Fabricating Editions: Discrepancies in the Way We Perform Bartók’s Viola Concerto Today

By

Kayla Patrick

A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Musical Arts

at the

University of Wisconsin-Madison

2024

Date of final oral examination: May 1, 2024

The dissertation is approved by the following members of the Final Oral Committee:
Sally Chisholm, Professor, Viola
Parry Karp, Professor, Cello
Peter Dominguez, Professor Bass
Salvatore Calomino, Professor, German
© Copyright by Kayla Patrick 2024
All Rights Reserved
 i

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Conception of Bartók’s Viola Concerto 2

Background: The Tibor Serly Edition 7

Background: The Peter Bartók Edition 9

Analysis: The Tibor Serly Edition vs The Peter Bartók Edition 10

Background: The Csaba Erdélyi Edition 35

Analysis: The Csaba Erdélyi Edition vs The Peter Bartók Edition 36

Conclusion 41

Appendix A

Appendix B
 1

Fabricating Editions: Discrepancies in the Way We Perform Bartók’s Viola Concerto Today

Introduction
In July 1945, Béla Bartók began his work on a viola concerto commissioned for the

famed American violist William Primrose. The events prior to this commission and the work

done by the composer up until his death is the focus of much debate and discussion. An even

greater topic of polarity is the work of Tibor Serly, a close friend and former pupil of Bartók who

received the job of reconstructing the viola concerto following the death of the composer.

Bartók’s Viola Concerto continues to live among the infamous unfinished works in instrumental

music, and it creates grounds for great debate over how to handle the unfinished work of a late

composer.

In the realm of viola performance and scholarship, the exploration of Béla Bartók's Viola

Concerto extends beyond mere historical scrutiny—it intertwines with practical considerations

for performers. Given the concerto's incomplete state, various editions and interpretations have

emerged, each offering distinct insights into Bartók's intentions and the creative efforts of Tibor

Serly, who undertook the task of posthumously completing the composition. The examination of

these different editions not only sheds light on the nuances of Bartók's musical language but also

poses fundamental questions regarding the ethics of posthumous reconstruction in classical

music. Through a comparative analysis of these editions, this dissertation endeavors to provide

violists with a comprehensive understanding of the interpretive choices available, facilitating

informed performances that honor both Bartók's legacy and the artistic vision of subsequent

collaborators.
 2

This research delves into the examination of the two primary editions of the concerto,

namely the original Tibor Serly edition and the Peter Bartók edition, both distributed by Boosey

& Hawkes. Additionally, the study includes a comparative analysis with a third edition by Csaba

Erdélyi, offering a comprehensive overview of the interpretive variances among these versions.

Through this meticulous comparison, a critical framework emerges, providing a nuanced guide

for performers and scholars navigating the complexities of Bartók's Viola Concerto.

Conception of Bartók’s Viola Concerto

Primrose initially approached Bartók in late 1944 with a request to write a viola concerto,

but the composer was unsure of whether or not he wanted to take on the task, feeling that he did

not have enough knowledge of the instrument to write something as intensive as a concerto for

viola1. In an unsent letter addressed to Primrose and marked August 5, 1945, Bartók expressed

the difficulties he encountered at the beginning stages of the composition. He struggled to a point

where he hesitated to continue the commission, but he indicated that some ideas eventually

began to solidify and the viola concerto started to take shape2. Bartók stated in a letter to

Primrose on September 8, 1945 that the draft was nearly complete, and the orchestration was all

that was left to do3. He requested a meeting with Primrose to discuss the concerto, a meeting in

1William Primrose, Walk on the North Side: Memoirs of a Violist (Provo, UT: Brigham Young
University Press, 1978), 185.

2Donald Maurice, Bartok’s Viola Concerto: The Remarkable Story of His Swansong (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2004), 15.

3 Maurice, Bartok’s Viola Concerto: The Remarkable Story of His Swansong, 16.
 3

which he intended to review passages that may have been technically impossible or improbable

to play on the viola. This meeting never occurred due to Bartók’s passing later that month,

leaving many future scholars wondering what may have materialized had that encounter taken

place.

In order to understand the widespread disagreements about this concerto and to gain

perspective on Bartók’s work at this time, one must take into account the man’s mental and

physical health during the late years of his career and life. In 1940, years prior to any discourse

involving the viola concerto, Béla and his wife Ditta Bartók moved from their home country of

Hungary and took refuge in the United States during World War II. They moved to New York

City, where Bartók taught on a generous salary at Columbia University and toured throughout

the United States. However, this was a difficult transition for the couple and, while the esteemed

composer experienced great career success in his first year living in the U.S., accounts from his

close friends indicate that he felt perpetually unfamiliar with his surroundings and the culture of

the big city4.

