BOSTON UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS

Dissertation

KRZYSZTOF PENDERECKI’S CONCERTO FOR VIOLA AND ORCHESTRA

AN ANALYSIS AND PERFORMER’S GUIDE

W
IE by
EV

l-TING CHANG

B.M., Eastman School of Music, 1997

PR

M.M., New England Conservatory, 1999

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Musical Arts

2005

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 UMI N um ber: 3171132

Copyright 2005 by
Chang, l-Ting

All rights reserved.

IN F O R M A TIO N TO U S E R S

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

W
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
IE
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
EV

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

PR

UMI
UMI Microform 3171132

Copyright 2 005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 W
IE
EV
PR

© Copyright by
l-TING CHANG
2005

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Approved by

First Reader
Samuel Headrick, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Theory and Composition

W
Second Reader
IE
Thomas Peattie, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Music
Chairman of Musicology
EV

Third Reader
PR

Michelle LaCourse
Associate Professor of Music, Viola
Chairman of String Department

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 To my parents and grandparents

W
IE
EV
PR

iv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to my reader, Dr. Samuel

Headrick, for his guidance and enthusiasm throughout the process of this

extensive project. Special thanks are also extended to Dr. Thomas Peattie for

his constructive suggestions and corrections.

I would also like to thank Ms. Kim Kashikashian for taking the time to

verify the various corrected information in the published viola part and the

W
orchestral score. Also, thanks to European American Music Distributors LLC,
IE
sole U.S. and Canadian agent for Schott Musik International, Mainz for granting

the copyright permission for excerpts used in this dissertation.

EV

Thanks to everyone else at Boston University who has helped me

complete this very difficult, but educational experience, especially Steven Ansell
PR

for honing my viola skills.

And, a very special thanks to my viola professor at Eastman School of

Music and New England Conservatory, James Dunham, for his constant support

and inspiration, from whom I learned how to be a better artist and an educator.

Last but not least is to thank my husband and editor, Mark, who shared

with me countless stressful days and nights during my graduate years.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 KRZYSZTOF PENDERECKI’S CONCERTO FOR VIOLA AND ORCHESTRA

AN ANALYSIS AND PERFORMER’S GUIDE

(Order No. )

l-TING CHANG

Boston University College of Fine Arts, 2005

Major Professor: Samuel Headrick, PhD., Assistant Professor of

Theory and Composition

Abstract

W
This dissertation focuses on detailed tonal and linear analysis of the
IE
Concerto for Viola and Orchestra (1983) by Krzysztof Penderecki. The aim of the

study is to provide valuable information to students who are in the process of

EV

learning the concerto. The dissertation begins with a brief biography of Krzysztof

Penderecki, discussions of his style periods, and how his music became

important in the twentieth century. Information about his concertante works for
PR

solo string instruments such as violin, viola and cello with orchestra are provided

as part of the historical background. A detailed tonal analysis of the concerto

consisting of form, motivic development, intervallic structure, counterpoint,

rhythmic patterns, pedal tones and harmony are discussed. Rehearsal numbers

from the original score and measure numbers provided by the author are used in

the analysis. Diagrams containing information about the structure and

instrumentation are also provided. A study and comparison between the original

and the revised editions are included. Scores discussed include the orchestral
vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 scores, the two versions of the solo viola part, and the transcribed solo cello part.

The dissertation ends with selected performance suggestions for the student,

including choices of fingering, bowing, phrasing and vibrato. The last chapter

also includes remarks concerning the relationship between the viola and the

piano accompaniment.

