Ives - String Quartet No. 2 by Peermusic Classical

Charles E. Ives String Quartet No. 2 Critical Edition Edited by Malcolm Goldstein

CONTENTS Preface .……………………. iii Performance Notes .………. vi Score ………………………. 1 Description of Sources …… 32 Critical Commentary ……... 32

The source scores for this edition are available online for study here: http://peer.ms/ives2stqt

This edition has the approval of the Charles Ives Society, Inc., which is furthering and supporting the preparation of critical editions, both new and revised, of the music of Charles Ives. The work of the Society has been made possible by grants From the American Academy of Arts and Letters, and a generous bequest from the late Wladimir and Rhoda Lakond.

P REFACE In the same year the Walden String Quartet, a professional ensemble, performed the quartet on September 15 at the Seventh Yaddo Music Festival in Saratoga Springs, New York and again on October 7 at Town Hall in New York City; this was followed by a recording in fall 1946 (released in 1947 on Disc records, set #775).

S[tring] Q[uartet] for 4 men – who converse, discuss, argue (in RE ‘politick’), fight, shake hands shut up—then walk up the mountain side to view the firmament!

This is how Ives describes the program of String Quartet No. 2 at the bottom of the first page of the manuscript score. In the right-hand margin is the further comment: “4 men have some discussions about some matters—What matters, Rollo? Not the same thing every time. No, Rollo Finck.”

The complete full score was first copied out by George F. Roberts, probably in the mid-1930s, when he worked on several of Ives’s scores. However, because of the difficulty in reading Ives’s manuscript (in large part a very dense, compacted notation on two staves), Roberts’s score is filled with errors. There are the expected incorrect pitches and rhythms, but other errors such as missing passages and the duplication of the introduction to the third movement, in which both the rejected measures and Ives’s replacement patch are inappropriately reproduced in sequence. In the 1940s Lou Harrison worked on the score and reconstructed some passages adding “a measure here or there”. His efforts in 1944 produced the instrumental parts for the 1946 premiere and probably became the source for the 1954 publication by Peer International Corporation.

In Memos,1 Ives talks about experiences that impelled him to compose the quartet: A better Second String Quartet was written in 1911, and is one of the best things I have, but the old ladies (male and female) don’t like… this better Second String Quartet… it used to come over me—especially after coming from some of those nice Kneisel Quartet concerts—that music had been, and still was, too much of an emasculated art. Too much of what was easy and usual to play and to hear was called beautiful, etc.—the same old even-vibration, Sybaritic apron-strings, keeping music too much tied to the old ladies. The string quartet music got more and more weak, trite, and effeminate. After one of those Kneisel Quartet concerts in the old Mendelssohn Hall, I started a string quartet score, half mad, half in fun, and half to try out, practise, and have some fun with making those men fiddlers get up and do something like men. The set of three pieces for string quartet called: I. Four Men have Discussions, Conversations, II. Arguments and Fight, III. Contemplation—was done then (Memos, pp.73‒74).

Soon afterwards John Kirkpatrick researched Ives’s original score sketch and in 1958 produced “A Tentative Comparison of Ives’s Autograph Pencil Sketch,” with supplements in 1965 and 1967. This work made possible a reprint of the score by Peer International Corporation in 1970, based on Kirkpatrick’s comparison of sources with additional data contributed by myself and Wayne Shirley. Though much improved, this edition still contained errors and also introduced Kirkpatrick’s own editorial performance preferences.

Later he would change the titles of the movements to: I. Conversations and Discussions; II. Arguments; III. The Call of the Mountains, retaining the same programmatic structure. When he was working on the Memos in the early 1930s, Ives dated the quartet as having been composed between 1911 and 1913, with a (lost?) sketch for the second movements from 1907 (Memos, pp. 161 and 266).2

Ives’s complete pencil score sketch is the principal source for this edition. In addition, the earlier work of Roberts, Harrison and Kirkpatrick has been studied for clarification of problematic notations. This critical edition is indebted to their efforts in preparing the ground, as well as to James B. Sinclair, Thomas Brodhead, and Todd Vunderink for their suggestions in the preparation of this edition.