In 1942, Bartók began to experience health concerns that resulted in raised temperatures

and pulmonary issues. His doctors were puzzled with his symptoms, he began to frequent the

hospital over the course of the next few years, and he was diagnosed with leukemia in 1944. This

was close to the time when Primrose called upon the composer for the viola concerto

commission. It is difficult to determine the exact state of mental and physical health Bartók

perceived as he agreed to this commission, but correspondence between the men indicates some

awareness of the precarious nature of his situation as he continued to compose. There are some

4 Vilmos Juhász, ed. Bartók’s Years in America (Washington, D.C.: Occidental Press, 1981), 13.
 4

signals within the aforementioned letters, dated August 5 and September 8, 1945 that reveal his

physical health, as he mentions a sickness on the former date, and various illnesses and a

pneumonia diagnosis on the latter.

The recognition of his illness seemed to loom over him, and his work reflects that of a

man who is longing for the completion of his work. During his final months, Bartók worked on

two pieces simultaneously, an unusual practice for his typical working style. His Third Piano

Concerto in E Major Sz. 119, a birthday gift for his wife Ditta, was nearly complete, and in his

final days, Bartók jotted down the number of remaining bars, anticipating that someone might

finish the work he so nearly completed. The viola concerto, however, remained untouched

leading up to his final hospital visit; perhaps an indicator that he felt it was truly complete.

The two aforementioned letters are rich with traces of both personal and musical

thoughts. In addition to health indications, the letters also reveal the intention of the overall

structure of the concerto. In his unsent letter from August 5, 1945, Bartók states:

However embrionic the state of the work still is, the general plan and ideas are already fixed.
So I can tell you that it will be in 4 movements: a serious Allegro, a Scherzo, a (rather short)
slow movement, and a finale beginning Allegretto and developing the tempo to an Allegro
molto. Each movement, or at least 3 of them will [be] preceded by a (short) recurring
introduction (mostly solo of the viola), a kind of ritornello.5

These comments contradict the structure of the final draft, which contains three movements: a

long Moderato movement, a short Adagio transitioning into an Allegretto interlude, and a third

Allegro vivace movement. It must be noted that this letter was likely written at the beginning

stages of composition, and one must expect that the concept went through a multitude of changes

5 Maurice, Bartok’s Viola Concerto: The Remarkable Story of His Swansong ,15
 5

between this point and the drafting process. To further confirm that this shift from four

movements to three was intended by Bartók, the sketches include estimated run time for the

concerto, only indicating three movements (see figure 1).

Figure 1. Excerpt from Béla Bartók Viola Concerto. This run time indication is located at the top
of page 13.

In his commentary in the facsimile edition of the autograph draft, Hungarian musicologist

and Bartók specialist László Somfai points to the appearance of the draft as out of the ordinary

for a later Bartók work. It is characteristic of this composer in the later stages of his career to

write in ink rather than pencil (see figure 2), and this particular draft has excessive erasures for

what is typically seen of his drafting (see figure 3). Somfai believes this change in process could
 6

be due to the change in lifestyle, as Bartók found it difficult to work in his New York City

apartment, and would often vacation to Saranac Lake, New York to work on the concerto6.

Figure 2. Excerpt from Béla Bartók Sonata for Violin Solo Sz. 117. This is an example of
Bartók’s standard mature drafting process prior to the draft of his final works, written in ink pen.
It premiered November 1944 in New York. Page excerpted from the Paul Sacher Stiftung
Archive and Research Center via OMI – Old Manuscripts & Incunabula. Inc. https://
www.omifacsimiles.com/brochures/bartok_vs.html.

6 Béla Bartók, Béla Bartók Viola Concerto: Facsimile Edition of the Autograph Draft, 25.
 7

Figure 3. Excerpt from Béla Bartók Viola Concerto. This is an example of Bartók’s final work,
written with graphite pencil. The draft was active until his passing in September 1945. Page
excerpted from Béla Bartók Viola Concerto: Facsimile Edition of the Autograph Draft, prepared
by Nelson Dellamaggiore (New York: Bartók Records, 1995), 15.

Background: The Tibor Serly Edition

After Bela Bartok passed in 1945, the family called upon Tibor Serly to complete the

Third Piano Concerto as well as the Viola Concerto. He spent over 2 years working through the

Viola Concerto, and it was premiered on December 2, 1949 by William Primrose and the

Minnesota Symphony Orchestra with Antal Doráti conducting. Boosey & Hawkes published the

work in 19497.

The initial public perception of Serly’s edition was overwhelmingly positive, particularly

after the debut performance. Esteemed journals such as Tempo: A Quarterly Review of Modern

7 Béla Bartók, Viola Concerto ed. Tibor Serly (London: Boosey & Hawkes, 1949).
 8

Music8 and the Musical Courier9 applauded both the performance and Serly’s meticulous work

on the publication. However, it wasn't until Primrose's subsequent rendition of the concerto with

the NBC orchestra, conducted by Ernest Ansermet, that doubts regarding the authenticity of

Serly’s edition began to emerge within musical circles.

