Harald Sæverud - second string quartet
(17. April 1897 – 27. March 1992)
Harald Sæverud was born in Bergen, the son of a respected and modestly wealthy business man and a devout mother. When Sæverud was 12 years old, disaster hit the household: his father, with his business partners, was found guilty of tax evasion and became bankrupt. He was sent to jail for three months. It was at this time that young Harald began to write music, perhaps as an inner escape from grim reality. His first formal studies took place at the Bergen conservatoire where his main teacher was the pianist and composer Borghild Holmsen (1865- 1938). By the time he was 17 Sæverud was working on his first symphony, often skipping school in order to do so.
Between 1920 and 1922 Sæverud studied at the Berlin Hochschule. While there a wealthy friend hired the Berlin Philharmonic for the first performance of Overtura Apassionata.
Later in life Sæverud would claim that he learned nothing in Berlin, and that his only teachers were Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. However, letters from the period show that he did in fact learn a lot in Berlin, where he studied with Friederich Koch (1862 – 1927).
Upon returning to Norway in 1922 he slowly built a reputation as one of the country’s most promising young composers, making ends meet as a music critic and by giving piano lessons. He received unexpected encouragement from Carl Nielsen (1865 –1931), who wrote Sæverud a letter expressing his great enthusiasm for his Five Capricci for piano, op. 1.
Harmonien (today known as Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra) would eventually become Sæverud’s main expressive outlet. The ensemble went on to premiere many of his orchestral works.
In 1934 Sæverud married Marie Hvoslef (1900 – 1982), an American of Norwegian ancestry, daughter of a very wealthy ship magnate who had died in 1926. Marrying Marie Hvoslef enabled Sæverud to devote himself to composition full-time. It also facilitated the building of Siljustøl, the impressive mansion in the outskirts of Bergen which would become their home. Siljustøl, with its wild nature, would, from 1939 until Sæverud’s death, serve as his main source of inspiration, together with his family.
The completion of Siljustøl was timely. The Nazi occupation of Norway during WW2 started in April 1940. Sæverud was one of the few Norwegian artists with an unequivocal anti-Nazi stance throughout the war. WW2 turned out to be an especially fertile period for Sæverud.
The anger caused by the Nazi invasion brought out a strong rush of creativity in him. This difficult time induced him to compose three symphonies (Nrs. 5, 6 and 7), as well as several other orchestral works and piano pieces. The Ballad of Revolt (Kjempevise-slåtten), by far his most famous work, was written out of rage against the occupation.
By the end of WW2 Sæverud had become an established composer. The Ballad of Revolt made him into a kind of national hero in a country that had just begun to recover from five years of foreign invasion.
Shortly after the war, the radical actor and theatre director Hans Jacob Nilsen (1897 –1957) asked Sæverud to write new music for a stage production of Ibsen’s Peer Gynt. Sæverud hesitated at fist but, on rereading the play, he decided he had indeed something to contribute. His Peer Gynt score stands among his most powerful creations.
In the 1950s the Koussevitzky foundation commissioned Violin Concerto, op 37. The State of Minnesota commissioned a symphony (his eighth, the Minnesota Symphony, op. 40) to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the state in 1958.
Although the new wave of modernism that swept Norway in the 1960s relegated Sæverud to a less prominent position (at least in the eyes of the young generation), he continued to be held in high regard by the musical establishment and the public. He was made an honorary member of Harmonien, and was commissioned to write a work for the celebration of the 900th anniversary of the city of Bergen (Fanfare og Hymne, op. 48). He also wrote the opening work for the official opening of Bergen’s Grieghallen, in 1978 (Overtura Monumentale, op.
53). In 1977 he received the highest public honour available in Norway: the medal of Commander of the Royal Norwegian Order of St Olav. In 1986 he was made the Festival Composer at the 34th Bergen International Festival, for which he composed his last orchestral work: a suite for orchestra and choir based on Ibsen’s “Keiser og Galilæer” (Emperor and Galilean).
Although the final years of his life were marked by illness and predictable physical weakness, he remained alert and engaged with the world around him to the very end. Between 1986 and 1989 he wrote a number of small piano pieces and a Sonatina for viola and piano.
He was given a state funeral.
Sæverud is, arguably, Norway’s pre-eminent symphonic composer. With his nine symphonies, five concertos and numerous orchestral works, including ballet and stage music, he created a distinctive body of work, wide in scope and imagination. His music for piano stands as a truly original and unique contribution to the literature.
He began writing in a style redolent of late romanticism. For roughly a decade he experimented with atonality before finding his mature voice around the beginning of the Second World War. His music is characterized by an intense focus on the present moment and is strongly influenced by Western Norwegian nature, with its abrupt contrasts both in landscape and weather. He was always mostly interested in musical lines and the way they interact with one another, and was a master at the exacting art of two-part writing. He always demanded full characterization of every note and every phrase, often stating that “every note is a personality”.
