• WL100/1-81: The Complete List


• 2.01.15  WL100/1-81: The Complete List
• 1.01.15  WL100/81: Roussel 3, Lutosławski 3


• 31.12.14  WL100/80: Lutosławski’s Chair
• 30.12.14  WL100/79: Jeux vénitiens conducting score
• 29.12.14  WL100/78: Jeux vénitiens pitch designs
• 28.12.14  WL100/77: Lutosławski’s French Bookmarks
• 27.12.14  WL100/76: Lutosławski Learns To Drive
• 26.12.14  WL100/75: Lutosławski’s Bookshelves
• 25.12.14  WL100/74: Lutosławski Rules!
• 24.12.14  WL100/73: Lutosławski’s Batons
• 23.12.14  WL100/72: Lutosławski’s Desk


• 27.11.13  WL100/71: Lissa on Concerto for Orchestra
• 26.11.13  WL100/70: Concerto for Orchestra, **26.11.54
• 18.11.13  WL100/69: Livre, **18 November 1968
• 15.11.13  WL100/68: Nie oczekuję dziś nikogo
• 11.11.13  WL100/67: Notebook, 11 November 1961  on conducting
• 9.11.13  WL100/66: Overture, **9 November 1949

• 26.10.13  WL100/65: Mr and Mrs  Lutosławscy in Prague
• 24.10.13  WL100/64: Notebook, 24 October 1959  Webern
• 22.10.13  WL100/63: Mi-parti, **22 October 1976
• 19.10.13  WL100/62: Notebook, 19 October 1960  Pierre Schaeffer and objet sonore
• 15.10.13  WL100/61: Symphonic Variations
• 14.10.13  WL100/60: Cello Concerto, **14 October 1970
• 6.10.13  WL100/59: Lutosławski in Moscow (1951)

• 16.09.13  WL100/58: ‘old’ Derwid CDs
• 15.09.13  WL100/57: ‘el Derwid’ CD
• 6.09.13  WL100/56: Los Angeles (1985)  reposting of Lutosławski in Los Angeles (1985) (2.09.11)
• 5.09.13  WL100/55: Death of Lutosławski’s Father
• 3.09.13  WL100/54: Lutosławski and Panufnik (1945)
• 2.09.13  WL100/53: Trio, **2 September 1945

• 27.08.13  WL100/52: His Last BBC Prom
• 26.08.13  WL100/51: July Garland (1949) – the music
• 21.08.13  WL100/50: Volcano in Łowicz (1949)  Gałczyński
• 20.08.13  WL100/49: 22 July 1949 and a letter  July Garland
• 19.08.13  WL100/48: 22 July 1944 and after  Lutosławski’s medals
• 18.08.13  WL100/47: Folk Melodies, **22 July 1946
• 17.08.13  WL100/46: Notebook June-July

• 25.06.13  WL100/45: Trois poèmes, UK*25 June 1969
• 20.06.13  WL100/44: Paroles tissées, **20 June 1965
• 17.06.13  WL100/43: Variations, **17 June 1939
• 12.06.13  WL100/42: 33 ‘Derwid’ songs published

• 23.05.13  WL100/41: Symphony 4 (Polish premiere)
• 22.05.13  WL100/40: London Sinfonietta, 22 May 1993
• 18.05.13  WL100/39: Polar Music Prize, 18 May 1993
• 9.05.13  WL100/38: Les dessins de Michaux
• 9.05.13  WL100/37: Trois poèmes, **9 May 1963
• 8.05.13  WL100/36: Le songe de Desnos (1938)
• 4.05.13  WL100/35: Lutosławski in Riga

• 24.04.13  WL100/34: Jeux vénitiens, **24 April 1961
• 13.04.13  
WL100/33: Zanussi documentary (complete)
• 12.04.13  
WL100/32: Les espaces, **12 April 1978
• 9.04.13  
WL100/31: Notebook, 9 April 1969  on conducting (and Boulez)
• 7.04.13  
WL100/30: Notebook, 7 April 1960  on Cage
• 6.04.13  
WL100/29: Notebook, 6 April 1961  on ‘poor caricatures’
• 3.04.13  
WL100/28: Jazz Conversations (Lutosphere)

• 19.03.13  
WL100/27: Notebook, 19 March 1961  on rain and Jeux vénitiens
• 13.03.13  
WL100/26: Notebook, 13 March 1961 (2)  on electronic music
• 13.03.13  
WL100/25: Notebook, 13 March 1961 (1)  on feeling in music
• 11.03.13  
WL100/24: Notebook, 11 March 1961  on new instruments (and Jeux vénitiens)
• 9.03.13  
WL100/23: 9-10 March 1957  speech to Polish Composers’ Union
• 9.03.13  
WL100/22: Chain 1, figs 40-41

• 16.02.13  WL100/21: Funeral and Homily, 16.02.94
• 15.02.13  WL100/20: Dance Preludes, **15 February 1955
• 12.02.13  WL100/19: ‘Lutosławski live’, 12-19.02.93
• 12.02.13 WL100/18: Notebook, 12 February 1961  on his current music
• 6.02.13  WL100/17: Notebook, 6 February 1959  as a parachutist
• 2.02.13  WL100/16: Philharmonia Festival, 2-12.02.89

• 26.01.13  WL100/15: Thank-you note, 26 January 1993
• 22.01.13  WL100/14: Lutosławski at Polish Radio  new archival website
• 19.01.13  WL100/13: In Conversation with Zanussi
• 17.01.13  WL100/12: ‘Breaking Chains’, BBC 1997
• 16.01.13  WL100/11: ‘The Hidden Composer’  Witold Lutosławski and Polish Radio
• 13.01.13  WL100/10: ‘Breaking Chains’, GSMD 1997
• 12.01.13  WL100/9: Lutosławski’s Carpet
• 10.01.13  WL100/8: Musique funèbre, 10 January 1958
• 5.01.13  WL100/7: Lutosławski info online
• 3.01.13  WL100/6: Epitaph, **3 January 1980
• 2.01.13  WL100/5: Notebook, 2 January 1963  on Cymer the carpenter


• 31.12.12  WL100/4: Lutosławski Likenesses
• 20.12.12  WL100/3: Lutosławski in Belfast (gallery)
• 18.12.12  WL100/2: Lutosławski in Belfast (DMus)
• 17.12.12  WL100/1: Lutosławski in Belfast
• 17.12.12  WL100

• WL100/81: Roussel 3, Lutosławski 3

The commonly accepted score line is Roussel 3, Lutosławski 1.  Or, in musical parlance, Roussel’s Third Symphony is usually linked with Lutosławski’s First.  Lutosławski himself laid emphasis on the significance of the French composer’s work, especially with regard to symphonic form.  Charles Bodman Rae investigates this relationship more than others when he also finds motivic functional patterns linking the slow movements of the two symphonies.