While Ives never heard a complete performance of the music, in Memos (p.74) he recalls: “Only a part of a movement was copied out in parts and tried over (at Tam’s one day)—it made all the men rather mad. I didn’t blame them—it was very hard to play—but now it wouldn’t cause so much trouble…” The whereabouts of these parts is unknown. On May 11, 1946 an ensemble from the Juilliard School of Music performed the premiere of the quartet at the Second Annual Festival of Contemporary Music at Columbia University, New York City.

iii

Personalities and Memos in the Score

Ives also introduces the young men in his DKE fraternity at Yale (Mvt. I, m. 99) and his later housemates at “Poverty Flat” (1898-1908), a residence of Yale alumni, including Keyes Winter and possibly the Aretie and Billy referred to in the quartet. (See Memos, Appendix 17, pp. 262‒267.) These comments often depict the accompanying musical activity.

There are numerous comments written by Ives in the first and second movements of the manuscript score, beginning with the first page (as quoted above). Some are found within particular passages, others in the margins. The comments can refer to the particular passages where they appear; to larger sections of music; or they can take the form of more general reflections. They first appear in the second half of the first movement, and permeate the second movement. Most are reproduced in the score of this edition; some are found only in the Critical Commentary, where more details are given when relevant.

Baseball makes a brief but emphatic appearance in the second movement (mm. 77‒79), “Allegro con fuoco (all mad!)”, a fortissimo shouting of “I said…”, “I say…”. Below the cello in the pencil sketch (source S, the basis of this edition), Ives added the comment “Allegro con con Conny Mack” (the baseball player, manager and later owner of the Philadelphia Athletics). Perhaps this passage can be interpreted as a baseball being hurled around the infield with the cellist sliding (glissando) into home plate. Ives excelled at baseball in high school, and may be comparing the quartet to a baseball diamond, known for its chatter and argumentativeness.

These comments are significant not only as guides to musical interpretation but also because they offer a quasi-biographical insight into Ives’s sources and thinking. References are made to his college fraternity (Ives attended Yale from 1894 to 1898), his time of residence with other Yale alumni at “Poverty Flat” in New York City at the turn of the century, and his interest in baseball. Many comment on his experiences with the professional music scene and the harsh reactions to his compositions from the musical establishment, including his former teacher at Yale, Horatio W. Parker.

Musical Quotations and Sources At significant places in the narrative arc, musical quotations are used: in Movements I and II they come from popular and political songs, classical European sources, and Ives’s own music; in Movement III they are primarily from hymn sources, as well as Ives’s own music.

Ives developed the character of “Rollo” to represent the attitudes of those “cultivated” musicians. Rollo is the figure most frequently referred to in the quartet. Ives adopted the name from the main character in the “Rollo Books”, a 19thcentury series for young readers. For Ives, Rollo epitomized the dull, literal mind, “effeminate” and clinging to backwardlooking, conservative habits. In the first movement (mm. 80‒ 97) Rollo is represented by the second violin, introduced with: “Hard Rollo. This is music for men to play—not the lady bird Kneisel Q[uartet]” (see Memos, pp. 73‒74 for Ives’s thoughts on the Kneisel). Rollo takes on the persona of all musicians playing the nice and easy, pretty music that Ives abhorred. His various representations include Mischa Elman, a virtuoso violinist of the time whose style is associated with the sweetsounding burlesque cadenza in the second movement (m. 34), described in the typical Ivesian manner as “emascutata” and “Pretty tone Ladies!”. He also becomes Prof. M—probably the violinist and pedagogue Franz Milcke, who condemned the “horrible” sounds of Ives’s First Violin Sonata—who breaks down in the canon of the second movement (m. 58), stops and says (or is it Ives addressing him sarcastically?), “Too hard to play—so it just can’t be good music—Rollo”. (For the complete story see Memos, pp. 70‒71; and for the impact of such musicians upon Ives, see Memos p. 126.)