Harald Sæverud’s second string quartet
Best known for his orchestral and piano music, Harald Sæverud did not approach the chamber music medium until late in life. He had written the 20 small violin duets op. 32 in the 1950s, and these proved to be a treasure trove for his subsequent work, as they provided ground material for several large compositions. However, Sæverud wrote his first proper chamber work (the first string quartet Serenades of the two rivals, op. 49) at the age of 73. This was written on commission from the Bergen Chamber Music Society (as was quartet no. 3). The second and third string quartets followed in, respectively, 1975 and 1978. In 1982 and 1983 he composed two woodwind quintets and his last completed composition, the Sonatina for viola and piano (without opus number), came in 1989.
The second string quartet is a truly ambitious chamber work. It seems almost symphonic in scope. The work is cast in two parts (the first somewhat longer than the second), each comprising a pair of movements played without interruption. Although it plays for approximately 23 minutes, it gives the impression of a much larger work. A hallmark of this piece is that several of its main themes are presented in unison. Another characteristic that permeates the music is its constant sense if motion. One can find occasional moments of repose and timelessness in the first and third quartets. In the second quartet one has to wait
until the final minute of the piece before such a sensation is experienced. Even the final chord of the second movement, though it provides an apt sense of temporary completion, feels almost like a compromise made in order to dispel the apparent indecision and tension that precedes it.
One can detect traces of sonata form in the first movement but, generally, the music is in a perpetual state of development, as usual with Sæverud. The motifs and themes seem to be undergoing natural processes that make them grow, change shape and give birth to new ideas. The first movement opens with great vitality and purpose. After a brief introduction that sketches the intervals of the main theme, said theme is presented in unison by all four instruments. It is one of what I like to term Sæverud's “hiking tunes”: it has a bounce and a robustness that makes it prone to repetition and thus ideal for accompanying a walking expedition. It is built much like a folk tune, with an antecedent (first seven measures of rehearsal nr. (1)) and a consequent part (between (2) and (3)), separated by a short comment (2 mm. before (2)). The theme is indeed repeated several times. At (5) and (6) it is already transformed and transposed. The development of the theme gives birth to a new melodic idea, presented by the second violin 4-5 mm. after (7). This new idea has enough energy to sprout 27 measures of music and it will be further developed later in the movement. Worthy of note is the playful hocket between first violin, viola and cello at (8). 7 measures after (9) a much transformed version of the main theme appears in unison, with solo interventions by the violins and viola. At (10) we hear the first of several of several angular rhythmic unisons in the movement. This sets the stage for the preparation of the second main theme. By 9-10 mm. after (10) the extroverted interval of a minor seventh that had characterized the first theme, has become a more introverted minor third in the second violin. At (11) (with the upbeat) the second theme appears. Its main feature is the descending second and ascending third that has been already announced by the second violin. The first violin now plays one of Sæverud's trademark lyrical themes with lovely, wistful harmonies provided by the second violin and viola. Development ensues immediately. The entrance of the cello, 2 mm. before (12) lifts the music to greater intensity. By 8 mm. before (13) the secondary theme (see 4 mm. after (7) ) sneaks in played by the cello, now in triple meter. A new hocket (see (8) ) appears at (13), now also transformed into triple meter. The same is the case with the unison passage that now
appears 9 mm. before (15). It is now played in p with the solo interjections played ff and
pizzicato. A new rhythmic unison appears at (15), even spikier than the previous one. What
follows is the closest we find to a proper sonata development, incorporating elements of both of the main themes. This begins 11 mm. before (16) and lasts for 41 unsettling and tense measures. The version of the main theme that had appeared at (5) now reappears at (18), played in parallel sevenths by first violin and viola and mirrored by the cello. This (which can conceivably stand for a recapitulation of sorts) leads to the small insert that Sæverud added as an afterthought (referred to as BPL - ins. in the sources - see below): a short duet between the violins, based on the lyrical second theme (again a distant echo of a classical sonata recapitulation). The viola continues alone, joined in turn by each of the other instruments.
Tension accumulates, finally achieving release in a typically eccentric and unhinged Sæverud coda, beginning at (20) (and including a particularly hazardous viola part). After a unison passage involving rapid scales, the movement ends up settling on C as a tonal centre. This had been strongly suggested in the introduction but quickly dispelled by the main theme, which has a strong leaning on G as its tonal centre.