In his conversations with Irina Nikolska (Stockholm, 1994; p.81), Lutosławski added another dimension:

I like this composition very much.  There was a period in my life when I was simply captivated by it.  Even today I consider it a chef-d’oeuvre.  What an inventiveness in the field of melody!  (A rare thing nowadays.)

I was reminded of this when I spent three days researching in Lutosławski’s house in late September 2002.  There on his shelves was his score of Roussel’s Third Symphony, which Lutosławski had heard in Warsaw as a teenager at the start of the 1930s.  It even had his name stamped on the cover (does the stamp help to date Lutosławski’s purchase of the score?).

Screen Shot 2015-01-01 at 09.56.49

More interestingly, tucked inside were three folded pieces of manuscript paper on which Lutosławski had transcribed some of the main themes of Roussel’s symphony.  (I did not come across any transcriptions of any other works by other composers.)  They are not in chronological order, and the scherzo is ignored.  It is quite possible that Lutosławski did this much later in his life, when he was preparing a lecture on Roussel’s symphony that he gave at the Academy of Music in Basle.  (The text is translated in Zbigniew Skowron’s collection Lutosławski on Music (Plymouth, 2007; pp.193-97); he thinks that it was probably delivered in June 1970.)

The ‘first’ sheet contains two themes: (i) the first six bars of the first movement, Allegro vivo, and (ii)  the opening ten bars of the finale, Allegro con spirito.


The ‘second’ sheet has just one theme: (iii) the first ten bars of the second movement, Adagio.


The ‘third’ sheet has two themes, both from the finale: theme (iv) picks up the fifth bar of fig.65 and takes it four bars, while theme (v) jumps to the very end of the movement (excluding the last two bars), starting at fig.80.


What struck me most was this ‘last’ sheet.  Combined with comments in his Basle talk, it reinforced something that I had perceived long ago and yet which – to the best of my knowledge – no-one has ever pointed out.  If correct, it sheds new light on Lutosławski’s relationship with Roussel’s Third Symphony.

In the second part of his Basle lecture (the first part covers issues such as the neglect of Roussel’s symphony and the definition of neoclassicism), Lutosławski goes through the key thematic material.  He gives page numbers and contextual musical information, although it is not a thoroughgoing analysis.  He does focus, however, on what he calls the ‘motto theme’.  This evidently intrigued him.

The theme inveigles its way into every movement, sometimes overtly, sometimes indirectly.  For example, it is incorporated into the violin line at fig.1, although Lutosławski does not mention this first instance.

Screen Shot 2015-01-01 at 11.33.09

In the first movement, he refers to page 10, where the flute figure embraces the theme (here it is on its recapitulation, on violins, six bars after fig.17, on p.30).

Screen Shot 2015-01-01 at 11.38.49

More obviously, the motto theme thunders out on page 27 (four bars before fig.16).

Screen Shot 2015-01-01 at 11.37.48

Lutoslawski begins his observations on the Adagio with the motto theme – see manuscript above, theme (iii).  He then cites the semiquaver fugato four bars after fig.31 (p.50) as beginning with the first five notes of theme, ignoring the fact that it is prefaced by a slow version in the first violins.

Screen Shot 2015-01-01 at 12.19.12

Screen Shot 2015-01-01 at 11.45.42

He reserves special delight for the end of the second movement.  He is captivated by the motto theme’s triple appearance, starting six bars after fig.38.  On pages 66-67, marked again Adagio, the theme is played in succession by solo flute, solo horn and solo violin.  Lutosławski comments: ‘These three entrances represent for me a particular, rare beauty’.  This is the flute entry.

Screen Shot 2015-01-01 at 11.46.46

When it comes to the third movement, Vivace, Lutosławski makes no explicit reference to the motto theme, although it is embedded in what he labels a ‘call to attention’ for the main theme that follows a bar after fig.41 (p.70).

Screen Shot 2015-01-01 at 11.48.02

For the finale, Lutosławski first cites the main theme  – (ii) above – and then a violin phrase ‘worthy of attention’ – (iv) above.  He highlights the motto theme at fig.71 (p.119) that comes just before the recapitulation: ‘This time it is played by the solo violin against a background of harmonies that are both simple and sophisticated, and it constitutes one of the most beautiful moments in the whole work’.  This is the start of a section that lasts for almost twenty bars.

Screen Shot 2015-01-01 at 13.31.16

Finally, Lutosławski comes to the peroration that crowns Roussel’s Third Symphony – theme (v) above: ‘The recapitulation ends with the motto theme; this time in a solemn version, but free of any pomposity.  It is a gorgeous completion of this extraordinary work’.

It is obvious from this text that Lutosławski’s enthusiasm for Roussel’s symphony was undiminished, from the Polish premiere at the start of the 1930s to his Basle lecture 40 years later and beyond, as when he spoke with Charles Bodman Rae in 1988 (see The Music of Lutosławski, p.28, fn.9).  In fact, his enthusiasm was not unconditional, as his Basle lecture reveals.  Nevertheless, it was ‘in his bones’, it was part of his musical life-history.

