# Webern's Symphony (Second Movement)



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

*Webern's Symphony*

When Webern wrote his Symphony, op. 21, in 1928, he had not written a work for an orchestra of any kind since 1918. It was also only the second instrumental work of any kind he had published (following the String Trio) since the outbreak of World War I, a period of relative silence from his friend and mentor, Arnold Schoenberg, who had been searching for a new way of controlling the freely chromatic realm he had opened up in the first decades of the 20th century, leading to the creation of the 12-tone method. Webern had turned to writing songs, as brief and meticulously crafted as any of the works of his maturity.

But the Symphony did not mark a return to the expansive late romantic orchestras and gestures of Mahler, Strauss, and early Schoenberg. The work, in two movements running a total of about ten minutes, is scored for clarinet, bass clarinet, two horns, harp, and strings alone. The texture is utterly transparent, though the composer extracts every kind of timbral variety from it, something especially reflected in the second movement.

Both movements have strong elements of symmetry, as does the row which the work is based upon. The first movement is in binary form (AABB), with each section repeated literally. Its character is calm and relatively even throughout, though the B section introduces something of an urgent tone. The second movement is a theme and seven variations, followed by a coda. Each section is constructed symmetrically, as is the movement as a whole. The intervals between successive notes of the theme itself are subject to inversion or octave displacement (such as substituting a rising twelfth for a rising fifth).

Theme, "Very Peacefully" (bars 1-11): The basic theme is stated, _piano_, in the clarinet, accompanied by a version played in reverse by harp and horns. It outlines a tritone, moving from F to B, and is particularly characterized by the major seventh and minor ninth (leaping to the notes a half step away from the first note an octave lower or higher).

Variation 1, "More Lively" (bars 12-22): The violins enter on the upbeat, and the variation that follows for strings alone is based on several simultaneous transformations and imitations of the theme, all of which are palindromes. The constant variation between pizzicato and arco and the hocket-like rhythmic effects between the parts produce a complex texture that contrasts heavily with the simplicity of the theme itself.

Variation 2, "Very lively" (bars 23-33): A horn breaks in fortissimo and staccato as the first variation finishes. Clarinet and bass clarinet trade jumping fifths and fourths, as do violas and second violins, with the harp adding a sforzando G#-C# several times. The horn's intervals get progressively wider, and a crescendo leads to the next variation.

Variation 3, "More moderate once more" (bars 34-44): Cascades of rising and falling notes dart across the orchestra, as the lines become increasingly fractured. Pauses and sudden, abrupt shifts in dynamics give this variation a halting feel.

Variation 4, "As peacefully as possible" (bars 45-55): The central variation never rises above _piano_ and the jutting staccatos of the previous variation have been replaced by an unvarying triplet rhythm of undulating two note motifs. In the center of this variation (and thus of the movement), a single bar is played as quietly as possible (and molto rit.) with a gently rocking figure on horns against harp and clarinets. The triplet patterns spin out in reverse.

Variation 5, "Very lively" (bars 56-66): For strings alone. A new agitated figure turns the triplets of the previous variation into syncopated 3-note figures on the strings in seconds. The harp interjects short symmetrical bursts at cross rhythms with the strings. This variation is a constant crescendo.

Variation 6, "Measured march" (bars 67-77): For winds alone. Clarinets and horn take up jutting, wide-leaping canonic figures with more repetition than before.

Variation 7, "Somewhat more broadly" (bars 78-88): The whole orchestra returns, and the material is split among all the instruments in three note segments. _Forte_ dynamics dominate, save for a few quieter bars in the middle, and the tempo fluctuates with frequent rit. markings.

Coda, (bars 89-99): The coda is scored for solo cello, harp, and solo violin. They appear in turn, and then again in reverse, and with a short pause in between the violin's two expressive phrases. After the last note in the cello is sounded, the harp adds an F and a B, marked and _forte_, concluding the piece with the tritone between the beginning and end of all of its themes.

Blog Index​


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

I'll be honest: I listened several times to the second movement with the youtube video that has the score following with the music, and I cannot for the life of me detect aurally the variations on the initial clarinet theme. It is immediately clear from hearing that there are sections distinct in style, rhythm, and orchestration but it is not clear at all that those sections are actually variations! I feel that some intervals are emphasized like major sevenths, minor ninths, and tritones and passed between the instruments, but that seems to be a characteristic of a lot of Webern... I don't know man I cannot hear the variations!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Don't feel bad! This is an important point: we hear themes in terms of their melody, their intervals, and if not specifically accustomed to it, we won't normally hear a 12th, for example, as equivalent to a fifth, let alone a 12th plus an octave! On top of that, the instruments carrying the main line often trade off between each other, so the musical "space" is arranged very differently from what we might normally expect.