W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Prologue

The viola has always been treated as a secondary instrument to the violin

and the cello. Many well-known and oft-performed concertos have been written

for the violin and cello, but relatively few for the viola. Indeed, most viola

concertos written before 1800 are arranged or transcribed from concertos for

violins or cellos. Francesco Geminiani (1687-1762) was one of the first

composers who promoted the viola as a solo instrument in his concerti grossi.1

According to Ulrich Druner, the Concerto in G for Viola and Orchestra by Georg

W
Philipp Telemann (1681-1767) marks the beginning of the viola concerto as a
IE
genre.2 The Concerto in D by Carl Stamitz (1745-1801), a virtuosic violinist and

violist of his time, is one of the standard works in the viola literature, and Franz
EV

Anton Hoffmeister’s (1745-1812) Concerto in D ior viola and orchestra is also

considered standard repertoire for the viola.3 Perhaps the most significant pre­

twentieth century concerto written for the viola is the Sinfonia Concertante in Eb
PR

for Violin, Viola and Orchestra by Mozart (1756-1791). Here Mozart treats the

viola as an equal to the violin.4

With the increasing popularity of the viola and the emergence of a number

of prominent virtuoso performers during the twentieth century, composers such

as Ernest Bloch (1880-1959), William Walton (1902-1983), Paul Hindemith

1 Boyden, David D., and Ann M. Woodward. “Viola” in The New Grove, ed. Stanley Sadie, vol. 26.
(London: Macmillan, 2001), 691.
5 Ibid.
3 Ibid., 692.
4 Ibid.
viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 (1895-1963), Bela Bartok (1881-1945), Bohuslav Martinu (1890-1959) and Alfred

Schnittke (1934-1998) have written a significant body of music for viola, including

concertos.5 Among them, the Concerto for Viola and Orchestra (1983) by

Krzysztof Penderecki (1933-) stands as one of the most important pieces in the

literature.

The Concerto for Viola and Orchestra by Penderecki is distinct in the

twentieth century viola repertoire for its lucid but dramatic style. The concerto

differs from Penderecki’s earlier experimental compositions in that it is a tonal

W
piece with neo-romantic undertones. The concerto is twenty minutes in length
IE
and structured in one movement. It is a technically challenging piece, but one

that explores the full virtuosic and expressive range of the viola.
EV
PR

Ibid., 693.
IX

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication Page iv

Acknowledgements v

Abstract vi

Prologue viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS x

LIST OF TABLES xii

LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES xiv

W
Chapter One: Life 1

Style Periods 3
IE
Concertante Works for Solo String Instrument and Orchestra 7
EV
Chapter Two: Analysis 13

Section A 15

Section B 25
PR

Section A ' 33

Section C 37

Section A " 41

Chapter Three: Observations 43

Section A, A', and A " 44

Section B and C 49

Pedal Tone on D 53

Ascending Chromatic Scales 54

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Chapter Four: Editions 55

Chapter Five: Performance Study Suggestions 63

Epilogue 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY 74

VITA 78

W
IE
EV
PR

xi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

2.1 Form of the Concerto 14

2.2 Section A Diagram 15

2.3 Section B Diagram 26

2.4 Section A ' Diagram 33

2.5 Section C Diagram 37

2.6 Section A " Diagram 41

W
3.1 Motive cell b comparison 44

3.2 Bass line pattern comparison 45

IE
3.3 Bass line variations at rehearsal 5 and 28 46
EV
3.4 Bass line variations at rehearsal 29, 42, and 44 46

3.5 Solo viola and Orchestra interaction 47

3.6 Motive cell e and variations 48

PR

3.7 Solo viola melody in section B (Vivace) 49

3.8 Orchestral episodes comparison 50

3.9 “Call and Response” patterns comparison 51

3.10 Cascading minor third pattern 52

3.11 Orchestral episodes in section C 52

3.12 Pedal Tone D at rehearsal 1,4, and 29 53

3.13 Pedal Tone D at rehearsal 41,42, and three measures before 53

the end

xii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TABLE PAGE

3.14 Chromatic scales comparison 54

4.1 Orchestral scores 57

4.2 Piano reductions 58

4.3 Solo viola parts and Kim Kashkashian’s recording 59

4.4 Solo viola parts and transcribed solo cello part 60

4.5 Solo viola part and orchestral score comparison 61

W
4.6 Collaborative corrections from Kim Kashkashianand 61

Penderecki
IE
4.7 Corrections in orchestral score from Penderecki 62
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES

FIGURE PAGE

2.1 Motive cells a, b, and c 16

2.2 Motive cell b in quarter notes; motive cell c in 20

inversion, retrograde, retrograde transposition

2.3 Rehearsal 4 bass line 22

2.4 Rehearsal 27, transposed bass line from 22

W
rehearsal 4

2.5 Transposed motive cell bwith added C#; bass 23

IE
line built in tritones
EV
2.6 Motive cell d 29

2.7 Motive cell e and inversion 35

PR

xiv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 1

Chapter One

Life

Born on November 23,1933 in Debica, Krakow, Polish composer and

conductor Krzysztof Penderecki was the first professional musician in his family.

His father was a lawyer who played the violin and piano, and Penderecki was

always surrounded with music played by his relatives. The musical environment

of his early childhood may have influenced his sense of rhythm and tempo.1

Penderecki began his musical training on the piano, but did not have

W
much success. He later took violin lessons with his music teacher in school,

Stanislaw Darlak, who awakened his interests in music. Before enrolling in the
IE
Krakow Academy of Music 1954, Penderecki studied composition with
EV
Franciszek Skolyszewski who introduced him to the basics of harmony and

counterpoint, and encouraged him to be imaginative with his compositions. From

1954 to 1957, Penderecki studied at the academy with Professor Artur Malawski,
PR

a composer who was known as a neo-romantic but employed modem techniques

such as polyrhythm.2 Although Penderecki learned much of his compositional

skills from Malawski, he also began to develop his own compositional voice. For

example, Malawski did not speak highly of Brahms’ scoring technique, yet

Penderecki admired Brahms and his instrumentation.3 In 1958, upon his

graduation, Penderecki was appointed Professor of Composition in the Academy.

1 Wolfram Schwinger, Krzysztof Penderecki His Life and Work, trans. William Mann (London:
Schott & Co. Ltd, 1989; orig. publ. Penderecki: Begenungen, Lebensdaten, Werkkommentare,
Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt GmbH, Stuttgart, 1979), 16.
2 Ibid., 18.
3 Ibid., 18-19.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 2

In 1959 Penderecki submitted three of his works, Psalms of David (1958)

for mixed choir, strings and percussion, Emanations (1958-59) for two string

orchestras, and Strophes (1959) for soprano, Sprechstimme (speaker) and 10

instruments, to a competition organized by the League of Polish Composers. The

compositions were submitted anonymously, and Penderecki won three top prizes

for his compositions. As a result, he received instant recognition in Poland and it

signaled the beginning of what was to become an international career.

W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 3

Style Periods

Penderecki scholars have studied his compositions in detail and have

attempted to define and categorize Penderecki’s compositions into style periods.

When interviewed by Ates Orga in 1973, Penderecki offered, “Well, up to the end

of 1956 I went through a Bartok phase”, and “After my Bartokian grounding I

explored all kinds of new ideas and techniques and my basic style was shaped in

Threnody, Anaklasis, Dimensions and Fluorescences”.AAfter years of

experimenting with sound and instrumental effects, Penderecki was

W
overwhelmed and felt that he could not go any further. “The solution to my

dilemma was not to go forward and perhaps destroy the whole spirit of music as
IE
a result, but to gain inspiration from the past and to look back on my heritage”.5
EV
The first work of this new phase was Stabat mater (1962) followed by St. Luke

Passion (1965-66).

In another interview with David Felder and Mark Schneider in 1977,

PR

Penderecki elaborated on his thoughts about his composition styles and outlined

three periods:

I think the first period of my development would be from Anaklasis and

Threnody, the first compositions written in my style....until after I finished
Fluorescences.

So, in 1962,1backtracked a little and wrote Stabat mater. I didn’t know

which way to go at that time, and I wasn’t sure that what I was doing was
really right. Maybe I had gone too far and there was no way back...so
Stabat mater is the beginning of the second period, I would say. The
second period lasted until 1973, because that is when I finished the

4 Ates Orga, “Krzysztof Penderecki,” Music and Musicians, 22 (October, 1973): 39.
5 Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 4

Symphony [No.1]... [a work] which was important for me because it was

the first large piece I wrote for orchestra.