So one should not be surprised that its influence resurfaced more than 30 years after the First Symphony.  In addition to ‘Roussel 3, Lutosławski 1’ we may surely add ‘Roussel 3, Lutosławski 3’.  The reason is staring us in the face, although it appears to have passed unnoticed.  I would be extremely keen to hear if anyone has written about this already.

Let me cut to the chase by recalling Lutosławski’s admiring phrase: ‘What an inventiveness in the field of melody!’.

Compare the various versions of the motto theme in Roussel’s Third Symphony with the climactic melody in Lutosławski’s Third.  They share a descending succession of two intervals – variously minor 3rd/major 3rd followed by perfect 5th/minor 6th or major 6th.  They then rise, almost or exactly, to where they started (usually octave/minor 7th in Roussel, minor 7th or major 7th in Lutosławski).  The main anapaestic rhythmic kernel is the same in both. The principal difference lies in the conclusion of the motif, where Roussel, strange as it may seem, sounds more dissonant (it is because of the way in which he comes to rest not on the lowest pedal note, as Lutosławski does, but on the step above).


In the Lutosławski, the motivic seeds have been sown earlier, such as in the opening flute ‘bundle’, in the first trumpet at fig.63 and the violins five bars later.  Before fig.81, the descending minor third resurfaces in the first violins. But the first overt appearance of the ‘motto theme’ is in the first violins at fig.84.  In a manner parallel to the final statement of the motto theme in Roussel’s Third Symphony, Lutosławski gives his equivalent a climactic sweep at fig.97, just before the canonic coda.

I am not suggesting that Lutosławski was consciously referencing Roussel.  He may have been doing so, or he may have realised the connection later, or he may have been totally unconscious of his tribute.  The parallels are certainly uncanny, and I cannot now hear the concluding melody of his Third Symphony without recalling Roussel’s Third too.

• WL100/80: Lutosławski’s Chair

When the BBC Radio 3 Music Matters team was preparing for its profile of Lutosławski to mark the centenary of his birth (broadcast on 19 January 2013), its web page included several archive photos of the composer plus one taken on location by his stepson, Marcin Bogusławski.  This photo was of his studio, with his desk and bookshelves.


It is interesting to compare this photo from 2013 with the one taken by me in September 2002


and with the undated one taken much earlier by Malcolm Crowthers with Lutosławski at his desk.  It was used for the front cover and inside flap of O muzyce. Pisma i wypowiedzi (Gdańsk, 2011), the Polish version of Lutosławski on Music (Plymouth, 2007).

Scan 1

Crowthers’ photo is self-evidently the earliest of the three, with Lutosławski gazing out of the window from his desk, which is much fuller of materials than when I took my shot.  (See also my photos in WL100/72: Lutosławski’s Desk and WL100/74: Lutosławski Rules!.)  Bogusławski’s photo has many, but by no means all, of the same books on the shelves, often in a different order.  It also has the accoutrements of modern technology, in which Lutosławski had no interest: a computer and printer.  His typewriter is still there, as are the painting on the end wall and the wooden library steps underneath.  There is, however, a noticeably new office chair.

I cannot tell from Crowthers’ photo what Lutosławski was sitting on, but I would hazard a strong guess that it was the office chair that was still tucked into the desk in 2002.  Sadly, it was in a parlous state by then.  The padded seat was in a bad way and the adjustable back had lost its upright position and leaned impossibly towards the floor.


It was something deeply melancholic to see it in this state of disrepair, its occupant long absent.  It was a reminder of how much Lutosławski had written from this chair and how much he was missed.

Incidentally, on the seat in the background of my photo is the growing pile of materials that I and Nicholas Reyland made during our three days in the house in 2002.  It contained conducting scores and folders of manuscript materials etc..  On the top we put a note to suggest that they should all go to the Paul Sacher Foundation in Basle to join the rich array of other items that Lutosławski had deposited there.  I do not know if that was ever done; I hope so.

Tomorrow will bring the last of my WL100 posts.  (Better late than never.)  To give you a sporting chance of guessing what it might be, here is a choice of score lines (ho-ho):

• Roussel 3, Lutosławski 1
• Roussel 3, Lutosławski 3

Happy New Year!

• WL100/79: Jeux vénitiens conducting score

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post on the pitch designs for Jeux vénitiens (1960-61), here is Lutosławski’s complete conducting score.  It is a bit tattered, especially the back pages.  There was no indication of how long he had been using it, but it is quite possible that he marked it up for the first time that he conducted Jeux vénitiens, in Basle on 14 May 1968.  Lutosławski has tidily marked it up with conducting cues etc., some harmonic reminders in the first movement, rhythmic reductions in the second, timings and upbeats in the third, and sfpp sequences in the finale, and various other indications.

Jeux vénitiens was co-published by PWM in Poland and Moeck in (West) Germany.  Lutosławski’s score was the Moeck imprint (large format, 40cm tall), published in 1962.  I don’t remember how many of his other conducting scores were still there in his study in September 2002.  One that I did photograph, and to which I will return in due course, was of the Cello Concerto.

Meantime, here is the complete score of Jeux vénitiens, rather variably photographed (some are in black and white, although most show his blue-pencil markings), but I hope its 45 pages will be of some interest.














































• WL100/71: Lissa on Concerto for Orchestra

As a follow-up to WL100/70, here’s the final section (in translation) of a huge article on Lutosławski’s Concerto for Orchestra.  Its author was Zofia Lissa, the dominant presence in Polish musical policy during the post-war decade. She was a musicologist with an early specialism in film, but she is best known for her Marxist ideology and her role in shaping Polish musical thought during the period of socialist realism.

Lissa, Panufnik, Lutosławski in Prague, 1950

Zofia Lissa (left), Andrzej Panufnik (immediately behind) and Witold Lutosławski (right) in Prague, 1950.