The second movement also opens with an introduction that announces the contours of the movement's main theme. The source for this theme is an unpublished piano piece that can be partly perused through the glass of a showcase at the Siljustøl Museum. The theme proper is presented by the first violin beginning at (1). It is a melody with very strong directions and character. Remnants of the main theme from the fist movement can be detected in the second
and third measures. Resting on a long E-flat pedal tone, the melody is beautifully complemented by a viola line. Soon a hushed dialogue between the instruments occurs (between (2) and (3) ), seamlessly leading to what the movement later reveals to be a new theme, passionately played by the second violin at (3). After further development a mischievous motif appears on the cello at 6 mm. after (4). This sets the stage for the rather playful sequence beginning at (5), where the staccato first violin and the legato second violin exchange views on top of the viola and cello, which play on the off-beats, creating their own good-natured mischief. A minor climax is reached in the four measures before (6), before a rhythmically transformed version of the second theme leads to a sudden reappearance of the main theme (now in a form closely resembling that of the aforementioned piano piece) at 6 mm. after (6). It is a magical Nachtmusik moment, with the harmonics of the cello and viola and the descending triplets in the second violin. The music gradually makes room for the deep register, growing in volume into the one proper climax of the movement, at (8). For three short but impassioned measures we hear a rare example of almost choral harmony in Sæverud, who generally favours the interlocking of melodic lines. What follows is a fascinating musical sequence that in a seemingly effortless manner combines motivic development with free invention. Examples of the latter can be found in mm. 2-5 after (9) and the entirely unexpected hocket section in mm. 5-8 after (10). These four measures are a good example of a tendency sometimes found in Sæverud's music: material that is seemingly out of place is allowed a few moments of attention, simply because the composer finds it fun or interesting. This mirrors Sæverud's general attitude to life: he never failed to find interest, even magic, in the most mundane occurrences. There is a new increase of intensity and again a few dense measures where all four instruments play simultaneously (6-10 mm. after (11)) after which the music seems to finally be on the verge of petering out from exhaustion, when a final explosion of energy happens from the upbeat to (12). There is a palpable sense of upward struggle before the falling motif that the viola had presented at the beginning of the movement is reinstated. The music is then marked calando and, after much indecision the voices coalesce onto a final C# major harmony (the tonal centre that the viola had suggested at the start). It is a magnificent movement that stands, in this writer's opinion, among Sæverud’s very finest.
The third movement, which also opens with an introduction, is an adaptation of the number from the music to Ibsen's Peer Gynt called "Tvinnan". The original version (for clarinet, violin and light percussion) is somewhat extended in the quartet, where it also gains a lot of details, increasing considerably in complexity. In spite of its brevity (just under three minutes) this movement (the quartet's bona fide scherzo) is a tour de force that, with its persistent forward motion and fiendishly difficult passages, pushes the players to the edge. Taking the lead from the first movement, here the main theme is also presented in unison (2), after an introduction that plays with the motifs of the impending theme. A characteristic Sæverud moment occurs at 6 mm. before (1) with the abrupt descending figure shared, in turn, by the four instruments. A relentless dotted rhythm (a Sæverud trademark) dominates the movement. At 8 mm. after (4) the cellist is asked to play that rhythm for 9 measures, which is very demanding at a tempo of quarter note = 160. Elsewhere Sæverud “gilds the lily” by preceding already very rapid sixteenth notes by grace notes, even multiple ones, such as in 9 mm. before (9). The only moment of sonic repose (although the dotted rhythm remains present and correct) occurs at (9) with the duet between the viola and 1st. violin. The dotted rhythm is briefly cast aside for six measures (1 m. before (10) to 5 mm. after. (10)). Had it not been for the cello’s chromatic line, these six measures could well be mistaken for a quotation from some folk music source (a practice Sæverud avoided out of principle). After one final hair- raising passage for the first violin (at (12)) the movement ends unceremoniously, as if the players have had enough and need a break.
The viola’s open D string provides a link to the fourth movement, which is, musically, by far the most complex and unsettling of the entire work.
It begins with remnants of the third movement, now played at a lower tempo. In the middle of a suitably bizarre exchange between the 1st violin and the cello (between (1) and (2) ), the violin hints at the movement's main theme. This is, as has become the norm, presented in unison at (2). This theme (in a slightly different version) is framed and hangs on the inside of the door to Sæverud's composing room at Siljustøl. Sæverud had given the melody to the legendary Bergen-based organist and composer Thorleif Aamodt (1909-2003) as a vehicle for improvisation. No sooner has the mysterious theme been presented in full, the music becomes agitated, with frequent 16th note quintuplets threatening to throw the pulse off-course. 5-6 mm. after (3) the inversion of the first four notes of theme appears for the first time. At (4) the second violin presents a new embryonic theme (derived from mm. 8-9 of the main theme), then handing it over to the 1st violin. The significance of this melody will only become apparent much later in the movement. Both tempo and metre change abruptly in the middle of 4 mm. after (5). The ensuing section in 6/8 is one of contained expectation, played in a hushed
