BENJAMIN BRITTEN’S NEGLECTED GEMINI VARIATIONS, OP. 73 AND

ITS PLACE IN THE CHAMBER MUSIC REPERTOIRE

Charles Gibb, B.M., B.A., M.M.

Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

May 2020

APPROVED:

James Scott, Co-Chair Terri Sundberg, Co-Chair Eugene Corporon, Committee Member Natalie Mannix, Interim Chair of the Division of Instrumental Studies Felix Olschofka, Director of Graduate Studies in the College of Music John Richmond, Dean of the College of Music Victor Prybutok, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School

Gibb, Charles. Benjamin Britten’s Neglected “Gemini Variations,” Op. 73 and Its Place in the Chamber Music Repertoire. Doctor of Musical Arts (Performance), May 2020, 70 pp., 46 musical examples, bibliography, 48 titles.

In 1964, Benjamin Britten met the multi-instrumentalist twins Zoltán and Gábor Jeney while traveling in Budapest. At their behest, Britten composed Gemini Variations: Twelve

Variations and Fugue on an Epigram by Kodály, a work which exploited the brothers’ abilities on multiple instruments: Zoltán on flute and piano, and Gábor on violin and piano. In foreseeing the difficulties of programming this work, Britten simultaneously arranged a version for four players: flute, violin, and four-hand piano, eliminating the need for switching instruments.

Despite this arrangement, as well as a very public and highly anticipated premiere at the

Aldeburgh Festival in 1965, Gemini Variations has remained neglected by performers and scholars alike. This document serves to 1) promote a work that can justifiably be considered as part of the chamber music repertoire involving flute; 2) advocate for its musical merit and appropriateness for chamber music concerts made up of more traditional groups of players; 3) compare the two-player and four-player versions Britten wrote; and 4) explore the likely reasons why a piece by one of the most celebrated composers of the twentieth century has remained largely ignored for over fifty years.

Copyright 2020

By

Charles E. Gibb

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to my family. Thanks Mom, Dad, Nico, and Liam for indulging me and supporting me. This wouldn’t have happened without you all.

To my teachers: Margaret Irwin and Marcia Metzger who began it all. Catherine Ramirez who started the fire, and to all of the invaluable professors and teachers who have guided me along the way: Jeni-Lyn Starr, Dennis Lindsay, Jerry Jones, Timothy Mahr, Steven Amundson, the late Alice M. Hanson, Conor Nelson, Terri Sundberg, and James Scott.

Thank you to Zoltán and Gábor Jeney, to whom Gemini Variations is dedicated, for their knowledge, recommendations, and suggestions in the correspondence we shared as I made my way through this incredible project.

Many thanks to Faber Music for granting their permission in order to reproduce score examples in this document.

Score Examples from Gemini Variations Copyright 1965/1966 by Faber Music Ltd, London Reproduced by kind permission of the publishers

And thank you to my committee. Your guidance and hard work are greatly appreciated:

Dr. James Scott

Professor Terri Sundberg

Professor Eugene Migliaro Corporon

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii

LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES ...... v

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER 2. ORIGINS AND PREMIERE OF GEMINI VARIATIONS ...... 4

CHAPTER 3. HISTORICAL PAUCITY OF RECORDINGS AND PERFORMANCES ...... 7

CHAPTER 4. STRUCTURE AND ANALYSIS OF GEMINI VARIATIONS ...... 13

CHAPTER 5. ANALYSIS OF 2-PLAYER VERSUS 4-PLAYER VERSIONS ...... 48

CHAPTER 6. MUSICAL MERIT AND COMPARISON TO BRITTEN’S OTHER WORKS… ...... 57

CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION...... 65

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 68

iv LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES

Page

Example 4-1: Cell A and Cell B ...... 13

Example 4-2: Kodály’s Epigrams Op. 54, Mvt 4, mm. 1-5...... 14

Example 4-3: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Theme, mm. 1-5 ...... 16

Example 4-4: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Theme, mm. 16-20 ...... 17

Example 4-5: Cell A Intervallic Relationships in the First Two Gestures of Variation 1 ...... 18

Example 4-6: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 1, mm. 1-10 ...... 19

Example 4-7: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 1, mm. 40-50 ...... 20

Example 4-8: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 2, mm. 1-8 ...... 21

Example 4-9: Transformation of Cell A in Variation 2 ...... 22

Example 4-10: Transformation of Cell B in Variation 2, Violin ...... 23

Example 4-11: Transformation of Cell B in Variation 2, mm. 26-30 ...... 23

Example 4-12: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 3, mm. 19-37 ...... 24

Example 4-13: Transformation of Cell A in Variation 3 ...... 25

Example 4-14: Transformation of Cell A and Cell B in Variation 4, mm. 1-7 ...... 26

Example 4-15: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 4, mm. 14-26 ...... 26

Example 4-16: Transformation of Cell A and Cell B in Variation 5, mm. 1-3 ...... 27

Example 4-17: Transformation of Cell B in Variation 5, mm. 23-24 ...... 28

Example 4-18: Transformation of Cells A and B in Variation 6, mm.1-5 ...... 29

Example 4-19: Reflected Transformations of Cell A in Variation 6, mm.5-8 ...... 30

Example 4-20: Transformation of Cells A and B in Variation 7, mm. 1-4 ...... 31

Example 4-21: Accompanying Figuration in Variation 8...... 32

Example 4-22: Transformation of Cells A and B in Variation 8 ...... 32

Example 4-23: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 8, mm. 1-7 ...... 33

v Example 4-24: Variation 9, Cell A Figuration...... 34

Example 4-25: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 9, mm. 13-21 ...... 34

Example 4-26: Variation 10, Piano I Melodic Content First Half ...... 36

Example 4-27: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 10, mm. 13-15 ...... 36

Example 4-28: Transformation of Cell B in Variation 10, mm. 5-6 ...... 37

Example 4-29: Variation 10, Piano I Melodic Content Second Half ...... 38

Example 4-30: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 11, mm. 1-2 ...... 39

Example 4-31: Transformation of Cells A and B in Variation 11, mm. 1-4 ...... 39

Example 4-32: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 12, mm. 1-4 ...... 40

Example 4-33: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 12, Opening ...... 41

Example 4-34: Variation 12, Cell A in Opening Right Hand Pitches ...... 41

Example 4-35: Variation 12, Cell B in Opening Left Hand Pitches ...... 42

Example 4-36: First Fugue Idea, Fugue mm. 1-4 ...... 43

Example 4-37: Second Fugue Idea, Fugue mm. 14-16 ...... 44

Example 4-38: Iterations of Cell A in Tiered Ascent, Fugue mm. 19-21 ...... 45

Example 4-39: Iterations of Cells A and B in Countersubjects, Fugue mm. 63-70 ...... 46

Example 5-1: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Theme, mm. 1-5 ...... 49

Example 5-2: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 10, mm. 4-6 ...... 50

Example 5-3: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Fugue (Full Score), mm. 67-72 ...... 51

Example 5-4: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Fugue (Full Score), mm. 125-End ...... 52

Example 5-5: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Solo Part, Theme, Variation 1, and Beginning of Variation 2 ...... 54

Example 5-6: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Solo Part, Variation 6 w/Page Turn Direction at End ...... 55

Example 6-1: Benjamin Britten “The Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra” ...... 62

vi CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Benjamin Britten was in Budapest during the Spring of 1964 when he was approached by a set of young twins, Zoltán and Gábor Jeney. He was in town for a performance of Albert

Herring and encountered the Jeney brothers at a music club meeting organized by their music teacher.1 Of the two Jeney boys, Zoltán played piano and flute, and Gábor played piano and violin. Upon hearing the boys’ request that he write them a piece, Britten responded saying that he was busy. Nonetheless, the boys insisted, leaving Britten to make his own request: “I would do it only if they would write me a long letter telling me all about themselves, their work and their play - in English”.2 After receiving their letter within weeks, Britten honored his promise and composed Gemini Variations: Twelve Variations and Fugue on an Epigram of Kodály, Op.

73, which was organized in such a way that all three instruments played by the twins were exploited in turn in various combinations. The title ‘Gemini’ derives from the Latin word for

‘twins’, although the term is now better recognized simply as a constellation or the corresponding astrological sign.

The premiere of Gemini Variations took place on June 19th, 1965, as part of the

Aldeburgh Festival with Zoltán Kodály in the audience.3 The theme that generates Gemini

Variations is the fourth of Kodály’s Epigrams, Op. 54. The theme has enjoyed a life of its own beyond its first use as part of the Kodály Choral Method, in which it was one of a set of wordless vocalises with piano.4 There have been multiple transcriptions for a variety of solo instruments

1 “Listening to Britten - Gemini Variations, Op. 73” Good Morning Britten Blog, last modified December 14, 2013, https://goodmorningbritten.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/listening-to-britten-gemini-variations-op-73/. 2 Benjamin Britten, Gemini Variations Op. 73 (London: Faber, 1966), 1. 3 Michael Kennedy, Britten (Oxford University Press, 1993), 86. 4 Percy M. Young (editor), Zoltán Kodály, Epigrams Op. 54 (London, Boosey & Hawkes, 1954), 3.

1 and piano in addition to the texted version published as Epigrams.5

Britten had the foresight to realize that Gemini Variations would not see many performances with the novelty of two players, each skilled in two instruments. He therefore made an arrangement for four players, adding additional passages for flute and violin during four-hand piano moments to avoid long stretches of inactivity for two of the players.6 Despite

Britten anticipating this challenge and creating an alternative version, the work has received very

little attention from the music world, and has had comparatively few performances, relative to

other chamber works he composed. Few recordings have been made of Gemini Variations. There

is a single recording of the two-player version made by the Jeney twins for Decca Records in the

late 1960’s,7 and there are fewer than five recorded performances of the four-player version on

Naxos Music Library and YouTube. Faber Music has a record of fourteen performances of the

work between the years 1986 and 2015, but none of them have been recorded or published.8

In the four-player version of Gemini Variations, Britten chose to expand the parts for both the flute and violin, specifically in the Theme, Variation 10, and the Fugue. These

supplementary parts lead to an important discussion regarding the differences in the two- and

four-player versions and which of them is more effective or convincing. This document evaluates

and discusses the merit of Gemini Variations by exploring the structural complexity of each of

the variations and comparing these techniques used to those used in other works by Britten. The

document also asserts that though this piece was written for children, Britten did not make

5 Ibid. 6 Britten, Gemini Variations, 1. 7 Ibid. 8 “Performances.” Gemini Variations - Performances, Faber Music, accessed September 13, 2019. https://www.fabermusic.com/repertoire/gemini-variations-1126/performances.

2 technical concessions for the sake of the young performers. Gemini Variations is a work that is neither compositionally simple nor technically easy to perform.

Delving into the overall merit of the piece requires a comparison to Britten’s similar

works. Britten’s significant compositional output has provided the musical world with numerous

choices for exploring his oeuvre, whether deciding to focus on his orchestral works, his operas,

or his chamber works. Britten composed approximately two dozen chamber works, and fewer

than a dozen sets of variations (some orchestral, some chamber). No other chamber works

include the flute in any capacity, and there is only one work other than Gemini Variations to

include both woodwind and string instruments - his Phantasy Quartet, Op. 2, for oboe, violin, viola, and cello.9 Britten’s other variation sets, as well as similarly scored chamber works, can serve as significant bases of comparison in order to understand how Gemini Variations fits

within his complete works.