With the closing down of the less-than-obedient Ruch Muzyczny (Musical Movement) in 1949, publications on music were tightly controlled in Stalinist Poland.  In came a new journal, Muzyka, and subsequently the much weightier (in all senses of the word) Studia Muzykologiczne (1953-56).  It was in the fifth and final volume of this latter publication that Lissa published an article of over 100 pages: ‘Koncert na orkiestrę Witold Lutosławskiego. (Szkic analyticzny)’ (Witold Lutosławski’s Concerto for Orchestra. (An Analytical Sketch)’), Studia Muzykologiczne (1956), pp.196-299. (The deadly earnest of Studia Muzykologiczne may be demonstrated by the opening item in this fifth volume, an even heftier article by Stefania Łobaczewska: ‘Próba zbadania realism socjalistycznego w muzyce na podstawie polskiej twórczości 10-lecia’ (An attempt at an investigation of socialist realism in music on the basis of Polish composition of the past decade), pp.7-195.)

ZKP visit to Poznań, 1953

A visit by the Polish Composers’ Union to Poznań, 1953.  Zofia Lissa (front row, third from right), Witold Lutosławski (top right, looking characteristically wary).

As might be expected, the analytical aspects of Lissa’s article were embedded in a view of music that promoted a socialist-realist view of the function of the arts in communist society.  The article is far too long to reproduce in a post. Here instead is the concluding section, translated by Michał Kubicki and myself a few years ago, but never published.  It gives a flavour of the musical environment of the time.  It is a curious, transitional mix between the defensive and the confessional, because by 1956 – two years after the premiere of the Concerto for Orchestra – Polish music and musicology, and Lissa herself, were rapidly changing their tune as the barriers to Western music and its aesthetics were brought down.


Lutoslawski’s Concerto in the music of the post-war decade

If the problem of mastery in contemporary Polish music has not to date been taken up by our musicology, it is mainly because there have in fact been few pieces which have borne the hallmarks of mastery.  It seems to me that it would not be an expression of ‘hagiography’ if we were to acknowledge this mastery in Lutosławski’s Concerto.  Mastery in diversity and originality, in the innovative character of its expressive devices; mastery in the economic way of employing them, in the perfect coordination of these devices with a form that is both new and his own in conception; mastery in the new treatment of folklore, in the synthesis of ‘old’ and ‘new’.  In the Concerto Lutosławski has given yet more proof that he has his own style of utterance; the influence of this style can already be detected in works by other composers (such as  Baird’s Lyric Suite [1953]).

Our remarks about Lutosławski’s Concerto would not be complete, however, if we did not pose the question: what is the role of this piece in Polish music of the [post-war] decade. What is the relationship of the work to the various postulates which our life has thrust forward, to the issues which have preoccupied this period?  We can only become fully aware of the significance of a musical piece, having exhausted the analytical aspect connected with the description and explanation of its shape, if we are able to answer this question. And there is another one: what is the role of this piece, when it comes to the composer and the individual development of his talent?

Let us start with an answer to the latter question.  Writing at the end of 1951 and the beginning of 1952 about Little Suite and [Silesian] Triptych [1], I saw in them the first attempts at a synthesis of two strands in the composer’s music: that of monumental works, stemming from the premises of the inter-war period, difficult, long and painstakingly elaborated and by no means easy for the average listener to grasp.  Here belonged the First Symphony, Symphonic Variations as well as the later Overture [for Strings].  The second creative strand focused on charming miniatures, wonderfully carved and strongly linked to folklore,  thanks to which Lutosławski’s music managed to penetrate through to fairly broad layers of the listening public.  Folk Melodies for piano, Children’s Songs set to Tuwim’s verse, A Straw Chain, Bucolics and Dance Preludes for clarinet and piano – these are the main works within this strand.  Little Suite and Silesian Triptych were the harbingers of the merger of these two strands in Lutosławski’s music. On the basis of the analysis of these two works I tried to account for processes which were to be fully confirmed by the Concerto for Orchestra itself.  If those two works constituted a preparatory stage for this synthesis, the Concerto was its full and ultimate realisation.  In it met the experiences and attempts of Lutosławski’s previous development, realised both in symphonic forms and in the other field of his creative activities – the miniatures. It is only on the basis of these activities, in which folklore was the starting point for the conception, material and form, that the composer’s new attitude to folklore, as currently realised in the Concerto, could be born.  It is only on the basis of an organic merger of one’s own reservoir of musical ideas with folk ideas that the kind of unity that can be observed in the Concerto could be brought into being.  This is the characteristic blending of folklore into monumental form, whose concept, however, is the [composer’s] own, individual concept, as in the First Symphony or the Symphonic Variations, and not a concept stemming from non-musical ideas, connected with the people [lud], as in Little Suite or Triptych.  One may have some doubts whether it is valid to employ folkloristic material without linking the concept of the work with a specific content derived from ideas about the people, with the representation of folk scenes.  Indeed, in the majority of pieces using folkloristic material from one’s own or from a foreign country, the folklore was to serve just these aims.  In the Concerto it fulfils a different function, even though it surely contributes to the creation of the ‘atmosphere’ of Polishness in the piece. Under no circumstances does it perform functions that are descriptive, functions that specify aspects relating to content. The same, albeit less consistent manner of employing folkloristic material can also be seen in Szabelski’s Third Symphony [1951].

Lutosławski’s Concerto links together two strands of his music and two musical worlds which in the composer’s imagination have up to now proceeded, as it were, independently of each other, contained in pieces which were somewhat different in style and format.  In this sense the Concerto should be regarded as a crucial moment in Lutosławski’s compositional career.

It should be considered a work of special significance from yet another point of view: the quality of its resources, the perfection/carving of its details, the frugality of their use, the originality of the ideas and the purity of the distinctly national style – all this had also been noticeable in Lutosławski’s small forms, including Little Suite and Triptych.  But the same discipline, inventiveness, originality and stylistic accuracy in such a monumental form as the Concerto, the same national countenance, albeit differently realised, already testify to the full maturity of compositional  craft, to the crystallisation of an individual style, to the composer’s mature mastery.

