No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 August 2008
As late as April 1928, it appeared unlikely that Berg would choose Frank Wedekind's Lulu plays as the basis of the new opera he was contemplating. By then he had narrowed his search for a libretto to Wedekind's plays and Gerhart Hauptmann's Und Pippa tanzt, and – contrary to the advice of friends such as Theodor Adorno – he was leaning towards Hauptmann. On 26 April he wrote to Arnold Schoenberg:
I'm thinking of my new work with the apprehension I feel before every new project. It will probably be Pippa, though Hauptmann's oppressive conditions (including 50% share of the royalties) don't make the work seem very advisable – from the ‘practical’ standpoint.
1 The Berg–Schoenberg Correspondence: Selected Letters, ed. Brand, Juliane, Hailey, Christopher and Harris, Donald (New York and London, 1987), 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Frank Wedekind und das Theater (Munich, 1964).Google Scholar
3 Gesammelte Werke (Munich and Leipzig, 1913).Google ScholarPubMed Shortly after 1895, Wedekind dropped the der from Erdgeist.
4 At about the same time as the Nuremberg performances, Wedekind published an edition of Erdgeist in which the play is designated as the first part of the ‘dramatic poem’ Lulu. Concerning the date of this edition, see Wedekind, , Lulu, ed. Weidl, Erhard (Stuttgart, 1989), 189.Google Scholar
5 Quoted in seehaus, , Frank Wedekind, 360.Google Scholar
6 Regarding Jessner's ideas, see his Schriien: Theater der angzigerJahre, ed. Fetting, Hugo (Berlin, 1979), especially 171–7.Google Scholar
7 For examples of the ambiguities of the text and their relation to the opera, see Jarman, Douglas, ‘Berg's Surrealist Opera’, Music Review, 31 (1970), 232–40Google Scholar; and Treitler, Leo, ‘The Lulu Character and the Character of Lulu’, in Music and the Historical Imagination (Cambridge, Mass., 1989), 264–306.Google Scholar
8 Reprinted in Rühle, Günther, Theater pr die Republik, 1917–1933, im Spiegel der Kritik (Frankfurt, 1967), 774.Google Scholar
9 For an explanation of Berg's musical allegory, see Perle, George, The Operas of Alban Berg: ‘Lulu’ (Berkeley, 1985), 62Google Scholar and passim, and Perle, , ‘Die Personen in Bergs Lulu’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 24 (1967), 283–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 See Stein, Jack, ‘Lulu: Alban Berg's Adaptation of Wedekind’, Comparative Literature, 24 (1974), 220–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Hall, Patricia, ‘Role and Form in Berg's Sketches for Lulu’, in Alban Berg: Historical and Analytical Perspectives, ed. Gable, David and Morgan, Robert P. (Oxford, 1991), 235–59.Google Scholar
12 Hall, , 245–6.Google Scholar
13 Die Scene: Blätter fuir Bühnenkunst, 16 (1926), 331–2.Google Scholar
14 The sketch that contains the early version of the Prologue (dated 23 June 1928) is discussed in Ertelt, Thomas F., ‘“Hereinspaziert …”: Ein früher Entwurf des Prologs zu Alban Bergs “Lalu”’, Österreichische Musikeitschnft, 41 (1986), 15–25Google Scholar; and in Green, Douglass M., ‘A False Stan for Luluo: An Early Version of the Prologue’, in Gable and Morgan, Alban Berg, 203–34.Google Scholar In Engel's version the Prologue is punctuated by ‘Tusch e’ to be played loudly by fifes, saxophone and drum. Berg's early sketch for the same passage also uses the term Tusch for music having the same general effect.
15 This performance, given in 1901, had the tide ‘Frühlingsstürme’. Its text was published in the Neue Deutsche Rundschau (Freie Bühne), 13 (1902).Google Scholar
16 In Petzet, Wolfgang, Otto Falckenberg. Mein Leben – Mein Theater. Nach Gesprächen und Dokumenten aufgezeichnet (Munich and Vienna, 1944), 116–17.Google Scholar
17 Falckenberg, Otto, ‘Die neue “Lulu”’, Münchener Neueste Nachrichten, 24 11 1928.Google Scholar
18 Petzet, , 334.Google Scholar
19 Falckenberg, , ‘Die neue “Lulu”’.Google Scholar
20 ‘Lulu’: Schauspiel in sieben Bildern. Authorised stage version by Falckenberg, Otto (Berlin, c. 1929), 5.Google Scholar
21 See Jarman, Douglas, Alban Berg; ‘Lulu’, Cambridge Opera Handbooks (Cambridge, 1991), 91–101Google Scholar, for an interpretation of Berg's work as Zeitoper.
22 The central importance of Wedekind's tune for the music of Act III of the opera is analysed in Perle, , The Operas of Alban Berg: ‘Lulu’, 140–2.Google Scholar
23 Wedekind, , Lautenlieder: 53 Lieder mit eigenen und fremden Melodien (Munich and Berlin, 1920).Google Scholar
24 Pabst's, G. W. silent film Die Büchse der PandoraGoogle Scholar also transforms this scene into high comedy. See Pandora's Box (Lulu): A Film by G. W. Pabst, trans. Holme, Christopher (New York, 1971).Google Scholar
25 Dresden, , 1926.Google Scholar
26 Seehaus, (see n. 2), 378–80Google Scholar; Jarman, Douglas, Alban Berg, 20Google Scholar; and Neumann, Karl, ‘Wedekind and Berg's Lukr’, Music Review, 35 (1975), 47–57.Google Scholar
27 Lulu: Schauspiel in sieben Bildern.
28 The Berg–Schoenberg Correspondence, 406.Google Scholar