dynamics in the short score are written somewhat summarily, for example as a single dynamic above the system. As Valen wrote out the full score, he would generally pay more attention to precise dynamic placement throughout the score and make subtle changes. Occasionally, the start and end points of hairpins are adjusted and dynamics are added when instruments re-enter. Sometimes the process of adjusting dynamics becomes visible and transparent, such as when Valen erases and adds to the score itself – deliberately and for apparent reasons. These issues probably received more detailed attention in the full score than during work on the short score. There is a close connection between the short and the full score regarding the bars that were put into any one system, probably based on Valen’s concept of phrase length. Where winds and strings play in unison, Valen often used more and longer slurs in the winds than in the strings. In doubling string tremolo passages in the winds, he added slurs to the latter. In a few instances, Valen added instruments not listed in the short score, such as the pizzicato contrabass part in bb. 48–49. In addition, he added a number of octave doublings not found in the short score (e.g. two bars in the contrabass part). One of the trumpet entrances is marked hervortretend, and articulation has been added in several places. All these additional details speak in support of using the autograph score as the principal source rather than the short score. Some dynamics or articulations missing from the score, however, seem to be oversights, also when compared with analogous material or passages. But the main editing problem are notes or phrases that were either removed or accidentally omitted from the full score in comparison with the short score. In Nenia, there are four such cases of ‘removed’ melodic material. An obvious case of oversight can be found in bb. 4–6: the g in Vc. is sustained across a system break after b. 5 in the short score and across a page break after b. 5 in the autograph score. But the full score omits the g in b. 6, even though Valen has included the tie before the page turn from bb. 5–6. Where no system breaks or page turns are responsible for missing material, it is more difficult to ascertain whether this is caused by accidental omissions. In all these instances, the surrounding context has been notated with extreme care and

in great detail throughout. Thus, some of these changes may be due to deliberate modifications in instrumentation. In b. 45, it is difficult to include all the notes in Vln. 2, and at the same time impractical to assign them to other instruments. Perhaps Valen found it necessary to ‘thin out’ the texture. In bb. 56–69, the planned horn part would result in five individual parts and render the texture fairly dense. With the full score in front of him, Valen would have been better able to judge the resulting sonority than while working on the short score. The flute motive in bb. 32–34 of the short score would perhaps have ‘spoiled’ the freshness of the flute entrance some bars later, had it been included. The omission of this motive in the full score may well have been deliberate. In 1934, one year after Valen had completed the score during his stay on Mallorca, his copyist H. S. prepared a copy of the score and a set of parts (Sources C and CPTS). That year, H. S. copied all of Valen’s manuscripts from Op. 17 to Op. 20. In only four places, the copyist added dynamics by use of analogy, all in obvious contexts. There are, however, approximately twenty important details H.S. failed to include, thus inadvertently undermining Valen’s intentions. Surprisingly, when Valen’s publisher Lyche prepared to publish the work following the composer’s death, in 1954, this copy, rather than the autograph score, was used as the printing source. With few exceptions, this printed edition (Sources D and DPTS) is very similar to the copy. Here, too, a number of fairly self-evident modifications were made using analogy, but the discrepancies with Valen’s intentions are as problematic here as in the copy. We therefore decided to use the autograph manuscript (Source B) as our principal source for this new edition. However, two critical issues remain: To what extent did Valen accidentally omit material in transferring the short score to the autograph score? Could some of the additions in pencil in Source C be proof marks added by Valen himself? In many cases, the pencilled additions in C are expressive in character, such as additional hairpins and dynamics. They may have been added by a conductor, but could also be proof marks by Valen. Especially the rather substantial addition of dynamic markings in bb. 50–58 (mainly in the strings) is not easy to assess. The Lyche edition from 1954 includes all of these markings. We have – under doubt – concluded that they were not made by Valen, and have therefore not included them in our edition. All of them are listed in the Editorial Emendations and Alternative Readings below. Since the original Lyche edition has represented the only publicly available version of the work until now, we have also listed so-called ‘negative variants’ (primary source elements missing in other sources) from the Lyche edition. This gives the reader a better understanding of the differences between our new critical edition and the old printed edition .