To summarize, this document serves to 1) promote a work that can justifiably be

considered as part of the chamber music repertoire involving flute; 2) advocate for its musical

merit and appropriateness for chamber music concerts made up of more traditional groups of

players; 3) compare the two-player and four-player versions Britten wrote; and 4) explore the likely reasons why a piece by one of the most celebrated composers of the twentieth century has remained largely ignored for over fifty years.

9 Benjamin Britten, Phantasy Quartet Op. 2 (London: Boosey & Hawkes, 1935).

3 CHAPTER 2

ORIGINS AND PREMIERE OF GEMINI VARIATIONS

Benjamin Britten and his partner Peter Pears traveled to Budapest in 1964 in order to play concerts and hear a performance of Albert Herring at the Hungarian State Opera House.10 It was during this trip that he met Zoltán and Gábor Jeney, twelve-year-old twin sons of a prominent flutist and teacher in Budapest. The occasion for their encounter was a Music Club meeting arranged by their teacher Ilona Hamvas.11 According to Zoltán Jeney, Britten’s presence was almost coincidental: “The event where we had met Britten, was part of our school training and

Britten drawn [sic] to it purely by accident.”12 Britten was witness to the Jeney twins’ abilities as multi-instrumentalists, and in turn, they asked him to write a piece for them. After Britten responded that he was busy, the boys insisted, leading Britten to make his own request for a letter describing themselves.13 The boys did so within weeks, and Britten created Gemini

Variations.

Gemini Variations is based on “Lily of the Valley”, the fourth of Zoltán Kodály’s

Epigrams, Op. 54, published in 1954. The melodies of each of the nine epigrams originated before 1954 in the Boosey & Hawkes publication of The Kodály Choral Method (1937-1966). In this setting, they appeared as wordless vocalises for advanced students. As Epigrams, they were arranged for voice and piano and set to poetry written by Hungarian organist and composer

Melinda Kistétényi.14 There are multiple editions of Epigrams that are arranged for solo instrument and piano as well, including versions for clarinet and double bass. Epigrams is most

10 Good Morning Britten Blog “Listening to Britten - Gemini Variations, Op. 73.” 11 Zoltán Jeney, email correspondence to author, September 7, 2019. 12 Good Morning Britten Blog “Listening to Britten - Gemini Variations, Op. 73.” . 13 Britten, Gemini Variations, 1. 14 Young (editor), Kodály, Epigrams Op. 54, 3.

4 comparable to a set of art songs, the poetry evoking ideas involving the changing seasons, the

weather, and the emotional spectrum that is influenced by them. However, considering that the

text was added after the composition of these themes for the Kodály Choral Method, it is

unlikely that the text from the fourth has any connection to its use as a basis for Gemini

Variations.

In the score of Gemini Variations, there are numerous notes and footnotes providing explanations for unique traits in this work, particularly as they pertain to the options for the two- and four-player versions. The ‘Introductory Note’, in addition to providing historical information regarding the origins of the piece, includes guidance regarding the logistics of alternating instruments. The score and the solo part (the flute and violin share a solo part) both include notes regarding details about page turning in preparation for upcoming variations and the limited time available to change to a different instrument.

There are not two separate scores for the two- and four-player versions. Britten made additions to the flute and violin parts in the Theme, Variation 10, and the Fugue, designating the additions with brackets. The piano parts are unchanged. Specifics regarding the expanded parts and the performance notes are included in Chapter 5, which explores more thoroughly the comparisons between the two-player and four-player versions.

The fact that Britten arranged for the premiere of Gemini Variations to take place at the

Aldeburgh Festival suggests that he already held the piece and its players in high esteem. This celebrated festival developed from a vision first articulated by Peter Pears in 1947.15 The two

lived together in Aldeburgh and had much support from the community. Along with

librettist/producer Eric Crozier, they arranged for the first Aldeburgh Festival in June of 1948.16

15 Kennedy, Britten, 51. 16 Ibid.

5 Seventeen years later in 1965, as the Aldeburgh Festival continued its prominence, the premiere of Gemini Variations took place with the Jeney twins performing. This premiere took place alongside Britten’s First Cello Suite, Op. 72 (performed by Rostropovich) as well as his Songs and Proverbs of William Blake, Op. 74 (which Britten performed with the dedicatee, Dietrich

Fischer-Dieskau).17 According to Britten’s ‘Introductory Note’ published in Gemini Variations,

Zoltán and Gábor Jeney made the trip to Aldeburgh for the premiere, but also “...played it in

London (recording it for Decca), Brussels, Budapest and all over Hungary.”18 However, aside from the extant recording, there are no records of these additional performances.

This lack of documented performances has kept this work from receiving attention from scholars and amateurs alike, and combined with the logistical difficulties in arranging a performance, seems to have created a cycle of doubt regarding the piece’s worth. Considering that the inaugural performance of the piece occurred at a festival that had been well established and continues to this day, it is interesting that this piece has remained overlooked by the majority of the music world, even by those familiar with Britten’s works.

17 Kennedy, Britten, 86. 18 Britten, Gemini Variations, 1.

6 CHAPTER 3

HISTORICAL PAUCITY OF RECORDINGS AND PERFORMANCES

Searching for recordings or documentation of Gemini Variations will produce very little material. Considering the difficulty of finding musicians to perform the two-player version,

Britten arranged the four-player version, hoping it would encourage other musicians to perform the work. Britten also planned for the creation of an audio recording of Gemini Variations, and arranged for the Jeney brothers to record the piece during their trip to England for the premiere.

Originally, the recording was released as an LP with songs from Britten’s Friday Afternoons

(1935) and his Psalm 150, Op. 67 (1962), both of which are works that call for children’s voices.

Unlike either of the other two pieces on this album, Gemini Variations itself does not include children’s voices, but considering that children made the recording, the piece seems to be suitable for this children-themed pressing.

Another album centered around children entitled Britten: Little Sweep / Gemini

Variations / Children’s Crusade was released on CD in 1993 (re-releasing the recording made by the Jeney twins). More recently, however, Decca Records released an album called “The

Rarities” as a part of The British Music Collection. It was released in 2001 and includes many of

Britten’s lesser known chamber works. This album also includes the original Jeney recording, which remains the sole known recording of the two-player version of Gemini Variations.

In 2009, another album of Britten’s works was released: Musik mit Oboe (Music with

Oboe). Despite the name and apparent theme of this album, there are two works on it that do not include oboe whatsoever: Suite for Harp, Op. 83, and Gemini Variations. This performance is of the four-player version, and the CD insert interestingly does not mention that the piece was

7 originally conceived for two players alternating between their instruments.19 It only describes it

as a piece for flute, violin, and four-hand piano. Also worth mentioning is that this recording has

been uploaded to YouTube, one of only four found on the website.

Of the remaining three recordings that can be found on YouTube, two of them seem to involve student musicians, and all of them are performing the four-player version. One of the recordings is of a quartet of students performing at the Conservatorio Profesional de Música

Adolfo Salazar in Madrid and was published in 2012. At first it seems unclear if the video is of a coaching, since a fifth person was present. Presumably a professor, he helped with page turning during the Fugue and also seemed to be conducting at one point. However, the ending was followed by a strong round of applause, thus confirming the presence of an audience. Also, this video shows some practical choices regarding some of the logistical issues for the piece. It seems that even for the four-player version, a page turner is needed for the Fugue in order to avoid omitting any notes. With the exception of Variation 10 and the Fugue, every other variation is laid out in the score in such a way as to place page turns between the variations. Also, in order to facilitate easy movement for the pianists, the performers chose to take two piano benches, place a long smooth plank upon them, and use that for more space in order to address the concerns laid out in Britten’s ‘Note on Performance’ for the piece. This performance has less than three thousand views.

Another performance is divided into two videos, and rather than showing the musicians, has a titular graphic and an assortment of photos of Benjamin Britten. The first video has five thousand views, the second, less than two thousand. The producer comments that this was a performance given in Padova during March of 2009 for the Conservatorio Pollini di Padova and

19 Peter Cossé, “Power from Honesty: Benjamin Britten as a Timeless Composer of the 20th Century.” Liner notes for Benjamin Britten: Musik mit Oboe, Campanella Musica, C130038, 2009, compact disc.

8 their I Sabati del Conservatorio (The Saturdays of the Conservatory) series. Notably, the text

accompanying the post states that three of the performers were twelve-year-old boys.

The final video on YouTube is published by the University of California Television

(UCTV) channel and is a performance from La Jolla Music Society’s SummerFest 2017. This is a very professional performance, and it is certainly the most professionally made video, both in terms of film quality and musicianship, of the four available recordings on YouTube. Despite the high quality, the video has fewer than fifteen hundred views. The names of the performers are not found in the description of the video, but appear in the opening credits. More information can also be found with a search into the archives of the La Jolla Music Society: Catherine Ransom

Karoly (flute), Michele Kim (violin), Haochen Zhang (piano), and Scott Cuellar (piano).20 Each

of the four performers has an extensive musical career and together they have crafted a solid

performance that would serve any listener well. Another supportive audience reveals itself after

some rousing applause. It is quite unfortunate that such a high quality video of a strong

performance of Gemini Variations has not resulted in a broader awareness of the piece.

The combined total number of views of these videos on YouTube add up to less than

12,000, which is further evidence of how unknown this piece is, especially when comparing this

number with the views for Weber’s Trio in G minor, Op. 63, which outnumber Gemini

Variations by over 100,000 views, or Albert Roussel’s Joueurs de Flûte which outnumbers it by

50,000 views.

The Faber Music website includes a list of documented performances of its published

works, including Gemini Variations. This list consists of 14 performances between the years

20 “Events” La Jolla Music Society, accessed October 18, 2019, https://ljms.org/calendar/action~agenda/exact_date~8-20-2017/cats_ids~22/

9 1986 and 2015, though the piece was published in 1966.21 Of these 14 performances, 12 of them

occurred between 1986 and 1996, and the final two took place in 2010 and 2015. It is unclear

why the piece received more attention during that ten-year span, but it is interesting to note that

only one of the ten took place outside the United Kingdom — a performance at the University of

Maryland in 1993. Additionally, seven of the ten performances were in association with BBC

Radio 3, and include many of the same names, suggesting repeated performances by the same

people. Interestingly, the site does not specify if the performances were of the two-player or

four-player versions. Victoria Hauk, one of the performers listed, claims to have presented a

performance of the two-player version in 2015, though there is no published recording of the

event.22 Some of the other entries on Faber’s list include no names, some include two, some

include four, and some even include three.

Despite the four-player arrangement of Gemini Variations, the small number of

flutist/pianists as well as violinist/pianists could be the biggest reason as to why this piece has

not been performed. While many successful musicians begin their musical lives with piano

lessons, of those who choose to pursue another instrument seriously, there are very few who

maintain a comparable and advanced proficiency with both instruments. It is certainly more

common for vocalists to be more proficient in piano, and this is likely due to the need for using a

piano in vocal practice. Prominent flutists who also play piano have contributed to the field in other ways. An excellent example is the late Martha Rearick, former professor at the University of South Florida and arranger of the piano parts in Jeanne Baxtresser’s Orchestra Excerpts for

Flute. Flutist/pianist/composer Gary Schocker is another, and he has also added a work to the

21 “Performances.” Gemini Variations - Performances, Faber Music, accessed September 13, 2019. https://www.fabermusic.com/repertoire/gemini-variations-1126/performances. 22 Victoria Hauk, email correspondence to author, October 17, 2019.

10 multi-instrumentalist’s repertoire: Ambidextranata, a work that requires extensive simultaneous

playing of flute and piano by one player. Similarly, Romantic era composer Wilhelm Popp was

also a flutist/pianist/composer, and wrote a Bagatelle, also for one player on both instruments,

though it is not nearly as demanding as Gary Schocker’s work. Anne Drummond, a flutist/pianist

with ties to the jazz, classical, and rock worlds is very active today, as is Lori Bell, jazz flutist and pianist, but a lack of multi-instrumentalists is only a single component of larger issues unrelated to a lack of awareness of the piece.

There are two additional circumstances that could contribute to the infrequent

performances of Gemini Variations. The first problem is practical. While arranging for a

performance of the four-player version seems at first more realistic, the acquisition of two

pianists can present difficulties in many situations. Arranging for one pianist for a flute recital

can be difficult enough, but finding a second one for a rare ensemble configuration would make

concert production of presenting this piece too difficult for its rewards. There are very few

chamber works that ask for four-hand piano, so building a flute recital around such an

expectation may not be successful, and four-hand pianists are unlikely to seek additional players

for their own performances. However, Zoltán Jeney, in corresponding with the author, has

performed individual variations in recitals, another option that brings at least part of the work to

audiences.23

Another larger issue is more speculative: the piece potentially not resonating with

audiences. Gemini Variations had important advantages toward getting known, including a very

public premiere, as well as a handful of subsequent performances by the Jeney twins. Even their

recording of the piece did not help to promote additional performances by other musicians,

23 Zoltán Jeney, email correspondence to author, September 4, 2019.

11 despite the score coming into publication the year after the premiere. To assess more fully the

potential reasons for the work’s failure to attract more performers, it is important to understand

the compositional structure of the piece, to study the distinctions between the two- and four- player versions, and to compare this theme and variations to other works Britten composed.

These three points are addressed in the following chapters.

12 CHAPTER 4

STRUCTURE AND ANALYSIS OF GEMINI VARIATIONS

In order to better evaluate Gemini Variations in relation to Britten’s other works, it is important to understand to what extent and through what techniques the theme is transformed in each variation. This helps to establish a foundation for comparison. The intricacies of each variation are unique, and this work is not like theme and variation sets that retain the harmonic structure for each variation. In Gemini Variations, each variation develops not from a transformation of the entire theme, but rather from using two four-note cells stemming from the opening intervals of the first two measures of the theme. While it may seem that Britten was using two four-note motives as the basis for variation, in analyzing the work and seeing the pitches manipulated in varying orders, the term cell is more appropriate. Additionally, Britten included another aspect of variation technique not necessarily relating to the thematic cells, but rather pertaining to the transitions between the variations. Each variation incorporates an element from the one before and transforms it in different ways, so Britten not only incorporates the thematic cells in each variation, but continuously varies the transitional content from variation to variation. Examples of this practice are identified and discussed later in this section.

Example 4-1: Cell A and Cell B

The two cells can be more clearly understood by looking at “Lily of the Valley,” the fourth of Kodály’s Epigrams. The opening gesture in the vocal line begins on the fifth scale

13 degree (in this case E, in the key of A-major), falling a perfect fifth, ascending a major third, and then descending a major seventh. Britten used the intervallic relationships of these pitches to constitute a musical cell that would serve as a basis for the variations, and paired it with a second cell, based on the piano part of the second measure of “Lily of the Valley.” The cell is defined by the line of four stepwise pitches occurring in contrary motion between the top voice of the right hand and the left hand.

Example 4-2: Kodály’s Epigrams Op. 54, Mvt 4, mm. 1-5

Incorporated in the four pitches of the first cell, or Cell A, is a major triad, which allowed

Britten to use the cell as a harmonic basis, a voicing basis for assorted accompanimental and textural purposes (without any harmonic priority), and a melodic basis. Additionally, the large leap between the third and fourth pitches is another element that helps to identify the cell throughout the work. The interval may be reproduced in an anticipated way, for example following an iteration of a broken triad, or it may be incorporated in a sudden and dramatic way.

The use of the exact interval of a major seventh isn’t as important as the use of a larger interval that leaps from the smaller triadic ones. In many cases, this leap is preceded by the first three triadic pitches, or a transformation of them, and larger leaps of varying size still serve as a reference to this first cell.

14 As the second cell, or Cell B, consists of four stepwise pitches, identifying explicit

transformations or iterations of the cell can be somewhat challenging. There are numerous

passages that include scalar figuration that may or may not represent an alteration of this cell.

There are also verticalizations of the pitches of the cell, triadic voicings and realizations, as well

as distinct transpositions of the cell which are more easily identified. Further discussion as to the

extent of the use of the second cell occurs later in this section.

Despite the varying levels of complexity from variation to variation, most of them

effectively disguise the thematic cells and their intervallic content, and use special techniques to

do so. For example, variations 6 and 11 include an intervallic mirroring effect amidst rhythmic

unisons.24 A thorough analysis is necessary to identify further tools of construction, and to

determine whether they are used in Britten’s other works (bases for comparisons and the actual

comparisons to Britten’s other works appear in Chapter 6).

The treatment of the Kodály theme in Gemini Variations is quite different in affect from

“Lily of the Valley.” Kodály created an art song with a simple accompaniment deriving from the

rhythmic simplicity of the melody itself, familiar triadic harmonies, and soft dynamics that

appropriately set the text. In Britten’s version, both piano parts are marked pesante, and begin

with a fortissimo dynamic marking. The voicing is significantly more dense than the Kodály, and

the dynamics do not get softer than a mezzo forte until the final diminuendo at the very end of the theme. While the Kodály is simple and graceful, the Britten is majestic and powerful. It could be said that Britten may not have wanted to reflect the text in his treatment — a theme that is memorable and sonorous, and is not soft or gentle until the final few measures.

24 Britten, Gemini Variations, 1.

15 Britten’s theme is structurally identical to its source material and remains so for the first

sixteen measures. The two piano parts in the theme Britten wrote imitate the gestures of the

original epigram, but he embellished the melody with a triadic realization. There are two direct

correlations between these pieces: one between the vocal line from the epigram and the melody

line found in the Piano I part, and another between the piano part of the epigram and the Piano II

part in Gemini Variations. Britten voices both parts with assorted triads and triadic inversions to

match the textures of the two parts.

Example 4-3: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Theme, mm. 1-5

In the four-player version, the addition of the supplemental violin and flute parts incorporates more contrary motion that tends to obscure the melody rather than reinforce it, but also creates more of a rich, thickly textured composite sonority. More specifically, the violin mirrors the Piano I part, and the flute mirrors the Piano II part, continuing until measure 17

(Further discussion of the differences between the two- and four-player versions takes place in

Chapter 5). This mirroring between parts, combined with a sort of sequence in the first six

measures, illustrates the flexibility of cell structure. Both Cell A and Cell B are prominently

16 established in both the piano parts and the supplementary parts, and considering the fact that the gestures found in the first two measures are repeated in sequence, one can deduce that Britten will manipulate these building blocks as a basic compositional feature of the work.

Although both the Theme and the epigram look very similar, the epigram is a single measure longer than the Theme in Gemini Variations (the epigram is 21 measures long, and

Britten’s Theme is 20). At measure 16, Britten’s theme begins to differ noticeably from the source material. Whereas “Lily of the Valley” reaches a cadence on the downbeat of measure 18,

Britten places the cadence in measure 17. The reason for this seems to be to allow for a cadential extension in preparation for the first variation. The epigram does, in fact, reach a cadence at measure 18, but reaches its final cadence in measure 20 which is sustained through measure 21.

Example 4-4: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Theme, mm. 16-20

17 In Gemini Variations, Britten extends the cadence over four measures, and interestingly

includes a 5/4 penultimate measure. Perhaps this is to allow the final arrival in the Piano I part to

occur on the downbeat of the final measure. The final four measures, in which the supplementary

parts stray from their imitation of their partner piano contributors, synthesize both Cell A and

Cell B. Starting in measure 17, the flute and violin each have two iterations of Cell B in contrary

motion that lead to a perfect unison on the downbeat of the final measure. The transformations of

Cell A also begin in measure 17, where the Piano II part plays for two measures, passing the

material to Piano I, which continues to the end of the theme. In this fashion, Britten ends the

theme with the simultaneous iteration of both cells.

The first variation is marked Prestissimo scherzando, and the inspiration from the theme

is difficult to recognize aurally, especially at first hearing. The style and tone of this variation is

strikingly different from Britten’s majestic treatment of the art-song-inspired theme. Despite the difficulties in identifying the influence of the theme by ear, it is easier to understand how this variation relates to it when looking into the intervallic content of the piano figuration. One notices that the rapid eighth-notes are loosely triadic, which hints at a connection to Cell A.

Example 4-5: Cell A Intervallic Relationships in the First Two Gestures of Variation 1

In this variation, Britten first transformed Cell A by inverting it and stating it in

diminution: the rapid eighth-notes. The first gesture from Example 4-5 consists of intervals that

18 are an inversion of Cell A, but the final interval between the F and C-sharp is an augmented fifth

rather than either a major or minor seventh. One could argue that this last interval can serve as a

representation of a larger leap, as long as it is the largest interval of the figure. However, the

major seventh is still incorporated by comparing the first and last note in this first gesture.

The second figure is more clearly recognizable as an iteration of Cell A. However, the

last two pitches create an interval of a diminished seventh. In comparing the first and last note in

this second figure, the interval is not a major seventh like in the first figure, but rather a minor

ninth. The overall contour of this second figure is familiar, but the chromaticism alters the

intervals and suggests that there is more to find within these gestures than one may expect. After

the first two iterations of this transformed cell, Britten uses the eighth-notes as a motor rhythm

throughout the entire variation.

Example 4-6: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 1, mm. 1-10

Most of the constant eighth-note content is textural, but the metrically strong left-hand notes represent pitches that use only the black keys of the piano. While Cell B typically consists of four pitches ascending or descending by step, this could be a transformation of the cell by incorporating a pentatonic scale rather than a diatonic one. The fast tempo very effectively hides

19 the influence of the cells, which isn’t evident in the pentatonic scalar motion. Upon studying the variation, however, other similarities to the theme become manifest, such as proportionate phrase lengths and arrival points. It is more appropriate to designate these moments as arrival points rather than ‘cadence’ points considering the lack of any traditional approach to harmonic momentum. However, the commonalities regarding phrase lengths essentially stop at this variation. As the variation ends, the constant eighth-notes are interrupted by rests, and the same four pitches are repeated: G, C, E, and A-flat. This is another transformation of Cell A like the ones found at the beginning of this variation, but these pitches are found in the very same octave in the following variation. This is the first hint that there are more variational elements to be found beyond the changes to the thematic cells found within each variation. The transitions from one variation to the next always use material from the earlier variation as a basis for motivic continuity into the next one. In Variation 2, the origin of the accompanying figure is the set of four pitches mentioned above: G, C, E, and A-flat.

Example 4-7: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 1, mm. 40-50

20 In the second variation, the intervallic content of Cell A is found more easily. While the piano part transitions to a minimalistic accompanying figure (using pitches from the end of

Variation 1) that constantly repeats the same rhythmic pattern, the violin joins in this variation with a reference to the theme created by embellishing the intervals of Cell A. The cell is stated in augmentation, relative to its first appearance and is disguised by means of filling in the intervals, approaching the primary pitches from neighbor tones, or arriving on accented non-chord tones.

These designations can appear problematic considering the nontraditional and nonfunctional harmonies in the accompaniment. However, it is a proper reflection of the relationships within the violin line itself. Additionally, after the first statement of this transformation in the violin, it reappears in a retrograde, inverting some of the intervals but perfectly imitating the rhythm of the first statement. The rest of the violin part incorporates transformations of these rhythms and intervals, but does not adhere to a pattern of proportional phrase lengths.

Example 4-8: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 2, mm. 1-8

21 The piano accompaniment in this variation is another transformation of Cell A. The right hand consists of triadic eighth-notes which can serve as an example of a non-melodic transformation of the theme that does not serve a traditional harmonic role. The left hand is playing constant quarter-notes that occasionally reflect the right hand harmony, resulting in assorted inversions of major or minor triads. The composite effect of both hands playing simultaneously is a swiftly rumbling motor rhythm.

Example 4-9: Transformation of Cell A in Variation 2

The rumbling effect makes the pulse difficult to perceive, but the sense of time is displaced even more considering the solo violin line is in duple time (time signature 1/2), and the accompaniment is in triple (in the piano part next to the 1/2 time signature is 3/4 in parentheses), so aligning the two parts is challenging to coordinate and difficult to perceive for the listener.

This is an example of a characteristic quality of Gemini Variations, as there are many examples in this work of using different time signatures for the different instruments in the same variation.

Cell B makes an appearance in this variation. In the violin part, the filled-in intervals found in measures 3, 9, 17, 21, and 22 include triplet stepwise descending figures (though measure 9 ascends). Measures 4 and 5 also include four stepwise pitches, but the elements are more freely arranged considering the octave displacement between the two measures. There is a similar moment in measures 28 and 29: four stepwise pitches that begin in one octave and conclude in another.

22 Example 4-10: Transformation of Cell B in Variation 2, Violin

Cell B can be found in the rhythmic piano part in a number of moments of ascending

stepwise movement in measures 6, 12, and 23. However, Cell B becomes most perceptible in

measure 26. At this point, Britten introduced a perfect inversion of the intervals of Cell B, and in

a moment that doesn’t seem to be ornamental like the triplet figures mentioned above. The

intervals also appear in retrograde between new rhythms that occur near the end of the variation.

Example 4-11: Transformation of Cell B in Variation 2, mm. 26-30

These new rhythms, represented as a sixteenth-note/dotted eighth-note figure, are

trochaic, a term often used in describing language that emphasizes the first and shorter of two

syllables. This is a rhythm drawn from Hungarian speech rhythm, common in Hungarian folk

music, and Britten incorporated it in the melodic line of this variation.25 This rhythm becomes

25 Alan Andrew Smith, “Aspects of Hungarian folk music in Zoltan Kodaly’s Sonata for Unaccompanied Violoncello, Opus 8” (DMA diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1998), 8, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

23 especially prominent toward the end of this variation, but it is incorporated within the melodic phrase of the violin earlier, although it is less notable. Regardless, one can consider that this could be a tribute to the Jeney twins’ Hungarian heritage, as well as to Zoltán Kodály’s

Hungarian roots. This variation ends with multiple iterations of the sixteenth-note/dotted eighth- note figure, which in and of itself does not reflect a direct relationship to the thematic unit, but is used explicitly in the following variation.

At this point in Gemini Variations, the pianist gets up to prepare to play flute, so the third variation is for violin alone. At first, the content imitates some of the solo line from the previous variation, specifically the trochaic rhythms which are incorporated into a cadenza-like introduction that regularly changes time signatures. This variation is another example of an interesting time signature decision by Britten, and is labeled 2-3/4, allowing for him to use two and three beat measures at his pleasure without following any particular pattern. Cell A isn’t reproduced until measure 19.

Example 4-12: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 3, mm. 19-37

The melodic content starting in measure 19 is rhythmized, repeating the trochaic

Hungarian figure every beat. The pitches of Cell A are incorporated in a somewhat inverted, less perceptible transformation. Upon closer inspection, the pitches found in measure 19 are E, A, C-

24 sharp, and D, a transposition of Cell A. Perhaps significantly, these are the original pitches from

Kodály’s Epigram (a B is present but not prominent). Similarly, measures 20 and 21 include another transposition: B, E, G-sharp, and A.

Example 4-13: Transformation of Cell A in Variation 3

The rhythmizing of these pitches may make the thematic material difficult to perceive, but the pitch content remains nonetheless. The variation ends with a return of the cadenza-like material, suggesting that it might end as it began, but instead Britten chose to repeat the violin triple-stops and have them end the movement played pizzicato in the final three measures. This pizzicato figure provides the connection between the variations, continuing as the opening of the following variation.

Variation 4 is for flute and violin together, though the violin, playing pizzicato for the entire variation, serves mostly an accompanying role. Traces of the previous variation influence the violin part, namely the triple-stops that end the third variation that occur on nearly every downbeat in the fourth. A potential transformation of Cell B appears at the onset of the variation in the flute part. Four pitches in ascending stepwise motion begin the flute part, each pitch receiving a rhythmic treatment of two sixteenths and an eighth. This rhythmic figure occurs throughout this variation, most often in stepwise motion, sometimes ascending and other times descending. This Cell B transformation is extended further in measures 9 through 12, descending nearly a full octave.

25 Example 4-14: Transformation of Cell A and Cell B in Variation 4, mm. 1-7

The first time this figure appears is at the very first entrance in the flute part. The stepwise rhythmic figure leads to larger leaps that imitate the intervallic content of Cell A. The cell transformation is expressed in a type of diminution and reflects the triple time from the 3/8 time signature, another change that makes the theme more difficult to perceive. Despite some clear intervallic relationships, the melodic content from Cell A is not nearly as perceptible as in the second variation. Especially interesting is the manner in which Britten built and expanded the transformations of Cell A, namely in measures 14 through 17. On either side of the largest interval (minor seventh in 15), triadic material appears, completing a realization of the intervals of Cell A.

Example 4-15: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 4, mm. 14-26

26 Also worth mentioning is that there is only one interval in the flute part larger than a perfect fifth — the minor seventh in measure fifteen. However, all the leaps in this variation still remind the listener of the large final leap from Cell A. Harmonically, the violin chords suggest something of a tonal area, but there is no correspondence with the flute part, which remains harmonically ambiguous. And while the thematic content is certainly more disguised, this is due to the faster sense of tempo in comparison to the theme. This disguise is made more effective due to another time signature abnormality. The flute is in 3/8 time and the violin is in 2/8. The movement ends with the flute repeating an A in assorted rhythmic motives, including the rhythm from the Cell B transformation. The last iteration in the flute is two sixteenths and an eighth, and this motive becomes especially prominent in the next variation.

The fifth variation is a canon, so the violin, which now returns to arco playing, no longer serves as accompaniment. There are two main ideas in the thematic material of this variation.

The first is very much like the violin part in the second variation — the contour of the melodic line reflects the intervallic shape of Cell A.

Example 4-16: Transformation of Cell A and Cell B in Variation 5, mm. 1-3

This is a five beat figure, and the intervals of Cell A are filled in with the remaining pitches. However, sudden large interval leaps interrupt the stepwise motion. Most of the descending statements of this first idea, of which there are many, incorporate more than four pitches. Regardless, the similarities to both cells are worth noting. Cell B is more explicitly

27 referenced in the second idea in this variation beginning in measure 7. Two sets of four stepwise pitches appear in succession.

The melodic outline of the first idea’s five beat thematic unit seems to be quite similar to the true intervals of the theme, as the melodic line changes direction upon reaching each prominent note from Cell A. The pitch A is emphasized with accents at the onset of the movement, and descends to D, rises up to an F-natural, and then leaps down to G, which is also accented. It bears mentioning that these large intervals in these five beat figures are minor sevenths rather than major sevenths. Britten changed the modality of these melodic lines part way through each figure, which explains the half-step difference.

The thematic material in the flute and violin starts out with canon at the lower sixth, rhythmically displaced by three beats. The interval changes from a major to a minor sixth upon the arrival of the second idea in measures 7 and 8 (for the flute and violin, respectively). The rhythmic displacement between the two lines is reduced to a single beat at the end of measure 12 and the beginning of measure 13, retaining the similarities of rhythm and contour and returning to the interval of a major sixth in measure 15. The rhythmic displacement changes once more in measure 18, reducing the displacement to half a beat. At this point, the motivic influence seems to stem exclusively from Cell B.

Example 4-17: Transformation of Cell B in Variation 5, mm. 23-24

28 The variation ends with a sustained minor sixth that also serves as the opening interval of

Variation 6 (though it is raised by an octave). Interestingly, this interval includes an E-flat in the flute, a non-diatonic pitch considering the key signature of two sharps. While this harmonic ambiguity can be explained by speculation into Britten’s harmonic techniques, it may be more apt to say that this was used to more properly set up the following variation.

Britten employed an interesting technique in the sixth variation which is subtitled

Specchio I, using the Italian word for “mirror”. Both this variation and Variation 11 include the word in their titles. While other variations throughout the piece make use of the technique, only these two represent entire variations in contrary motion. The sixth variation begins with an explicit transposition of Cell A in A-flat-major played by the flute, which the violin mirrors by playing an inversion of the cell in contrary motion. Subsequently, Cell B also makes an appearance in what looks like a D-major tonality for the flute part. However, due to this mirroring technique, any sense of traditional harmony is eliminated. Despite this ambiguity,

Britten creates a semblance of form by including several fermati that function as arrival points.

And while this entire movement employs the mirroring technique, there are a few exceptions where the flute and violin intervals differ by a half-step.

Example 4-18: Transformation of Cells A and B in Variation 6, mm.1-5

29 The time signature is labeled 2/2 (3/2), and similarly to the third variation, Britten chose

to incorporate measures with three beats at his leisure to allow arrival points to occur on the

downbeats of measures. Though the thematic unit is stated in half-notes at the beginning of the variation, one should not consider this an augmentation due to the time signature stating that the half-note gets the beat. The third phrase, beginning after the second fermata, is notable in that it seems to be a reflection of a transformation of Cell A.

Example 4-19: Reflected Transformations of Cell A in Variation 6, mm.5-8

There is a perfect fifth in the middle of this phrase — the first interval of Cell A. Either

pitch can serve as the first in a transformation of Cell A and can be read in either direction. The

first and last intervals are larger than the thirds that precede them, suggesting a link to the largest

interval at the end of Cell A. The result is an iteration of Cell A in retrograde that is elided with a

statement of Cell A. The flute and violin approach one another and stray further apart, but by the

end of the variation, the two voices approach a single pitch. The variation ends on a unison B-

natural, which also happens to be the first note in the following variation.

Variation 7 is a cadenza for flute alone. Amidst a flurry of notes and flourishes are a

number of fermati on a set of arrival notes that are an exact transposition of the pitches from Cell

A transposed to G-major. Each of these flourishes begins on the same B-natural that ended the

30 sixth variation, and each flourish prepares the arrival of the pitches from Cell A. This transformation of Cell A is certainly out of time and perhaps one could consider it augmented.

However, it could better be described as punctuated, creating regular intervals between each set of two long notes. Influence from Cell B is found in the 32nd-note flourishes. The flourishes consist of four different pitches, and when placed in descending order are D, C-sharp, B, and A.

Example 4-20: Transformation of Cells A and B in Variation 7, mm. 1-4

After the first iteration of Cell A’s pitches and its preceding flourishes, a second statement occurs that is rhythmically similar, though the intervals between the fermata pitches appear in inversion. Following is a line of quick, seemingly metered figuration with ascending leaps, the first four of which share some similar intervallic content with Cell A, and the last three suggesting a beginning of a Cell B iteration. However, it is suddenly interrupted by another fermata, a rapidly descending figure, and a slow and soft close. This is perhaps an example of a stepwise flourish referencing Cell B, though the purpose of this gesture seems to be for a scalar descent in range, rather than as a specific transformation of the second cell. The descending figure at first seems to be using pitches from an A-flat-major scale, but in the final measure the

D-flat changes to D-natural, an appropriate alteration considering the E-flat-major tonal area in

Variation 8. Additionally, this long descending figure could be foreshadowing the ascending, long, slurred, stepwise melodic line of the next variation. Regardless, the cascading descent and the rallentando at the end of this movement very suitably prepare for the arrival of a new idea.

31 The violinist returns to the piano for the first time since the Theme in Variation 8. The piano part in this variation consists of groups of four eighth-notes, the fourth of which is always a metrically weak three-note chord. Complementing this, the scalar lines in the flute part always begin on a metrically strong beat.

Example 4-21: Accompanying Figuration in Variation 8

The intervallic content of Cell A is present in the piano part, the larger interval made more prominent by its representation as a chord. Furthermore, the chords change each measure, descending a step at a time, creating an iteration of Cell B.

Example 4-22: Transformation of Cells A and B in Variation 8

The accompanying piano figure is inverted from measures 10 through 20, and then returns to the original material from the opening of the variation, continuing that way from measure 21 until the end. The flute part consists of extended iterations of Cell B, creating particularly long phrases that share few similarities with the phrases, gestures, and contours of

Cell A. Cell B is more evidently incorporated, considering the constant rising and falling of the scalar melodies. However, the cell is well hidden due to the overlapping sets of four stepwise pitches, so it does not always create an aural connection to Cell B. The first phrase is mirrored by the second, moving in contrary motion, but the second is extended even longer. Interestingly, the last three phrases are quite brief: the phrases starting in measure 21 and 23 lasting only two

32 measures, and the final one starting in measure 25 lasting only three.

Example 4-23: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 8, mm. 1-7

Britten makes the stepwise motion in the flute more engaging by syncopating some of the

movement within each measure, as well as varying the range. For the majority of the variation,

the flute part ascends as high as G6 and as low as G4, until the final phrase, at which point the

range descends even lower to D4. Excluding rests between the lines the flute plays, there are

only two intervals in the entire movement that are larger than a major second, which are a minor

seventh in measure 21 and a minor ninth in measure 24. These certainly can be reflections of the

large leaps from Cell A, but considering the ambiguous scalar motion up to measure 21, the

intervals perhaps also function to interrupt rather than solely to harken back. The piano takes

over at the end of the variation, the eighth-note figuration slowing to quarter-note triplets and then quarter-notes, the last three pitches of which are D, E-flat, and F, a group that will become prominent as a tremolo in the next variation.

The ninth variation is a fanfare for piano solo. It begins very softly with a quiet

33 drumming, gradually becoming louder and stronger, which suggests moving closer and approaching from a distance. At first look, the left hand is playing a perpetual tremolo cluster of a D, E-flat, and F in their lowest octaves, and the right hand gallops through various transformations of thirds, fifths, sevenths, and ninths, though the fifths predominate.

Example 4-24: Variation 9, Cell A Figuration

Cell A is broken into assorted iterations of its composite parts, namely the intervallic content, and is reconstructed and rhythmized. These intervals of the cell are inverted and also are used in a sort of diminution, considering the use of the sixteenth-notes. This could also be described as a melodic line that includes grace notes before each melodic pitch. Cell B does not seem to be influencing this variation. The pitches in the treble clef staff do not consist of any stepwise motion, and the bass clef staff contains only the repeated tremolo on three pitches (and two stepwise intervals). The pitches in each phrase comprise a 9th or an 11th chord, which makes the four-pitch cell with three stepwise intervals impossible to reproduce.

Example 4-25: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 9, mm. 13-21

34 Although it seems that the right hand would logically execute the galloping figuration, the treble clef line includes the designation m.s. or mano sinistra, directing the pianist to use their left hand. This directive applies only to the low double-stemmed note in each figure. Naturally this makes the passage easier to play, but it is important to note the enforced separation between the tremolo and these galloping patterns. The difference of intent becomes obvious when the pianist is directed to use the right hand in measure 15. At this moment the tremolo and the melodic figuration occur simultaneously, requiring the left hand to play only the tremolo. Also worth mentioning is the use of differing key signatures between the upper and lower staves.

While it is necessary to change the key signature for the treble line, making such a change for the bass line that employs solely three pitches would have been unnecessary. This bitonality carries through to the following variation. The final rolled iteration in the left hand that closes this movement is the foundation of the Piano II part’s accompanying role in the following variation.

The rolled repetition from the ninth variation opens the tenth, a march. The Piano II part serves mostly an accompanying role in this variation, and two clusters are the basis for the first half, more precisely, measures 1 through 12. The sense of pitchlessness of this low-range repeated figure seems to mimic drums in a march. The Piano I part is more melodically oriented and builds upon some of the ideas from the previous variation. It incorporates mostly constant eighth-notes outlining triadic harmonies and intervals from Cell A, predominantly the same pitches found in the treble clef line in Variation 9. For most of this variation, both piano parts remain in their respective extremes of the keyboard, resulting in a deeper obscurity of pitch for the Piano II part and a dramatic clarity to the Piano I part. Britten used 8va/8vb designations on the clefs of both piano parts in order to notate the parts in a more readable range.

35 Example 4-26: Variation 10, Piano I Melodic Content First Half

There is a key signature irregularity between the two piano parts. Piano I has two sharps in the key signature, and Piano II has two flats, perhaps another reflection of the duality of this work. Another time signature irregularity occurs as the Piano I part is not only in 4/4 time, but includes 12/8 in parentheses, thus acknowledging the prevailing triplet eighth-note figuration.

Example 4-27: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 10, mm. 13-15

36 The second half of this variation, measures 13 through 30, sees a change in texture in

both piano parts. The Piano II part begins a constant eighth-note pattern that lasts until measure

27. The left hand plays only on the black keys throughout the section. However, the right hand,

while predominantly using the white keys, pairs with the left to create motoring clusters that defy

any traditional sense of harmony. The Piano I part in this second half of the variation is more

stately and jaunty, but continues with its striking melody, incorporating intervallic material that

can trace its origins to the thematic cells.

There are many intervals from Cell A in the Piano I part of Variation 10. The first two beats consist of a broken D-major triad, and the first pitch on the third beat changes the implied harmony with the entrance of a G-sharp. These four pitches in order of appearance are A, F-

sharp, D, and G-sharp, but can be rearranged to conform to an iteration of Cell A (though the

final note is raised a half-step): A, D, F-sharp, G-sharp. However, one can also consider incorporating the G in measure 1 to the D-major triad, which would complete the cell.

Cell B appears more clearly in the Piano I part, for example on the accented pitches in measure 5 where they appear in descending motion.

Example 4-28: Transformation of Cell B in Variation 10, mm. 5-6

The cell appears as well in alternating octaves, also emphasized with accents, between

measures 19 and 23. In this example, the transformation of Cell B is one where the pitches are

ascending.

37 Example 4-29: Variation 10, Piano I Melodic Content Second Half

Influence from Cell B in the Piano II part is difficult to find considering the clusters and

general pitchlessness that comprise the majority of its figuration in this variation. Although, in

considering all six pitches at once, they can easily be arranged into groups of four. This may be

coincidental and an unavoidable result as far as pitch clusters are concerned.

This variation also includes supplemental flute and violin parts which serve to reinforce

their piano counterparts. Interestingly, Britten indicated that the flutist should play this variation

on piccolo for the first, and only, time. This choice both reinforces the march-like character of

the variation and allows for matching the Piano I register, which would not be workable for flute.

While the piccolo traces the accented notes from the Piano I part, the violin mimics the Piano II

part, reinforcing the accompaniment. The variation ends with a very strong cadence, arguably the

strongest cadence thus far in the piece, but certainly the strongest one since the end of the theme.

This cadence includes the highest and lowest A’s on the keyboard, which are the starting pitches

for Variation 11.

Suddenly, the dynamic level changes drastically as the eleventh variation, Specchio II,

begins with some very soft and active figuration for four-hand piano starting at the two extremes

of the keyboard. This is the second and final variation that is totally defined by the mirroring

technique, contributing to the prevailing inward motion that spans the entire range of the keyboard.

38 Example 4-30: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 11, mm. 1-2

The eighth-note figuration is predominantly triadic and stepwise, therefore exhibiting many of the qualities of Cells A and B. Like Variation 10, the triadic planing requires the addition of a pitch from each subsequent set of pitches to complete the transformation of the cell.

Despite the generally triadic organization of this constantly moving line, the pitches from both cells are clearly identifiable throughout this variation. The planing allows for the appearance of

Cell A and also permits the players to move closer to the center of the keyboard. The similarly prevalent stepwise material invokes Cell B, which also helps the two lines gradually converge upon a single pitch.

Example 4-31: Transformation of Cells A and B in Variation 11, mm. 1-4

39 The triadic components move inward while most of the stepwise motion moves outward,

and each iteration of their combination starts closer to the center of the keyboard. Finally, the

ending arrives with a convergence on a unison E-flat, the same E-flat used at the opening in the following variation. At this point in the two-player version, the violinist would leave the keyboard and prepare for the Fugue.

The final variation is for solo piano. It is a Romanza, and consists of two contrasting ideas: a slow, upward-leaping gesture, and a more rapid descending figure that leads to a return of the first. This alternation of ascending and descending figures occurs six times, while the seventh ascent ends the variation at its apex.

Example 4-32: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 12, mm. 1-4

Each iteration is transformed in different ways, sometimes starting and restarting, varying

the starting pitch, and sometimes being shortened or extended. The active figuration is in the

right hand, while the left hand provides quietly sustained accumulated clusters, creating a wash

40 that supports the wandering right hand line. This variation seems to be the most complicated transformation of the thematic units, a complete transformation and reconstruction.

Example 4-33: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 12, Opening

Cell A is apparent in the ascending gesture in the very first measure. The opening interval is a perfect fifth, and the final interval in the measure is a minor seventh. By isolating the four pitches that comprise these two intervals, E-flat, B-flat, G, and F, one finds that they are an inversion of Cell A. The remaining notes fill in the missing pitches of the opening interval of the fifth.

Example 4-34: Variation 12, Cell A in Opening Right Hand Pitches

Cell B also makes an appearance in the right hand content, as each cadenza-like measure consists of multiple descending iterations of Cell B. The left hand consists of mostly sustained material, chords of four or five notes that are also transformations of Cell B. The first measure includes four pitches in descending order: E-flat, D-flat, C, and B-flat.

41 Example 4-35: Variation 12, Cell B in Opening Left Hand Pitches

Due to these sustained left hand clusters, most of the harmonies in this variation are

quartal and quintal, perhaps reminiscent of Hindemith, which would explain the ambiguity and

versatility of this repetitive gesture that is continuously elaborated upon and expanded. The

variation ends with an extension of the upward-leaping gesture, leading to the end of the variation as the left hand slows and descends to the lowest octaves of the piano, and the right hand similarly ascends, becoming softer, and finally disappears. The result is the longest phrase of the variation, which ends with a key signature of two sharps. While this key signature may not

reflect the sounding pitches in the final measures of Variation 12, it prepares for the new material

coming in the Fugue, which has its own tonal and harmonic complexities.

The Fugue begins with the violin, and is comprised of two main ideas which together

define the fugue subject: a moderately syncopated line of eighth-notes and triplets, and a more

active second half that is mostly swiftly moving sixteenth-notes. The first iteration of the two-

part fugue subject is an astounding 22 measures long. This could perhaps be a comment on the

duality of this piece in general — the two players, the two cells, or the assorted mirrored

reflections throughout the work (beyond even the two Specchio variations). At first glance it

seems that the fugue subject could simply be three measures long, but after seeing the additional

iterations, it becomes clear that they are not true answers to the three-measure idea, but represent interval relationships that create a variety of tonal centers for the pseudo-imitations. The rhythmic material in the first three measures of the first fugue idea is repeated at various pitch

42 levels and in inversion, suggesting false answers in measures 4, 7, and 10. This technique of implying imitation within a single voice resembles several sections in Telemann’s Fantasies.

Telemann would introduce the brief fugue-like statement in the solo flute line, which would last two or three measures. A second iteration of the statement begins but by using large leaps creates the illusion of an additional voice. After examining these reiterations at the beginning of the

Fugue in Gemini Variations, it becomes clear that Britten did not use exactly the same technique, but still allowed for some harmonic enrichment and transformation of the subject. Upon arriving at the second fugue idea the possibility of identifying a shorter fugue subject is still more convincingly eliminated. The actual answer to the fugue subject is played by the flute, beginning in measure 22, and is at the traditional interval of the fifth.

The entire fugue subject is generally tonal, though Britten incorporates occasional accidentals that temporarily shift the overall harmony or modality. The first fugue idea begins in

D-major, but quickly moves to B-flat-major by means of stepwise motion and chromaticism that manifests itself in multiple sets of four pitches that serve as transformations of Cell B.

Example 4-36: First Fugue Idea, Fugue mm. 1-4

The triplet figures appear exclusively triadic, suggesting influence from the first three pitches in Cell A, but each of the lowest pitches from each set of triplets create another iteration of Cell B. The repeated D at the beginning of the Fugue leads to a tonicization of B-flat by measure three, which is followed by more tonal instability that leads to an emphasis on G in

43 measures 6 and 7. After numerous accidentals, F-sharp becomes emphasized, but this perhaps is

in order to serve as a dominant that prepares the B-naturals in measures 12 and 13. While each

iteration of the idea doesn’t perfectly mimic this harmonic transformation, the chromaticism

remains.

This first idea is also significantly longer than the second in each part. The shortest iteration of this first idea is in the violin’s statement of the fugue, where it lasts 13 measures,

followed by 7 measures of the second idea. In each of the subsequent fugal entries by the flute,

Piano I, and Piano II parts, the first and second ideas of the Fugue are 21 and 6 measures long,

18 and 7 measures long, and 22 and 8 measures long, respectively.

The second fugue idea may consist of fewer measures in length, but it is more active and

energetic. Cell B makes an appearance in assorted transformations including scalar gestures and

stepwise melodic pitches amidst the embellishments within the rapid sixteenths.

Example 4-37: Second Fugue Idea, Fugue mm. 14-16

Harmonically, this idea is significantly more straightforward than the first, and remains in

a single tonal area until it prepares for the next entry of the fugue subject. This preparation

occurs at the end of the second fugue idea and includes a tiered ascent of sixteenth-notes tracing

a 13th chord, with emphasis on pitches that reflect a transformation of Cell A that builds upon

itself higher and higher, rising in thirds.

44 Example 4-38: Iterations of Cell A in Tiered Ascent, Fugue mm. 19-21

Britten used this tiered transition to end each statement of the fugue subject as well as to prepare each part for its following supporting contrapuntal material. In considering the possible reasons for the substantial length of this fugue subject, one possibility is the complexity of the

Fugue as a whole. Britten’s mastery of the cellular, motivic, and structural material is impressive, and his fugal responses comprise of extensive imitative counterpoint, motivic transformation, and textural interest. In the case of Gemini Variations, all of these techniques aid in the continuous transformation and incorporation of Cells A and B which can be found in many other moments aside from the fugue subject itself.

The supportive contrapuntal material includes numerous examples of stepwise quarter- note and eighth-note figuration that, at times, are emphasized with tenuti markings. Britten does this to highlight the presence of Cell B, even though it serves a secondary role. The stepwise motion also assists in making harmonic changes through increased chromaticism, especially when supporting the harmonically complex first fugue idea.

Cell A reappears in places that are less expected. During the Piano II part’s statement of the fugue subject (and the flute’s supportive counterpoint), there is a set of half a dozen measures where the flute is simply trilling: measures 63-68. In focusing on measures 64 through 67 specifically, one can discern some of the intervals from Cell A present.

45 Example 4-39: Iterations of Cells A and B in Countersubjects, Fugue mm. 63-70

Immediately afterward, in measures 69 and 70 is the flute’s final flourish (before

returning to the keyboard in the two-player version), which is comprised of pseudo-triadic triplet

figuration that hints at Cell A. The texture becomes more dense after this point as the two players

join at the piano (more so even in the four-player version as the flute and violin continue to

play), continuing with Britten’s increasingly intricate counterpoint.

All of this contrapuntal figuration and continuous transformation of the two cells leads to the arrival of the “Lily of the Valley” theme reprise. The Piano I part begins while the Piano II

part continues with some of the fugal material, before they exchange roles. The Piano I part

46 seems to imply a cadence in measure 119, but the Piano II part (as well as the supplementary flute and violin lines) suggests that the true arrival point is at measure 120, followed by a short coda. The active figuration in the four voices becomes more and more expansive in range and dynamic until the final cadence, a fully voiced D-major sonority which is sustained with the damper pedal so that the players can pick up the flute and violin for a final sustained affirmation of the D-major chord.

47 CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS OF 2-PLAYER VERSUS 4-PLAYER VERSIONS

Britten knew that the novelty presented by Gemini Variations would limit the performance prospects of the work. Zoltán and Gábor Jeney were unique in their abilities as multi-instrumentalists, and in order to make the work more accessible and programmable, Britten simultaneously made an arrangement for four players, thus eliminating any need for changing instruments. The two-player version of this work has been overlooked due to the demand that two players play two different instruments. While doubling within instrument families has been common for over a century and is more commonplace in the jazz and pit orchestra worlds, there are very few works that call for a string player or a woodwind player to perform also on a keyboard instrument. Interestingly, the four-player version remains overlooked as well. In the four-player version, Britten made additions to the flute and violin parts only, and did so in only the Theme, Variation 10, and the Fugue. Furthermore, when expanding the flute part in Variation

10, Britten indicates the use of piccolo.

There is a single score that is used for both the two- and four-player versions, which seems logical considering the only changes are in three sections of the work. The expanded parts are designated in the score with brackets and are similarly designated in the shared solo part for the flute and violin.

The expansions of the flute and violin parts in the Theme mimic the four-hand piano parts. There is some contrary motion as well as rhythmic mimicry that pairs each of the solo instruments with one of the piano lines: the flute with the Piano II part and the violin with the

Piano I part. More specifically, both solo parts rhythmically correspond to the piano parts, so the

48 rhythms are nearly identical. Also, the contour of the violin and flute lines oppose the contours of the Piano I and II parts, respectively.

Example 5-1: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Theme, mm. 1-5

However, not every interval directly corresponds to the piano parts. Some intervals are altered so that the resulting pitch is one that does not interfere with the overall harmonic structure of the theme. Neither the flute nor the violin content alters any of the harmonies set, but the inclusion of two additional solo lines can easily overshadow the statement of the theme in the

Piano I part. In listening to the recordings available, one notices that the Piano I line tends to get covered or muddled by the added flute and violin lines.

Variation 10, in the same manner, includes many similarities between the supplemental solo parts and the piano part. The constant eighth-note-triplet figuration in the Piano I part is

49 reinforced by the piccolo part. The piccolo does not begin playing triplets, but rather plays on each of the four beats per measure, supporting the accented notes in the Piano I part.

Example 5-2: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Variation 10, mm. 4-6

In addition to these reinforcements of the piano accents, the piccolo contributes an additional element of texture through its sustained pitches and trills. The violin part mostly reinforces the rhythmic pattern established by the Piano II part. However, the violin part includes some specific accents that are not shared with the Piano II part, as well as harmonics and double stops to further fill out the texture. Once this variation ends, the flute and violin do not play again until the Fugue.

In the two-player version of Gemini Variations, the Fugue has only two parts playing at any given time, though there are a total of four statements of the fugue subject: first is the violin, followed by the flute, Piano II, and then Piano I. The supplemental violin part begins during the flute’s statement of the second fugue idea, during which time (in the two-player

50 version) the violinist would be walking to the piano. In the four-player version, each musician enters and continues playing until the end of the piece. In the two-player version, the violin and flute each get a statement of the fugue subject as well as some supportive contrapuntal material before needing to move to the piano. The supplemental parts begin at the moments when the two-player version would call for the flutist and violinist to move to the piano.

Example 5-3: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Fugue (Full Score), mm. 67-72

Most of the expanded parts employ some imitative counterpoint that serves to enrich the texture, reinforce the pulse, and support the various rhythmic motives that are transformed

51 throughout the rest of the Fugue. This creates a composite sound that is certainly fuller than the

two-player version, which only includes four-hand piano for the ending.

In addition to the supplemental parts, Britten also included numerous details and notes regarding the execution of the two-player version. Due to the logistical issues caused by the movement of the players to and from the piano, planning is necessary ahead of the performance to avoid collisions or missteps. The need to pick up or put down a flute or violin certainly requires some planned choreography, especially considering that Britten asks the pianists to pick up their instruments while sustaining the final chord on the keyboard.

Example 5-4: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Fugue (Full Score), mm. 125-End

Britten also kept in mind the amount of time it would take to change instruments when he

was arranging the order of the variations. The solo variations allow the time needed for the other

52 performer to get to another instrument, and Britten made sure that there was always a solo

variation allowing for a smooth transition.

At the end of the ‘Introductory Note’, Britten included a ‘Note on Performance’ that

mentions more aspects of the two-player version that need consideration, such as the kind of

bench the performers sit on and where to place the flute and violin. The note, referring to the

Jeney twins, reads as follows:

The boys should sit at the piano on one bench - preferably of smooth wood so that they can slide easily and quickly from one position to another. There should be behind them a music stand on which is the copy of the music for flute and violin. When the last to play leaves this stand or the piano, he should turn to the next page needed (this is indicated in the copies). It is suggested that the flute and violin when not being used should lie on the ledges by the side of the piano music-stand (the flute to the right, the violin to the left) or on small tables placed in convenient positions. For the last chord of the piece the flute and violin should be picked up quickly while the piano pedal is held down. - B.B.26

The comments regarding the piano bench and instrument placement are brief, but are quite important and merit addressing. The average wooden or otherwise smooth surfaced piano bench can typically fit two people but with limited movement. While there are very few video recordings of Gemini Variations, the two available on YouTube can provide some insight into the available options for the pianists. In the video filmed in Spain, the pianists used two soft piano benches and a large wooden plank was placed upon them. This allowed for substantial room for both players, as well as providing maneuverability when necessary. This is significant, since both versions require solo piano movements in which the pianist needs easy access to the full range of the keyboard. This can occur only if the other pianist can easily and quickly get out of the way. The UCTV video from La Jolla’s SummerFest shows the two pianists each using their own piano benches. The viewer can also glimpse one of the pianists leaning out of the way when the other is playing one of the solo variations. So while a smooth surface allows for easy

26 Britten, Gemini Variations, 1

53 adjustment, the choice to use two benches is apparently a viable option. Unfortunately, as both videos are of the four-player version, there is no guidance regarding the practicality of Britten’s suggestion regarding placing the flute and violin on piano-ledges. Considering the ease with which an instrument could be bumped and knocked to the floor, it may be better to have small tables, extra chairs, or an instrument stand readily available to avoid any chance of a potential collision.

