Menu

Article Credit: Paulic Jonathan


Webern's Opus 5, History and Contextualization 

In a letter dated 16 June 1909 to his friend and former teacher Arnold Schönberg, Anton Webern mentions that he had just completed a complete string quartet and that he would now set about composing a series of pieces for orchestra. As Alain Galliari reminds us, there is no doubt that the quartet the composer refers to is - by the description given of it - his Opus 5. A brief look at Webern's life reveals that this opus appeared shortly after he had completed his apprenticeship with Schöenberg, which began in the autumn of 1904. From a historical point of view, therefore, Webern's Opus 5 stands out as a pivotal work in the composer's life. From an aesthetic point of view, and as many commentators and biographers have not failed to point out, our last remark also applies.

Indeed, many acknowledge the importance of this opus in the composer's life. To support our argument, and to give just a few examples, let's look at the statements made by Robert Craft, Pierre Boulez, György Ligeti and finally Alain Galliari.

Robert Craft links Opuses 3, 4 and 5. For Craft, they are representative of Webern's attempt to go beyond the tonal universe. Pierre Boulez, for his part, grouped together Opuses 5, 6 and 7. For the composer and conductor, these are works in which the use of small form and concentration are such that the idea of development cannot be supported. Thus, if Webern's Opus 5 is intended to be the twilight of a period for Craft, it is its dawn for Boulez.

According to Ligeti, opus 5 is certainly a work of youth, but this should not obscure the fact that it seems surprisingly daring when compared, for example, with works from the same period by composers such as Schöenberg, Berg, Stravinsky and Bartok. Finally, while Opuses 5 and 6 "show a young musician in his great singularity - and his singular greatness", as Galliari points out, it seems that "Op. 5 casts a first shadow over Schöenberg's innovative greatness, even if Webern himself was probably unaware of the true scope of his work at the time, as he wrote to Hildegarde Jone more than 25 years later.

Webern's Opus 5 marks his first attempt at composition away from the immediate gaze of Schöenberg, but many commentators have noted that it is a successful attempt.

The aim of this article is to offer an analysis of the fourth movement of this opus in an attempt to reveal how, despite its apparent uniformity, Webern never ceases to be involved in variation, which allows him to write in a concentrated manner, as Pierre Boulez emphasized.

General form of Opus 5

Webern's Opus 5 is made up of five movements of varying sizes. While the shortest movements are II and IV (slow tempo movements), the longest is the first (fast tempo movement). Movements III and V, of almost equal length, lie between movement I and movements II and IV. However, as far as tempo indications are concerned, movement III should be related to movement I, while movement V should be related to movement IV. Indeed, beginning with a tempo equivalent to that of movement IV (eighth note approaching 58 bpm for movement IV and eighth note around 60 bpm for movement V), the tempo in this fifth movement evolves essentially between an eighth note at 48 bpm and even 40 bpm at times, making this the slowest movement in the entire opus.

A quick glance at the entire score reveals Webern's attention to instrumental colour. The instrumentalists are asked to play their instruments in a variety of ways (harmonically or with the wood of the bow, to give just a few examples). Although, as Claude Rostand reminds us, if Webern was not the inventor of these modes, he made extensive use of them. The production and rendering of sound thus appear to Webern, from this opus onwards, to be an element in its own right and of primordial importance.

The same applies to the nuances, which are used in a very wide range in this opus, as can be seen at the beginning of the first movement, where in 4 bars we move from fff to ppp. 

Whether through the range of nuances, the treatment of instrumental colour, or the many agogic effects applied to tempo, we can already perceive that Webern is not just interested in the pitch and duration of a note ; no, he wants to be its sculptor.

General Considerations on the Fourth Movement

As we shall show, movement IV has a tripartite form (A, B, A') and, along with movement II, is the shortest movement in the entire opus. It has only 13 bars ! A second peculiarity links it to movement II. All the desks are asked to play with mutes.

Although parts A, B and A' are not of equal size, a quick analysis reveals that the composer wanted to create what resembles a decrescendo in terms of the size of these parts, thereby giving the impression of time becoming increasingly compressed. Indeed, while the first part (A) has 6 bars, the second (B) has 4. The last part (A') has only 3 bars. What's more, while these parts differ in size, they also differ in character. As our analysis will show, the first part is characterised by agitation, the second by suspension and the last by dreaminess.

Despite this difference, commonalities become apparent on first listening to this movement. Written in ¾ time, no part ever begins on the upbeat. In addition, A, B and A' close with a strictly ascending seven-note melodic motif. These two aspects of the writing - the way in which a part opens and closes - already help to create the homogeneous character of this movement and ensure the delimitation of the parts. Let us now turn our attention to the melodic motif that closes the three parts.

The Melodic Pattern of Seven Ascending Notes

Unaccompanied, the same motif reappears at the end of each section. The second violin plays it in A and A'. In B, it is played by the viola, which thus acts as the axis of symmetry.

