a New Edition of Die Dreigroschenoper

8/18/2019 a New Edition of Die Dreigroschenoper

1/13

A New Edition of Die Dreigroschenoper: Challenges, Principles, and Solutions

Stephen Hinton

Notes, 2nd Ser., Vol. 56, No. 2. (Dec., 1999), pp. 319-330.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-4380%28199912%292%3A56%3A2%3C319%3AANEODD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

Notes is currently published by Music Library Association.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/mulias.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgWed Sep 5 18:23:42 2007

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-4380%28199912%292%3A56%3A2%3C319%3AANEODD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/mulias.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/mulias.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-4380%28199912%292%3A56%3A2%3C319%3AANEODD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6


2/13

N E W E D I T I O N O DIE DREIGROSCHEN OPER

CHALLENGES, PRINCIPLES, AND SOLUTIONS

CH LLENGES

Principal among the challenges facing the editors of

ie

Dreigroschen-

oper has been a task that the composer himself identified but which nei-

ther he nor his publishers ever completed. In a letter dispatched to them

a week after the work's premiere, Weill explained that he was still busy

completing the score following the experiences of the current produc-

tion. Part of that job involved, as he pointed out, matching the vocal

score exactly with the stage script. ' Trying to satisfy the conflicting

claims of precision and haste, he was occupied with three sources. The

first of these, the full score, was ostensibly a holograph in his own hand;

now, seventy years later, i t contains all kinds of addenda, mainly type-

setting and performance markings, made by other hands.2 After the

necessary revisions had been made, in a few cases

as

intercalations on ad-

ditional sheets of manuscript paper, Weill eventually sent the entire man-

uscript to Universal Edition in Vienna with the understanding and hope

that it would soon be published. In the event, i t did not appear in print

for another half c e n t ~ r y . ~he second source, the vocal score, differed

from the full score in two important respects: it w s published within

Stephen Hinton is chairman of the Department of Music at Stanford Universi ty and a member of the

editor ial board of the K urt Weill Edition. T his article form s part of th e intro duc tory essay to Kurt Weill,

DieDreigroschmoper,

ed. Step hen Hin ton an d Edward Ha rsh, Th e Kurt Weill Edit ion, ser. 1, vol. 5 (New

York: Kurt Weill Fou nda tion f or Music; Valley Forge, Pa.: Euro pean American Music Corpor ation, 199 9).

1

Weill to Universal Edit ion, 7 September 1928. Original i tems from the correspondence between

Weill and Universal Edit ion are held in the W iener Stadtbibliothek. Photocop ies of the comp lete corre-

spo nde nce are in the Weill-Lenp Research Center, series 41. T he cor resp ond enc e is quo ted by permis-

sion of the Kurt Weill Fou nda tion for Music an d Universal Edition . All translations a re by the a uth or.

2. Kurt Weill , Dreigrosche noper, holograph in black ink (predo minantly) and pencil . Various mark-

ings in othe r hands include th e engravers' in red a nd gree n pencil, Marc Blitzstein's in red pencil, an d

Leo nar d Bern stein's in red a nd blue pencil. Housed in Sibley Music Library, Eastman S chool of Music,

Rochester, New York, from Novem ber 1997, on indef inite loan (Universal Edition-Kurt Weill Archives,

SC1998.4, ser. 1, box

3,

folde r 1 ). Previously kept by Universal Edition in their hou se archives fr om 1928

to 1976 (excep t du ring the period 1938-ca. 1945, when the score was hidd en, and in 1 952), in the

Wiener Stadt- un d Lan desbibliothek from 1976 to 1993, an d in a b ank vault , 1993-97. Published as Die

Lhergroschenoper:

A

Facsimile of the HolograPh Full Scme,

ed . Edward Har sh, K urt Weill Edition , ser. 4, vol. 1

(New York: Kurt Weill Fou nda tion for Music: Valley Forge, Pa.: Eur opea n American Music Corpo ration,

1996).

3. Kurt Weill, Die Lhergroschop er: Ein Stiich mrt

Musak

nach John Gay The B eg a r ? Opera von Elisabeth

Hauptman n, hutsche Bearbeitung von B d Brecht, ed. Karlheinz F ~ s s l , hi lharmo nia no. 400 (Vienna:

Universal Edition, 1972).