In a New York Times article published in February 1945, journalist Olin Downes

enthusiastically praises Primrose’s second performance of the Viola Concerto, but this article

also questions whether the concerto exists in the form that the composer intended. While he

maintains praise for Serly’s work, and offers recognition for the magnitude of his task as the

preparer, his apprehension at the validity of the edition represents that of many listeners at the

time10.

With a rising sense of apprehension with the most accessible version of Bartók’s Viola

Concerto, scholars began to search more deeply for the true intention of the work. American

music professor and musicologist Halsey Stevens published a book entitled The Life and Music

of Béla Bartók in 1953, in which he provides an exhaustive volume of information pertaining to

the composer’s character and experience, compositional work, and an in-depth evaluation of his

8 “The Bartók Viola Concerto,” Tempo: A Quarterly Review of Modern Music, no. 14 (1949): 1-
3, http://www.jstor.org/stable/943849.

9 T.L. “Minneapolis Premiéres Bartók Work,” Musical Courier, no. 141 (January 1950): 35.
10Olin Downes, “Primrose Excels in Bartok’s Work; Plays Bartok Work,” New York Times,
February 12, 1950, https://www.nytimes.com/1950/02/12/archives/primrose-excels-in-bartoks-
work-plays-bartok-work.html?searchResultPosition=1.
 9

music. Within this book, Stevens includes analysis of the Viola Concerto and notes the

circumstances of its preparation and publication by Tibor Serly. Stevens refers to the text

displayed at the top of the original printed score, “Prepared for publication from the composer’s

original manuscript”11. He expresses the inaccuracy of this portrayal, denoting the distortion that

this description has on the reality of Serly’s involvement, which included editing, orchestration,

and reconstruction. He asserts that the most authentic movement in the concerto is the finale, in

which you can hear Bartók’s true intentions coming to the surface.

In an article published over 20 years later, Serly defends his musical choices with direct

reference to Steven’s statements. Perhaps in an effort to discredit the judgement of the author, or

as a resistance to years of suspicion against him, Serly addresses his work on the third

movement: “It is almost ironic that Stevens gives credit and authenticity to the only movement

which, though completed to the last measure, was nevertheless rushed through, with a good part

of the movement consisting merely of a single melody line”12. He then addresses the inscription

on the published score, explaining the mutual effort among The Bartók Estate, Boosey &

Hawkes, and Serly himself. He concedes that, following a series of conferences, he was

persuaded to accept the consequent published inscription. Serly proceeds to address each

individual change made between the draft and publication, providing analysis and detailed

explanation to his decisions. This document is of great importance in the study of this concerto

11 Béla Bartók, Viola Concerto, ed. Tibor Serly.

Tibor Serly, “A Belated Account of the Reconstruction of a 20th Century Masterpiece” College
12

Music Symposium 15 (1975).

 10

and offers both personal and analytical value to the scholarly pursuit of the manuscript and the

original published edition.

Background: The Peter Bartók Edition

Criticism of Serly’s work continued for years, and still persists today, with many

musicologists and musicians creating their own versions of the concerto based on the manuscript

and their own knowledge of Bela Bartok’s work. Among the most respected versions is that of

Béla Bartók’s son, Peter Bartók, in collaboration with Nelson Dellamaggiore, and with the help

of violist Paul Neubauer. This edition diverges significantly from the Serly edition,

encompassing alterations in specific pitches, inclusion of additional passages, and removal of

passages initially introduced by Serly. It was published by Boosey & Hawkes in 1995, 46 years

after the original publication. In the editorial notes of Peter Bartok’s edition, he writes:

Bartók’s sketch was written for his own use with a varying degree of precision; it was to
be clarified in the next draft, presumably a final full score. In some instances it is
impossible to determine simply through examination of the manuscript which versions of
alternative notes or passages Bartók eventually would have chosen13.

This is followed by a list of decisions made by the editors that were based on patterns previously

set by Bartók.

Analysis: The Tibor Serly Edition vs The Peter Bartók Edition

Béla Bartók, Viola Concerto ed. Nelson Dellamaggiore and Peter Bartók (London: Boosey &
13

Hawkes, 1995).
 11

There are several technical, structural, and musical differences between both Boosey &

Hawkes’ editions. A thorough examination of these differences reveals distinct editorial

philosophies guiding each publication. Peter Bartók's approach appears steadfastly faithful to the

composer's original manuscript, prioritizing an accurate transcription of Bartók's intentions onto

the page. Conversely, Tibor Serly's editorial decisions seem driven by a desire to realize Bartók's

unfinished vision in a manner consistent with the composer's style and methodology, as he

believed Bartók would have done himself (see table 1).