First of all, as far as pitches are concerned, this motif, although never played from the same note - Cª4 for the second violin at the end of A, Fª3 for the viola on the second appearance of the motif and G#4 for the second violin in A' - nevertheless follows a precise succession of intervals in its unfolding. In other words, Webern transposes his motif twice. The example above presents a paradigmatic analysis of what has just been stated in order to highlight it.

A more detailed analysis reveals that the fourth note of the motif plays a pivotal role, separating this heptacord into two major seventh intervals.

We would also point out that the first four notes of this melodic motif, when played in A (Cª4, Eª4, F#4 and Bª4), are the first four notes - but played at different pitches and in a different order - heard by the first violin in this part. So we can see that A opens and closes with the same four notes.

As far as the rhythm is concerned, this motif will also vary from one appearance to the next.  In A, it is played in a single sixteenth-note rhythm. Only the tempo indication betrays this rhythmic constancy : ritardendo. The composer's intention is also apparent in B, though with an agogic effect in the writing of the rhythm. Written in triplets, a rhythm that the viola essentially played in B, the last two notes are written in binary eighth notes, thus accompanying the slowing down intended by the tempo indication, once again ritardendo. The third appearance of the melodic motif will see the ritardendo indication removed. But here Webern provokes the opposite effect - acceleration - by his choice of rhythm. Two sixteenth notes are followed by a quintet of sixteenth notes.

To conclude on this seven-note motif, we'd like to make one final point. As we have already said, none of the parts (A, B and A') starts strictly on the upbeat. In a way, this is reflected in the seven-note motif. Indeed, in none of its appearances does it rest on the beat. Beginning after a quarter sigh in the first appearance, it intervenes after a half-sigh caught in a triplet of eighth notes in B before succeeding a sigh in A'. In the order of succession of figures of silence, then, Webern operates logically here by delaying its appearance.

Analysis of A

The movement opens with the first and second violins each playing a rapid tremolo between two notes on the second beat of the bar. The first violin performs its tremolo between the notes E ª6 - C ª6, while the second violin does so between the notes F ª5 and B ª4. The texture thus created - texture number 1 - is interrupted by the cello, which plays Eb3 tenuto. This first bar thus contrasts two opposing concepts : instability, agitation (the tremolos) and stability (the held Eb3).

On the first beat of bar 2, Webern takes up the idea developed in texture 1 but changes the notes slightly. The E ª6 of the first violin becomes an F#6, while the C ª6 becomes a B ª5. There are fewer changes in second violin, where the tremolo is between the notes F ª5 and C ª5.  Texture number 2 is interrupted by the appearance of the same Eb played tenuto by the cello in a white rhythm, whereas it was played in a quarter note rhythm when it first appeared. In the case of the cello, therefore, the choice of transformation was not in pitch but in the choice of mensural values.

It is also interesting to note that texture 2 is related to texture 1, in that while an augmented octave (or minor ninth) alternates with a major seventh between the first and second violins in this texture, the opposite is true of texture 1 (major seventh - minor ninth). From the point of view of intervals, therefore, texture 2 presents the retrograde writing of texture 1.

Texture 1 is then presented again at the end of bar 2, but here the variation is in the way it is played. The two violins play it in an eighth-note pizzicato rhythm.

The viola, which makes its appearance in bar 2, can be said to derive its rhythmic writing from that of the cello. Indeed, as we have seen, the cello's metrical values increase, as does the first note of the motif played by the viola. Initially an eighth note, it later becomes a quarter note and then a dotted quarter note when transposed to F# at the end of bar 4.

As we have seen, texture 1 underwent a variation in treatment on its second appearance, and the same will be true of texture 2, which will be 'arpeggiated' and treated in free imitation by the second violin and the cello. There is freedom both rhythmically and in terms of pitch. First played by the first violin at bar 3, it is taken up again at the distance of an upper major seventh by the second violin before being taken up again by the cello at the distance of a lower diminished octave (major seventh). The last imitation by the cello, in which the desks enter at the distance of a major seventh (or enharmony), allows the original notes of texture 2 to be heard again. 

But other entries in this passage follow this last rule. The cello introduces a C#4 at the end of bar 3, just after the C#5 of the first violin. This C#4 is accompanied by a G#3 at the beginning of bar 4, one eighth note after the F#4 of the viola. Once again, this is a major seventh interval. The following example illustrates this process through the use of colour.

If imitation played a major role in this sequence, traces of it will remain in bar 5, the bar before the first arrival of the seven-note motif already mentioned. This imitation takes place between the first violin and the cello on a new motif. Here the rhythm is less respected, while the viola, as we have already mentioned, varies its two-note motif.

Analysis of B

In the central part of this fourth movement, B uses a different writing style from A. An initial observation reveals that each section uses a different playing technique: arco for the first violin, with the wood of the bow for the second violin, pizzicato for the viola and harmonic for the cello. Now, in terms of writing, there are also differences between these sections.

While the second violin and cello each play a sustained note (Bª3 for the second violin, which must be played with the wood of the bow, and Eª4 for the cello, which is played harmonically), the viola plays an ostinato characterised by triplets of eighth notes, three different notes with a strictly descending profile (Dª5, Bb4, Gb4) that must be played pizzicato and staccato. The combination of these two features gives this part a character of stability and regularity that contrasts with Webern's A.