We should look at Lutosławski’s Concerto from yet another perspective, from the perspective of the development of the totality of our music during the ten years of People’s Poland, the postulates put forward during that period, undoubtedly correct in their essence, but often vulgarised by numerous scribblers on music or civil servants, not always musical experts.

To put the issue unambiguously straight away: Lutosławski does not follow the slogans which call – at the stage of a simplified understanding of the essence of socialist realism – for a rejection of 20th-century technical devices, for a return to romantic-neoromantic means; if there is a clarification of his style, it is as a result of the tremendous discipline of construction, the deep reflection and the frugality in the choice of resources and not in order to return to the stylistic traits of past periods.  At a time when a return to the style of the 19th century was postulated, he managed to be forthright but not academic, accessible but persuasive, with a new type of simplicity, without at the same time rejecting the technical achievements of the inter-war period, achievements which seemed to him to be indispensable for his own compositional craft.  Nor did Lutosławski move in his symphonic pieces towards programme music.  This does not mean at all that he went the way of constructivism, that he renounced expressive content in favour of technical values.  On the contrary,  turning to the form of the song, namely the linking of music with text, shows that his precise goal was the most adequate rendition of content – expression.  The use in Triptych of the textual and vocal aspect confirms that [Lutosławski’s] attitude towards the realisation of content encompassed even symphonic forms.  The same ‘concrete nature’ of ideas, this time relating to dance, lies at the basis of Little Suite.  If we say that Lutosławski avoided an illustrative programmatic approach, it does not mean that his attitude was anti-expression.  Besides, we must stress here that in this respect  he assumed an attitude practically like that of the whole circle  of Polish composers in the [post-war] decade, among whom the slogan of the programmatic in the context of symphonic music met with a very weak response.  Apart from Woytowicz’s Warsaw Symphony, and also Serocki’s Second Symphony, which involved choirs (meaning that the content was manifested verbally), this postulate was realised rather feebly.

One of the decade’s slogans, however, was readily accepted by Lutosławski and realised out of his own inner need: the slogan of crystallising a new, contemporary national style.  Lutosławski brings this out in his entire cycle of ‘miniatures’, to a larger extent in Little Suite and Triptych.  And in a new way in the Concerto.

Lutosławski’s  music is stylistically homogenous, be it a small prelude for piano, an orchestral piece, a children’s song or a monumental symphonic form – all his works are an expression of noble beauty, a beauty created by a man from our epoch, our milieu, our generation.  In this sense Lutosławski’s music is the music of our time, enriching the culture of our country, belonging to the culture and ideological world of our society, despite the fact that is does not speak in concrete and explicit terms either about the revolution that we are living through or about the goals which we set ourselves.  In this sense, too, Lutosławski’s Concerto belongs to the first decade of People’s Poland, even though, with its programme, textual content or selected genre, it does not directly support its ideology, does not immediately contribute to the struggle which is the axis of this decade.  It is music which fights for the enrichment of the inner life of the Polish listener, for the development of Polish musical culture, for a new national style for our time. And this is a great deal.

To put forward the issue once again clearly and openly: Lutosławski’s Concerto for Orchestra does not belong to easy pieces addressed to the unprepared listener.  It is not possible, leaving the concert hall after its performance, to hum or whistle the themes; which would be tantamount to trivialising and vulgarising the practical criteria of ‘musical realism’ for everyday use.  On the contrary, this work is evidently geared to the listener who is already prepared, versed and accustomed to the norms of 20th–century music; a listener whose musical imagination is not confined to the categories of romanticism or neo-romanticism.  Is Lutosławski’s Concerto, therefore, a manifestation of an ‘elitist’ attitude, something which has so far been the most serious accusation levelled against our composers during the decade?

It is impossible to answer this question without throwing light on the key issue of our cultural revolution in the field of music.

The fact that the need for such music was rightly and continues to be rightly propounded – music that would educate, raise those listeners who are unfamiliar with music to a higher level of  their ‘musical consciousness’ – should not at all be understood in such a manner as if all music by contemporary composers was to be directed to this type of addressee.  Millions of copies of Falski’s primer [2] hardly abolish scientific research or hinder the publication of studies addressed to several thousand specialists.  Are we therefore returning to an old concept: one kind of music ‘for specialists’ and another kind of music ‘for lesser mortals’?  Definitely not.  We simply believe that the manifold varieties of ‘musical consciousness’ in our contemporary society, which are a remnant of the class split in the field of cultural needs, must have fairly different musical needs and that there must be fairly different means through which these needs are satisfied.  Under no circumstances can this fact be the reason why contemporary Polish composers should give up their right to look for new devices which correspond to what they want to express with their music today.  One thing is certain and was certain when attempts were made (i.e. when our administration attempted) to classify this as ‘formalist inclinations’: devices adequate to the expressive needs of contemporary composers can in no way be the same as those for composers 100 or 50 years ago, even today, when it is precisely these ‘century-old’ devices which constitute the foundation of the listening habits of the broad masses of end-users in our country.

One of the most serious mistakes committed by many of those who express their opinion about music (in many cases, unfortunately, non-musicians) was that they postulated a uniform front for the music of our epoch, forgetting about the highly heterogenous needs of our society and its perceptive abilities.  But – let us return to the already quoted statement by Marx –  ‘for the non-musical [i.e. unhearing, unprepared – Z.L.] ear even the most beautiful music makes no sense’.  A peculiar ‘Berkeleyism’ has been utilised by us [in Poland] in day-to-day practice: travestying Berkeley’s famous thesis – esse est percipi – it was believed that it is only the music that an opinion-former can grasp, understand and sense which is good, correct, needed by our society and, what is more, realistic.  Everything else was just ‘formalism’.  One’s own, subjective, often very limited categories of musical ideas were objectivised and were merely given labels of ‘commonly binding norms’.  Music that was personally inaccessible, difficult, elusive, was thoroughly mixed up with objective music standing in the enemy camp.  The difficulties of semantic criteria in reference to music rendered this misunderstanding even greater and deeper.