3/13

32

NOTES,December 1999

weeks of its completion, and its preparation for publication was done not

by Weill but by Norbert Ging01d.~ s a result, the autograph vocal score

is in two quite distinct hands, Weill's and Gingold's. The third source,

the stage script, would also soon appear in print.5As with the vocal score,

this material was urgently needed for distribution to the many theaters

interested in performing what was turning out to be the hit of the sea-

son.6 As Weill pointed out, however, these three principal documents of

the work did not match. Nor did his efforts, either before or after the

premiere, wholly resolve the discrepancies between them.

Apart from identifying one of the principal challenges facing this edi-

tion, Weill's remarks touched on another issue with far-reaching philo-

logical implications. In saying that. he

was

following the experiences of

the current production, he was responding to a query from his publish-

ers, who had anxiously enquired about the whereabouts of the score of

Croschenoper; as they called it.'As suggested by Weill's reply, the work was

not finalized before it went into production, but continued to evolve

during rehearsal and even after opening night. This raises a basic ques-

tion that hardly admits of a simple answer. What is the relationship be-

tween the various textual sources Weill mentions, on the one hand, and

what was actually going on in that first and legendary production, on the

other? The answer to this question is complicated in the extreme, bring-

ing into play as it does notjust questions of philological method, but also

additional sources: the rehearsal scripts, which document aspects of the

production process, and the surviving band parts used by the instrumen-

talists of the Lewis Ruth

Band.8 Additional materials include recordings

4. Vocal score, holograph an d manu script ( pro duc tion master for first edit ion, m uch of i t in Weill s

ha nd ) in black ink (pre dom inan tly) an d pencil . Housed in Sibley Music Library, Eastman Schoo l of

Music, Rochester, New York, from November 1997, on indefinite loan. Previously kept by Universal

Edit ion in the ir house archives from 1928 to 1976 (exce pt du rin g the p eriod 1938-45), in the Wiener

Stadt- un d La ndes biblioth ek from 1976 to 1993, an d in a bank vault, 1993-97. First edition of published

vocal score: Kurt Weill, ie

Dreigroschmoper (The Beggar? O pera): Ein Stuck mit Musik in einem Vwspiel und

ncht B i k h nach dem Englischen s John Gay, iibenetzt von Elisabeth Haupt mann, deutschc Bearbeitung von Bert

Brecht, Klavierauszug mil Text von Norbert Gingold (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1928).

5. Kurt Weill,

Die Dreigroschmoper (T he Beggar's Opera): Ein Stuck m it Musik in e i n m Vorspiel un d acht

Bildrrn nach

dem

Englischen cles John Gay, iibersetzt vo n Elisabeth H au pt ma nn , dezltsche Bearbeitung von Betl

Brecht

(Vienna: Universal Edi t ion, 192 8). Th ere were t hre e print ings: O ctober 1928 (300 copies) ,

November 1928 (500 copies), and D ecemb er 1929 (500 copies).

6. T he genesis an d reception of

z Dreigroschenoperare

described in detail in

Kutl Weill: The Threepenny

@era,

ed. Step hen Hinton (Camb ridge: Camb ridge University Press, 199 0).

7. Cable from Universal Edit ion (Vienna) to Weill (Berlin), 6 Septe mb er 1928.

8. Th er e are two surviving rehearsal scripts. O n e belonged to th e director, Erich Engel, the original of

which is housed in the Akademie der Kcnste, Literatur-Archiv; a photocopy is in the Bertolt-Brecht-

Archiv, 2104/1-83. T h e ot he r surviving script belon ged to o n e of Engel s assistants, Julius Halewicz, the

original of which is also house d in the A kademie d e r KGnste, Literatur-Archiv; a pho tocop y is in Bertolt-

Brecht-Archiv, 2106/01-148. Th e original ban d parts used fo r the prem iere an d du rin g the work s initial

run are in th e ha nds of Frau Loni Mackeben, second wife of Th eo M ackeben, leader of the Lewis Ruth

Band. Th e inst rumental parts are handwri t ten. The original p ian w on du cto r score, however, has not

survived, only a marked-up copy of the later engraved pianwonductor score, published in October-

November 1928.


4/13

A New

dition

of ie

Dreigroschenoper

32

by those musicians and members of the original cast. Nor can one totally

ignore later revised versions of the piece (even those in which Weill had

no hand) , aspects of which can be traced back to the production at

Schiffbauerdamm. All of these sources

will

be described in detail in the

critical report, to be published in a separate volume.)

Some of the revisions, Weill goes on to explain, had to do with his hav-

ing written down certain things for the published edition that I could

simply communicate to the musicians by word of mouth. 1° Both the

stage script and the score represent necessarily imperfect attempts at

capturing a work whose genesis was intimately bound up with a particu-

lar production, and which would continue to change during that pro-

duction's run. With all the discrepancies between them, both of these

sources transmit a version of a work that may never have been presented

exactly as indicated by these fixed written forms.

s the band parts amply

reveal, neither does Weill's score, nor do the band parts themselves pre-

cisely reflect what the musicians were playing. And although, on several

levels, the stage script published in 1928 indicates better than any other

single document the version being presented in the theater in the initial

weeks after opening night, we know from several sources that the per-

formances departed from this version in various ways and to varying

degrees-sometimes quite substantially-mainly because of cast changes,

but also because live theater permitted, even required, such flexibility.

If the published stage script does not document exactly the Berlin per-

formances,

i t was certainly intended by the authors to form the basis for

the transmission of the piece in numerous productions over the next few

years, and indeed it did. The same goes for the published band parts,

which were extracted from Weill's holograph score. Errors inevitably

crept into all of these sources, but the intention remained: to match the

verbal with the musical sources. For the new edition, which presents mu-

sic and text together for the first time, this original intention became an

imperative. Ostensibly, the edition seeks to match the same sources that

Weill did. Each of these has its strengths and weaknesses; none has ab-

solute authority over the other. The nature and degree of their authority

differs in each case, depending on their purpose. Because Weill worked

on words and music separately, there is no one principalv-still less a

primaryv-source.

The revised stage script, published in an initial print run of three hun-

dred copies in October 1928, reflected a collaborative attempt by Brecht

9. Bertolt Brecht,

Versuche

8-10, vol.

3 Die Dreigrorchmopn; Der Dreigroschmjlm Der Dr ei gr os ch m po u~

(Berlin: Custav Kiepenheuer Verlag, 193 1).

10. AuBerdem muBte ich ma nch es, was ich bei de n hiesigen M usikem n ur anzusagen b rauchte, fGr

die gedruckte Ausgabe erst fixieren. Weill to Universal Edition, 12 Septemb er 1928 .


5/13

3 NOTES,

December 1999

and Weill to establish a commonly accepted sequence of numbers as well

as various other textual details, something the full score did not do. Yet

not all of the revisions indicated by Brecht and Weill found their way

into the final published version, as can be seen from the prepublication

materials that have survived, including the production master and a set

of proofs, both of which have copious handwritten annotations in the

two collaborators' hands. Apart from establishing the mutually agreed

sequence of the musical numbers and the places at which those numbers

interrupt the spoken dialogue, the published libretto also reflects a con-

sensus between the authors as to which number should be sung by

whom, even if the production itself and some of the other sources con-

tradicted these designations. Numbers changed ownership in the the-

ater, depending on the cast, and some numbers were temporarily cut

altogether, either to save time o r because of technical limitations on the

part of the singer; in one case ( Die Ballade von der sexuellen

Horig-

keit ) a number was cut because of moral objections.

As

far as it is reconstructable, which is quite far, the work's genesis re-

flects a balancing of creative intentions and practical concerns. Barbara-

song and Arie der Lucy are two quite distinct cases in point. Even

though Polly did not always sing the Barbarasong in the theater, she is

unequivocally assigned it both in the score and in the libretto.12 Earlier

sources reflect actual practice early on in the run in giving it to Lucy.