In this part, however, the first violin tries to escape this stability. Played ppp, but with an interpretation that gives pride of place to the use of crescendo and decrescendo, it plays an expressive melodic line built around just 4 notes (Bª5, G#5, Cª6, Eb6). A closer analysis of this melody reveals its ingenious construction. The fragment Bª5, G#5, Cª6 is played twice with, it should be noted, different articulations, demonstrating once again Webern's desire never to repeat himself. However, Eb6 does not act as an axis of symmetry here. In fact, to understand this note is to perceive it as an ornamentation of C-6. In fact, the cell Cª6 - Eb6 - Cª6 is played in a constant rhythm of eighth notes, the equivalent of a dotted quarter note. However, in the second appearance of the fragment Bª5, G#5, Cª6, the metric value of Cª6 is precisely that of a dotted quarter note, while the metric values of the preceding notes are respected (quarter note and eighth note). So here we have an inversion of values. The first appearance of the melodic motif is presented as a variation, whereas the second appearance is the primary element.

Analysis of A’

A very brief section : three bars of great sensitivity, but which sounds like a reminder of what has already been heard in A, hence the fact that we call this section A'. 

Played harmonically, the first violin plays a three-note motif covering a minor second : F#7, Gª7, F#7. The second violin, doubled in the octave by the viola, intervenes a sigh after the first violin to play a motif of 4 disjunct notes : Cª6, Fª6, Db6, C ª6. This same motif, minus the last note (C#), is repeated in imitation one sigh further on and an octave below the second violin /viola pairing by the cello. The fact that the first violin is played harmonically, while the rest of the quartet is asked to play with the woodwind of the bow, makes this third section the most ethereal, the most dreamlike to listen to.

The attentive reader will have noticed that these two motifs are simply repeats, with rhythmic transformations - the second motif being the one that undergoes the most transformations - of what was heard in part A between the end of bar 4 and the very beginning of bar 6. Interestingly, however, whereas the first motif was heard between the cello and the first violin in A, in A' it is not only heard in the first violin but, more importantly, is the highest-pitched voice. However, the idea of imitative writing for the second motif is retained, as is the way it is played : with the wood of the bow.

Caught between this contrapuntal treatment and the seven-note motif, we find, in the second violin, viola and cello, a 'chord' whose characteristic feature is that it consists of two perfect intervals (a fourth and a perfect fifth) superimposed at a distance from a diminished fifth. Here, too, the writing is logical. In the order of intervals, we find the perfect fourth, the diminished fifth and the perfect fifth. This is exactly the model on which this "chord" is built. We also notice that here, once again, it is the viola's role to make the distribution. This time, however, it is not at the level of a motif, but at the level of the two perfect intervals, since it is the only viola to play two notes simultaneously : the diminished fifth. This 'chord', played in a lower register, in pizzicato and on a single eighth note, recalls, but transforms, what was heard at the end of bar 2 in A.

Conclusion

Our analysis of movement IV of Opus 5 has revealed an ingenious construction. In just thirteen bars, and therefore within an aphorism, Anton Webern manages to concentrate multiple ideas and above all to give his music different characters. Nevertheless, what emerges is more the result of an event than a development.

We have seen that in this movement there is an idea of repetition that is constantly being transgressed. The same musical idea can be transposed or, to take it a step further, transformed rhythmically. In this way, it is not the strict repetition of a motif that ensures the unified character of the movement, but its constantly renewed transformation, so much so that we are entitled to wonder whether the first iteration of the motif is the original or already the deformed face of a motif with an unspoken character. If repetition can be present to the listener's ear, Webern - as we have seen in his choice of interval writing - nevertheless uses artifice to cover his tracks, to hide as best he can what is nevertheless revealed to the ear.

Opus 5 was premiered on February 8, 1910, probably by a quartet formed for the occasion. Unfortunately, we do not know how the work was received on this occasion, but it caused a scandal when it was performed at the first SIMC festival in 1922.

In 2 November 1934, Opus 5 was performed again at the Konzerthaus. Interestingly, the friend Hildegard Jone attended this concert and expressed her enthusiasm to Webern in a letter addressed to her. In his reply, dated 9 November 1934, Webern expressed his delight at seeing how his work had touched her, but above and beyond the fact that he stated that this opus had always been attacked, he admitted that it was only now that he understood what he had done. Here's the passage in question:


« I'm delighted that my quartet has made such an impression on you and Pepo [Humplik]. I wrote it just over a quarter of a century ago. As it has always been the occasion for attacks, until recently I really don't feel that so much time has passed. But it's only now that I can really see for myself what I did back then.  »


Although obviously poorly received, Opus 5 was to be worked on again by Webern. After a first attempt, he proposed a version for string orchestra in 1929 (M.302). Nevertheless, as Alain Galliari points out, "this transcription, which uses all the possibilities of orchestral amplification, really only modifies the cello part, because of the presence of a double-bass section". Nevertheless, as Malcolm Hayes points out in his book on the musician, this new instrumentation allows the sonic excitement to develop even further.

References