manner, while making room for elegant small solos by the 2nd violin and cello. A short ff
interjection (at 2 mm. before (7) ) seems intent on letting off steam, if only briefly. Finally,
energy is allowed free rein at 7 mm. after (7) in the form of another embryonic theme that will be developed later on. Already the section beginning at (8) centres largely around this melodic snippet. This section (between (8) and (9) ) changes tempo frequently, veering between attempts at pastoral calm and a palpable sense of discomfort that finally finds full expression in the unsettling "episodio macabro" beginning at 6 mm. after (9). The 1st violin plays a variation of the main theme on top of unstable rhythms in the cello and the tremolos behind the bridge from the 2nd violin and viola. At the time Sæverud wrote this work such an effect had become almost commonplace in contemporary music, but it is worth of note that, historically, Sæverud was the first "classical" composer to use it (in one of the numbers in his Peer Gynt music, from the late 1940s, where the trans ponticello effect is supposed to portray baby trolls). The two measures played in unison directly after this episode (2 mm. before (10)) sound strangely familiar. The material is in fact new but the rhythm is identical to the theme the 2nd violin had introduced at 4-5 mm. after (7) in the first movement. Triple and duple metres coexist in the following passage, where the main theme plays, in different rhythms both in its straight and inverted forms. As unexpectedly as it is (upon closer examination)
inevitable, the second theme from the fist movement suddenly appears in the cello at 10 mm. after (11) (with upbeat), played ff and met with horrified screams from the 1st violin. A brief pause before (12) and the music (with the descending motif from the 1st movement's second
theme played over three consecutive descending octaves) continues, almost as if nothing has happened. Harmonics and wispy mordents seem to want to send us into a reverie but, that will not do. Not for Sæverud in any case. At (13) we are forcefully shaken awake and, after four passionate measures beginning at (14), the embryonic theme presented earlier (see 7 mm. after (7) ) is finally allowed time to develop. Under harmonics and undulating 16th notes the cello creeps back in with the main theme. What remains of the piece is a gathering of the strands from the different ideas that have played throughout the movement. The mood of the music at the end of the piece is a combination of bliss, exemplified by the violins, and
grumbling discontent expressed by the viola and cello. These two finally offer their acquiescence and the piece ends, quite unexpectedly, on a ff unison C played with crescendo. It appears, then, that the work was, after all, in C, as the beginning and end of the first
movement had suggested.
No description of a great piece of music will ever be as good as the work itself, and the above paragraphs are no exception. I remain, after 28 years of close acquaintance with the piece, in awe of this string quartet. Trond Sæverud (the composer's grand son) once told me that his
grandfather considered himself a struggler and felt, in the way he worked towards a consummate piece of music, closer to Beethoven than to Mozart. Although he loved Mozart's music, the God-given ease with which he apparently turned out one glorious work after another was very far removed from Sæverud's modus operandi. Hardly anywhere in his output is this more evident than in the second string quartet and, more particularly, in its final movement. It is ultimately a triumph against all the forces that seem intent on toppling it off balance. Such is Sæverud's mastery of the material that it is not always obvious whether he is developing previous ideas or engaging in free invention.
This is the least performed of Sæverud very seldom performed string quartets. In my view it clearly belongs among the Twentieth Century masterworks of its genre and I can only hope that it will eventually find its way into the repertoire of top international ensembles.
The fist performance of this work took place in Bergen on April 17th 1977 (the composer's 80th birthday). The performers were the members of the Bergen String Quartet at the time (not, please note, the Harmonien String Quartet, as I erroneously reported in the text of the publication of String Quartet no. 3, mph 4045): Rolf Sandvik and Terje Norbeck Johannessen (violins), Jean Tørud (viola) and Bo Ericsson (cello).
Sources:
WRITTEN:
Original manuscript score from the National Library (earlier Norwegian Music Information Center) – (NMI - SC)
Original individual parts written by a copyist from NMI, with fingerings, bowings and interpretational indications in the handwriting of the players who premiered the work (NMI – vln. 1/vln. 2/va./vc.)
A copy of the manuscript (pasted - presumably by the composer - onto a published score of Galdreslåtten op. 20 (!) ) with corrections made in pencil by Sæverud. Bergen Public Library – (BPL – 1)
- A handwritten insert to the first movement [6 mm. with 1st. violin upbeat b. (19) - (19)] also containing a correction to the end of the fist movement and the indication "con sord." for the viola at the beginning of the second movement - (BPL - ins.)
- Copy of original manuscript (identical to NMI - SC, therefore of no intrinsic value) on very poor quality paper. Bergen Public Library – (BPL – 2)
ORAL:
January 26th 2018 interview with Rolf Sandvik, who premiered the work in 1977 after rigorous preparation with the composer.
EXPERIENTIAL:
My own intense work with Harald Sæverud between 1987 and 1990.
Years of preparation, numerous performances and a CD recording of the work with the Hansa Quartet in the 1990s.
Rehearsals and performances during the academic year 2018-2019 with a group of students from the Grieg Academy.
Discussions with the research group “(Un-)settling Sites and Styles”, based at the Grieg Academy in Bergen, Norway.