Of course, nobody negates here the uniformity of musical culture conceived as a service to our society which is moving towards socialism; uniformity in the sense of the utterance of the man of our time, of our milieu, the man who senses our reality.   But one cannot also fail to notice the diversity of functions which this music has to fulfil today in our society, the diversity of needs stemming from our cultural heritage, burdened of course by all the negative features of a society split by class.

The musical listener in People’s Poland continues to be highly diversified as regards the categories of musical thinking, which bears deep traces of the class stratification in which Polish musical culture had been shaped for centuries.  The scope of musical needs here is very broad, while listening habits, which listeners use in the perception of music, are historically very diversified.  We have today many music lovers who are genuinely in love with music and yet they do not go beyond Bach or Beethoven, for whom even the world of Debussy and Ravel is already alien to the ear, who have to struggle through Szymanowski as if it was an aural jungle, not to speak yet of the ‘sound worlds’ of Honegger or… Lutosławski.  What in Lutosławski’s miniatures was still ‘digestible’ for them becomes sonic chaos in the Concerto for Orchestra.  They reject from the position of their listening habits (wrongly objectivised as the only correct aural norms) everything which goes beyond their subjective limits of reception.  This conflict has, incidentally, been constant in the history of music.  The struggle for new expressive devices on the one hand and on the other the struggle against them for the sake of the devices that are already well known and mastered by the ‘ear’ of a given generation appears in almost every epoch, in every generation, only to cede victory, of course, to a ‘new’ music which creates in the listeners the aural habits that are specific to it.  Ars nova by Philippe de Vitry (14th cent.), the tract which gave the name to an entire period in music, is already proof of this.

It is clear that this struggle takes on a new shape in periods when social revolution contributes to an intense broadening of the range of music listeners. The backwardness in the musical appreciation of the classes newly emerging on the historical scene is far bigger, because indeed objectively they depend on class conditions which hinder access to the manifestations of culture.  At such historical moments, the stratification of musical needs  manifests itself much more strongly and different ‘musical consciousnesses’ oppose one another far more acutely.  The pressure of the needs of new listeners mounts and it is clear that in the first stage they have to reject the more complex devices which do not get through to them.

Another thing is that they also reject the philosophical point of view – Weltbild – which is often hidden beneath the elitism and sublimation of devices.  The whole picture of the development of Soviet music to date, with its successive variations – of RAPM [3],  of ASM [4], with the breakthroughs of 1937 and 1948,  is precisely a reflection of this fundamental historical and class conflict.

Admittedly, these differences in ‘musical consciousness’  do not always have their own class conditioning, but nevertheless this factor is the basis of objective conflict. This conflict was also present in the music of our decade.  A simplified, anti-psychological and anti-historical approach to the issue led to a situation where the struggle for a new content in the music of the decade became a struggle against innovative devices. The struggle for access to musical culture for the whole nation was for a certain period identified (falsely) with giving up the creative quest.  The need to conform to the tastes of the broad masses was proclaimed.  But when dealing with a society as musically neglected as ours (if only in comparison with our closest neighbours to the East and West), as was but natural, a postulate was made to level down [5], a postulate against which in the 1920s the then Soviet culture minister, Lunacharsky, was still warning.  The postulate for a uniform trend in such conditions was definitely premature.  The time for a fully uniform trend and homogenous devices will come perhaps in a communist society, in which differences in ‘musical consciousness’ will no longer be a result of the ability or inability to have access to musical culture but will be confined solely to individual ‘realisations’, which doubtless will not disappear at that time either.

It was the anticipation of some sort of imaginary, uniform ‘musical consciousness’ of our society already now, 10 years after the revolution, that was the source of many simplifications in our cultural policy in the field of music.  Attempts were made to condemn works, which – just like those by Lutosławski – unquestionably remain inaccessible to the whole nation today but will become a nourishment for the broad masses when these masses eradicate their musical illiteracy just as they had already eradicated their educational illiteracy.  Indeed – what is needed today are works which will help eradicate this illiteracy, which in a considered way will fulfil educational functions.  Lutosławski’s Concerto is not capable of performing such a role.  And we have to admit that there are too few pieces in our music output of the last decade which deliberately undertook such functions.  The great sacrifice of Soviet music – which for over 30 years indeed placed substantial limits on its innovatory explorations in order to give the entire nation the simple nourishment on which its musical categories could develop – was not in vain.  Today,  Soviet music proceeds in its fullness along new roads; it calls in the resonant voice of its most outstanding composers for the right to innovation.  But it has behind it over 35 years of educating its society.  The difficulties of our music stem from the fact that even though it fights, justly and sometimes against the department of culture, for the right to innovation, it has not yet educated its own society in such a way that it could become its end-user.

At any rate – alongside works playing an educational function, we need innovative pieces, just like Lutosławski’s Concerto, pieces which, inaccessible to the masses today, will be accessible to them, will be a document of today for when the level of receptivity of the masses increases.  The theory of a ‘uniform trend’ will by no means resolve this conflict.  If despite this anyone wants to employ such simplifying notions like ‘elitism’ and ‘universality’, it should be clearly stated that Lutosławski’s Concerto belongs rather to the first group.  Not because it expresses some sort of ultra-subjective content, or turns its back on its own society, or is alien to our epoch and our line of development, but because it is difficult, because it does not employ hackneyed devices, because it is – within the framework of the technical achievements of our music – innovative.  These aspects assign it a special place in the music of our decade.

