Peer Gynt: Comparison of first edition (1908) to urtext (1988)

“What movements are actually in Grieg’s complete Peer Gynt? Which edition has which movements, and where do they differ? What do I do?” – everyone ever

Edvard Grieg’s Peer Gynt, Op. 23 is usually seen only in “suite” form (Grieg created two suites covering a small portion of the total music.) The full collection of music in Op. 23 is incredibly compelling, but the various editions include different movements and present a confusing network of conflicting music. On IMSLP, for instance, there are three engraved scores: a 1908 first edition Peters, a 1908 Kalmus reprint of the Peters (both of these I will refer to as the “1908 first edition” since the content is virtually identical), and a 1988 urtext Peters edition. These two versions—the 1908 and 1988 publications—are wildly different, and this is very confusing for conductors, performers, and anyone else attempting to understand the broader content of Grieg’s Op. 23. Simply figuring out what the differences are between these versions takes hours and hours of careful comparison. The below document is meant to help speed up that process for any interested musician or music-lover hoping to get to know Grieg’s Peer Gynt a bit better. It is not a discussion of the reasons for or history behind the discrepancies, but rather a mapping of them.

Edvard Grieg: Peer Gynt, op. 23

Comparison of the contents of the first edition (1908) and the urtext edition (1988)

While the first edition (1908) and urtext edition (1988) claim 23 and 26 movements, respectively, there is confusing overlap and nonoverlap between those movements. This table aims to clarify basic questions about how the editions correspond. There are, in fact, 28 unique movements of music represented across the two editions, or 30 if we count the editions’ versions of “Peer Gynt jags av troll” and the editions’ versions of “Solveigs vuggevise” as fully independent versions (many differences abound in those movements; see the footnotes.)

Notes:

  • Movements sharing the same row are the same music, even if titles differ.

  • Titles written are the Norwegian titles. Spellings sometimes differ due to changes in Norwegian orthography between the first edition (1908) and the urtext (1988). For instance, the character “å” entered use in Norwegian as a replacement of “aa” only in 1917.

  • Numbers reflect the printed movement numbers in the respective edition.

  • This overview comparison does not consider detailed edits and revisions such as articulation and dynamics.

Note: 1908 #10 and 1988 #20, in green, are the same music, simply placed in different locations.

* per the first edition: “The orchestral transcription of this well-known Grieg piano piece was inserted by the composer at this point. The orchestration is by Johan Halvorsen.”

** literally, “girls of the seter”, referring to a traditional Scandinavian summer farm for milk and other livestock use. “Æ” fell out of use, and “gjenterne” is an old form of the modern “jentene”, the plural form of “girl”.

*** the 1988 #10 is fully reengraved compared to 1908 #9b, and the content is largely altered. The main differences: 1988 #10 is longer with extensive additions, some dynamics are altered or clarified in 1988 #10, and the chorus of young trolls is notated with pitches/rhythms in 1988 #10 rather than just as nondescript spoken interjections. Notably, one troll interjection is declaimed twice in the notated 1988 where the 1908 only calls for it to be stated once. Alignment of the text vis-à-vis the orchestra in the notated-out 1988 is also often different than what the text alignment in the 1908 would suggest. Since the material is so dramatically different, the rehearsal letters do not correspond.

**** this music is related to the 1908 movement #11 of the same name, but not identical. This is a reorchestrated version of 1908 #11, now including voice. The present two movements—1908 #18 and 1988 #19—differ only in that the dramatic direction regarding staging and scenery present at the top of 1908 #18 is removed in 1988 #19. Mm. 52 and 54 also contain new tempo markings in 1988 #19.

† while the melodic/sung content of these movements is largely the same, the rest of the musical text is starkly different: the 1988 urtext score includes a scoring for violins, violas, and cellos, where the original 1908 first edition prints the melody alone without any instrumental accompaniment.

†† while the music of these movements (1908 #22 and 1988 #25) is related, there are major differences. The 1908 movement is for unison choir with piano accompaniment, whereas the 1988 movement is rewritten for 4-part SATB chorus without accompaniment. The 1988 choral voicings are largely based on the piano accompaniment from 1908.

††† while these two movements begin with equivalent musical material and are named similarly, they are not the same music. Their endings differ dramatically, and the 1988 adds chorus echoing material from 1988 #25 between Solveig’s phrases.

The Tristan Lineage: Generalized Slide Transformations in Wagner

Grounded in a Neo-Riemannian analysis of three related transformational phenomena throughout Walküre, Tristan, and Parsifal, I introduce a generalized conception of the “slide” transformation, illustrating that such an analytical approach directly implicates Freud’s conception of the “uncanny” throughout Wagner’s mature works.

Read more

Symmetry from Asymmetry: Brahms's Language

Now we can view the two syntaxes in light of the characteristics they possess: Brahms uses tonality as a strong gravitational force, whereas he calls on voice-leading transformations to neutralize those tonal tendencies. Contrary to intuition, this culture of the syntaxes is not by nature. Indeed, tonality can serve as a means for the most outlandish of modulations (à la Reger’s Modulation), while even bizarre Riemannian transformations can serve to prop up a gravitational tonality rather than deactivate it

Read more

Beethoven's First Symphony, movement 1 (part 2: development, recap, and coda)

Beethoven employs what I might propose be termed a “staggered crux,” one in which harmonic-functional correspondence and motivic correspondence resume at different times (we could call them the “partial crux” and the “full crux”). This is perhaps the most tactful option for Beethoven given the exposition’s use of I: HC to announce the medial caesura.

Read more

Beethoven's First Symphony, movement 1 (part 1: intro and exposition)

We might picture a youthful, unfledged character in this opening gesture, somewhat facetiously reiterating this simple punctuation mark as if discovering its use for the first time. The woodwinds in mm. 17-18 use the familiar ascending I – V7/ii – ii chord progression to “notch” the tonicized center up to d minor—yet another punctuation mark, perhaps now the exclamation point, for our amused friend to spam.

Read more

Tchaikovsky's Fourth: a narrative reflection

As the second theme begins, however, with a somewhat ominous five-note descending scalar pattern repeated over and over again, we get the sense that this is an unsolicited voice over Tchaikovsky’s shoulder rudely trying to bring him back to reality. The fate motive is, as of yet, nowhere to be found, but the omen nonetheless foreshadows the worst. We rotate through these two materials—ecstasy and crude realism—once again, before the worst possible thing happens.

Read more