Arie de r Lucy, on the other hand, was never reinstated after it had

been cut. The practical consideration-the fact that the actress Kate

Kiihl did not possess, as Weill put it in an explanatory article, the good

vocal abilities of the actress for whom the part was originally con-

ceived-influenced the ultimate shape that the work assumed in the

published

libretto.lS Weill later remarked to his publishers that the aria

could not be included because otherwise the part of Lucy would always

have had to be played by a singer. 14 By this he meant a trained opera

singer capable of coloratura as opposed to the kind of all-round actor-

singers who can otherwise tackle many of the parts of the work. This is

11. Both of these sources are housed at Sibley Music Library, Eastman School of Music, Rochester,

New York, on indefinite loan since 1997; they were formerly held in the archives of Universal Edition

(L 1 UE 548).

12. See Kim H. Kowalke, ln Trivial [? ]Pursuit: Who Sings the 'Barbarasong'? Kufi Weill Newsletler6,

no. 2 (1988): 8-11.

13. Kurt Weill, Musik und Theater: Gesammelte Schriflen, ed. Stephen Hinton and Jlirgen Schebera

(Berlin: Henschelverlag Kunst und Gesellschaft, 1990) , 108; the text originally appeared in

Anmerkungen zu unseren Bildern, Die Musik 25 (1932): 128.

14. [Elin noch ganz unverdffentlichtes und unbekanntes Stlick das seinerzeit flir die

Dreigroschenoper geschrieben w r d e , aber dann nicht aufgenommen werden konnte, da sonst hberall

die Rolle der Lucie [sic] mit einer Singer in hi tt e besetzt werden mhssen. Es handelt sich um e ine paro-

distische Arie. Das Manuskript befindet sich hier bei mir. Weill to Universal Edition, 26 August 1932.


6/13

3 3

New

Edition

of

Die Dreigroschenoper

not to

SAY

however, that the later sources necessarily supersede the ear-

lier ones in every detail. Many of the discrepancies between the sources

arose not because of changes made by the authors but because of care-

lessness or oversight. The abiding challenge to the editors has been for

them to judge where such lapses appear to have occurred.

While some of the sources establish the broader outlines of the piece,

others more reliably furnish particular details. In general, one would

tend to privilege Weill's holograph over the hastily scribbled band parts

or a single contemporaneous recording. The edition, like Weill's own

score, serves the purpose of transmitting a text intended for multiple re-

alizations rather than documenting a particular realization of the same

(or at least a similar) text. The band parts in fact document multiple re-

alizations, however sketchily. The score and published libretto, on the

other hand, are intended to transcend the original production while

closely, if not exactly, reflecting it. Nonetheless, there are instances

where both the band parts and early versions of the song texts reveal

shortcomings in Weill's holograph. The composer, under pressure from

his publisher to dispatch performance materials to Vienna for publica-

tion, was not infallible. No composer is. Again, this is a matter for editor-

ial judgment. Was Weill intentionally or unintentionally departing from

the work as documented in the other sources? There are instanees of both;

the editors have had to decide which is the case. Moreover, Weill did not

attend to the overall sequence of numbers in the full score as he did with

the libretto. The story of the work's genesis, much of which can be re-

constructed from the correspondence between the composer and his

publisher, shows that Weill submitted the individual numbers in batches.

And it is in that correspondence, which constitutes another indispens-

able set of materials, that the anomalies in numberings were resolved.

PRINCIPLES

Given the numerous decisions that have had to be made, in the large

and in the small, what are the principles informing the identity of the

work as presented in the new edition?

The first principle-by no means trivial or obvious-is that the work

can be transmitted as a score with (in the case of a work for the musical

theater) a matching libretto or book, as

Weill intended. This principle

ultimately informs the entire edition, not just this volume.

Die

Dreigroschenoper

may be Weill's first stage work to be published without an

opus number, even though the composer initially identified his Musik

zu The Beggar's Opera separately as op. 25 on the cover of the auto-

graph vocal score. The ultimate absence of the opus number in the pub-

lished vocal score may accurately reflect a shift in Weill's philosophy of


7/13

3 4 NOTES

December 1999

musical production, namely a partial retreat from the romantic reifica-

tion of the musical work as a fixed and timeless opus. Describing the

score as Musik zu may reflect two other things: the generic uncertainty

surrounding the piece, and a overly modest estimation of the music's

contribution, which turned out to be both substantial and decisive.