RECORDING:
Harald Sæverud String Quartets. Hansa Quartet. 1996. PSC 1141
GENERAL REMARKS ABOUT SÆVERUD'S NOTATION
When discussing Harald Sæverud's music one usually gets on to the subject of his highly precise notation very quickly. I share the belief of many who knew him well that the main reason why his music is not performed as often as it deserves to be is precisely the great amount of markings (articulations, tempo, character and dynamics) that greet the potential performer when opening one of Sæverud's scores. It is easy to become discouraged when one is not able to find many notes that do not have some kind of marking. It would appear that Sæverud gives very little freedom to those who interpret his music. This remains a point of contention among Sæverud enthusiasts: would it not be better to simplify the visual aspect of the scores in order to make them more appetizing to prospective players and conductors? I clearly see the point of that rhetorical question. On the other hand, the scores of many great composers (particularly from the Twentieth Century) have a strong visual imprint. One can, for instance, open a score by Ligeti or Lutosławski and immediately know it is their music before even focusing on a single detail (incidentally, both of the mentioned composers often used notation that was far from "user friendly", yet their music is widely performed). The same is the case with Sæverud. If one were to simplify his notation, the scores would not look like they were his anymore. Furthermore, they would offer little resistance. The concept of resistance was paramount for Sæverud. He wanted his musicians to struggle. The late Jan Henrik Kayser (1933 - 2016), a pianist who worked closely with Sæverud for several decades, is heard on a 1994 Norwegian Television documentary (https://tv.nrk.no/serie/festspillene-i- bergen-tv/fkum11000194/02-06-1994) saying that Sæverud, in a speech given on his 50th birthday, thanked specially those who had given him resistance, for they increased his strength. In the same program, Kayser also recalls how, in one occasion, Sæverud told him to disregard all the markings on the page and play the music the way he felt it.
Sæverud always said that Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven were his ideals. He considered himself not a neo-classical composer but a classical composer.
I early on came to see Sæverud's detailed notation as a way to look at the classics through a magnifying glass. He wanted his music to flow like Mozart's, but felt compelled to give precise directions about every parameter of the performance. This was probably the result of hearing poor performances of his music where inexperienced players would commit common errors such as slowing down at the end of a phrase or disregarding a weaker note in a musical line. In order to prevent such mistakes he would write "quasi accellerando" or simply “accel.” (to prevent slowing down) or use a dash or an accent on the weak note(s) of the phrase. The problem with such directions is that, if one simply follows them, without understanding the reason behind them, the music becomes stiff and mannered, as well as devoid of the natural flow that was so important for Sæverud.
Of all of the markings that Sæverud used one in particular was the cause of much misunderstanding. It is what he called "marcato espressivo": <>
Rolf Sandvik recalls that Sæverud told him and his quartet colleagues in rehearsals that Mendelssohn, Brahms and Schumann used it. And so they did, as well as Bruch, Saint-Saëns, Dvořák, Schoenberg and Martin, to name a few prominent composers. The fact that several of these composers used the <> articulation in their piano music is a clear indication that, in spite
of the way it looks, <> is not meant to be a swell.
In the inner cover of the manuscript of his Fifth Symphony, dated 1942 (kept at the Bergen Public Library) Sæverud wrote: "<>: is played sf vibrato, it is not stranger than that".
It is interesting that Sæverud mentions sf and <> in the same sentence. In my experience of
working with him it became clear that both these markings concern a level of expressive
intensity that applies to the entire length of the note they accompany. Rolf Sandvik remembers a conversation with one of the former chief conductors of the Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra, Carl Garaguly (1900-1982), whom Sæverud respected highly, in
which Garaguly explained that sf is not an accent (like >) but a "heightening of intensity". As
such, it must apply to the entire note. In cases where it appears on the first note of a legato
slur, it is understood that this "heightening of intensity" is to be kept through the entire slur.
<> is, generally, to be understood as a more tender variant of sf.
NOTES ON THE MUSICAL TEXT
In several instances I have chosen to write dynamic indications when an instrument re-enters after several measures' rest. Although the composer, presumably, expected the performers to carry on in the same dynamic they last had in their part, I considered it prudent to write the dynamic again. All such indications are given in parentheses.
1st. movement
2 measures before (2): BPL – 1 has mf pencilled on the viola part and f above the top and below the bottom staff. NMI – vln. 1 has a handwritten mf. NMI – vln. 2 and va. have the original p crossed out (but no alternative dynamic is given). Sæverud obviously wanted more sound in this short interjection, so this edition gives mf for all three parts.
(4) BPL – 1: the "a" of "a tempo" is moved to the upbeat of the measure.
2 mm. before (5): the two last notes in the viola and cello are given staccato dots in parentheses (they do not appear in either BPL – 1 or NMI - SC). In the first presentation of the theme 2 mm. before 3 (played in unison by all four instruments), the same two notes have dots in all instruments. There seems to be no valid reason to omit the dots 2 mm. before (5).
3 mm. a. (7) BPL – 1: octave D' - D'' added to cello part, doubling the 1st violin one octave under.