Some of the more prominent sources are: Movement I: mm. 58‒65 “Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean” (Vn1), “Dixie” (Va), “Marching Through Georgia” (Vn2) and “Turkey in the Straw” (Va), “Hail! Columbia” (Vn1 and Vc); m. 102 “Bethany” (Ensemble). Movement II: m. 49 “Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean” within the canon (first in Va); m. 87 “Hail! Columbia” (Vn1); m. 87 Tchaikovsky’s 6th Symphony (Vc) and m. 89 (Vn1 & 2); m. 92 Brahms’s 2nd Symphony (Vn1); m. 94 “Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean” (Va & Vc); m. 96 Beethoven’s 9th Symphony, “Ode to Joy” (Vn2); m. 98 “Marching though Georgia” (Vn1); m. 101 “Down in the Cornfield (“Massa’s in the cold, cold ground”) (Ensemble). Movement III: m. 5 Ives’s String Quartet No. 1 (Revival service), 4th movement (Vn1); m. 9: Nettleton (“Come, thou Fount of Every Blessing”) (Vn1 & 2; also found in Ives’s String Quartet No. 1, 3rd mvt.); m. 56 BETHANY (“Nearer, my God, to Thee”) (extended viola solo); m.91 “Westminster Chimes” (Ensemble); m. 118 Ives’s Robert Browning Overture (excerpt variant), later reshaped into his 1921 song setting of Robert Browning’s poem “Paracelsus” with this melodic fragment accompanying the words “God is glorified in man”

The juxtaposition of the angular, chromatic BrowningParacelsus fragment with the lyrical, tonal excerpt of BETHANY (m. 119) is a microcosm of Ives’s program for the quartet: four men converse, assert themselves, talk past each other, and argue until they “shake hands, shut up—and walk up the mountain side to view the firmament!”: a serene epiphany embodied in BETHANY (“Nearer, My God, to Thee”), Maestoso adagio, m. 123. (It is interesting to note that Ives uses this multiple-part texture, with BETHANY, “Westminster Chimes,” and the stepwise descending cello line again in his Fourth Symphony).

(Ensemble); m. 123: BETHANY and “Westminster Chimes” (Vn1), ending with BETHANY (Va) m. 141. Movement III, m. 118 deserves close attention. The motive here, also found in Ives’s Robert Browning Overture and song “Paracelsus” (see music examples below) is introduced in a startling manner. It is the only place in the entire quartet when Ives has all four instruments play the same material, in fortissimo octaves.3 It is followed by a fragment of BETHANY (m. 119) and then returns (m. 120).

All of the above having been noted, it is good to keep in mind Ives’s own reflections on program music: Example 1a. String Quartet No. 2, mvt. III, m.118

How far is anyone justified, be he an authority or a layman, in expressing or trying to express in terms of music (in sounds, if you like) the value of anything, material, moral, intellectual, or spiritual, which is usually expressed in terms other than music? … On the other hand is not all music program music? Is not pure music, so called, representative in its essence?” (Essays Before a Sonata, pp.1‒2)4.

Example 1b. String Quartet No. 2, mvt. III, m.120

This Critical Edition is dedicated with deep appreciation and respect to John Kirkpatrick who has been an inspiration with his devotion, as performer and scholar, to the music of Charles Ives.

Example 2. Robert Browning Overture, mm. 107-108

—Malcolm Goldstein 2003–2011 Example 3. “Paracelsus,” mm. 7-9

This motive can be seen as an integrating element in the quartet, one of the few compositions by Ives in which all of the movements were conceived as a whole. It is heard, in modified form, in the dense polyphony of the Adagio molto of the first movement (Vn2, mm.106‒107; Vn1, m.107; Vc, mm.107‒108). Though less clearly defined, it can be detected throughout the first movement, as if from the very beginning of the quartet this motive has been seeking its definitive form as expressed in the outburst near the end of the third movement. It can also possibly be heard, in a very modified shape, in the opening melodic motif of the canon in the second movement (Va, m. 42), all parts bound together “by rule” though each on a different pitch level, and in the beginning motif of the ascending sequence in the third movement (Vn1, fourth quarter of m. 20) with variation-transformations (m. 26, m. 32 and m. 37).

P ERFORMANCE N OTES Ives’s Spelling of Accidentals

Mvt. II, m. 82, Meno mosso: In this final section of “Arguments” the confrontation between American and popular tunes and European symphonic motives suggests that the argument has moved to political and sociocultural subjects. The Meno mosso here and again at m. 96, without some places to return to the Allegro tempo, would gradually weaken the impact of the debate and be inappropriate for this final section of the movement. There are several possible solutions for the ensemble to explore, one being a return to the Allegro with “Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean” (m. 89, 4th quarter).