 12

Table 1. This table highlights the most notable differences between the published editions by
Tibor Serly and Peter Bartók and presents these alongside Béla Bartók’s original draft. This table
excludes editorial suggestions of bowings, fingerings, and phrasing as well as orchestral
differences, which are plentiful between editions. This table also excludes differences in tempo
markings.
Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft
Movement I
m. 10. The sixth note of the m. 10. The sixth note of the p. 2. No accidental is included,
measure is E-flat. measure is E-natural. all previous notes of the same
pitch are written as E-flat.

mm. 21-22. A sixteenth rest is mm. 21-22. No sixteenth rests p. 1. No rests included.
included within both measures. included.
 13

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

m. 37. All B-sharps in this m. 37. All B-sharps in this p. 1. All B-sharps in this
measure are in the 4th octave. measure are in the 3rd octave. measure are in the register B-
sharp3.

mm. 39-40. Measure 39 does mm. 39-40. Measure 39 p. 1. Octaves are not included.
not include octaves. Measure contains octaves within the A three-note chord ends the
40 contains a double-stop on first beat. Measure 40 phrase.
the final beat. contains a three-note chord in
the final beat.

m. 42. Does not include a m. 42. Includes a double-stop. p. 1. Does not include a
double-stop. double-stop.
 14

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

m. 43. Does not include a m. 43. Includes a double-stop. p. 1. Does not include a
double-stop. double-stop.

m. 44. Does not include a m. 44. Includes a double stop p. 9. Includes a double-stop on
double-stop on the third triplet. on the third triplet. the third triplet.

mm. 53-54. Viola ends the mm. 53-55. Viola ends phrase p. 9. An arrow may indicate
phrase in m. 54. in m. 55. that the viola should continue
this line, similar to the Peter
Bartók edition.
 15

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

m. 61. Grace note included m. 61. No grace note included p. 9. No grace note included
before the first note. before the first note. before the first note.

m. 67. Includes two groups of m. 68. Separates into its own p. 10. Three triplets are
triplets at the end of the measure of three triplets written, with the second one
measure. crossed out, but marked
“marad” - stays.

m. 70. The second note of each m. 71. The second note of p. 10. The second note of each
triplet belongs to the 4th each triplet belongs to the 3rd triplet belongs to the 3rd
octave, the 11th note of the octave. The 11th note of the octave. The 11th note of the
measure is a B-natural. measure is an A-natural. measure is an A-natural.
 16

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

mm. 73-74. An additional 4/4 m. 74. Only one 4/4 measure p. 10. Only one 4/4 measure
measure is present in this makes up this passage. makes up this passage.
passage.

m. 89. See image for pitch m. 89. See image for pitch p. 10. Bartók’s draft most
discrepancies. discrepancies. closely resembles the Peter
Bartók edition in this passage.

m. 103. See image for pitch m. 103. See image for pitch p. 11. Bartók’s draft most
discrepancies in beats 2-4. discrepancies in beats 2-4. closely resembles the Peter
Bartók edition in this passage.
 17

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

mm. 106-107. The last pitch of mm. 106-107. The last pitch p. 11. Bartók’s draft most
m. 106 is D. Measure 107 is of m. 106 is G-sharp. Measure closely resembles the Peter
written largely in the 4th and 107 is written largely in the Bartók edition in this passage
5th octave. 4th octave.

m. 112. Double stops are m. 112. Double stops are not p. 11. Double stops are not
included in this measure. included in this measure. included in this measure.

m. 116. Double stops are m. 116. Double stops are not p. 11. Double stops are not
included in this measure. included in this measure. included in this measure.
 18

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

m. 117. This passage is written m. 117. Note that this measure p. 11. Note that this measure is
in the 4th through 6th octaves. is alto clef. This passage is alto clef. This passage is
written in the 3rd through 6th written in the 3rd through 6th
octaves. octaves.

m. 123. The first pitch in this m. 123. The first pitch in this p. 11. The first pitch in this
measure is G. measure is A. measure is not certain.

m. 130. The third note (A) is in m. 130. The third note (A) is p. 11. The third note (A) is in
the 4th octave. in the 5th octave. the 5th octave.
 19

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

m. 131. Double stops are m. 131. Triple stops are p. 11. Triple stops are included
included in this measure. included in this measure. in this measure.

m. 141. See image for pitch m. 141. See image for pitch p. 13. Bartók’s draft most
discrepancies. discrepancies. closely resembles the Peter
Bartók edition in this passage.