Upbeat to (11) BPL – 1: pp (changed from p) on 2nd. violin and viola parts. NMI - vln. 2 and vla. have p. Sæverud's handwritten correction shows that he wanted to differentiate the dynamic of the 1st. violin melody (p) from that of the accompanying instruments. This has
been respected in this edition.
4 mm. before (12): the obviously missing "arco" is added to the viola part. In NMI - SC and BPL - 1 Sæverud writes "arco" on the fist measure of (12), but it is evident that the indication is needed four measures earlier.
3 mm. after (12): added staccato dots to the last four 16th notes in the fist violin. In NMI - SC and BPL - 1 this is the only of the ten times this figure is repeated in five consecutive bars that has no dots, and there is no musical justification for this, which must be considered a simple oversight.
7 mm. after (12) BPL – 1: the last two notes of the 2nd violin are not corrected here. Oddly enough, they are "corrected" in NMI - SC (supposedly an earlier draft of the score).
Following the logic of the passage beginning 3 mm. a. (12), the last note of the 2nd. violin is always followed by the same note, one octave above, on the 1st. violin. Thus, 7 mm. a. (12) the last two notes of the 2nd. violin should, indeed, be Bb - Cb, as they appear on BPL - 1, NMI - vln. 2 (in the latter, a flat is pencilled before the second last note of the measure) and on this edition.
5 mm. before (13): tenuto dash added to first note in 2nd violin, to correspond with the identical 1st violin part.
2 and 3 mm. after (16) pose a question in the 2nd violin. This is an inherently unstable section of the piece. The previous intervention by the 2nd violin has happened 5 measures
earlier: it was marked f sul pont. A figure of similar shape (also marked f sul pont) appears in
the viola at (16). The 2nd violin has no dynamic indication 2 mm. after (16). Are we to assume that it must continue to play f? This would make the line a continuation of the viola figure in the previous measure. Then again, perhaps Sæverud prefers the tenderness of the 1st
violin to dominate in which case it would be advisable, in order not to disturb it, to have the 2nd violin play p. In NMI - SC and BPL - 1 "sul ponticello" is written on the 2nd violin part at 3 mm. after (16). In NMI - vln. 2 this is moved (logically) to the last beat of the previous bar. Interestingly Sæverud writes p for the 2nd violin 5 mm. after (16). In this edition, the suggested dynamics at 2 mm. after (16) in tehe 2nd violin are given in parentheses.
A similar situation occurs with the viola part at 7 mm. after (16): there is no dynamic, and the viola's previous intervention has happened 6 measures earlier in f. Sæverud, however, gives f to the viola 6 measures later (3 mm. before (17)), which suggests the viola may have been expected to play softer in the previous measures. This edition gives p (in parenthesis) to
the viola at 7 mm. after (16).
At 2-1 mm. before (18) it seems logical for the first two notes of the cello to be joined by a legato slur. However, since none of the extant sources has such a slur, it is given here in parenthesis for both measures.
2 mm. after (18) the 1st violin, viola and cello play the same rhythm and melodic material (albeit in mirror form in the cello). In NMI - SC and BPL - 1 the first violin has the first two notes slurred, while the viola and cello do not. NMI - va. has a down bow written by hand on both notes. This suggests that those two notes (in all three instruments) are meant to be played in one bow. This edition gives the respective slurs of the viola and cello in parentheses.
11 mm. after (18): sf added (in parenthesis) to fourth note in the cello, to correspond with
the mirroring 1st violin part.
6 mm. b. (19) with 1st violin upbeat - (19): BPL - ins. These six measures were sent to the players after one of the sessions with the composer. They appear on NMI - vln. 1/vln. 2, with corresponding rests on NMI - va. (where the insert is pasted in full score and the number of empty measures before the 6/8 time signature is incorrect) but, oddly, not on NMI - vc.
The insert has a message from Sæverud that reads: "Dear all four! Thank you for our last meeting! - you were great! Therefore I have the pleasure of laying on you this trouble, which was missing".
3 mm. before (20): sf added (in parenthesis) to first note in the viola, to correspond with the
2nd violin part.
Three last mm. BPL - ins. - the notes of the 2nd. violin and viola are swapped from the original. The viola plays C; the second violin plays G. The viola is given a measure's rest in order to put on the mute to begin the next movement. This is also represented in NMI - vln. 2/va.
2nd. movement
2 mm. b. (1) - Viola: senza sord. Appears on BPL - 1 and NMI - va.
4 mm. before (4): obviously missing "arco" added to 1st violin. This appears on NMI - vln. 1 but not on NMI - SC or BPL - 1.
5 mm. before (5): obviously missing "arco" added to viola.
3 mm. before (5): "nat." added to second violin in order to cancel the "sul pontticello" of 7 measures earlier.
As he was fond to do from time to time, after (5) Sæverud changes time signature several times without indicating these changes. He uses, instead, dotted bar lines within the larger measures in order to specify the rhythmic subdivisions within those measures. I have chosen to indicate the change to 9/16 both in the score and parts, while the subsequent changes to 11/16 and 18/16 are not indicated in the score but are given in the parts in parentheses above the staff.