As it happens, this Concerto does not depart in the least either from the general line of the development of music or from the individual line of the development of Lutosławski’s style.  It is inventive but not experimental, it is innovative but never breaks with tradition.  On the contrary, we may notice in it a peculiar though organic blend of such traditions as the Baroque, Romanticism, Impressionism and elements of the style of the inter-war period, presented in a characteristic, individual synthesis of an evidently Polish character. Lutosławski simply derives from the closer and more distant traditions what he needs in order to realise his own concept.  This manner of drawing from traditions, be they close or distant in terms of time or geographical location,  has always existed in music and is hardly deserving of condemnation.  This is just a way and form of blending national styles with the norms of their own epochs, norms which are international.  This is at the same time a manifestation of the continuity of transformations in the development of musical styles.  Lutosławski is to a high degree national and at the same time European, and what strikes the listener above all is what is already the composer’s own, individual face, his original, crystallised style.  This seems to be the highest praise that can be given to a composer during his lifetime: his own individual style which is simultaneously a modern style, i.e. the style of his own epoch and a national style.  It is precisely such individual achievements that should be recognised as the development of a national style, as a new contribution to the tradition of a given national musical culture.  About Lutosławski’s music we can already say today that it is and will be a lasting contribution to 20th-century Polish musical culture.

[1] Z. Lissa, ‘Mała suita  i Tryptyk  Witolda Lutos’awskiego’, Muzyka 5-6 (1952), pp.7-56.
[2] Marian Falski’s Primer was used in Polish primary schools for several decades.
[3]  RAPM: Revolutionary Association of Proletarian Musicians, emerged from the Proletkult organisation around 1924, fully developed around 1928, dissolved in 1932.
[4] ASM: Association of Contemporary Music, equivalent of the Society for Contemporary Music, active around 1934, mainly in Leningrad.
[5]  Here Lissa uses the Russian-based phrase, ‘urawnilovka w dol‘.

• WL100/70: Concerto for Orchestra, **26.11.54

For all Lutosławski’s protestations, his Concerto for Orchestra, premiered on this night 60 years ago, remains his most popular work.  It is his most recorded and performed composition and has deservedly entered the orchestral repertoire worldwide.  That is notwithstanding his subsequent reservations about having to work, in the early 1950s, in ways which were inimical and with material with which he claimed to have little innate sympathy.  Yet his approach to Polish folk tunes was ingenious and natural, innovative and subtle, and the Concerto for Orchestra (1950-54) was undoubtedly the Polish masterpiece of the post-war decade.

Six folk tunes were itemised by the Polish musicologist, Zofia Lissa (‘Koncert na orkiestrę Witold Lutosławskiego’, Studio Muzykologiczne, 1956, pp.196-299), no doubt with Lutosławski’s assistance.  Over 20 years later, Steven Stucky added two more (Lutosławski and His Music, 1981, p.50), again aided by Lutosławski.  Lutosławski indirectly led to the discovery of three more tunes when I came across a forgotten folder of folk materials in the attic room of his house in 2002.  I wrote a short paper on these tunes and the Concerto for Orchestra for the 2004 Symposium of the International Musicological Society, held in Melbourne (Marginal Tincturing?).

There are therefore eleven identifiable folk tunes in the Concerto for Orchestra.  They all come from the Mazowsze region of Poland and were taken from Oskar Kolberg’s multi-volume collection of folk sources, volume 25 (Mazowsze, vol.2) with one theme taken from volume 28 (Mazowsze, vol.5) – no.7 in the list below.

One phrase that has been used to describe this folk material is the bizarre ‘rough stuff’.  This is how Lutosławski reportedly described it in Irina Nikolska’s Conversations with Lutosławski (1994).  Although Lutosławski’s original Polish is not available for this particular part of the conversations, and given that the English translation is at times very odd, I have little hesitation in saying that ‘rough stuff’ would be more accurately understood as ‘raw material’. So here, for the first time in public print, are the eleven pieces of ‘raw material’, taken directly from Kolberg.  I have placed them in the order in which they first appear in the finished composition.

1.  Lissa (p.244): Kolberg, Mazowsze, vol.2, no.421 (p.181) – including variants:

Homma 1993

2.  Stucky: Kolberg, Mazowsze, vol.2, no.463 (p.192) – including variants:

WL KO:Kolberg 463

3.  Stucky: Kolberg, Mazowsze, vol.2, no.502 (p.201) – first phrase:

WL KO:Kolberg 502

4.  Thomas: Kolberg, Mazowsze, vol.2, no.673 (p.241) – concluding 2 bars:

WL KO:Kolberg 673

5.  Thomas: Kolberg, Mazowsze, vol.2, no.452 (p.189) – second beat of b.3 to (sharpened) start of b.5:

WL KO:Kolberg 452

6.  Lissa (p.242): Kolberg, Mazowsze, vol.2, no.10 (p.5) – complete (the only tune to be used in more than one movement):

WL KO:Kolberg 10

7.  Lissa (p.245): Kolberg, Mazowsze, vol.5, no.333 (p.299) – first phrase:

WL KO:Kolberg 333

8.  Lissa (p.241): Kolberg, Mazowsze, vol.2, no.131 (p.54) – elaborated:

WL KO:Kolberg 131

9.  Lissa (p.245): Kolberg, Mazowsze, vol.2, no.43 (p.17):

WL KO:Kolberg 43

10.  Thomas: Kolberg, Mazowsze, vol.2, no.22 (p.9):

WL KO:Kolberg 22

11.  Lissa (p.245): Kolberg, Mazowsze, vol.2, no.103 (p.42):

WL KO:Kolberg 103

• WL100/69: Livre, **18 November 1968

The now-neglected jewel in the crown of Lutosławski’s orchestral music was premiered on this day in 1968, by the Hagen City Orchestra, conducted by Berthold Lehmann, to whom it is dedicated.  Had Lutosławski had his way (as Nicholas Reyland has revealed), he would have changed the title from Livre pour orchestre to Symphony no.3, which undoubtedly would have placed it quite differently within his oeuvre and raised its external profile, especially today. But Lutosławski’s change of heart came too late – the publicity was already out in Hagen.

The performance and recording history of Livre is odd.  Speak to anyone who knew Lutosławski’s music during his lifetime and they are more than likely to place Livre in the top five of his orchestral pieces, if not at the pinnacle.  Yet, there have been only seven commercial recordings to date (another – the first for over 15 years – is due shortly in the Opera Omnia series from the Wrocław Philharmonic).  This compares unfavourably with the 18 accorded his next piece, the Cello Concerto.  Bizarrely, the otherwise superlative Chandos series by the BBCSO under Edward Gardner ignored Livre, which is a shame, not least because Lutosławski performed it with the BBC SO on three occasions (1975, 1982, 1983 – BBC Proms).  Lutosławski conducted Livre at least four more times in the UK (not including programme repeats), with the Philharmonia Orchestra (1981, 1989), with the Royal Academy of Music SO (1984) and with the Hallé Orchestra (1986).