Example 5-5: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Solo Part, Theme, Variation 1, and Beginning of Variation 2

54 As indicated above, the flute and violin share a single printed solo part, and therefore also share a single stand during flute/violin variations (four, five, and six). Britten’s care in making the solo part is further demonstrated by his indication “Tacet” for solo piano variations and his provision of cues to help with entries.

Britten also included in the solo part specific instructions for which of the players is to turn each page. The editing of the solo part is such that it eliminates page turns within variations

(excepting the Fugue), and Britten assigns page turns to the player with rests, or the player who is about to arrive or about to depart from the stand. Interestingly, each instruction is labeled with the name Zoltán or Gábor, rather than flutist or violinist. Thankfully, the theme and each variation are labeled with both the appropriate instrument and the corresponding name. This is possibly a result of the high esteem in which Britten held the Jeney brothers.

Example 5-6: Benjamin Britten Gemini Variations Solo Part, Variation 6 w/Page Turn Direction at End

55 Also, the score is generally edited in such a manner as to avoid page turns during each of the variations, but there are exceptions for Variation 10 and the Fugue. An additional page turner may be necessary for these exceptions specifically. The length of Variation 10 is possibly due to the need to include the supplemental flute and violin parts, but the Fugue is so long itself that even without the supplemental parts it would require some page turning prowess. However, in contrast to the solo part, which beyond the flute and violin lines only includes ‘Tacet’ designations and occasional cues, the score includes multiple pages that are not necessary for the pianists. The full score includes everything: the full set of variations, the solo flute parts, the solo violin parts, and the supplemental parts, resulting in additional pages to turn in the Fugue especially. Britten adjusts the instructions accordingly at the end of a piano variation preceding another variation that does not include piano, using instructions such as the one at the end of the second variation: “Zoltán first turns to page 12, then takes Flute.”27 Therefore, when the violinist returns to the piano for Variation 8, the pages are already where they need to be. However, considering that a page turner may be necessary for the Fugue, that person could easily be responsible for all page turns, eliminating the extra distraction from the performers themselves.

27 Britten, Gemini Variations, 7.

56 CHAPTER 6

MUSICAL MERIT AND COMPARISON TO BRITTEN’S OTHER WORKS

Before one begins to compare Gemini Variations to Britten’s similar works, it is

important to understand the place of the work in relation to the remainder of the composer’s

output. Gemini Variations was released in the mid-1960s, and other notable works that were

published that decade include the well-known choral works A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Op.

64 (1960), the War Requiem, Op. 66 (1961), Psalm 150, Op. 67 (1962), and the church parable

Curlew River, Op. 71 (1964). Also published that decade are the instrumental works Sonata in C

for Cello and Piano, Op. 65 (1961), the first Cello Suite, Op. 72 (1965), the second Cello Suite,

Op. 80 (1967), and the Harp Suite, Op. 83 (1969). Of the numerous instrumental works composed in this decade, only two can be truly considered chamber works - Gemini Variations and Sonata in C for Cello and Piano. The remaining instrumental works are for a single instrument.

Of Britten’s entire output of chamber music, Gemini Variations is his singular chamber work to call for four-hand piano, although over the course of his career he composed three chamber works scored for two pianos. When comparing Gemini Variations with Britten’s other works that incorporate a theme and variations set, three works, one for solo piano and two for orchestra, share the inclusion of a final fugue. These three works are The Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra (1945),28 Twelve Variations for solo piano (1931),29 and Variations on a Theme

of Frank Bridge, Op. 10 (1937).30 There are other works of Britten’s that include a theme and

variation set, such as Temporal Variations for oboe and piano or Lachrymae: Reflections on a

28 Benjamin Britten, The Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra (London: Boosey & Hawkes, 1945). 29 Benjamin Britten, Twelve Variations (London: Faber Music Limited, 1986). 30 Benjamin Britten, Variations on a Theme of Frank Bridge, (London, Boosey & Hawkes, 1937).

57 Song by Dowland for viola and piano, but they do not include a final fugue. Evaluating some of

the works listed above, none of which were written for children, will serve to better understand

whether Gemini Variations shares a similar level of complexity and meaning, or whether Britten

wrote a less sophisticated piece for younger players. Despite any observations regarding the work’s level of technical difficulty, this work shares many similarities to Britten’s other pieces, such as similar compositional techniques, formal structure, and the incorporation of unusual scoring features.

During Britten’s schooling years, he studied composition with English violist, composer, and conductor Frank Bridge. In the early years of Britten’s professional career, he used a theme of Bridge’s to compose Variations on a Theme of Frank Bridge, Op. 10 (1937). Although this piece is for string orchestra rather than for chamber ensemble, its use of variation technique and the inclusion of a fugue make it important in undertaking the comparisons under study. The theme comes from the second movement of Bridge’s Three Idylls for String Quartet (1906), and includes eight variations and a final fugue. Rather than numbering the variations, Britten chose to title them with a marking indicating expression, style, or genre. Some of these titles are unique, such as Aria Italiana, Bourrée Classique, Wiener Walzer, and Moto Perpetuo, and some titles are common, such as the two that are shared with Gemini Variations: March and Romance.31 British biographer Humphrey Carpenter writes that each of these variations is a representation of a different facet of Frank Bridge’s personality.32 Such a personal element could not be expected in

Gemini Variations referencing only the dedicatees whom Britten had only met once.

In considering the possible emotional ties Britten had with Frank Bridge, as well as the

wider dynamic and textural options available to a string orchestra, the structural and harmonic

31 Britten, Variations on a Theme of Frank Bridge. 32 Humphrey Carpenter, Benjamin Britten: A Biography (New York: C. Scribners, 1993), 109.

58 complexity of Variations on a Theme of Frank Bridge seems to be more advanced and intricate

than that of Gemini Variations. However, this intricacy cannot be solely attributed to Britten’s

transformations and treatment. Bridge’s theme is more harmonically complex, and when

compared to Kodály’s Lily of the Valley (the theme upon which Gemini Variations is based), one

can truly understand that the variation options for both themes will result in strikingly different

possibilities. The transformations in Gemini Variations incorporate both changes of instrument

as well as the structural and rhythmic transformation of the two thematic cells, whereas in

Variations on a Theme of Frank Bridge the movements function better as character pieces.

Flashes of the harmonic and rhythmic elements of the “Bridge” theme influence each movement,

but the intervallic content is not the basis for these variations. Additionally, there is considerable

difference in dynamic and textural options in a work for string orchestra, resulting in extremes of

volume and presence, varying from overwhelming intensity to gentle intimacy. Comparing

Gemini Variations with other chamber works may provide more clarity as to the similarities and

differences in complexity of texture and compositional technique, hence the inclusion of

Temporal Variations which is discussed next, as well as Phantasy Quartet even though it is not a

theme and variation set.

Britten’s Temporal Variations premiered in 1936 and is scored for oboe and piano.

Though this work is a theme and variation set, it differs from Gemini Variations in that it does

not end with a fugue. After its initial premiere, it was not performed again until after Britten’s

death. During the time in his life when he was composing Temporal Variations, Britten was

writing a number of film scores, which according to Greek-American oboist Sotos Djiovanis

may have had an influence on this particular work.33 The theme is a Britten original, in contrast

33 Sotos Djiovanis, “The oboe works of Benjamin Britten” (DM diss., Florida State University, 2006), 35, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

59 to Gemini Variations, Variations on a Theme of Frank Bridge, and The Young Person’s Guide to

the Orchestra. Each of the variations is both numbered and titled, and includes typical titles such

as March, Chorale, and Waltz, as well as less typical ones such as Oration, Commination, and

Resolution.

The tonality of Temporal Variations is certainly an important way in which it differs

from Gemini Variations. Orienting oneself to the tonality throughout this theme and variation set

is difficult, but considering the harmonic ambiguity of the original theme, it makes sense that this

is encountered throughout the work. Temporal Variations seems to incorporate more avant-garde

elements, such as seemingly eliminating any traditional harmonic momentum, and constructing

much of the work with a focus on texture and gesture. Gemini Variations does not always use

traditional harmonic construction, yet still adheres to more tonal sensibilities. But more

importantly, this work seems to base many of the transformations on the intervallic content from

the theme — an extremely important similarity. A small cell comprised of a minor second and a

minor sixth appears frequently throughout this work, so despite the difficulties involving the

tonality, Gemini Variations and Temporal Variations both appear to be based on specific

thematic cells. Considering the thirty years between the composition dates of Temporal

Variations and Gemini Variations, it is notable for there to be this distinct similarity in the

compositional process. Both pieces are built using a similar tool, but ultimately, the realization in

Temporal Variations is more rhythmically and technically complex.

Britten’s Twelve Variations for solo piano was composed in 1931, but was not premiered

until 1986. After this premiere and its subsequent publication by Faber, the work still did not get

regularly performed. The Faber website has record of only eight performances of the piece,34 and

34 “Performances.” Twelve Variations - Performances, Faber Music, accessed January 23, 2020. https://www.fabermusic.com/repertoire/twelve-variations-1146/performances.

60 online resources similarly have few offerings. Naxos Music Library does not have any albums that include Twelve Variations, and YouTube has three videos that present the same recording made by British-Australian pianist Stephen Hough. Perhaps the neglect of this work could be a subject for future research. Twelve Variations is another example of a theme and variation set that was composed decades before Gemini Variations, but it still exemplifies a number of similarities despite the composition dates. The theme is Britten’s own. The variations are numbered and while they may not be character pieces, they certainly span a wide range of style, texture, and tempo.

Twelve Variations, like Temporal Variations, appears to be more technically demanding than Gemini Variations. However, Twelve Variations is more structurally traditional and harmonically accessible than Temporal Variations. Each variation represents some kind of stylistic diversity, but there are very traditional levels of rhythmic and phrasal complexity. In some variations one hand accompanies while the other executes melody, or in others there is a composite united rhythmic figure, along with expected approaches toward phrase direction and length. This is certainly closer to Gemini Variations than the atypical rhythms and phrases found in Temporal Variations. However, unlike Gemini Variations, it appears that most of the variations of Twelve Variations maintain or mimic some of the harmonic content of the theme, and do not use musical cells to transform the thematic content.

Britten’s The Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra is another example of a work that includes a theme from another composer, as well as a set of variations, and a final fugue. Like

Gemini Variations, this piece has a particular purpose — introducing each of the instruments of the orchestra, including an optional narrator. The theme by Henry Purcell is similar to the

Kodály Epigrams theme in that both are diatonic and are constructed with traditional approaches

61 to harmonic progression and momentum. The variations do not have their own titles, but each

demonstrates the variety of sounds available to the orchestra, illustrating the particular strengths

of each instrument. For example, the oboe variation focuses on the lyricism and tone quality of

the instrument, and the trumpet variation is a very fast march.

Though Britten had many possibilities available to him in composing The Young

Person’s Guide to the Orchestra, he often retained much of the melodic content and contour in

his transformations of Purcell’s theme. The flute variation is one such example. It begins with a

fragmentation of the theme, the first and second flutes trading rising figures with numerous grace

notes. This fragmentation then leads to an iteration of the contour of the theme in diminution, a

rapid flurry of notes exemplifying the nimble abilities of the flute.

Example 6-1: Benjamin Britten “The Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra” Variation A, mm. 13-17

In general, the flute writing is more challenging than that in Gemini Variations. This is due to the numerous meter changes and stylistic shifts that occur within and between variations,

62 as well as quicker tempo markings and the use of the extreme high register of the flute. However, the challenging expectations are mitigated to an extent by the very nature of orchestral playing.

Whereas chamber music settings normally leave every moment for every part somewhat exposed, tutti writing for orchestra creates textures in which the details of flute writing will not be heard. Orchestral musicians are aware of this as they determine how to most effectively execute various solo and tutti passages. To be sure, there are many soloistic moments for the flutists in The Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra, but their demands in general do not exceed those of Gemini Variations.

Britten composed only one other chamber work that mixes woodwind and string instruments as he did in Gemini Variations, which is his Phantasy Quartet, Op. 2, scored for oboe, violin, viola, and cello. While it is not a theme and variations set, it is perhaps an analogous example of Britten’s writing for woodwinds in a chamber music setting. While both the flute and the oboe have their individual idiosyncrasies, comparison is valid since this work remains one of the few examples of woodwind chamber works by Britten. Phantasy Quartet was published in 1935 and exhibits a number of Neoclassical qualities typical of the interwar period including traditional approaches to formal structure, the reduced prominence of major modalities replacement with quartal and quintal harmonies, and an incorporation of motor rhythm.

The writing in the oboe part in Phantasy Quartet and in the flute part in Gemini

Variations share important compositional similarities. Both works present more easily grasped rhythmic notation and fewer accidentals than some other Britten works that make use of unorthodox rhythms, key areas, or meter signatures. Furthermore, this impression is reinforced due to the idiomatic writing for both instruments, resulting in more quickly achieved technical facility for these works. The writing in Gemini Variations and Phantasy Quartet remains within

63 comfortable ranges for both flute and oboe. Britten made idiosyncratic use of the most resonant octaves for each instrument, and did not overuse notes troublesome in either pitch or fingering.

Britten accomplished this sense of ease while maintaining exciting and engaging content for both the flute and oboe in their respective works.

The intricacies described in Chapter 4 reveal a complexity of compositional planning and conception that would make Gemini Variations a worthy companion to the other works discussed in this chapter. These other works may individually excel in aspects of harmonic or rhythmic innovation or demands of virtuosity, but not in ways that suggest that Gemini

Variations was a more casually conceived work. Instead, its internal logic and development argue strongly for its merit. Its idiom is in no way alienating to even a conservative audience, and its combinations of sounds and textures provide for a unique chamber music experience.

64 CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

Benjamin Britten’s Gemini Variations has been perpetually ignored by performers and scholars worldwide. Despite the novelty, or perhaps difficulty, of multi-instrumentalists, despite a memorable story regarding the origins of the piece and its dedicatees, and even despite the existence of a four-player version, the piece has been ignored. Gemini Variations even had the benefit of a publicized premiere, a studio recording, and a subsequent publication, but to no avail. However, considering the years that have passed and the few performances this unknown piece has received, it offers something special to the musical community and the chamber music repertoire.

It is easy to explain the practical difficulties of why this piece has not been performed.

The particular instrumental combination required is not one normally associated with program- building. Nevertheless, options exist either for excerpting specific movements from the work, a suggestion by Zoltán Jeney himself in correspondence with the author, or for a flutist and violinist to each find their own pianist and build a program using flute, violin, and piano. All four musicians would only play together for Gemini Variations.

While the lack of performances exacerbates the issue of exposure for Gemini Variations, one must still ask the more important question: can Britten’s Gemini Variations resonate with audiences? Audiences will hear a dramatic and evocative theme that opens the work, which is broken into its elements and transformed, all leading to the extended and exciting fugue. The instrument exchange alone can be captivating, and Britten’s skilled work in writing idiomatically for each voice assures that audiences will experience the best that the instruments have to offer.

65 Whether the audience realizes it or not, they are enjoying a work of distinct complexity that

happens to exhibit a number of novel qualities.

This study is the first to explore the deeper complexity of Gemini Variations. Each of the

twelve variations has individual intricacies that, when combined into the whole, nearly exhaust

the possibilities available to a composer to transform two musical cells. At first glance at the

score, some of the variations seem to be less technically difficult for the musicians to execute

than many of Britten’s other works. The work consists of many conventional rhythmic

configurations, familiar key signatures, and mostly regular time signatures. However, Gemini

Variations should be admired for its cellular complexity, coherence of structure, and the strong writing for each instrument.

Analysis of Gemini Variations has also demonstrated that it shares many similar compositional aspects with other orchestral and chamber works by Britten, including ones that have had numerous, and for some works innumerable, performances. The theme and variation structure is common in many of his compositions, both in chamber and orchestral pieces. The

choice to incorporate a fugue was a common occurrence. Even the cellular basis for variation is a

technique he used before. The various commonalities found amongst these other works of Britten

demonstrate that he composed Gemini Variations with a comparable level of deep thought,

exploration, and contemplation.

Benjamin Britten’s Gemini Variations is a singular contribution to the chamber music

repertoire. This anomaly of a work has spent decades of neglect most probably arising solely

from the challenges related to its logistical demands. It is to be hoped that this study will

demonstrate the piece’s worthiness to be considered alongside Britten’s other chamber works.

Gemini Variations shares more in common with these other works than has been recognized, and

66 it will require ambitious and resourceful musicians to advocate for this work and bring it to audiences with the frequency it deserves.

67 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Biggam, Vincent Mark. "Benjamin Britten's Four Chamber Works for Oboe." DMA diss., University of Cincinnati, 2001. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Blyth, Alan. Remembering Britten. London: Hutchinson, 1981.

Britten, Beth. My Brother Benjamin. Bourne End: The Kensal Press, 1986.

Carpenter, Humphrey. Benjamin Britten: a Biography. New York: C. Scribners, 1993.

Cooke, Mervyn. The Cambridge Companion to Benjamin Britten. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Cooke, Mervyn and Philip Reed. Letters from a Life: The Selected Letters of Benjamin Britten 1913-1976: Volume Five 1958-1965. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2010.

Djiovanis, Sotos G. "The Oboe Works of Benjamin Britten." DM diss., The Florida State University, 2006. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Doctor, Jennifer, Judith LeGrove, Paul Banks, Heather Wiebe, and Philip Brett. "Britten, (Edward) Benjamin." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Accessed 6 Sep. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.46435

Duncan, Ronald. Working with Britten: a Personal Memoir. Bideford: Rebel Press, 1981.

Elliott, Graham. Benjamin Britten: the Spiritual Dimension. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009.

E. R. Music & Letters vol. 48, no. 2 (1967): 181-83. Accessed September 18, 2019. www.jstor.org/stable/731653.

Evans, Peter Angus. The Music of Benjamin Britten. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1979.

Faber Music. “Gemini Variations - Performances.” Accessed September 13, 2019. https://www.fabermusic.com/repertoire/gemini-variations-1126/performances.

Faber Music. “Twelve Variations - Performances.” Accessed January 23, 2020. https://www.fabermusic.com/repertoire/twelve-variations-1146/performances.

Goodwin, Noël, and Heather Wiebe. "Aldeburgh Festival." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Accessed 6 Sep. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.00500

Good Morning Britten, Wordpress, Ben Hogwood. “Listening to Britten - Gemini Variations Op. 73.” Last modified December 14, 2013. https://goodmorningbritten.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/listening-to-britten-gemini- variations-op-73/.

68 Holst, Imogen. Britten. 3d Ed. London: Faber & Faber, 1980.

Johnson, Graham. Britten, Voice & Piano: Lectures on the Vocal Music of Benjamin Britten. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.

Kendall, Alan. Benjamin Britten. London: Macmillan London Limited, 1973.

Kennedy, Michael. Britten. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Kildea, Paul Francis. Selling Britten: Music and the Market Place. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

La Jolla Music Society. “Events.” Accessed October 18, 2019. https://ljms.org/calendar/action~agenda/exact_date~8-20-2017/cats_ids~22/.

Mitchell, Donald, Hans Keller, and Alan Edgar Frederic Dickinson. Benjamin Britten, a Commentary on His Works. London: Rockliff, 1952.

Mitchell, Donald. Britten and Auden in the Thirties: the Year 1936: the T.S. Eliot Memorial Lectures Delivered at the University of Kent at Canterbury in November 1979. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000.

Oliver, Michael F. Benjamin Britten. London: Phaidon, 1996.

Palmer, Christopher. The Britten Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Pearsall, Thomas Armstrong. "The Advanced Solo Piano Music of Benjamin Britten: An Analysis for Teaching and Performance." DMA diss., University of Oklahoma, 1996. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Powell, Neil. Benjamin Britten: a Life for Music. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2013.

Rupprecht, Philip Ernst. Brittens Musical Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Sadie, Stanley. "Junior Britten." Review of Gemini Variations Op. 73 and Friday Afternoons Op. 7 by Benjamin Britten. The Musical Times vol. 107, no. 1485 (November, 1966): 984- 985. https://www.jstor.org/stable/954036.

Seymour, Claire. The Operas of Benjamin Britten: Expression and Evasion. Woodbridge: Univ. of Rochester Press, 2007.

Smith, Alan Andrew. “Aspects of Hungarian folk music in Zoltan Kodaly’s Sonata for Unaccompanied Violoncello, Opus 8.” DMA diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1998. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

White, Eric Walter. Benjamin Britten: a Sketch of His Life and Works. London: Boosey & Hawkes, 1948.

69 White, Eric Walter. Benjamin Britten, His Life and Operas. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.

Scores and Discography

Britten, Benjamin. Benjamin Britten: Musik mit Oboe. Klaus Hellwig, Rolf Koenen, Rainer Kussmaul, Wolfgang Schulz. Campanella Musica C130038, 2009, compact disc.

Britten, Benjamin. The British Music Collection: Benjamin Britten - The Rarities. Zoltán Jeney, Gábor Jeney. Decca Records 00028946881125, 2001, compact disc.

Britten, Benjamin. Gemini Variations: Op. 73: Twelve Variations and Fugue on an Epigram of Kodály - Quartet for Two Players. London: Faber Music Limited, 1966. Copyright 1965/1966 by Faber Music Ltd, London. Reproduced by kind permission of the publishers

Britten, Benjamin. Men of Goodwill: Variations on a Christmas Carol for Orchestra. London: Faber Music Limited, 1947.

Britten, Benjamin. Phantasy Quartet for Oboe, Violin, Viola, and Violoncello. Boosey & Hawkes LTD, 1935.

Britten, Benjamin. Six Metamorphoses after Ovid for Oboe Solo. London: Boosey & Hawkes, 1952.

Britten, Benjamin. Temporal Variations for Oboe and Piano. London: Faber Music Limited, 1936.

Britten, Benjamin. Twelve Variations for Solo Piano. London: Faber Music Limited, 1931.

Britten, Benjamin. Variations on a Theme of Frank Bridge for String Orchestra Op. 10. Boosey & Hawkes, 1938.

Britten, Benjamin. The Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra: Variations and Fugue on a theme of Purcell Op. 34. London: Boosey & Hawkes.

Kodály, Zoltán, Edited by Percy M. Young Epigrams; Nine Songs with Piano Acc. London: Boosey & Hawkes, 1968.

Oliveros, Pauline. Trio for Flute, Piano and Page Turner. Smith Publications, 1961.

Popp, Wilhelm. Bagatelle for Flute & Piano (One Player). New York & London: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1890.

Schocker, Gary. Ambidextranata for flute and piano, one player. Theodore Presser Company, 2005.

70