All accidentals in the score of this edition are notated as in Ives’s manuscript score. It will be noted that numerous intervals are spelled in an unusual way. For example, in Mvt. III m.7 (Vn1), Ives writes A#-Db-A#. The question arises as why there is such an unusual notation when Db could have been spelled simply as C#. For Ives, these two spellings imply two distinctly different notes: Db slightly lower and declining toward C§, as C# inclines toward D§. (See his comments on spelling of accidentals in Memos, pp. 189‒195, specifically p. 190, and about quarter-tones, pp. 108‒110.) The A# relates to the chords created by the three lower instruments, but the Db is a tone without traditional harmonic support, a “narrow” third in this passage (mm. 1‒10) where the first violin has several motives of rising and falling thirds, each with its own character and interval spacing. Perhaps this Db can be heard as resolving to C in m. 9, as the Eb and C# of the viola (m. 6) finally resolve to D of the G major chord in m. 8.

Mvt. II, m. 96, 2nd quarter, Meno mosso: As above, after this slower tempo, a return to Allegro is appropriate with “Marching Through Georgia” (m. 97, 4th quarter) to recapture the energy of Arguments. Consideration of dynamic level as well as bow articulation is important here, perhaps with legato bowing for the Beethoven quotation in contrast to the preceding passage. (A more radical interpretation for this extended passage, mm. 82‒101, could entail numerous tempo changes to reflect the shifting of particular musical quotations. Dynamics and bowing articulations also need to be decided upon to provide character throughout the debate.)

This consideration also applies to the Cº in Vn1 (mvt. I, m. 68): it is neither Cb nor B§, and definitely not Bb. It is C declining “doubly” toward Bb, creating a special double-stop interval with the sustained A string. See also the Cº in the cello (mvt. I, m. 75) and Violin 2 (mvt. I, m. 106).

Mvt. III, m. 86: See the Critical Commentary on Ives’s note on the use of mutes. It is possible for Vn1 & 2 to play softly without mutes so that the viola song is not covered up, but the musicians might explore Ives’s suggestion as, in addition to being softer, there would also be a modification of sound quality, a “muted” distance, that could be quite effective in contrast to the preceding con spirito accented passage.

Ives never worked out a systematic approach to microtonality, just as he never created theoretical systems in his use of twelve-tone techniques, polytonal layering, rhythmic and duration structures, etc. He used whatever was needed for the music at a particular expressive moment or passage. While the above examples can be seen as expressive uses of microtonality, there are instances in the quartet where it is difficult to understand the musical underpinnings of Ives’s unusual accidentals. However, we must heed Ives’s admonition to his copyist George Price: “Please don’t try to make things nice! All wrong notes are right.”

Mvt. III, m.125: The p indicated in Ives’s manuscript is not included in this edition (see the Critical Commentary). However, it suggests that the f notated at the beginning of this epiphany may be performed with the special quality Ives brought to the ending of his Fourth Symphony. The singing of BETHANY, “Nearer my God, to Thee,” with “Westminster Chimes” may be presented with an internal sense of revelation, rather than an ecstatic shouting.

Notes on Specific Passages Mvt. II, mm. 11‒79: Though Ives clearly indicates a repeat of these 69 measures, it is not recommended, as it undermines the narrative inherent in “Arguments” and radically changes the balance of the three movements. It is suggested that the musicians rehearse the movement with and without the repetition to arrive at their own solution.

Mvt. III, m. 128 Vn1, last eighth – m. 129, first quarter: As this triple-stop is not playable (or extremely difficult to play in tune), and if attempted would interrupt the flow of the melody, Vn1 needs to choose between a double-stop C#-F# , as is found in m. 130, or A#-F#, consistent with this passage of doublestops. Since “Westminster Chimes” begins here, it would seem best to play the first version above and interpret Ives’s letter “A” with parentheses as an alternative afterthought.

corrections to obvious errors. Slurs supplied by the editor have been set with a break in the middle. (In the instrumental parts all editorial brackets and slurs have been omitted.) Accidentals indicated by Ives to clarify vertical differences between parts are retained in the score.