Be aware, also, that the variations are often dovetailed with each other, so sometimes one begins before the last one has ended.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

This article might interest you. It's very informative: I didn't realize how the theme and each variation is highly palindromic, and that if you take the retrograde of the tone row and bump it up a tritone you get the same thing! The article then goes into detail on the ways the tone row and its transformations are used for each variation. I didn't go very far in the article, but it's very interesting.

I'd have to say though that as a listener it's very hard (impossible?) to consciously recognize this without studying the score in detail especially since as you said 12-tone music treats a note in any octave the same so long as it's a given pitch class. If I may ask: is all this palindromic tone row unity more to give a subconscious feeling of unity for the listener? Like in a Beethoven piece there is development of themes and motives which is easily consciously followable, but for a 12-tone piece would you say that the development (i.e. presentation of the prime, inverse, retrograde, retrograde inverse in various combinations with different rhythms and timbres) more of a subconscious thing?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Answering for Mahlerian, Webern uses all these devices for a very important reason: constructivism. Based only on the principles of the 12-tone method, Webern wants to construct a new and self contained way of generating the musical material and its developments. Imagine the 12-tone method is the basic law of your theory, then all the subsequent constructions in that theory are based and referenced to this fundamental law. It's a very 'mathematical' way of thinking. And the devices used by Webern (derived rows, etc.) are the most natural way of achieving this. This aspect of Webern was praised by Boulez and the serialists, and they criticized Schoenberg because of this (in his famous "Schoenberg is dead", the main critique by Boulez is his lack of constructivism and consistency a là Webern). Of course, this automatically gives you a feeling of aesthetic, thematic and developmental consistency in the music. And, certainly, this is one of the desired goals. If you want to perceive all these things in a very direct way, that will depend on the particular row. I think one of the most easy to follow examples is Webern's Concerto for nine instruments. There, he uses a derived row (i.e., starting with the set (0, 1, 4), Webern constructs the rest of the row by applying the contrapuntal transformations to this set). Check this. The key there is that you have a big prominence of two very distinguishable intervals (minor second and major third), and since the motif is basically these two intervals, you can follow the variations very easily.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

"Like in a Beethoven piece there is development of themes and motives which is easily consciously followable, but for a 12-tone piece would you say that the development (i.e. presentation of the prime, inverse, retrograde, retrograde inverse in various combinations with different rhythms and timbres) more of a subconscious thing?"

This interview with Boulez (from the 50s!) explains the concept better than I could, but suffice to say that it's both, but leaning more towards the latter.
https://archive.org/details/C_1958_03_XX

Rather than a clear "this is the theme, here it will be shown again in this light, here in this" that one has in traditional Classical models, it's akin to a gamut of material to be drawn upon and worked with. This consistency helps to structure the piece.

That said, with Webern I usually can hear the way his cells are treated contrapuntally/developmentally/motivically, despite the fact that the phrasing often intentionally fragments them and runs over the row divisions.

Can one hear the row itself? Not really. It's more of an underlying principle in most cases rather than a foreground element. There is one moment in the Gigue from Schoenberg's Suite for piano op. 25 where he uses a new row form, and this moment stands out so much because of the contrast that this creates (so late into the piece, too), but without the analysis I read, I would never have recognized the exact reason for the feeling that this particular moment is different from the rest, because there are other reasons as well.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

1. aleazk, thank you so much for the Webern concerto for nine instruments example! You can clearly hear the three note motive passed between the instruments, and even though it often leaps in large intervals and is inverted and retrograded, I can definitely feel a consistency, like it's all part of one piece.

2. This is a great quote from the Boulez link: "Boulez, whose English while understandable is not fully fluent, uses such analogies as the stream-of-conciseness writing style of James Joyce to highlight his concept of music as a labyrinth, or network of possibilities, that can be listened to in a variety of ways, rather than as a linear narrative with a clearly defined beginning, middle, and end. The idea of music as a relatively arbitrary exploration of choices, tied together by common rhythms, tone rows, and chords, rather than a predetermined theme or melody, is clearly foreign to the panelists, and they can be heard to struggle with it throughout the program." Indeed, I have often felt this way when listening to modern music. It's a very different and very interesting paradigm.

3. Mahlerian, is the Schoenberg op 25 gigue moment you're talking about at measure 40? I mean, rhythmically these few measures draw attention to itself, but it also _feels_ different, perhaps because the tone row is presented differently? Is this the part you were talking about?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Yes, measure 40. Most of the piece has either used the rows starting on E or on B-flat, but here rows start on B and A in turn. (It took me a bit to make a chart and look at the score to figure this out exactly...)


----------

