varese wolpe oboe

8/10/2019 Varese Wolpe Oboe

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/varese-wolpe-oboe 1/16

Varese, Wolpe and the OboeAuthor(s): Nora PostSource: Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 20, No. 1/2 (Autumn, 1981 - Summer, 1982), pp. 134-148Published by: Perspectives of New Music

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/942409 .

Accessed: 05/11/2014 11:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Perspectives of New Music is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspectives

of New Music.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Wed, 5 Nov 2014 11:36:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pnm

http://www.jstor.org/stable/942409?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/942409?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pnm



VARESE,

WOLPEAND

THE

OBOE

NORA

POST

For

reasons of interest

primarily

o the

specialist,

he oboe

was,

for

the

mostpart,overlookedasa solo instrument uring he nineteenthcentury.In

contrast,

he

twentieth

century

has witnessed

the

development

of a

sizable

solo and

chamber

repertoire.

While the technical

demands made

by many

early

twentieth-century omposers

were

fairly

conventional,

others

sought

deliberately

o

transgress

he

boundariesof the idiomatic: n the

vanguard

were

Edgard

Varese

(1883-1965)

and Stefan

Wolpe

(1902-1972).

Their

requirements

with

regard

to

articulation,

dynamics, range,

and

sheer

stamina

were

unprecedented.Furthermore,

t was

largely

because of Var-

ese and

Wolpe

that he

subsequent

oboe

repertoire, specially

n the United

States,

developed

as it

did. Their

writing

reflected a

common interest

both

in

radically

new

musical

ideas and

dramatically

new instrumental

sage.

That the

two men were

mavericks

becomes

readily

apparent

when their

ideas,

as

well

as their

compositions,

re

studied.

Varese

was an

extraordinary

musical

hinker,

one

whose theorieswere

far

ahead of his time.

As

early

as

1924

he

insisted

hat:

The

development

of the

art has

been

hampered

by

certain

mechanical

restrictions

which no

longer

need

prevail...

Just as the

painter

can

obtain

different

intensity

nd

gradation

f

colour,

musicians an obtain

different

vibrations

f

sound,

not

necessarily

conforming

o the tradi-

tional

half-tone and

full

tone,

but

varying,

ultimately

rom

vibration o

vibration...

Varese's

artistic

oals,perhapsmorevisionaryhanrealistic,were probably

closely

tied to his

unorthodox

approach

to

instrumentshemselves.As

Mil-

ton

Babbitthas

perceptively

observed:

Varese

regarded

nstruments ot as

things

n

themselves,

not as discrete

units,

but as

part

of

what

was for him

this acoustical

continuum.

And,

therefore,

he

really

didn't

discriminate

mong

instruments.He

consid-

ered

them

all

as

contributors

o

this

particular

indof

continuum.2







obb.

-

domeop

I

.

-1%

wm.

"I

"114

lb

:h

0







136

Varese's wo

workswhich use the

oboe

prominently

re

Octandre

1924)

and Integrales1926). Both testify to his obsession with extraordinary

dynamics

and

articulations.

or

example,

the

opening

oboe solo

in Octandre

concludes

with a

totallyunprecedented

crescendo from

ff to ffff

(Ex. 1).

The

oboe

part

for

Integrales

s

similar

o

Octandre

n its demands.

The

oboe's

firstentrance

includes

a crescendo

which

progresses

rom

p

to ffff

within

three

beats

(Ex. 2).

Later,as manyas five dynamicshadingsare requiredwithintwo beats(Ex.

3).

This

remarkable

writing

can

best-or

perhaps

can

only-be

understood

in

terms

of

Varese's

diosyncratic

pproach

o

dynamics.

As

Babbitt

ecalls:

I

discussed

dynamics

very

often

with

Varese,

although

wasnever

quite

sure

that

when he

agreed

with

me,

he

really

agreed

with

me. But

the

fact

of the

matter

is that

we

very

often

talked

about

this

problem

of

dynamics;

of

course,

my

music

has

many

of

the

same

problems.

We

had

agreed

that

when

we write

for

an

ensemble,

that

we are

not

writing

relative

dynamics.

We

are

writing

resultant

dynamics,

dynamics

which

indicate

the

contributory

characteristics

of

each of

the

constituent

instruments.

And

therefore,

it was

the conductor's

ob-or

whoever

is

inchargeof the ensemble-to see thattheybalanced.When he writes

four

fs

for

the

oboe

and

four fs

for the

trumpet,

hat

means

the

same

loudnesses,

it

is not

relative

to

the

scale

of the instrument

which,

we

agreed,

was

so

dependent

upon

the

individual

performer

that

you

couldn't

possibly

determine

t.

Those

are

resultant

dynamics,

and

Var-

ese

should

have

written

hat

in

his scores.







Ex. 3

Intigrales,

m.

2-3.

p.

18,

score.

P

I

1a &y.

Ex.

4Octanidre,

m.

4-5,

p.

14,

score.

;,.IP







139

Composer

and

Varese

scholarChou

Wen-Chung

concurs

with

Babbitt, s

can be seen inthe

following

exchange:

The

difficulty

with Varese'smusic now is

not

rhythmic

or

conceptual.

The

dynamics

are

impossible.

Babbitt

ays

that he and Varese

often

spoke

about

this,

and that the

dynamics

on

the

page

were not

the

dynamics

intended to

be

played.

If,

for

instance,

everyone

had

fff,

what Varese reallymeant was that it had to be balancedout. Isthat

correct?

Yes,

that's

absolutely

rue.

Varese

always

said

that here were

two

ways

of

notatingdynamics-one

is to

notate

dynamics

or each instrument

according

o the instrumental

apacity

n

dynamics,

n

order

to

predict

the kind

of

balance

you

will

get.

The other is to notate them

in

an

absolute

way,

so thatthe

dynamic

evels

indicated n the

score

are

what

he

expects

to hear out of the balance of

the

performance.

Now

that,

of

course, is not alwaysso in his scores. He startswith that. Then 1know

that in

certain

spots

he would make

changes

to accommodate the

instrumentsn

question...In

other

words,

if

you

have

a

fortissimo

pas-

sage,

with

oboe

and

trombone,

et's

say,

he

expects

the

conductorto

balance the two

instruments.

How

do

you

explain

he

beginning

of

the

second

movement

of

Octandre,

with

the solo

piccolo playing

ff?

He

wants

that

instrument o

play

as

loudly

as

possible.

I

think here is

here

the

question

of

a

conflict in

notational

philosophy.

Conflict

or

not,

Varese's

dynamics

pose

staggering problems

for

the

oboist,

who

must

play

as

loudly

as

possible

almostall

the time

simply

o be

heard.

This is

especially

true

of

Integrales

here,

in

most

performances,

he

brassoverwhelm the oboe. If the conductorattemptsto apply Babbitt's

concept

of

"resultant

ynamics",

he

interpretation

will lose

energy,

since

the

brass will

be

underplaying.

To

maintainthe real

character

of

both

Integrales

nd

Octandre,

he

only

solution s for

the oboe

to

"blast" t

maximum

volume.

Even

then,

there

will

probably

be

passages

when

the

instrument

will

not

be

audible.

Varese's

articulations

re also

remarkable.

Octandre

ontainsone

of

the

earliestuses of

fluttertongue

or

the oboe

(Ex.

4).

The work

also

abounds







140

with accent

marks,

most

frequently

in the context

of forte

dynamic

mark-

ings. Chou Wen-Chung comments on this interrelationship of dynamics

and articulation:

Do

you

think his articulations

are

of

the same

philosophy

as

his

dynamics?

I

would

say,

in

general, yes.

Now there are

always

exceptions.

You

have also to realize that

these scores

were written

in the

early

1920s

and,

at

that

time,

notation for

dynamics

was

hardly

standardized.

And

certain things that composers would often do are not really done any-

more.

Sf,

for

example.

He was

really

carrying

over a

certain

traditional

approach

towards

dynamics

into what he

was then

projecting

in his

music

with

respect

to

dynamics...He

certainly

had

a

very

strong

desire

to

use

instruments

differently.

Surprisingly,

Varese

is

not

particularly

inventive

in

his choice

of

range

for

the oboe. Neither Octandre

nor

Integrales

scend

higher

than

G5,

the

tradi-

tional

limit of the instrument

a rather curious

restraint

for

someone

who is

so

original

and

demanding

in his

usage

of

dynamics

and

articulations.

Given the difficulties

of

performing

Varese's

music

even

today,

one

cannot

help

but

wonder how

earlier

players

managed

to

cope

with his

scores.

Professor

Chou

recalls:

Do

you

remember

how

people

felt

about

playing

it,

do

you

remember

those times

yourself?

1 was

involved

in the

rehearsals

and

recording

sessions

when

the

so-

called

EMS

recording

of

Varese

was made.

At

that

time,

Frederic

Waldman

was the

conductor,

and

he

hired some of

the best

young

performers,

who have

since become

very

important

and so

on-very

much

recognized.

But

I realized

that

they

struggled

through

these

pieces

enormously.

What made it so hard for them?

Demands

on

the

instrumental

technique

and

rhythm.

And

also

the

understanding

of

what

really goes

on. I

was

at

the

rehearsals-

Waldman

called

numerous

hours

of

rehearsal,

and it was

amazing

how

difficult

it was

for all

those

very

capable

people.

It

was

equally

amazing

that

they

finally

got

something

reasonable

recorded.

In

fact,

in

some

respects

that

recording

is

still

the best.

It's

not

precise,

but it had

certain

qualities

because

Varese

was

always

there.







141

The

extreme

difficulty

of

Varese's

works

raises

the

question

of

whether

he actuallyunderstoodwhat itwas that he was requiring romthe players.

His

colleagues agree

that he

knew

exactly

what he was

asking

or.

Accord-

ing

to

Henry

Brant,

Varese,

a masterof

orchestration,

eliberately

ried

to

push

instruments

eyond

their

recognized

limits.ProfessorChou

provides

an

insightful

omment:

Why

does

Varese

totallydisregard

he

idiomatic?

Ican onlyprovideguesses,really.He was certainlya wizardatorches-

tration in

the

conventional

sense. He

wrote

numerous

large-scale

works-of

course,

many

of

them have

perished.

So there

is no

question

but thathe knew

these

instruments

ell-having

also

been a

conductor

himself. I thinkhe was

preoccupied

with

developing

his own

ideas,

his

own

concepts.

And,

of

course,

you

should

also know

that

he

was

also

always

interested n

finding

some kindof electronic means

(the

word

"electronics"

idn'texist

yet-he

called it "electrical

means")

o realize

and

project

his ideas.

So

I

would

say

he

was

consciously

pushing

all

the

instrumentso theirextremes,and in doingthatperhapsdidnot really

care

that much

about

certain

practicalities.

But it doesn't mean that

Varese

was

not

aware

of

whether

it

could

be

achieved

or not.

I

think

he

was.

He

always

felt

that if

he

pushed

people

hard

enough, they

could

get

it.

I

would

say

at

that ime t wasn't he

case

Very

few

people

"got"

t,

they

probably

approximated

t.

Although

the

music of

Stefan

Wolpe

is

quite

different

from

that of

Varese,the two men, Chourecalls,were alike:

...in

treating

nstruments s

purely

a

source of

sound. In that

respect,

yes,

they

have

certain

viewpoints

that

are

similar.And I

would

say

in

certain

aspects

of

their

music,

yes, you

would find similarities.

And,

after

all,

Wolpe

and

Varese were

friends,

knew each

other

very

well,

and so

on.

But

Wolpe's

works are

even

more

difficult to

perform.

Babbittrecalls a

revealingstory

whichconcernsthis

problem:

I

think

there is no

question

about it-that he

wanted

his

music

to be

more

intricate

han

anybody

else's,

he

wanted

his

music to be more

difficult

than

anybody

else's,

he

wanted his music to be

longer

than

anybody

else's.

There was

that

famous

question

asked at his

Compos-

er's

Forum,

after his

Battle

iece

ad

been

played;you

know

that'sa

huge

piano

piece-25

minutesof

murder

At the

question

period,

someone







142

asked him whether

this

piece

was intended for actual

use at battle. He

didn't answer-he regardedit as a nastycomment-but the answer

obviously

was

yes.

I

mean

he was

constantly

mbattled

at

battling.

t

was

to be used in his

battle.

Wolpe's

"battle"was reflected in almost

everything

he wrote.

The

piano

works

are

especially

illustrative,

ince

Wolpe,

a

pianist

himself,

was

cer-

tainly

aware

of

the instrument's

imitations.3

rma

Wolpe,

for whom

many

of the

piano

pieces

were

written,

has

also triedto account

for

performance

difficulties:

...He

always

tried to write

simple

music,

but

he never could

achieve

it

because

he was

always

driven

by

his own

demon,

and

the demon

was

complexity.

And

the

complexity

was

part

of

his

way

of

thinking.

He said

that when he had

an

idea,

then

instantly

eventeen

different

activities

entered into

play-so

he couldn't

help

but

being

tremendously omplex

in his

writing

for instruments.

But

on the other

hand,

since

he

had

a

genius

for the

piano,

it was in

some

ways playable,

but

you

had

to be

a

superlative

pianist.Itwas tantalizing;t was there as a challengeand in

order

to be

done,

you

had

to stretch

yourself beyond any

limit.

Wolpe's

first

work

for the

oboe,

the

Suite

m

Hexachord,

alls

for

dynamics

which extend

from

ppp

to ff. Articulations

nclude

three different

types

of

accents

(O A

and

).

In

addition,

Wolpe

makes

one

of the

first

requests

or

harmonic

ingerings

ound

in the oboe

literature

Ex. 5).4

But

most

extraor-

dinaryof all is his choice of range. With a total disregardfor existing

convention,

the

piece

sweeps

from

the

oboe's

lowest

note

to

the

first

A6 in

the oboe

literature.

The

A6 is no casual

gesture

but,

rather,

the

final,

sustained

pitch

of the

Fugue

(Ex.

6).

Such

exorbitant

writing

did

not

recur

untilother

composers

began

tentatively

o

explore

this

register

almost

two

decades later.

The

Suite

mHexachord:

...is

most

extraordinary

n its use

of the

two woodwind

instruments.

Wolpe's music demands a technique which contradictsall previous

ideas

of the

idiomatic.

For

Wolpe,

instruments

id

not

have

limits;

hey

were

like unrestricted

musical

ools

of his

imagination.

Perhaps

such

a

radical

idea

of

composition

explains

why

Wolpe's

music

is

so

rarely

performed.

Itwas not

untilJack

Kreiselman

nd Josef

Marx

played

the

Suite

mHexachord

n the

early

'50s

that

it received

its

premiere.

As

the

second

oboist

o

play

the

work,

I

first

performed

t

thirty-six

ears

after

it

was

written.

Aside from

the

problem

of

technique,

the

relentless

nten-

sity

of

Wolpe's

music

demandsconsiderable

tamina

and

concentration







'

l--te

m -;wbr

-

-

I

f

Ex.

5

Suite

mHexachord

for

oboe

and

clarinet),

"Sostenuto-Allegro",

g.

4,

score.

oh0O

cidrinet

b

6

l

F

-

q+

I

r.)

01

:L

4~

-

Ex.

6

Suite

m

Hexachord,

Fugue",

.

14,

score.

q-

-A

O 0

I-

--I

-t f r







Ex.

7

Sonata

or

Oboe nd

Piano,

p.

2,

oboe

part.

p

poco

ril.

A

#

i .

v

=

s

-

.

t_'y

c

r&j

Ex.

8 Sonata

or

Oboe

nd

Piano,

m.

78,

p.

4,

oboe

part.

-p0^

_%







145

fromthe performer.Perhaps histoo mayaccountfor the infrequency

of

performance.5

The

technical

innovations

ound in

Wolpe's

Sonata

or

Oboeand

Piano

(

1939-41)

are

quite

different

from

those of the

Suite

m

Hexachord.

hile

the

range

of

the

Sonata,

for

instance,

ascends

only

to

F6,

its

dynamic

and

articulative

demands are

more

complex

than the earlier

composition.

For

the

first time

in

his oboe

works,

Wolpe

employs

the

marking

ff,

and

his

accentnotation

expands

to includefour

types

(A/,

A,

and

'),

all of which

are

frequently

used

in

all

registers.

Sf and

sp

markings

re

also

common.

Of

particular

nterest s

the

need for

rapid

onguings.

nthe first

movement

(J=

92),

double

tonguing

s

implied

n

several

passages

(see

Ex.

7).

At a

time

when

double

tonguing

was not

considered

possible

for the

oboe,

Wolpe's

requirements

must

have

seemed even

more

unreasonable than

they

do

today.

Finally,

Wolpe's disregard

or

the

idiomatic s

further

illustrated

by

his

choice of a

trill

which does

not

exist

on

the

oboe,

a B

b

to

B

3

trill,6

ccurring

at a

critical

ransitional

oint

in the

first

movement

(Ex.

8).

Given

its

struc-

tural

mportance,

he

trill

mustbe

played.

These

elements,

the

demands for

extremes n

range, dynamics,

rhythm,

.and

articulation,7

make

Wolpe's

music

extraordinarily

ifficult

for

any

instrumentalist,ndtheoboist nparticular. osef Marx forwhomWolpe's

oboe

works

were

written)

spent

years

mastering

hese

compositions.

The

result,

according

o

Babbitt,

was

that:

Joe

Marx

and

Wolpe

used

to have

screaming

fits

at each other. Joe

insisted

that

Wolpe

was not

taking

the

instrument

nto account. And

Wolpe

answered

violently

that,

after

all,

the

composers imagine

the

new

legions

and

resourcesof

instrumental

laying,

and the

instrumen-

talistmustrealize them.

Any

discussion f

Wolpe

and

Varese

would be

incomplete

withoutmen-

tion of

their

influence on

other

composers

generally,

and the

American

oboe

repertoire

n

particular.

n

Babbitt's

udgment:

Wolpe

had a

tremendous

mpact

on a

lot of

people.

The

most

obvious

one

was

Ralph

Shapey,

and

there

was

always

a

clusterof

students.And

thentherewas the indirect nfluence.Iwouldcertainly uspectthat he







146

had an influence on Elliott

Carter.

I

don't

know if Elliott

would think

o

or

not,

but

I

certainly

would.

I

thinkhe had an enormous

nfluence-

firstof all--on a lot

of

composers, ncluding

DavidTudor.

By

the

way,

he

certainly

had

his

influence on

people

likeCharles

Wuorinen,

and

on

many

of Charles's

tudents.

Wolpe's

utilization

f extreme contrasts

n both

dynamics

and

articula-

tions

is mirrored n the oboe musicof

Wuorinen,8

and

HarveySollberger,9

as

well as in Babbitt's

wn

Woodwind

uartet.

he

expanded

range

Wolpe

employed

was the model for the laterworksof Isaac

Nemiroff,

hisstudent

and

colleague.'0

The

two

major

oboe sonatas

of our

era

are

still

those

of

Wolpe

and Gunther

Schuller,

and

there

is

no

question

but

that

Wolpe's

oboe

music

directly

nfluenced

Schuller's

wn sonata."

The

evidence

strongly uggests

hat

Wolpe,

probably

more than

anyone

else,

was

responsible

or

the

development

of the

twentieth-century

Ameri-

can oboe

repertoire.

That

Wolpe's

influence did

not

assert

itself more

generallyuntil heearly 50s isunderstandable, ecausethedifficultyof his

works

precluded

their

performance

until

hat

time.

Varese's

impact

was of a somewhat

different

order.

In

Chou

Wen-

Chung'sopinion:

...The influence

is

more

subtle

than

apparent,

for

the

following

rea-

sons: Varese

is

a

composer

who

will

always

be

viewed

as

an indi-

vidualist,

rather than

being

in the mainstream.

would

say

that

right

after his death

there

was enormous influence

and interestin

young

composers.

By

now it's

sort

of taken for

granted.

For

the

past

twenty

years

one finds that the

young

composers

are interested

n one

or the

other

thing.

If

their basic outlook

s toward

a stricter

view of

music,

that

is,

music

has to

be

highly

organized

and so

on-then

they

would

find

Varese

is

not

analytically

or

theoretically

as

interesting

as

they

would

like

to

find

him

to

be

and, therefore,

they

feel

that it is not

really

somethingthey

can

use

as a

foundation

for

their

own.

On

the

other

side,you find thatpeoplewho are interested n a much

freer

approach

to

music

find him

too

organized,

even

though

Varese

made

it

possible

for

both

groups

to

really

come

into

existence-especially

the

second

group.

But I

can't

imagine any

young

composer

today

without

the

Varese

sound,

a certain

concept

of his

in mind.

I think

hat we

touched

on

a

very important

oint.

In

the 20s

and

30s--as

early

as then-he

was

alreadydoing

all

sortsof

things

hat

people

only began

to do

in

the '50s.

I

thinkVarese's

music is

well

known

even

though

it is not

played

that

much.

I

just

don't

believe

that there

is

not

a

very

subtle

and

continuing







147

influenceon hispart.When the

dust is

settled,

I thinkhis influence

will

become

more

apparent.

Like

Wolpe,

but

in another

way,

Varese

performed

a critical

ervice

for

the oboe.

He was the

first

twentieth-century

omposer

to

give

the

oboe

pre-eminence

in

the chamber

ensemble.

If Varese

introduced

he

oboe

to

the

twentieth,century

hamber

ensemble

as

"personality",

Wolpe

gave

it

a

contemporary

solo

repertoire.

Ironically

enough,

the

sheer

difficulty

of

their works,which for a time made performancesextraordinarily are,

helped

immeasurably

o

prepare

contemporary

oboists

for the

demands

soon to be

made

upon

them

by

other

composers.

NOTES

1. From Chou

Wen-Chung,

"Open

Rather

Than

Bounded",

Perspectives

f

New

Music

5/1

(Fall-Winter1966):

1.

2. Interviewwith MiltonBabbitt,Princeton,

New

Jersey,

10

March 1978.

Subsequent

statements

by

Milton

Babbitt

are also

from this

interview.

Additional

interviewmaterial

s from

the

following

sources:

nterviewwith

Henry

Brant,Buffalo,

New

York,

6 June

1978;

interview

with

Chou

Wen-Chung,

New

York,

New

York,

17

March

1978;

and interview

with Irma

Wolpe,

New

York,

New

York,

26 December

1977.

3. Babbitt

agrees

"...that

he did

probably

maintain

hat innate

call-it,what-you-will

nter-

nalizedsense

of

what

you

can do

at a

piano".







148

4. The

traditionalorder of the

movements,

which

Wolpe

himself

preferred,

was:

IV.

(Adagio),

i.

(Allegro),

II.

(Pastorale),

111.

Fugue).

Because

this is not the order

of

the

movements

ndicated n the

score,

all

examples

will

be identified

by

movementname.

5.

Nora

Post,

Program

note

to

Stefan

Wolpe,

Suite

m

Hexachord

June

n

Buffalo

X,

"In

Memory:

The

Musicof

Stefan

Wolpe

and Isaac

Nemiroff',

15

June

1977).

6.

Only

the Prestini

system

oboe is

capable

of

playing

this trill.

This

rare instrument

possesses

a

left hand

thumb

key,

below the normal

left

hand

thumb

position,

which

yields

a

Bb3

o

Bh3 rill.

7.

Edward

Levy

puts

it somewhat

differently, observing

that

"The use

of

contiguous

contrast

ypifies

all of

Wolpe's

music".

Levy,

"Stefan

Wolpe",Dictionary

f

Contemporary

Music,

p.

822.)

8. Charles

Wuorinen,

Bicinium,

or

two

oboes,

1966,

Chamber

oncertofor

boe

nd o

Players,

1965,

and

Speculumpeculi,

or six

players,

1972

(all

from

New York:

C. F. Peters

Corp.).

9.

HarveySollberger,

TwoOboes

Troping,

962

(New

York:

Composer's

Facsimile

Edition,

n.d.).

10.

Isaac

Nemiroff,

Atomyriades,

or

solo

oboe, 1972,

Duo

or

oboe

nd

bass

larinet,

973,

and

Triofor boe/English

orn,

larinet/bass

larinet,

nd

piano,

1976

(copies

of

composer's

ms.).

11.

Schuller's

onversation

with

the

author,Boston,

Mass.,

12 March

1973.

varese wolpe oboe

Documents