The following commentary addresses the definitive facts and fiction surrounding the creation of one of the most interesting and confounding violin concertos of the twentieth century.
The Violinist
Iso Briselli was born in 1912 in Odessa, Russia. At age 3 he asked his father, a doctor and amateur musician, to give him violin lessons. By age 7 he was accepted into the Stolyarsky Conservatory of Music, the most prestigious institution of its kind in the country, where he was instructed by the highest caliber violin teachers in Russia, including Pyotr Stolyarsky himself. Among the older students who had studied there were Nathan Milstein and David Oistrakh.
As the Russian Revolution grew and spread, life became extremely dangerous, especially for Jews and those labeled 'intelligentsia'. After a failed attempt to escape, resulting in the arrest of the entire family, the Brisellis finally secured official permission to leave. They settled in Germany in 1922 where Iso continued his musical studies with the renowned musical pedagogue, Carl Flesch. When Dr. Flesch accepted a position at the newly founded Curtis School of Music in Philadelphia, he thought so much of Briselli's talent that he brought the 12-year-old with him, the only student so honored. The boy's parents and sister settled in New York. In addition to Dr. Flesch, his other instructors were Leopold Auer, and Ephram Zimbalist.
Iso Briselli officially debuted as soloist in 1926 at age 14 with The Philadelphia Orchestra under the direction of Arthur Rodzinski performing the Paganini Violin Concerto No. 1 in D. One year later, he repeated his performance under Leopold Stokowski, who presented him with a personally inscribed gold watch to mark the occasion. Briselli's repertoire included all the major concert works as well as many difficult bravura pieces by such composers as Sarasate, Wieniawski, Ernst, Joachim, and Ysaye. He toured extensively as a concert soloist in the late 1930's and early 1940's receiving reviews that consistently praised his superb technique and musicianship.
The Commission
Iso Briselli and Samuel Barber had a friendly camaraderie as members of the first class to matriculate at the Curtis Institute of Music, even though Barber was several years older. Gama Gilbert, another classmate, thought a violin commission (Barber's first) would be interesting for both musician and composer. He suggested this to Briselli who introduced the idea to his sponsor and patron, Samuel Fels, the well-known Philadelphia industrialist (Fels Naphtha Soap) and philanthropist. Briselli and Fels presented the commission to Samuel Barber in 1939 agreeing on a fee of $1,000, a sizable sum of money for any young composer at the time. When the first two movements arrived, Briselli received them with great enthusiasm. When the third movement finally arrived in 1940, he had some misgivings and a measure of disappointment. To Briselli this finale seemed musically unrelated to the first two movements, lacking any recapitulation or reference to them. Moreover, the movement seemed insufficient in compositional form or development to stand as the finale of a major work. Mr. Briselli made a number of suggestions regarding ways in which the movement could be deepened or expanded, perhaps even changing its form altogether. However, Mr. Barber was already at work on other commissions and was reluctant to spend more time on the concerto. No changes were made at that time (though Mr. Barber did revisit the third movement years later). Briselli stood his ground regarding the third movement by choosing to forego the concerto's premier and relinquish his claim on it. Contemporaries attested that the two men remained friends despite their disagreement.
The Nathan Broder Fiction
In his 1954 book on Samuel Barber, Nathan Broder claims that "when the young Briselli was presented with the first two movements, he expressed concern that they were not sufficiently complex enough to showcase his talents". Regarding the third movement, "When the movement was submitted, the violinist declared it too difficult...and Barber, who had already spent his advance in Europe, called in another violinist who performed the work for the merchant (Briselli's sponsor and benefactor) and his protégé, to prove that the finale was not unplayable." The background story centers on Barber's concern that the remainder of his fee was in jeopardy since the violinist felt the third movement was compositionally incomplete. If the term 'unplayability' was actually used (no first- hand record exists to show that it was), it likely occurred during a conversation between the two men resulting in a verbal miscommunication or misunderstanding. However, taken out of context or used as a convenient invention, the term help Barber galvanize a quick response and resolution. He had new musical obligations and needed to move on. Additionally while a still a student, he had been a particular favorite of Mary Curtis Bok, the founder of The Curtis Institute, and felt she could probably be counted on for support. Mr. Barber did receive the remainder of his fee.
Nathan Broder's motivation for creating Briselli's fictional reactions to all three movements remains open for speculation. What can be said with complete certainty is that Mr. Broder never contacted or interviewed Mr. Briselli with regard to the circumstances surrounding the commission of this concerto. Unfortunately, the Broder version persisted without widespread public challenge until Ms. Heyman's book appeared.