Nonetheless, the practice of fixing the work in notation s clearly and ef-

ficiently as possible, notwithstanding the labile nature of theatrical prac-

tice, remained. It is a practice that Weill never forsook throughout his

career, even if the exigencies of musical life obviated the publication of

the stage works as full scores or, in some cases, even as complete vocal

scores. In addition to collaboration on memorable productions, Weill

left a legacy of performance materials for works capable of transcending

their original theatrical incarnation-a legacy that this edition is com-

mitted to preserving.

The second principle derives from the fact, in which Weill colluded,

that performance practice necessarily affected and even undermined the

singularity and authority of the score, as his comment about the experi-

ences of the current production suggests. Any edition needs to reflect

this flexibility as best it can. In the case of

ie

Dreigroschenoper the rela-

tionship between the written sources and the actual first production is,

as mentioned, complicated in the extreme. The work, more or less fixed

as text, gives rise to multiple individual performances, just as any individ-

ual performance is one of a multitude of differing realizations. While the

printed edition is bound (in a twofold sense) to present one single ver-

sion of the piece, closely reflecting the authors' combined intentions

from the period between the start of the production process and the end

of the composer's involvement, it also reflects in various ways the muta-

bility of the work in production. The edition does not legislate any single

version or every detail of performance practice (how could it, even if it

wanted to?) so much as define the publishable parameters within which

performance of the work, as conceived by the authors, can take place.

The edition is thus both historical and critical.

The edition is historical in that it presents the work as conceived and

performed in a historically delimited period and in particular historical

circumstances, while reflecting through commentary and appendixes

some of the inevitable mutations the work went through as theatrical re-

ality in performance. Obviously there are both practical and philosophi-

cal limitations imposed on how far any publication can or should go in

this endeavor. The abiding principle is nonetheless the first one men-

tioned: that the work is transmittable

s

text.

The edition is critical in that it utilizes critically all available sources

and additional materials, not just textual ones, while also inviting and ex-


8/13

325

New

Edition of

Die

Dreigroschenoper

pecting critical judgment from the user.

(A

critical edition will lose much

of its purpose if it is not used critically.) This edition is committed to

conveying the history of the work as text, while being intended for use in

critically informed performances. Its claims to being definitive do not ex-

tend to the expectation that henceforth all productions should be the

same. Neither does it legislate a single version of the work, which anyway

has never existed as such. Nor does it record any single performance of

the work. (The unlikely event that it either could or even does would be

merely fortuitous.) Besides, there is enough flexibility built into the

text-not only because of Weill's ad lib. passages, but also because of

the possibility of reinstating cut numbers-that no two productions are

likely to be exactly the same.

SOLUT ONS

The actual version transmitted in the main body of the edition (the

singular version, that is, to which the editors have necessarily had to

commit themselves) is, in broad outline, the one intended jointly by

Weill and Brecht in their 1928 published libretto. The 1928 libretto is

rare among Weill's works in representing a version of the work that both

authors edited for transmission as a text that supersedes the first produc-

tion in Berlin. What is more, the published libretto actually performed

its intended function for several years, prior to the work's suppression by

National Socialism, serving as the basis of rehearsal scripts of the piece

for countless German-language productions of the work for the five-year

period from 1928 to 1933.

Insofar

as

the printed libretto bears not only authorial but also histori-

cal authority, the new edition corresponds-at least as far as the verbal

dimensions of the work are concerned-to the guidelines for the latest

Brecht edition, the

Gr@e komm entierte Berliner u nd Frankfurter Ausgabe,

an

edition that contains as a matter of principle the authorized and estab-

lished [wirksam gewwdene] first editions. 15 It diverges, however, from the

Brecht edition by using as its basis the first published text rather than

Brecht's substantially revised version published in the Versuche in 1931

and in whose creation Weill played no part.

Sources other than the libretto are relevant for three reasons. The first

is that all of Weill's musical-theater works call for editions that are syn-

thetic. This particular edition, like all others in the series, has to synthe-

size the verbal and the musical sources. The second reason is that the

15. Die Ausgabe en th llt grundsltzlich die autorisierten und wirksam gewo rdenen Erstdrucke.

Bertolt Brecht,

Werke: Grop kommentiole Berliner Frankfurier Ausgabe

ed. Werner Hecht et al . (Berlin:

Aufbau; Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkam p, 19 88 ), 2:[475]. (T he editorial policy for the en tire edition is

printed similarly at the back of each volu me .)


9/13

326

NOTES,December

1999

libretto is not infallible in matters of detail, as comparison of the sources

-including the publisher's proofs of the libret to -demonst ra te~. n es-

pecially valuable source in this regard is the rehearsal script, which is

the closest surviving source to the one Weill used when composing most

of the music (if not that very source itself). The third reason is that the

libretto, although reflecting the longer-term textual transmission of

the work at the time, does not offer access to two aspects of the work that

this edition does: the portions of the work that were suppressed for pub-

lication for various reasons but which at some point either had been or

would be performed as part of the work in the theater, and those parts,

such as Arie der Lucy, that Weill associated with the work by publishing

them later, but which never belonged to the work's performance history

during the period of his creative involvement.

The period from which the relevant sources are drawn lasted about six

months, from mid-June to the end of 1928, when the libretto was

reprinted. After this time, although there were a number of develop-

ments in the theater, none caused Weill to change his mind about how

the piece should be transmitted. A critical document here is his essay on

the suppression of Arie der Lucy, written to accompany the number's

separate publication in

Die

Musik

in 1932. In the essay, Weill mentions

one of the developments in the theater-a new scene, occasioned by a

cast change-but he does not seem to endorse it. He writes:

In a scene from the last act of Dreigroschenoper Lucy, the daughter of the po-

lice chief, is sitting in her room expecting a visit from her rival, Polly. She is

concocting a sinister plan of murder. t was for Lucy's solo scene that the cur-

rent aria was written-a counterpart, so to speak, to the Jealousy Duet of act

2 t was possible to expand this jealousy monologue into a kind of vocal aria

because we had in mind for the Berlin premiere a performer with good vocal

abilities. Since the role

was

not cast

as

intended, however, the aria was cut.

t would have been cut anyway because in the course of rehearsals the whole

scene proved to be superfluous. Only in later revivals [Neueinstudierungen]

was

the scene reinserted, this time without the aria, which was too demanding vo-

cally for the performer playing Lucy.16

Although Weill's use of the expression

Neueinstudierung

in the sense of

revival could be seen to remove him from any active involvement, the

production to which he is referring was still, in fact, the original one, ex-

cept that it had moved from the Theater am Schiffbauerdamm to the

Komddienhaus with some cast changes and with the cut scene rein-

stated. Playing Polly was Carola Neher, who had originally been cast in

the role but who had dropped out at the last minute. Lucy was still being


10/13

3 7

New Edition

of

Die Dreigroschenoper

played by Kate Kiihl. According to a review by Herbert Jhering (pub-

lished in the Berliner Borsen-Courier), the cast change occurred in May

1929, after the first en suite run at Schiffbauerdamm had finished the

previous month. (Jhering's review appeared on May 13.) Instead of

the aria, as Jhering reports, there was the Ballade der Lucy, by which

he must mean the Barbarasong, which Lucy had apparently been

singing all along, but which Polly had now appropriated. Although early

sources indicate Lucy's ownership of this ballad, all published materi-

als, including the libretto, give the number to Polly, albeit in an earlier

scene, as No. 9.

In his later Anmerkungen to the 1931 published version of the work

in the Versuche, which includes the reinstated scene under the title

Kampf um das Eigentum, Brecht described it as an interpolation for

interpreters of Polly who possess a talent for comedy, just as Lucy's aria

required a particular talent for virtuoso operatic singing. In all, then,

there are three reasons why the scene may have been cut: because it was

dramatically superfluous, because Lucy couldn't be expected to sing the

aria, and because Neher's initial replacement as Polly didn't possess a tal-

ent for comedy.

Weill seems to hold firm to the notion that the scene had become su-

perfluous, despite what was being done in the revival at the Komodien-

haus and despite Brecht's having included it in the 1931 Versucheversion.

If Weill indeed knew of Brecht's own revision, then his negative assess-

ment of the newly interpolated scene's dramatic worth could be read as

implicit criticism of Brecht's revisionist enterprise.

The Viennese production around the same time, which Weill attended

and in which he seems to have had a hand, also departed from the pub-

lished text. Norbert Gingold, the production's musical director, was the

editor of the published vocal score. Here, however, none of the Viennese

newspaper reviewers noticed any departure from the published materi-

als, nor is it explicitly clear, even from Weill's correspondence, what was

being added.ls One can only guess. A few days before the Viennese pre-

miere, which took place on 9 March 1929, Weill wrote to his publisher: I

have discussed all details with Herr Martin [the director]. A few num-

bers are being done that were omitted here, and even one that was not

included in the music. It is evident from this letter that the libretto and

17

Diese Szene ist eine Einlage fitr solche Darstellerinnen d er Polly, welche die Begabung der Komik

besitzen. Brecht, Versuche,3:240.

18. The reviews consulted are those by Felix Salten (Neue Fwie Presse, 10 March 1929); Friedrich

Lorenz and Elsa Bienenfeld (Neues Wim erJoun al , 10 March 1929); Ludwig Ullmann (WiaerAllgemeinr

Zeitung, 12 March 1929); Lothar Ring (Volks-Zeitung, 10 March 1929); Walther Schneider (W ime r Mittags-

Z t u n g , 11 March 1929); Ernst Decsey (h eues Wimer Tag6latl. 10 March 1929); and Ferdinand Scherder

(W im er Zritung, 12 March 1929).


11/13

3 8

NOTES,December 1999

vocal score never functioned-nor were ever expected to function-as

an exact document, a kind of published souvenir, of the premiere pro-

duction. Among the most likely candidates for published numbers rein-

stated in Vienna is Salomonsong, reprinted separately in

Die

Musik

in

the same month as the Viennese premiere, presumably as publicity and

to compensate for its absence in Berlin. Another candidate is the

Morgenchoral, which is crossed out in Mackeben's copy of the piano-

conductor score. As for the number not included in the published

materials, Weill is probably referring to Die Ballade von der sexuellen

Horigkeit, which was soon to find its way into the 1929 Song-Album,

where it is described as being originally from Die Dreigroschenopm l9

The suppression of Die Ballade von der sexuellen Horigkeit, as with

Lucy's Aria, had to do with the performer in the Berlin production. It

was not that the actress playing Mrs. Peachum (Rosa Valetti) was techni-

cally incapable of singing her ballad, however, as was the case with Lucy

and her aria. She simply refused on moral grounds, because of the text.

The work subsequently evolved without it, and following Weill's explicit

instructions, his publishers left it out of the first edition of the published

vocal score. Nor was the number included in the published libretto.

Should the number therefore be reinstated in the edition? In a sense it

is, thanks to its inclusion in the appendix. Productions are free to use

i t

should they so wish, just as Weill did in 1929, both in Vienna and in his

Song-Album. To place it in the main body of the text, however, would be

to distort the predominant, historical form in which the work existed

during its first run. Its position in the appendix nicely reflects its original

status as text: existent but scarcely used, available (to those in the know)

but not prescribed. The number was not reinstated in print until

Brecht's 1931 revised edition in the Versuche;it rejoined the printed mu-

sic in the second edition of the vocal score, published in 1956, six years

after Weill's death.

Although Weill's holograph full score possesses substantial musical au-

thority, it has proved fallible in numerous matters of detail. The question

of numberings, mentioned already, is a case in point. That of underlay is

another, Sometimes Weill omits underlay in this source altogether. While

the published vocal score is generally reliable, discrepancies between this

source and the published libretto are numerous. Again, resolution of the

discrepancies in many cases required critical intervention on the part of

the editors. Occasionally, however, neither of these sources has pre-

vailed; instead others, such as the rehearsal scripts, have presented more

convincing readings.

19.

Kurt

Weill,

Sag -AO um Grsnng und

K1avk r Vien na: Universal Edition, 19 29).


12/13

329

New

Edition

of ie

reigroschenoper

One of the more substantial revisions arising from the necessity of fill-

ing in underlay missing from Weill's holograph full score occurs in Mr.

and Mrs. Peachum's Anstatt-daB Song. Mr. Peachum has acquired a

new last line-or rather, the one he was presumably intended to have all

along. Deprived of words for this line in the full score, in subsequent

musical sources he acquired the same line as Mrs. Peachum. However,

given that his previous words diverge from those sung by his wife, and

given that a divergence in the last line is documented in other textual

sources, including the published lyrics from 1929, the new (or rather

original) version provides a dramatically more satisfying

solution to the

blank left by the composer than the one normally transmitted. Mrs.

Peachurn proves susceptible to the same pile of sensuality which, ac-

cording to her husband, their daughter Polly embodies, especially the

kind expressed in romantic cliches ( Wenn die Liebe anhebt und der

Mond noch wiichst [When love is on the rise and the moon still

grows]). For his part, Mr. Peachum, the piece's (a)moral spokesman,

cynically sees through such sentiments ( Wenn die Liebe aus ist und

allein du verreckst [When love has ceased and you perish on your

own]). Occasionally, of course, Weill's underlay departs from other

sources, but these departures are clearly intentional and have to be pre-

served for musical reasons. In all cases, the critical apparatus provides

documentation of editorial activity.

Unlike other critical editions, this edition does not make it possible to

reconstruct in every detail all the principal sources used. Nor, in some

cases, would the documentation that would permit such reconstruction

be either practicable or desirable. This obstacle reflects the nature of sev-

eral of the sources in that they do not reflect any single version of the

piece so much as a collection of materials that have accrued over a pe-

riod of time. This applies especially to the band parts, but also to the full

score, with its various layers in other hands.

The most vivid example of documented change in performance is pro-

vided by the most famous number of all, Die Moritat von Mackie

Messer. The band parts do not reproduce this number as completely or

as clearly as they do any of the other numbers. Each of the parts is, to

varying degrees, either unclear or incomplete-or both. Itself a last-

minute addition during the final stages of the production process, the

Moritat was initially conceived for solo voice accompanied by barrel or-

gan. In his full score, Weill simply notes Nr.

2

Moritat (Brown) fiir

Leierkasten (No.

2

Ballade [Brown] for barrel organ). Following this

description, on the same page, is the score of No. 3 Only after No. 3

does Weill present the full score of No. 2, intercalated on manuscript

paper of a type different from the one on which the surrounding music


13/13

33 NOTES December 1999

is notated. While the assorted hieroglyphics and annotations in the band

parts reflect No. 2's genesis even more graphically than the composer's

full score, none of the parts accurately reflects the full-score version,

which Weill committed to paper once the production was already in full

swing.As with all the other numbers, the original piano-conductor score

is missing from the band parts. The extant parts, such as they are, all

contain fairly informal indications of what the players either were play-

ing or were expected to be playing; the scant information they transmit

includes, in several cases, the number of verses (usually six) and mention

of the solo instrument(s) featured in each. Although in his post-

premiere version Weill scored the first two verses for harmonium (to be

played in the manner of a barrel organ ), several of the parts indicate

that the barrel organ was retained during the first three verses, even

after the idea of including instrumental variations to accompany the sub-

sequent verses had materialized. This number represents the most exten-

sive example of

Weill having written down certain things for the pub-

lished edition which I only needed to pass on to the musicians here by

word of mouth. And even then, the final version may well have differed

considerably from what the players were actually playing, just as they

must have spontaneously ad-libbed the instrumental entr'actes in vari-

ous ways. (These instrumental pieces, likewise, are notated in the parts

in only rudimentary outlines. Reconstructions, as far as they are possible,

are included in the appendixes of the edition.) Interestingly, some of the

band parts of No. 2 show traces of the composer's own hand (where

word of mouth did not suffice), but these indications rarely amount to

a full part. Insofar as they reflect what the players were playing, the parts

must be seen as having served as scripts to multiple events, not just to a

single event, up to and perhaps including the recording of the music for

the

1930

film directed by

G.

W. Pabst.

For all the splendid documentary evidence the parts supply of the gen-

esis and performance practice of this number, none of them is either

clear or complete enough to question, still less undermine, the authority

of the full score, or even to supplement it in any meaningful way, as is

the case with the other numbers. Nowhere is the gap between work and

event and between text and script as evident as in the Moritat -the

number that, more than any other, was to make its way in the world in in-

carnations quite different from the text of the full score.

Documents

a New Edition of Die Dreigroschenoper