https://tidsskrift.dk/carlnielsenstudies/issue/feed 2021-04-21T02:02:39+02:00 Anne Ørbæk Jensen aoj@kb.dk Open Journal Systems <p>Carl Nielsen Studies is an international scholarly journal in English, with yearbook characteristics but issued irregularly, published by The Royal Library from 2003, ongoing.<br><br>Editorials, dissertations, reports (i.a. on current publications) and reviews. Carl Nielsen Bibliography 1985-1995 in vol. I; 1996-2003 in II; 2004-2007 in III; 2008 in IV; 2009-2011 in V.<br><br>6 vols. publ.: Volume I, 2003; II, 2005; III, 2008; IV, 2009; V, 2012; VI, 2020. Special issues: Nordic Music Editions, Symposium 1-2 September 2005. Proceedings, 2006.</p> <p><br>&nbsp;</p> https://tidsskrift.dk/carlnielsenstudies/article/view/122246 2021-04-21T02:02:39+02:00 David Fanning david.fanning@manchester.ac.uk 2020-10-01T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2020 David Fanning https://tidsskrift.dk/carlnielsenstudies/article/view/122249 2021-04-21T02:02:38+02:00 Niels Krabbe nknielskrabbe@gmail.com

<p>In addition to the two finished operas of Nielsen, scattered sources show that throughout his life he had at least five other opera projects in mind, which for various reasons were given up at different stages in their progress. The article presents the sources that are available for these projects, comprising the following works: <em>Judith</em>, <em>Psycke</em>, <em>The Silent Woman</em>, <em>Portia</em>, and <em>Fru Marie Grubbe</em>. The focus of the article is on Nielsen’s plan to compose an opera based on Shakespeare’s <em>The Merchant of Venice</em> under the working title <em>Portia</em>. Two important manuscripts in the Royal Library show that Nielsen himself had worked out a complete synopsis for the opera, and that the librettist, Sophus Michaëlis, had made a full text of the first act. A comparison of the two manuscripts and Shakespeare’s play reveals that the opera would have been quite different from the model with its focus on the character of Portia and the leaving out the merchant Antonio. Nielsen apparently gave up the idea, and no music from the work in progress worth mentioning is known.</p>

2020-10-02T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Niels Krabbe https://tidsskrift.dk/carlnielsenstudies/article/view/122251 2021-04-21T02:02:37+02:00 David Fanning david.fanning@manchester.ac.uk Michelle Assay michelleassay@gmail.com

<p>In June 1916 Nielsen supplied incidental music for the tercentenary Shakespeare celebrations in Hamlet’s castle of Kronborg, Helsingør (Elsinore). The three choruses and two songs he composed constitute one of his least-known works. But they had a legacy, and not only in the final choral number, which, to other words, subsequently became a candidate for Danish national anthem. Shortly after the event, Nielsen confided that he found Ariel and Caliban (for each of whom he had composed a sharply characterful song) so fascinating that he was considering writing an instrumental work based on their contrasting temperaments. This he never did, at least not overtly. However, ten years later the drastic instrumental contrasts in his Flute Concerto invite a reading based on the Ariel/Caliban duality. The distinctiveness of the concerto’s confrontation between the flute solo and the orchestral bass trombone has long been recognised. However, this duality takes on a more focused and at the same time broader significance when viewed in the light of Nielsen’s life-long, albeit mainly indirect, engagement with Shakespeare. Suggesting how a composer’s occasional character-music may re-emerge in their concert work in the guise of archetypes, our article seeks to contribute to a growing field of investigation into the relationship between ‘applied’ and concert music.</p>

2020-10-02T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2020 David Fanning, Michelle Assay https://tidsskrift.dk/carlnielsenstudies/article/view/122253 2021-04-21T02:02:36+02:00 Marie-Louise Zervides marie-louise@zervides.com

<p>This article explores the position of Nielsen and his first opera <em>Saul and David</em> in the European symbolist movement of the 1890s. Through a study of Nielsen’s published letters and diary entries from the period, it is possible to present the composer’s wide interest in art and engagement with artists – both in Denmark and on his extensive European travels – at a time when symbolism was dominating the modern art scene. Furthermore, one can trace artistic strategies in Nielsen’s early work – in this case, the opera <em>Saul and David</em> – that correspond to different ideas of symbolism. This includes combining archaic materials with contemporary techniques, as well as creating a subjective expression through mood and simplified, non-naturalistic styles.</p>

2020-10-02T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Marie-Louise Zervides https://tidsskrift.dk/carlnielsenstudies/article/view/122254 2021-04-21T02:02:35+02:00 Paolo Muntoni muntonip@gmail.com

<p>In this essay, I focus on the music-cultural context in which Carl Nielsen’s <em>Saul and David</em> (1899–1901) was composed, as Nielsen approached the operatic genre for the first time. This will cast new light on his independence and originality, but also offer the possibility for some seemingly unlikely comparisons, revealing that the work is more tightly integrated with Nielsen’s broader European musical experience than has previously seemed – especially as an alternative to naturalism. I therefore consider the Italian context before, during and after the rise of verismo, focusing particularly on the anti-naturalism debate, to which <em>Saul og David</em> also belongs. Nielsen’s work follows a path that parallels the shift from the so-called noir dramas of the 1880s to the work of Ildebrando Pizzetti, via the almost completely unknown operas of Antonio Smareglia. Unusual as it may be, I believe that this comparison will support the idea of a composer who, while working in the genre of musical drama, was in constant dialogue with his European contemporaries.</p>

2020-10-02T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Paolo Muntoni https://tidsskrift.dk/carlnielsenstudies/article/view/122255 2021-04-21T02:02:34+02:00 Karsten Eskildsen kaes@mail.dk

<p>The article describes, examines, and to some extent interprets the relationship between Nielsen and his 48-years-older teacher and colleague, Niels W. Gade. It includes a tidying-up of previous descriptions and biographical notes – including Nielsen’s own – and highlights the professional connections between the two during the seven years they knew each other. Also, the article makes a comparison between the two with regard to their respective careers and ambitions: Gade as a romantic, and Nielsen on the brink of modernism. The article concludes that even though Nielsen dissociated himself from the Gade legacy at a young age, the older composer nevertheless became a role model with respect to artistic ambitions and to the demands of a composer with high standards.</p>

2020-10-02T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Karsten Eskildsen https://tidsskrift.dk/carlnielsenstudies/article/view/122256 2021-04-21T02:02:33+02:00 Claus Røllum-Larsen crl@kb.dk Marie-Louise Zervides marie-louise@zervides.com David Fanning david.fanning@manchester.ac.uk

<p>Carl Nielsen and Louis Glass were close contemporaries, and their musical careers began in parallel. But their points of departure were different. Whereas Nielsen took off from Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorˇák and Svendsen, Glass was particularly inspired by César Franck and Bruckner. Around the time of World War One, the differences became pronounced. Nielsen gained great popularity with his folk-like songs, whilst Glass submersed himself in theosophy. Symbolic of the differences are Nielsen’s Fourth Symphony, <em>The Inextinguishable</em>, and Glass’s Fifth, <em>Sinfonia Svastica</em>, each of which foregrounds the concept of ‘Life’, but from a different point of view. Glass clearly perceived that he had become cast in Nielsen’s shadow, and in a short correspondence with him in 1923 he tried to plead his case that they were both working in the same direction but from different points of departure. He felt that they were complementary. Nielsen’s side of the correspondence has not survived, and we therefore do not know his attitude.</p>

2020-10-02T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Claus Røllum-Larsen; Marie-Louise Zervides, David Fanning https://tidsskrift.dk/carlnielsenstudies/article/view/122257 2021-04-21T02:02:32+02:00 Jean-Luc Caron jcaron1387@aol.com Michelle Assay michelleassay@gmail.com

<p>Nielsen loved the French capital, its touristic riches and its abundant artistic life. He went there several times following his first trip in 1890-1891 in the course of studies that also took in Germany and Italy. At the time of his trip to Paris in October 1926 his name was better known than his works themselves. For the greater part of those in French musical life he was the dominant figure in contemporary Danish and Scandinavian music, apart from Edward Grieg, who had been dead nearly twenty years. The concert at the Salle Gaveau, which was entirely devoted to his works and which took place in his presence, enjoyed a wide resonance in the media. The majority of Danish artists who lent their services to his music on this memorable evening did not fail to make a strong impression on the Parisian audience. The press announced and commented on the event extensively.</p>

2020-10-02T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Jean-Luc Caron; Michelle Assay https://tidsskrift.dk/carlnielsenstudies/article/view/122258 2021-04-21T02:02:31+02:00 Anne-Marie Reynolds areynolds@juilliard.edu 2020-10-02T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Anne-Marie Reynolds https://tidsskrift.dk/carlnielsenstudies/article/view/122259 2021-04-21T02:02:30+02:00 Niels Krabbe nknielskrabbe@gmail.com 2020-10-02T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Niels Krabbe https://tidsskrift.dk/carlnielsenstudies/article/view/122260 2021-04-21T02:02:29+02:00 Niels Krabbe nknielskrabbe@gmail.com 2020-10-02T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Niels Krabbe