(If the second version, with the A, is played, it is suggested that the tie of the A (m.129, 1st‒2nd quarter) be omitted so that the beginning of “Westminster Chimes” is clearly articulated.) Mvt. III Vn1, 2nd dotted half triplet: As the triplet played with the parenthetical E would interrupt the flow of the melodic line, it is suggested that the E be omitted.

Ives often notated dynamics in one or two parts, but not in all; in this edition the others are supplied in brackets where agreement is clearly called for. Occasionally, as at the opening of Mvt. III, Ives writes different dynamics where the editor suggests unanimity. (Here, Ives’s original p is shown, with a bracket indicating the editor’s modification to pp.)

General Performance Considerations It will be noted that Ives indicates dynamics, phrasing, and bowing articulations only occasionally, thus leaving a lot to the performing ensemble to determine in order to shape the endless flow of notes. For instance: though the dynamic indicated at the beginning of the first movement is not changed until measure 25, it is obvious that the first dynamic is not to be rigidly adhered to until that moment. The ensemble activity in measures 14‒15 clearly calls for a crescendo, and preceding passages suggest the use of more subtle shaping of dynamics to clarify the interplay of the parts. Other situations call for a sudden change suitable to the musical context, such as f for Vn2 (m. 62) changing again (m. 64), as also the duo of Vn1 and Vc (m. 64).

For places where it is difficult to determine the definitive editorial solution, an asterisk is used, directing the reader to details in the Critical Commentary, where all other editorial observations can be found.

Notes 1. Charles Ives: Memos, John Kirkpatrick, ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1972. 2. The second movement is clearly dated by Ives at the bottom of the final page of the manuscript score sketch as having been completed January 1, 1911, at 70 West 11th St, his New York City residence, which would imply that the composition was finished in—or perhaps before—1910. Ives did not inscribe dates in the first and third movements of the score sketch.

In the same way, the ensemble will need to determine bowings and other articulations. Although Ives rarely notates bowing slurs, this does not mean that every note is to be played détaché; the quality of sound, textures and expression will need to be determined following a thorough study of the score and the possible interpretations it suggests. Ives was inconsistent in his use of phrase marks, and when they do appear, he occasionally did not differentiate between them and bowing slurs. The question of bowing also occurs in passages in which a player has a sustained note with a voice moving against it; whether to slur all or to articulate some note or notes with a change of bow is left to the discretion of the performer, as this edition presents only the slurs found in the manuscript. In this way too, Ives opens the door for the performing musicians to participate in shaping the musical experience (and perhaps “not the same way every time”!).

3. In Memos, Ives writes that he worked on the Second Quartet, the Robert Browning Overture, and sketches for “Paracelsus” at around the same time (see p. 76; p. 156, no. 22; p.161, no. 61; p. 169, no. 30.) He writes (p. 77) about “how one idea or set of ideas goes through so many transitions,” finding different forms in different works. The nexus of what might be called the “Paracelsus motive” is wound around a spiritual idea. Ives’s song “Paracelsus” (1921) sets an excerpt from Scene V of Robert Browning’s poem of the same name, in which the 16th-century Swiss physician and alchemist Philippus Aureolus Paracelsus, long enamored of his own power, overcomes his vainglory by recognizing the need for love as the primal source for one’s endeavors. It seems likely that Ives had the words from “Paracelsus”—“for God is glorified in Man”—in mind for some passages of the orchestral overture, and that the motive had a particular significance for him in the quartet.