The four measures before (6) are an interesting case. NMI - SC and BPL - 1 only have two measures with a second violin insert directly before (6).
It has always been my understanding that these two measures are meant to be repeated with an altered 2nd violin part the second time. Bizarrely NMI – vln. 1/vln. 2/va./vc have the 2nd violin play the insert on its own, with two measures' rest for the other instruments. This makes no musical sense whatsoever! This edition repeats the two measures in the 1st violin, viola and cello, with the different 2nd violin part the second time around.
3 mm. before (7): "nat." added to viola, in order to cancel the harmonics preceding.
6 mm. before (9): in NMI - SC and BPL - 1 the cello scale comes with an ossia:
Interestingly, the accidentals are different in the two scales. This edition adheres to the main proposed version (i.e. not the ossia)
2 mm. b. (11) - 1st. violin and cello: senza sordino (NMI - vln. 1, in the players' handwriting, but not on BPL - 1). This decision was obviously made during rehearsal with Sæverud, therefore it has been implemented in this edition.
1 m. b. (11) - 2nd violin and viola: senza sordino (NMI - vln. 1, but not on BPL - 1). Where it concerns the 2nd. violin, I feel it would have made more sense to have the mute lifted already 4. mm. b. (11), so as to make a more balanced dialogue between the violins, but I choose not to second-guess Sæverud.
2-1 mm. b. (11) - violins: slur added to first four notes of the measure (BPL - 1)
1 m. before (11): "nat." added to 1st violin to cancel the preceding "sul pont."
8 mm. a. (11) - viola: on NMI - SC the second note of the measure is a rather obvious misprint, which Sæverud corrected by pencil from the erroneous E# (on NMI - SC) to a C# (an octave below the 1st. violin) on BPL - 1.
10 mm. after (11): obviously missing "arco" added to last double stop of the 2nd violin.
3rd. movement
Measure 3: added obviously missing "arco" to 1st. violin. It appears on neither NMI - SC
nor BPL - 1.
8 mm. a. (4) - cello: p at the end of the measure crossed out. Sul pont added after pizz.
(BPL - 1).
6 mm. b. (6) - viola: dynamic on the last note changed from p (NMI - SC) to mf (BPL - 1).
At (7) and in the subsequent 11 measures, Sæverud gives the staccatissimo sign to every
single note of the first violin, but only to the first two in the cello. The cello plays pizz. while the violin plays arco. This may have been an oversight, but is left here as in the manuscript.
4 mm. a. (8) - cello: accent (>) added above first note (BPL - 1). In the two subsequent measures, the sf above the first note of each bar (NMI - SC) is changed to accent (>) on BPL - 1.
4-3 mm. before (9): although it might be logical to expect all instruments to have the same articulation (since they play the same rhythm) only the violins have staccato throughout, while the cello has no articulation for the two bars and the viola has staccato only in the first of the two. Even if Sæverud did this on purpose (which I'm inclined to doubt) it would be well nigh impossible to discern any difference of articulation between the instruments at that speed. All the same, this edition presents those two measures as they appear in all extant manuscripts:
(9) - NMI - SC has p for both 1st. violin and viola. On BPL - 1 Sæverud corrected this to pp on the 1st. violin and mp on the viola. Both corrections appear with a question mark. It seems, however, well in keeping with Sæverud's practice to differentiate the dynamics between two
very distinct parts, so this edition incorporates the correction on BPL - 1.
4th. movement
(2) - Tempo quarter note = 112 added on BPL - 1. The indication also appears on NMI - vln. 1/vln. 2/va. but not on NMI - vc. In the violin parts it is designated as Tempo I (which makes sense in the context of the movement; see 2 mm. a. (8), 5 mm. b. (9) and 4 mm. a. (9))
6 mm. a. (3) - 1st violin: accent (>) added to first note (BPL - 1)
8 mm. a. (3) - cello: fp added on fist note of the quintuplet (BPL - 1)
6 mm. before (5): obviously missing “arco” added to the cello part.
2-3 mm. after (7): one might expect the cello to have staccato dots on the last two notes of the first measure and the third and fourth notes of the second measure (as is the case with the last two notes of (7)), but this is not the case. However, this edition presents those measures as they appear in all extant sources.
7 mm. after (7): the last double stop in the cello is notated G-flat/D flat in all sources. Taking the next measure into consideration (with the three parallel tritones) and in the context of Sæverud's music as a whole, I am convinced that the above mentioned double stop is meant to be also a tritone, i.e. G natural/D flat. It appears so in this edition.
The first measure of (8) poses an interesting tempo question. Although Sæverud gives the tempo (quarter note = 112) in the next measure, it is obvious that the cello line begins at (8) and it would appear logical for the cello to play the entire line in the same tempo.