m. 143. Additional measure not

present in the manuscript.
 20

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

m. 162. The beginning of the m. 161. The beginning of the p. 13. The beginning of the
measure includes a double-stop. measure includes a triple-stop. measure includes a triple-stop.

m. 163. This measure does not m. 162. This measure includes p. 13. This measure includes a
include a double-stop. a double-stop. double-stop

m. 164. This measure does not m. 163. This measure includes p. 13. This measure includes a
include a double-stop. a double-stop. double-stop.
 21

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

m. 165. This passage is largely m. 164. This passage is p. 13. This passage is largely
written within the 4th octave. largely written within the 3rd written within this 3rd octave.
octave.

m. 167. The first two beats of m. 166. The first two beats of p. 14. The first two beats of
this measure are written in the this measure are written in the this measure are written in the
5th octave. 4th octave. 4th octave.

m. 186. A double-stop is m. 184. No double-stop is p. 14. No double-stop is

included on the last half not of included in the measure. included in the measure.
the measure.
 22

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

m. 221. See images for m. 219. See images for p. 15. Bartók’s draft most
discrepancies in this passage. discrepancies in this passage. closely resembles the Peter
Bartók edition in this passage.

m. 241. See images for m. 238. See images for p. 15. At first glance, Bartók’s
discrepancies in this passage. discrepancies in this passage. draft most closely resembles
Note: There is an editorial the Tibor Serly edition in this
note pertaining to this passage. However, the note
measure. “skala legle” scale all the way
down indicates that the passage
continues.
 23

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

mm. 245-246. See images for m. 242. See images for p. 15. Bartók’s draft most
discrepancies in this passage. discrepancies in this passage. closely resembles the Tibor
Serly edition in this passage.

Movement II
m. 19. The second measure of m. 19. The second measure of p. 3. The intentions of this
this passage includes a tied this passage includes two half passage are ambiguous.
quarter note in the first beat. notes.
 24

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

m. 21. This measure includes a m. 21. This measure includes p. 3. This measure includes a
quintuplet. a triplet followed by two triplet followed by two eighth
eighth notes. notes.

m. 24. The third beat of this m. 24. The third beat of this p. 3. The intentions of this
measure includes a triplet. bar includes two eighth notes. passage are ambiguous.

mm. 54-57. This passage is mm. 54-57. This passage is p. 3. This passage is written
written largely in the 4th and written largely in the 5th and largely in the 5th and 6th
5th octaves. There is a quarter 6th octaves. There is a quarter octaves. There is a quarter note
note (G) in the last beat of the note rest at the end of the rest at the end of the passage.
passage. passage.
 25

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

mm. 70-74. This passage mm. 68-72. This passage p. 2. This passage includes the
includes mostly 3-note chords. includes the open C string at open C string at the bottom of
the bottom of most chords. most chords.

mm. 75-78. This passage mm. 73-76. This passage does p. 2. This passage does not
includes the open C string at not include the open C string. include the open C string.
the bottom of some chords.

m. 85. This measure includes m. 83. This measure includes p. 2.This measure includes one
two eighth notes at the end of one quarter note at the end of quarter note at the end of the
the measure. the measure. measure.
 26

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

Movement III
m. 1. This edition includes the m.1. The viola does not enter p. 2. The viola does not enter
downbeat of the first measure until the fifth measure. There on the downbeat of the first
as a transition from the second are 16 transitional measures at measure. The transition
movement. the end of the second between movements is
movement. ambiguous.

mm. 18-21. This passage does mm. 18-20. This passage p. 4. This passage includes the
not ascend past the 5th octave. includes the 6th octave. 6th octave and does not
There is a separation of two include the separation that
quarter note rests before the appears in the Serly edition.
end of the passage.
 27

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

m. 43. This measure jumps m. 43. This measure stays p. 4. Bartók indicates that the
from the 5th octave to the 6th within the 6th octave. measure before should be
octave. played an octave higher. The
Peter Bartók edition is the
closest to the original in this
case.

mm. 48-49. This passage mm. 48-49. This passage ends p. 4. This passage ends in the
ascends into the 5th octave. in the 4th octave. 4th octave.

mm. 80-81. The second beat of mm. 80-81. The second beat p. 5. The second beat of this
this measure echoes the first in of this measure echoes the measure echoes the first in the
the next highest octave. first in the same octave. same octave.
 28

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

mm. 109-110. This passage mm. 109-110. This passage p. 5. This passage ends with a
ends with a harmonic on the 7th ends with a harmonic in the harmonic in the 6th octave.
octave. 6th octave.

mm. 124-132. This passage is mm. 125-133. This passage is p. 5. This passage most closely
written a half-step higher than written a half-step lower than resembles the Peter Bartók
the Peter Bartók edition. the Tibor Serly edition. edition.