EDITORIAL EMENDATIONS AND ALTERNATIVE READINGS Comments considered to be of particular importance by the editor have bar numbers in bold type. Primary source: B

Vle.

D: f

Cl. 1

A: empty bar

Vle., Vc.

cresc. added by analogy with the other parts and as in A

35–36

Vle.

C, D: no slur across barline

Vc.

D: no dynamic marking

Bar

Instr.

Comment

Vle., Vc.

ff added by analogy with Vl. 1/2

Vl. 2

C: pp forgotten by copyist, added in pencil (Fartein Valen?)

Vl. 2

C, D: notes 1–3: slur

Tutti

Vc.

note added as in A (Valen probably forgot to inculde it in B after the page turn)

D: part

Vle.

Fl. 2, Vl. 1

pp added by analogy with the other instruments and as in C, D

A: these notes are notated one octave lower

Fl.

A, C, D: no dynamic marking

11–12

Fl. 1

42–43

Ob.

C, D: no dynamic marking

Vl. 1

C, D: The > points the other way compared to A, B

44–45

Vl. 1

C: no slur

Vl. 1

C, D: no

Fg.

C, D: not marked I.

12–13

C, D: no tie across the barline

Cor., Vl. 2

rests added (bar undercompleted)

Cl. 2

A: pp

Cl. 1

A: 

Cl. 2



Vl. 1

ten. added as in A

Cl. 1

C, D: 

Vle.

C: no p

Cl. 2

C, D: empty bar

Ob.

Vl. 2

C, D: no dynamic marking

Vl. 1

C, D: > points the other way compared to A, B

Vle.

A: no ten.

Cl.

C, D:

begins later than in A, B

Vl. 1

C, D:

begins later than in A, B

Vl. 1

Vl.1

Fg.

C, D:

32–34

Fl.

begins a little later than in B

A: extra part for one bar, omitted in B

Ob.

> added by analogy with Cb. and as in A

Cb.

A: no >

48–49

Cb.

A: Cb. and pizz. not indicated in this octave

Cl.

f added by analogy with Fg. and as in C, D

Vl. 1

C, D: note 3: f (added in pencil in C)

Vl. 1/2

C, D:

52–53

Tba.

A: neither dynamic markings nor text

Fg.

C, D: no ff

53–54

Fg .

C: slur ends at note 1 of b. 54

Tba.

C, D: ff (in C the second f added in ink)

Vl. 1

incomplete tie completed

Vl. 1/2

C, D:

Vl. 2

A: slurs above each three-note figure

Fl., Vl. 1/2

C, D: pencil in C)

Vl. 1/2

C, D : no ties

54–57

Cb.

A: this additional octave is not present

Vl. 1/2

C, D: pencil in C)

55–56

Vc., Cb.

C, D: note 6 b. 55 to note 2 b. 56: (added in pencil in C); note 4 b. 56 (added in pencil in C)

Vl. 1/2

C, D:

begins a little later than in B extends a little longer than in A, B

Fl.

I. added

Fg.

A, C, D: no a 2

starts at the beginning of the bar in every

(added in pencil in C)

from the middle of the bar (added in

on the first half of the bar (added in

(added in pencil in C)

56–59

Cor.

56–57

Vc.

A: no ten.

56–57

Cb.

ten. added by analogy with Vc. and as in C, D

Vc., Cb.

C, D: note 1 to note 2: (added in pencil in C); note 4: (added in pencil in C)

Fl.

added by analogy with Vl. 1 and as in A, C, D

Vl. 2

added by analogy with Vl. 1 and as in A

Ob.

C, D: notes 1–2: slur

Ob.

C, D: notes 1–2: slur