Newly discovered recordings of Schoenberg conducting Pierrot lunaire open a window into the workshop of Arnold Schoenberg (the conductor) and Erika Stiedry-Wagner (who performed the Sprechstimme). These recordings reveal that in a period of not more than three days, Schoenberg accepted relatively great freedom in the Sprechstimme pitch contour; as well as a contradictory tendency towards consistency and a certain systematic approach towards pitch, which does not always adhere to the score.

Before examining the recordings it was not possible to know whether the relation between the performed Sprechstimme and the score was controlled, systematic, or simply a matter of chance. The recordings shed new light on what has been described by Boulez, Stadlen and others as the “Sprechstimme enigma”: namely, how Schoenberg expected the Sprechstimme to be performed. The history of Schoenberg’s writings on Sprechstimme demonstrates that his perception of it changed along with the development of his performance aesthetics in general.

Based on evidence from the recordings as well as on recent performance studies theory, I will claim that the Sprechstimme enigma is greatly clarified when one understands that there are simultaneously two types of notation in Pierrot lunaire: one for the instruments that tends towards a reproduction of a sound object, and another for the Sprechstimme which involves a process of greater real-time interaction between performer and score. Although the Sprechstimme from the workshop of Schoenberg and Stiedry-Wagner may be regarded as an extreme case study, it magnifies in a way what also happens in performances of other types of music.

Click here to read the article ‘The Test Pressings of Schoenberg Conducting Pierrot lunaire: Sprechstimme Reconsidered‘