The Briselli/Broder Aftermath
The Barber Violin Concerto had been performed on several occasions since its public debut by Albert Spaulding with the Philadelphia Orchestra in 1941. Though it was well very received by the audience, some critics took issue with the third movement (see: Barbara B. Heyman, Samuel Barber: The Composer and His Music, Oxford, and pgs. 191- 201). It would be many years before the work would find its way into the violin repertoire and enjoy the broad appeal it has today. The concerto's genesis was known only to the increasingly small circle of people involved in or around the Curtis community, and was of little interest beyond the Philadelphia musical 'family'. After Schirmer published Nathan Broder's book in 1954, Mr. Briselli began receiving calls from friends, some bemused, some outraged, alerting him to its content, according to his widow, Sylvia Briselli... She remembers going to the library with him to read the account and that he reacted as though in pain and with tremendous dismay. Weighing the options and being a non-litigious person in a much less litigious time, he decided not to bring a lawsuit for defamation, though there was clear justification. Mrs. Briselli recalls he reasoned that by bringing what would surely be a publicized lawsuit, he would actually inflate the book's importance. Instead he believed the book, with its factual errors and relatively limited appeal, would simply fade with time. He felt secure enough in his reputation among his peers and so turned his back on the entire matter. Mrs. Briselli states she never heard him mention it again. Hindsight proves how flawed his reasoning turned out to be. He failed to imagine that Mr. Broder's calumny would reach so far into the future and become the most commonly cited history for critics and annotators.
After the publication of Ms.Heyman's book, Mr. Briselli became more conscious of what was being written about the concerto and found that, indeed, the Broder account was alive and well. With strong encouragement from Marc Mostovoy, founder and music director of The Concerto Soloists, now the Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia, Mr. Briselli embarked on an effort to correct the record. Though 50 years late, the campaign met with a large measure of success. All the major recording companies contacted agreed to reexamine/revise their liner notes. Orchestras and radio programs began to offer more balanced background stories.
The Strad Magazine (1995) Article by George K. Diehl
According to Dr.George K. Diehl, Ph.D., noted musicologist and annotator. Briselli's only
issues with the concerto were the musical quality and substance of the third movement,
never its playability. Though he never performed it in public, he did play it privately. As for
the impromptu Curtis recital, his research notes for The Strad article say, "Briselli was in
New York and was not aware of what was going on. The implication is that in order to
show that the third movement was playable (even though--contrary to what program notes
traditionally convey, Briselli never said that it wasn't playable), Herbert Baumel (not Oscar
Shumsky as Broder claims) was recruited to play through the third movement...before a
small Curtis committee. Briselli does not know who it was that heard Baumel play".
[ View Article ]
The Barbara B. Heyman Book and Interview
The facts of what actually transpired can be found in the definitive biography of Samuel Barber by Barbara Heyman (1992), the only author up to that point working from primary sources in her research. Ms. Heyman suggests that "Broder's account is probably the version Barber presented to his (music) publisher." It is interesting to note that Nathan Broder was the manager of the publications department at Schirmer's, which was also Barber's music publisher. In light of this, it is not unreasonable to imagine a professional desire to make the piece's publication more scintillating, or perhaps to offer an acceptable face-saving story explaining why the artist who commissioned the concerto did not premier it.
Ms. Heyman raised Broder's version with Mr. Briselli when she interviewed him in 1982 at which time he told her he "... believed the first two movements of the concerto were beautiful and eagerly awaited the finale...the third movement was 'too lightweight' compared to the rest of the concerto. He suggested that the middle section be expanded to develop the movement into a sonata-rondo form, but Barber wouldn't hear of it".
Finale
Iso Briselli died at age 92 in 2005. His qualms regarding the violin concerto's third movement never changed. To his credit, other musicians and critics have echoed similar opinions independently.
He continued to practice the violin into his late 80s, played chamber music frequently with friends, both professionals and amateurs, provided inspiration and coaching to a host of young musicians, and devoted the rest of his long life, energy, and resources to the advancement of music and arts philanthropy in Philadelphia, his beloved adopted home. He was prevailed upon to make some very limited public performances for a non-profit arts organization which were received with great enthusiasm.
Epilogue
In recent years, program notes, reviews, and topical articles have begun to reflect a more accurate account regarding the gestation of this concerto, though some amusing and some not so amusing variations on the subject continue to persist in cyberspace and musical annotation. Many renditions are, in whole or in part, completely inaccurate, promulgated by those choosing to forego up-to-date research or those who simply enjoy the melodrama of the myth. None can withstand close and rigorous examination.
Sources
Heyman, B. B. (1992). Samuel Barber: The Composer and His Music. New York: Oxford University Press.
Broder, N. (1954). Samuel Barber. New York: G. Schirmer.
Wentzel, W. C. (2001) Samuel Barber: A Guide to Research. New York. Routledge-Keegan-Hall