mm. 142-150. This passage is mm. 143-151. This passage is p. 5. This passage most closely
written within the 4th and 5th written within the 5th and 6th resembles the Peter Bartók
octaves. octaves. edition.
 29

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

mm. 178-180. This passage Mm. 178-180. This passage p. 6. This passage does not
includes octaves. does not include octaves. include octaves.

mm. 191-195. This passage is mm. 191-195. This passage is p. 6. This passage is written
written within the 4th and 5th written within the 3rd and 4th within the 3rd and 4th octave.
octave. octave.

m. 197. Additional measure not

present in the manuscript.
 30

Tibor Serly Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

mm. 198-212. Octaves are mm. 198-203. No octaves are p. 6. This passage does not
included throughout this present. The passage is 5 include octaves.The passage is
passage. Eight additional measures long. 5 measures long.
measures extend this excerpt.

mm. 232-236. This passage mm. 224-228. This passage p. 7. This passage stays within
jumps between the 3rd and 4th stays within the 3rd and 4th the 3rd and 4th octaves.
octaves. Jumping up and octaves.
descending from the 5th octave
in the last two measures.

mm. 237-240. The Tibor Serly mm. 228-232. The Peter p. 7. Bartók wrote four
edition includes five sixteenth Bartók edition includes four sixteenth notes per grouping.
notes in every grouping. sixteenth notes per grouping.
 31

Among the purposeful changes made by Serly in his reconstruction, there are also some

unintentional errors. One of the most significant misinterpretations discovered by violist Donald

Maurice involves the tempo markings of each movement. In the draft, Bartók included very

specific timing indicators for each movement. The following time indicators fall in order of

movements, from beginning to end: 10’20”, 5’10”, 4’45” (see figure 4). After making the

calculations in the very specific tempo markings in Serly’s edition, it occurred to Maurice that he

misread the time indicator for the second movement as 3’10”. This tempo marking has a great

effect on the character of the second movement, and it is a change that Maurice made in his own

unpublished edition14. It is also important to note that Bartók himself did not include any tempo

or style indicators such as the Adagio religioso in the second movement. This was a judgement

made by Serly as the preparer, judging solely from the timing indicators left on the top of a page

of the draft15.

14 Maurice, Bartok’s Viola Concerto: The Remarkable Story of His Swansong, 115.

15 Béla Bartók, Béla Bartók Viola Concerto: Facsimile Edition of the Autograph Draft, 19.
 32

Figure 4. Timing indications from the manuscript draft of the Béla Bartók Viola Concerto.

As an example of the difference in editorial philosophy between the editions in question,

I have extracted one discrepancy from Table 1 (see figure 5a, 5b) to view in more detail. In this

example, it is clear that Serly has composed a measure of his own volition, one that was not

created by Béla Bartók himself. This is an excerpt that Serly defends in his aforementioned

article (see figure 5c). In this passage, Serly says “This extension was added to provide more

brilliance in the viola’s climb to the high G-sharp”16.

Tibor Serly, “A Belated Account of the Reconstruction of a 20th Century Masterpiece” College
16

Music Symposium 15 (1975).

 33

Figure 5a: Discrepancy between the Tibor Serly and Peter Bartók editions. The red arrow
indicates a measure that was composed by Serly in his edition of the Bartók Viola Concerto.

Figure 5b: Béla Bartók Viola Concerto Excerpt - first movement. Page excerpted from Béla
Bartók Viola Concerto: Facsimile Edition of the Autograph Draft, prepared by Nelson
Dellamaggiore (New York: Bartók Records, 1995), 13.
 34

Figure 5c. Excerpt from Tibor Serly’s “A Belated Account of the Reconstruction of a 20th
Century Masterpiece.”.

It is clear that Serly has done painstaking and thoughtful work to bring this concerto to

the public, and his efforts to present Bartók’s final composition are a substantial contribution to

the viola repertoire. He made decisions that may have deviated from the composer’s intentions,

or mistakes that transformed different aspects of the piece and the result of these decisions are

grounds for generations of debate and revision. However, the work Serly has done to reconstruct

this draft has been an invaluable cause of its great popularity and circulation.

Additional points of reference offer valuable insights into Bartók's compositional ethos

and aesthetic evolution over his career. Notably, music commentator M.-D Calvocoressi's 1929

interview with the composer, originally published in The Daily Telegraph, serves as a rich source

of information elucidating Bartók's creative processes, particularly in relation to piano and string
 35

compositions. This conversation is accompanied by insightful commentary from esteemed

Bartók scholar, Australian musicologist and linguist Malcolm Gillies17. Interviews conducted

directly with the composer could have significantly influenced the editorial decisions made by

Peter Bartók and Tibor Serly in completing the composer’s work.

