The Test Pressings of Schoenberg Conducting Pierrot lunaire: Sprechstimme Reconsidered

Abstract

Newly discovered recordings of Schoenberg conducting
 Pierrot lunaire open a window into the workshop of Arnold Schoenberg (the 
 conductor) and Erika Stiedry-Wagner (who performed the Sprechstimme). 
 These recordings reveal that in a period of not more than three days, Schoenberg 
 accepted relatively great freedom in the Sprechstimme pitch contour; as well 
 as a contradictory tendency towards consistency and a certain systematic 
 approach towards pitch, which does not always adhere to the score. Before 
 examining the recordings it was not possible to know whether the relation 
 between the performed Sprechstimme and the score was controlled, systematic, 
 or simply a matter of chance. The recordings shed new light on what has been 
 described by Boulez, Stadlen and others as the “Sprechstimme enigma:” namely, 
 how Schoenberg expected the Sprechstimme to be performed. The history of 
 Schoenberg’s writings on Sprechstimme demonstrates that his perception of it 
 changed along with the development of his performance aesthetics in general. 
 Based on evidence from the recordings as well as on recent performance studies 
 theory, I will claim that the Sprechstimme enigma is greatly clarified when 
 one understands that there are simultaneously two types of notation in Pierrot 
 lunaire: one for the instruments that tends towards a reproduction of a sound 
 object, and another for the Sprechstimme which involves a process of greater 
 real-time interaction between performer and score. Although the Sprechstimme 
 from the workshop of Schoenberg and Stiedry-Wagner may be regarded as an extreme 
 case study, it magnifies in a way what also happens in performances of other 
 types of music.