About This Edition The principal source for this edition is Ives’s score-sketch (S), which was modified by the patches (p) and the rejected sketch page (s) (see the Critical Commentary). This edition replicates Ives’s manuscript as closely as possible. However, the music was mostly composed on a two-stave piano score, and contains a good number of inconsistencies and shorthand notations. Square brackets are used in the score of this edition to indicate matter supplied by the editor, such as time signatures, articulations, cancelling accidentals, and

4. Charles Ives, Essays Before a Sonata and Other Writings, ed. Howard Boatwright. New York: W.W. Norton, 1961, Prologue.

vii

String Quartet No. 2 I. Conversations & Discussions

Charles E. Ives Edited by Malcolm Goldstein

Andante mod[erato] Violin I

Violin II

Viola

Violoncello

3 3

[loco]

3 3

* 3

2 18

3 3

[3]

3 32

36 3 3

[3]

3 3

39 3 3 3

42 3

4 45 3 3

3 3

3 3 3

3 3

3 6

* 3

3 6

* See Critical Commentary

accel.

piĂš mosso

3 6 6

solo

6 6

61 6

Tempo Primo 6

[6]

65 3

6 6

3 6

6 *

3 3

70 3 3

3 3

3 3 3

76 3

* See Critical Commentary

7 Hard Rollo. This is music for men to playâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;not the lady-bird Kneisel Q[uartet]

3 3

88 3 3

3 3

8 91

94 3 3

Andante con spirito

3 3

Keyes takes exception— “on that point”

100

So do the others each has his say DKE

più mosso

5 3

3 5

[5]

[gliss]

9 102

rit.

“But on this—they all say Eyah! [”] 3

Everybody can see that!

Adagio molto 106

* 3

110

3 3

114

3 3

* See Critical Commentary

10 118 3 3 3

122

3 3 3

“I repeat again what I, Sir, mean in these few words.” 126

3 3 3 3

129

“enough discussion for us! [”]

II. Arguments Allegro con spir[it]o Violin I

Violin II

Viola

Violoncello

“Saying the same thing over & over & louder & louder—ain’t arguing, DKE. [”]

[simile]

* See Critical Commentary.

solo

A[n]dante Emascutata 34

Alla Rubato ELMAN! (Pretty Tone Ladies!) ‘Candenza’ [sic] (burlesque cadenza)

Allegro con fisto

rit. rit.

ad lib Sun[day] PM ad snoborita

“Cut it out! Rollo!”

Largo sweetota Largo soblato ten. rit.

(Andante emasculata) Presto

Allegro con f[isto]

ten.

ten. 3

ten.

Largo

Allegro [Vn. II finishes Largo]

[3]

45 3

3 3

14 51 3

“Prof. M stops, “Too hard to play—so it just can’t be good music—Rollo”

60 3

3 3

15 63 3

3 3

3 3 3

66 3 5

Prof W beats time

“Beat time Rollo—D.L.R. up! [”]

3 5

70 3 5

“Join in again Prof W “all in key of C. You can do that “nice” & pretty”—Rollo”

(but my job is hard, Rollo—see frog jumps)

Allegro con fuoco Allegro con con Conny Mack

con fuoco (all mad!) 3

“I say. . . .

Now—“when I started this argument, I said”. . .

Arti is a little mad! “I said. . . .

“I said. . . . gliss.

* See Critical Commentary.

rit.

Meno mosso *

3 3

* See Critical Commentary.

18 91

(What’s yours? Aretie)

(What’s yours? Billy)

Meno mosso *

3 3 3

* See Critical Commentary.

19 [gliss.]

[gliss.]

101

105

3 3

108

Andante con scratchy (as tuning up)

Allegro con fistiswatto (as K.O.)

good place to stop not end!

III. “The Call of the Mountains” Adagio

Violin I

Violin II

Viola

Violoncello 6

3 3

3 3 3 3

Andante

22 3

25 3

piĂš mosso

3 3

22 5

3 3

37 3

Andante con spirito

[3] [3]

3 3

24 (con sordino if possible) *

55 3

(con sordino if possible) *

58 3

3 3

63 3

3 3

* See Critical Commentary.

25 65

3 3

[3]

67 3

non cresc.

cresc.

69 3

3 3

26 73 3 3

3 3

5 6

(remove mute) 3

(remove mute)

3 6

Adagio primo

79 5

3 3

27 83

3 3

* 3

3 3

3 3 3

* See Critical Commentary

3 3

28 97

101

3 3

105

[3]

109

113

117

5 3

3 3

(oct[ave]s ad lib.)

120

poco stringendo 3

Maestoso adagio 123

* See Critical Commentary.

30 8

126

130

loco

134

138

rit.

* See Critical Commentary. Music engraved by Thomas M. Brodhead