Background: The Csaba Erdélyi Edition

Although the Peter Bartók and Tibor Serly editions are frequently performed, several

alternative publications aspire to authentically capture the essence of the Viola Concerto

according to their distinct editorial philosophies. Csaba Erdélyi's restoration of the autograph

draft, released in 1992, preceded the Peter Bartók edition by three years. Despite its earlier

publication date, Erdélyi's version has taken considerably longer to gain traction in the

performance hall, and it remains to be performed less often. In the foreword of this edition, the

editor articulates his intentions:

My motivation in undertaking this critical restoration was the discovery that the Boosey
& Hawkes publication contains many divergences from Bartok’s manuscript. All the
performance indications - reflecting as they do the personalities of Serly and Primrose -
and several editorially composed passages, are printed as if they were the composer’s
own intentions. Whilst we have no power to bring Bartok back to give us his definitive
version, I believe we must follow as closely as we can the notes he did write. What
remains is a very powerful and concise concerto18.

17Malcolm Gillies, “A Conversation with Bartók: 1929” The Musical Times, vol. 128, no. 1736
(1987).
18 Béla Bartók, Viola Concerto ed. Csaba Erdélyi (Wellington, NZ: Promethean Editions, 1992).
 36

Analysis: The Csaba Erdélyi Edition vs The Peter Bartók Edition

Numerous parallels can be drawn between Csaba Erdélyi's edition and Peter Bartók's

rendition of the Viola Concerto. A comparative analysis reveals a striking degree of similarity,

indicating a shared editorial philosophy between the two editors (see Table 2).

Table 2. This table highlights the most notable differences between the published editions by
Peter Bartók and Csaba Erdélyi alongside Béla Bartók’s original draft. This table excludes
editorial suggestions of bowings, fingerings, and phrasing as well as orchestral differences. This
table also excludes differences in tempo markings.
Csaba Erdélyi Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft
Movement I
mm. 39. Measure 39 does not m 39. Measure 39 contains p. 1. Octaves are not
include octaves. octaves within the first beat. included.

mm. 53-54. Viola ends the phrase mm. 53-55. Viola ends the p. 9. An arrow may indicate
in m. 54. phrase in m. 55. that the viola should
continue this line, similar to
the Peter Bartók edition.
 37

Csaba Erdélyi Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

m. 106. The last pitch of m. 106 is m. 106. The last pitch of m. p. 11. Bartók’s draft most
G-sharp in the 4th octave. 106 is G-sharp in the 5th closely resembles the Peter
octave. Bartók edition in this
passage.

m. 161. The first beat of the m. 161. The first beat of the p. 13. The first beat of the
measure includes the pitches G-E- measure includes the pitches measure includes somewhat
A. E-E-A. ambiguous pitches, but most
closely resembles the Peter
Bartók edition.

m. 182. The half-note in this m. 184. The half-note in this p. 14. No double-stop is
measure is a double-stop. measure is not a double- included in the measure.
stop.
 38

Csaba Erdélyi Peter Bartók Béla Bartók Draft

mm. 239-240. The viola continues mm. 240-241 The viola p. 15. Bartók’s draft most
through m. 240 drops out in m. 240 and the closely resembles the Csaba
horns take over in m. 241. Erdélyi edition in this
passage.

Movement II
mm. 68-76. This edition indicates mm. 68-76. This edition p. 2. The draft does not
pizzicato strumming in this section. does not indicate pizzicato indicate pizzicato in this
strumming in this section. section.

Movement III
m. 237. Includes a rest in the m. 237. Does not include a p. 7. Indicates a repetition of
second beat. rest in the second beat, but the first beat, an octave
repeats the first beat an down (not pictured: 8va
octave lower. written above the staff
before this selection).
 39

The Csaba Erdélyi and Peter Bartók editions share a remarkable resemblance, differing in

only eight notable aspects. This close alignment suggests a strong fidelity to Bartók's original

intent, with most variations likely stemming from differing interpretations of his handwritten

notes.

Conclusion

For the violist who approaches this work wondering which edition they should study, it is

a difficult question to answer. Should one seek fidelity to the original manuscript draft, the

editions by Peter Bartók and Csaba Erdélyi stand as the closest available options. Alternatively,

placing trust in Tibor Serly's discernment offers insight into Bartók's artistic intentions. Notably,

there exists a marked contrast in readability between the editions. The Tibor Serly edition

emerges as more accessible, thanks to its attention to subtle nuances like enharmonic accidentals

and reminder accidentals, profoundly enhancing the piece's readability.