This centenary year, Livre has continued to languish in the shadows when compared to the number of performances of his other major orchestral works.  His publisher, Chester Music, itemises just two performances, which is nothing short of scandalous: 30 January, Warsaw PO/Michał Dworzyński, and 17 November (yesterday), Duisberger Philharmoniker/Rüdiger Bohn.  Mind you, Chester’s list of recordings is incomplete, listing just three.  Here is the full list (giving the original record label), as far as I can ascertain.  Only the recordings by Lutosławski, Herbig and Wit seem to be available currently on digital formats.

• National PO, Warsaw/Jan Krenz (Polskie Nagrania, 1969)
• National PO, Warsaw/Witold Rowicki (Polskie Nagrania, 1976)
• WOSPR (now NOSPR)/Witold Lutosławski (EMI, 1978)
• Berlin PO/Günter Herbig (Eterna, 1979)
• Eastman Philharmonia/David Effron (Mercury, 1981)
• WOSPR (now NOSPR)/Jan Krenz (Adès, 1988)
• PRNSO/Antoni Wit (Naxos, 1998)


1454688_661788100528035_2044002059_nHere is an audio recording of Livre, digitised by my friend Justin Geplaveid (who also provided the performance details), from a concert given on 16 August 1972 in Munich as part of the Olympic Games or on the following day in Augsburg.  The players were the UNESCO Jeunesses Musicales World Orchestra, and included among the violins was one Ervine Arditty [sic]….

1452253_661788107194701_1578121087_nThe original LP recording, conducted by Witold Rowicki, has some interesting orchestral balances.


By far the most satisfactory YouTube offering is a video of Herbig conducting the Spanish Radio and Television Orchestra in Madrid on 11 November 2011.  It is available on Justin Geplaveid’s YouTube site (and one other: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfeDBNyZLPU).  Geplaveid’s stream also has some fascinating archival videos from the ‘Warsaw Autumn’.


Screen Shot 2013-10-22 at 08.47.06A few weeks ago, I put up some isolated sketch pages for Mi-parti that I’d come across in Lutosławski’s house in 2002.  From that same folder “ŚCIĄGACZKI” (Crib Sheets), here are four more sketches that had not been sent on to the Lutosławski archive at the Paul Sacher Stiftung in Basle.  I hope that they are there now!  I have not looked at the Livre sketches in the Stiftung, so cannot say how these four abandoned sheets relate to the greater mass of material in Basle.

These four sheets relate to the first two chapitres.  The first three relate to the second chapitre, starting at fig. 207.

Screen Shot 2013-11-17 at 15.23.03

The top one presents a rhythmic ‘crib’ for the eleven bars from fig.207 to fig.209 (it’s enlarged below).  The notes beamed underneath present the rhythmic pattern of the piano (bb.1-4) and brass entries (bb.5-6, trumpets and trombones).  The notes with upward stems have a more complicated relationship to the score and do not always correlate to Lutosławski’s final thoughts.  On the first system below (equivalent to the six bars of fig.207), the upper stems concern the outline rhythm in the strings (no glissandi or sustained durational values are indicated).  There are discrepancies in a few places, especially in bb.3-6, where some of the triplet quavers and semiquaver entries diverge from the score.  On the lower system (the five bars of fig.208), the lower rhythm reverts to the piano while the upper notes pick out the brass entries (horns and trombones).

Screen Shot 2013-11-17 at 15.21.20

The middle sketch (they weren’t photographed in any thought-out order back in 2002!) relates to this same passage. It is a pitch reduction for the instrumental ensemble, but there are minor rhythmic variations for some of the entries and missing pitches (cf. b.6 in particular).  Bars 7-11 (the five bars of fig.208) give the rhythmic pattern for the piano, as in the example above, plus the four pinpointing rhythms and pitches on the trombones.

Screen Shot 2013-11-17 at 15.20.41

The lowest of these three sketches relates just to the six bars of fig.207.  It is a pitch and rhythmic reduction of all the instruments involved – piano, strings trumpets and trombones.

Screen Shot 2013-11-17 at 15.22.02

The last of the four sheets presents more of a conundrum.

Screen Shot 2013-11-17 at 16.08.20

Evidently, the bottom two systems are a skeletal version of the top two, but initially I could not relate these ten bars to any part of the first chapitre.  Where were these ascending semiquavers, these descending quavers?  In the end, it was the pause sign in bar 10 that gave me clue.  In the score, there are only two pause signs in the first chapitre: in b.2 and in the bar before fig.109.  The ten bars of this sketch match the ten bars immediately before fig.109, from the third bar of fig.108.  It is the passage for brass (trumpets, horns and trombones) that leads to the clatter of tom-toms, xylophone and gran cassa that initiates the ‘codetta’ of the first chapitre.  

The phrasal cadences are very similar, identical in some places (notably in the last six bars).  The direction of movement also matches.  The differences with the score suggest that the sketch is an early rhythmic attempt at this passage.  What may be Lutosławski’s shorthand here (but even for him such a shorthand is stretching the point) equates the upper stave in each pair to the phrases for trumpets and horns I & II.  The lower stave refers to the descending phrases for horns III & IV and the trombones.  But whereas this sketch has clearly defined and short-lived rhythmic movement in both staves, the fully metred section of the score stretches out the lines heterophonically, with the trombones adding glissandi between notes for good measure.  As a result, there is no pause between phrases as the two ensembles overlap, creating a more fluid texture.  I must admit to being a little mystified by the long horizontal lines between the two staves, so if anyone has an idea of their significance please say so.

%d bloggers like this: