Talk:Variations for piano (Webern)

Tone row

<ref>[http://www.themefinder.org/cgi-bin/themeinfo?istn=252366519591 "Theme Infmoration: Webern's Variations for piano"], ''Themefinder''.</ref>:

I removed the above given the contrary example in the article. Hyacinth (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the row you put into the article? No source I've ever seens suggests such a row. Bailey gives Eb - B - Bb - D - C# - C, etc.; and reproduces Webern's own row tables. The previous picture uses different accidentals, but essentially gives the right row. Although Bailey is pretty much enough, I can produce at least one or two more scholarly sources which will give the same row. You can actually look at the first bars of the first completed movement (the third) to see that row. Whereas your picture seems to be derived form the first movement's opening bars, which doesn't go P1 at all – the upper staff starts with the first notes of R8. Either the previous version of the picture should be returned, or the current one modified to show the row correctly. --Jashiin (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The new diagram (from Ton de Leeuw's book, according to Hyacinth's source reference) agrees with Catherine Nolan's (1995) analysis of the second movement (which uses the retrograde of this row). You are quite right, Jashin, about Bailey and Webern's sketch. Which version should be treated as P0 depends a bit on what you take as your starting-point. Compositional order, which is Bailey's standard, gives the row E♭ B B♭ D D♭ C G♭ E G F A A♭ (Wason 1987 follows Bailey, FWIW). If you regard the first row found in the second movement, then you will agree with Nolan (though why she uses P1 as her primary reference instead of P0 I do not understand). I don't have the score handy to see what the first movement begins with, but it could well give yet a third result. The main point is that both of these versions are canonic transformations of one another.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Closer examination of Nolan's analysis shows that the pairings of rows she gives for the second movement are different from the ones offered by Leeuw. Thank you, Hyacinth, for restoring the example of the prime form of the row. I have added the page references you requested, and I hope to have a copy of Leeuw's book (the Dutch original of which actually dates from 1964, so it is not as up-to-date as one might imagine from the publication year of the English translation, a decade after the author's death) in my hands shortly, in the hopes of being able to resolve the discrepancy. There is also a misleading claim at the beginning of the analysis section which I am not yet prepared to correct: the pairing of row forms shown in the example certainly is not used at the beginning of the third movement, and I am fairly certain not in the first, either. Further research is needed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter Stadlen

Peter Stadlen?Croy379 (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)