Some violists choose to create their own personal version of the Concerto by adding

performance notes to their chosen foundational edition. Appendix A features additional insights

into the Concerto provided by esteemed violist Luosha Fang, known for her extensive

interpretations of the Bartók Viola Concerto over the course of her illustrious career. Trained

under the renowned violist Nobuko Imai, who had direct correspondence with Peter Bartók

during the development of his edition, Fang's contributions offer valuable perspectives on the

work. Meanwhile, Appendix B presents the marked Tibor Serly edition, as performed by Eugene

Lehner, a Hungarian violinist, violist, and esteemed music educator. Lehner, acclaimed for his

premieres of significant works and his tenure as violist in the esteemed Kolisch Quartet, provides
 40

annotations that he maintains stem directly from Bartók himself, enhancing our understanding of

the composition.

The final page of the Viola Concerto draft exposes Bartók’s urgency to complete this

work. His handwriting becomes chaotic, and his ideas fragmented and dislocated (see figure 6).

It varies drastically from the typical drafting we see from the mature composer, and even against

the earlier pages within this concerto. While there is great access to the composer’s personal

correspondence, and no shortage of witnesses to his life and work, this draft as an independent

source represents much of the end of Bartók’s final months. With the knowledge of his

environmental and physical condition at this stage, one might consider this page as the

composer’s last frantic attempt to leave behind something of himself.

Figure 6. Béla Bartók Viola Concerto Excerpt – third movement. Page excerpted from Béla
Bartók Viola Concerto: Facsimile Edition of the Autograph Draft, prepared by Nelson
Dellamaggiore (New York: Bartók Records, 1995), 13.
 41

This controversy between editions and revisions opens up a broader discussion on how

we handle the unfinished work of a composer who is no longer with us. In this case, there is a

great deal of insight into the composer’s disposition and style, and the work had reached a certain

level of completion where the overall form is discernible. These circumstances are variable, and

it is difficult to adhere to any standard or method when dealing with posthumous editions. It is a

universal experience to grieve over the unexpected passing of a loved one, and people often feel

as though there was more to be done, or more to be said. In the case of Béla Bartók, this is

palpable even in the final months of the composer’s life.

 42

Bibliography

Antokoletz, Elliot and Paulo Susanni. Béla Bartok: A Research and Information Guide, 3rd ed.
New York: Routledge. 2011.

Antokoletz, Elliot. The Music of Béla Bartók: A Study of Tonality and Progression in Twentieth-
Century Music. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. 1984.

Bartók, Béla. Béla Bartók Viola Concerto: Facsimile Edition of the Autograph Draft. Prepared
by Nelson Dellamaggiore. New York: Bartók Records. 1995.

Bartók, Béla. Viola Concerto. ed. Csaba Erdélyi. Wellington, NZ: Promethean Editions. 1992.

Bartók, Béla. Viola Concerto. ed. Nelson Dellamaggiore and Peter Bartók. London: Boosey &
Hawkes. 1995.

Bartók, Béla. Viola Concerto. ed. Tibor Serly. London: Boosey & Hawkes. 1949.

Bartók, Béla. Sonata for Violin Solo Sz. 117. Manuscript score. Basel, Switzerland: Paul Sacher
Stiftung Foundation. 1944.

Downes, Olin. “Primrose Excels in Bartok's Work; Plays Bartok Work.” New York Times,
February 12, 1950. https://www.nytimes.com/1950/02/12/archives/primrose-excels-in-
bartoks-work-plays-bartok-work.html?searchResultPosition=1.

Driver, Wilhelmine Creel. Journal of Research in Music Education 1, no. 2 (1953): 145–48.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3344554.

Gillies, Malcolm. “A Conversation with Bartók: 1929.” The Musical Times vol. 128, no. 1736.
1987.

Gillies, Malcolm. Bartók Remembered. New York: W.W. Norton. 1991.

Gillies, Malcolm. The Bartók Companion. London: Faber and Faber Ltd. 1993.

Juhász, Vilmos, ed. Bartók’s Years in America. Washington, D.C.: Occidental Press, 1981.

Kovács, Sándor. “Reexamining the Bartók/Serly Viola Concerto.” Studia Musicologica

Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 23, no. 1/4 (1981): 295–322. https://doi.org/
10.2307/902115.

Maurice, Donald. Bartók’s Viola Concerto: The Remarkable Story of His Swansong. New York:
Oxford University Press. 2004.

Primrose, William. Walk on the North Side: Memoirs of a Violist. Provo, UT: Brigham Young
University Press. 1978.
 43

Serly, Tibor. “A Belated Account of the Reconstruction of a 20th Century Masterpiece.” College
Music Symposium 15 (1975). http://www.jstor.org/stable/40375086.

Stevens, Halsey. The Life and Music of Béla Bartók. London: Oxford University Press. 1964.

“The Bartók Viola Concerto.” Tempo: A Quarterly Review of Modern Music, no. 14 (1949): 1–3.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/943849.

T.L. “Minneapolis Premiéres Bartók Work.” Musical Courier, No. 141, (January 1950): 35.