Mathematically, if we keep the previous tempo (dotted quarter = 84) at (8), we are in exactly the same tempo, i.e. quarter note (in the cello, dotted quarter in the 1st violin) = 84, that is, a lot slower than the tempo given in the next measure. There are, in my view, three possible solutions for this conundrum:
To have the 1st violin continue playing in the same tempo while the cello comes in at quarter note = 112, simultaneously, with no attempt at coordination. In modern terms this would be a "cross-fade". This is the way we did with the Hansa Quartet in the 1990s
To disregard the eighth note rest at the end of the violin measure and pretend it is yet another 5/8, and have the cello play in the same tempo (which would be, quite exactly, quarter note = 100.8, i.e. ca. 101, which is closer to 112). This is the way we did it with our group in the academic year 2018-19
To do it precisely as it is in the score.
We are taught to believe that the score is the ultimate source of knowledge about a composer's intentions. However, I knew Sæverud (and just about every composer I have ever worked with) to change his mind about his music and to make radical revisions to works he had written even decades earlier. With that in mind, I leave it to eventual interpreters to make the decision about this measure that seems most logical to them.
In the section between (8) and (9) the 2/4 and 6/8 coexist, sharing the same pulse (i.e. dotted quarter in 6/8 = quarter in 2/4). Thus, when Sæverud writes "quarter note = 84, 2 mm. before
(9) it obviously applies to the viola. To avoid confusion, I have put "dotted quarter = 84" in the violin parts, followed by "quarter note = 84" in parentheses at (9).
5 mm. a. (9) - on BPL - 1 the 1st. violin doubles the pizzicatos (F-A) of the 2nd. violin. The change is accompanied by an odd circle above the staff (probably a reminder for Sæverud to include it in a later draft that never materialized or, indeed, in this edition, over four decades after the event).
At (10) the viola is given an accent (>) in the first note of its first three measures, but not in the following four. Corresponding accents in those last four measures are given in parentheses in this edition, as I see no musical reason why they should be missing.
4 mm. after 10: the parenthesis enclosing "f sempre" is Sæverud's.
4 mm. before (11): sf on first note of 2nd violin (to match the identical 1st violin part). This
appears on NMI - vln. 2, but not in the other sources.
11 mm. b. (12) with upbeat - on BPL - 1 the cello doubles the viola. This is, arguably, the most cataclysmic moment in the entire work, when the lyrical second theme of the first movement is recapitulated in a far more hostile environment and higher dynamic than in its original appearance. It seems logical that Sæverud may have wanted more sound than what the viola could produce on its own.
8 mm. b. (16) - cello: pp (on NMI - SC) changed to mp (BPL - 1).
7 mm. b. (16) - cello: lowest C added under the last note of the measure, tied to the same
pitch for one beat of the subsequent measure (BPL - 1). This change is included in this edition.
3-4 a. (18) - cello: sf on all notes (BPL - 1).
In gratitude
Many people must be thanked in connection to this publication. They all have contributed significantly to my understanding of Sæverud, the man and his music, at different times in the past thirty-three years.
Einar Røttingen, my good friend and colleague, who introduced me to Harald Sæverud’s music and to the composer himself in 1986, thus setting my musical life on the course it has followed since.
Harald Sæverud himself, who taught me much more than can be set into a few simple words.
Sveinung and Tormod Sæverud and Ketil Hvoslef (the composer’s three sons) Alma Sørbø Sæverud and the late Inger Bergitte Sæverud (the respective spouses of Sveinung and Ketil) and Trond Sæverud and Line Hvoslef (two of the composer’s grandchildren), who knew the composer better than anyone.
Lorentz Reitan, for his superb biography of Sæverud ("Harald Sæverud: Mannen Musikken Mytene" – 1997. Aschehoug & co. Oslo)
My colleagues from the Hansa Quartet, Anne Helga Martinsen, Helga Steen and Walter Heim, for countless hours of very hard work in the 1990s and their commitment to bringing this very complex music to life. Our 1996 recording of the three string quartets remains a reference and the only one to date.
Jorunn Eckhoff Færden (from the Bergen Public Library), who has given me access to Sæverud’s manuscripts.
Karen Rygh, from the Norwegian National Library, for giving me access to the original score and NMI set of parts.
Oddhild Nyberg, Vladimíra Ščigulinská and Carmen Bóveda, students at the Grieg Academy in the academic years 2017-2019. They have worked diligently with me on this quartet (and the third one in 2017-18) for nine months. Their commitment to and enthusiasm for this music has been exceptional and I have been very fortunate to work with them for two precious years.
My colleagues from the research group (Un-)settling Sites and Styles, based at the Grieg Academy: Signe Bakke, John Ehde, Arnulf Mattes, Liv Elise Nordskog, Einar Røttingen, Njål Sparbo, Hilde Haraldsen Sveen, Torleif Torgersen and Knut
Vaage. The insights they have provided throughout the process of relearning and researching this work (and the third quartet) during the 2018-2019 academic year have been invaluable.
Ricardo Odriozola July 2nd 2019