I think the third period begins with the Awakening of Jacob and the
Magnificat, and maybe Ecloga. In 1972 and 1973 there are some changes
in my thinking which I developed after Ecloga and Magnificat.6

Penderecki generally omits compositions from his student years when

discussing his compositional style. In an interview with Ray Robinson in 1983,

Penderecki stated, “I was studying composition and writing in different styles.

Each piece was designed to solve a specific compositional problem. For

W
example, Miniatures for Clarinet shows the influence of Bartok, the Psalms of

David, the influence of Stravinsky.”7 When asked directly about his style periods,
IE
Penderecki gave a different answer from that of the previous interview in 1977:
EV
I rather think now that there are two style periods in my career as a
composer. I do not count the very beginning pieces like Strophes, which
were written before I really started to develop my own language as a
composer. The first period, I would say, was from Threnody and
Anaklasis, which I could call my music, until maybe the Awakening of
PR

Jacob-, I would say the Magnificat was the last piece in that style.8

When Ray Robinson interviewed him again in 1993, Penderecki’s overall

conception had changed. In this context Penderecki stated that there is really

only one style in his compositions. His view here was that many of the

techniques he created and used in the earlier compositions, such as clusters,

6 Ray Robinson, “Penderecki’s Musical Pilgrimage,” in Studies in Penderecki. (New Jersey:

Prestige Publications, Inc., 1998), 33-34.
7 Ray Robinson, “Krzysztof Penderecki: An Interview and An Analysis of Stabat Mater,” The
Choral Journal, 24/3 (November 1983): 7.
8 Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 5

glissandos, and percussive sound continue to be an important part of his later

work.9

It is not easy to provide a clear outline of Penderecki’s compositions since

his style periods overlap. Scholars such as Mieczyslaw Tomaszewski10 and

Regina Chlopicka11 have different views as to when each period begins and

ends. It is undeniable that there are common elements in Penderecki’s music

that are recognizable throughout his career. Ray Robinson has outlined six

elements which he describes as “Penderecki signatures”.12 The signatures are

W
sonority, mixed meter, free atonality, clusters, closed form and universal theme.13

These elements are used to support the composer’s theory that he has only one
IE
style of composition, and it is one that he has created for his own voice. Wolfram
EV
Schwinger, Penderecki’s biographer, has effectively summarized these different

points of view:

If one were to assign Penderecki’s music today to the so-called post­

PR

modern movement, then one would have to separate it clearly from the
oft-cited new simplicity, playfulness, or especially incomprehensibility.
Rather it would be more appropriate to include it in the field of new tonality
in the broadest sense, or in a new monumentality as well as a new sound
sensibility. Above all it is important to recognize his stylistic independence
and to recognize the extraordinary value of his achievement of synthesis
in this time at the end of a century of artistic upheaval.14

9 Ray Robinson, “Penderecki’s Musical Pilgrimage,” in Studies in Penderecki. (New Jersey:

Prestige Publications, Inc., 1998), 34.
10 Mieczyslaw Tomaszewski, “Penderecki’s Dialogues and Games with Time and Place on the
Earth,” in Studies in Penderecki. (New Jersey: Prestige Publications, Inc., 1998), 13-32.
11 Regina Chlopicka, “Stylistic Phases in the Work of Krzysztof Penderecki,” in Studies in
Penderecki. (New Jersey: Prestige Publications, Inc., 1998), 51-63.
12 Ray Robinson, “Penderecki’s Musical Pilgrimage,” in Studies in Penderecki. (New Jersey:
Prestige Publications, Inc., 1998), 45.
13 Ibid., 45-47.
14 Wolfram Schwinger, “Changes in Four Decades: The Stylistic Paths of Krzysztof Penderecki,”
in Studies in Penderecki, trans. Allen and Helga Winold, (New Jersey: Prestige Publications, Inc.,
1998), 80-81.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.