THE DOUBLE REED 113

Messing with a Masterpiece:

Why the 2016 Edition of the Poulenc Trio is Only a Sketch

Alan Huckleberry
Dubuque, Iowa

E
ver since its first publication in 1926 Francis Poulencs Trio for Oboe, Bassoon,
and Piano has widely been considered the pinnacle of writing for this com-
bination of instruments. Many, including myself, consider it to be one of the
greatest chamber works ever written. In the summer of 2016, the Trios publisher,
Edition Wilhelm Hansen, released a second version of the work, while keeping the
first version in their catalogue. The reason for printing both is that the dierences
between the two versions are immense.
Sandro Caldini,1 editor of this recent release, claims that the manuscript on
which the 2016 edition is based postdates the manuscript that was used to create
Hansens first edition.2,3 (Unfortunately, Hansen can no longer locate their original
manuscript.) If Caldini is correct, one would indeed have to accept the 2016 edition
as the final will of the composer. However, there is an immense amount of evidence,
both historical and musical, that the 2016 edition is based on an earlier sketch. The
purpose of this article, then, is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is indeed
the case.

ARTICLES
The Known History of the Trio

In the mid 1920s, Francis Poulenc was an up-and-coming composer in the Parisian
music scene, already having made a name for himself with the music to the ballet Les
Biches. Nevertheless he was taking lessons from Charles Koechlin and seeking advice
from many great composers. He was close to Igor Stravinsky, Manuel de Falla, Erik
Satie, Darius Milhaud, Bla Bartk, Sergei Prokofiev, and Ricardo Vies (to name a
few). He was close to authors, film makers, painters, and rich benefactors. In short,
he was a rising star, full of the confidence and insecurities so prevalent in youth.
The first known mention of a trio is in a letter to Paul Collaer,4 early 1923, in
which Poulenc informed him that he had sketched a trio, which he would be glad
to play for him next winter.5 In May 1924, The Chesterian,6 an English journal
focused on musical composition, noted: M. Francis Poulenc is working on a Trio
for Piano, Oboe, and Bassoon. 7 In September, Poulenc told Darius Milhaud in a
letter that the trio is much more important than my other chamber music.8
Later that year, in October, The Chesterian also noted: the latest work by Francis
Poulenc is a Trio for piano, oboe, and bassoon.9 That same autumn Poulenc wrote
in a letter to his mentor and teacher Koechlin: A trio for piano, oboe, and bassoon
is almost finished.10 And in October 1924 he told Stravinsky that he had finished
my trio.11 This and other letters to Stravinsky are key elements to understanding
the chronology of this work, as well as its compositional development.
 114 MESSING WITH A MASTERPIECE: WHY THE 2016 EDITION OF THE POULENC TRIO IS ONLY A SKETCH

Poulenc and Stravinsky first became acquainted in 1917, when the seventeen-year-
old Poulenc wrote to Stravinsky in hopes of obtaining one of his scores. This was the
beginning of a long and close friendship that would last until Poulencs death in 1963.
They held each other in the highest esteem and routinely shared their compositions.
Stravinsky, being the older and more established of the two, would oer suggestions
and edits for Poulencs compositions. In the mid-1920s, Poulenc was particularly
enamored of Stravinskys Octet, lHistoire du Soldat, and Les Noces. Stravinsky, on
the other hand, admired Poulencs Sonata for Two Clarinets, his ballet Les Biches
(he oered to look over Poulencs re-orchestration), and his Trio. On April 8, 1926,
almost eighteen months after telling him that he had finished the trio, Poulenc
made arrangements to meet with Stravinsky for dinner.12 This meeting occurred
on Monday, April 12, 1926. A topic of discussion at this dinner, which took place
at Stravinskys house in Nice, was undoubtedly the trio, as within a week, Poulenc
wrote to Stravinsky: How kind of you to have given me all of that good advice. I
have modified the first tempo in the trio. It is completely dierent.13 This letter also
remains the final documented discussion between the two on the topic of the trio.
In the same letter, Poulenc mentions that he must return to Paris for a concert
on May 2the date on which he premiered the Trio with Roland Lamorlette
(oboe) and Gustave Dhrin (bassoon).14 Sometime in April or thereafter, Poulenc
submitted his manuscript to Hansen for publication, presumably with the marking
FebruaryAprilCannes. 1926, as this is what appears on the last page of the well-
known original printed version. By mid-December 1926 it had been submitted for
ARTICLES

copyright protection in the US, with an actual copy submitted on January 7, 1927.15
Poulenc also sent a copy of the score or a manuscript16 to composer, friend, and
dedicatee of the trio, Manuel de Falla, who on January 12, 1927, wrote a letter in
return acknowledging receipt of the Trio.17 Then, one year later on March 16, 1928, a
second manuscript (third, if an actual manuscript was sent to Falla) was submitted to
the Society of Authors, Composers, and Editors of Music. This manuscript was also
dated Cannes March-April 1926. At an unknown date, Poulenc gave this manuscript
as a gift to his close friend and love of his youth, Raymonde Linossier.18,19 Shortly
before her untimely death in 1930, she returned it to Poulenc, who then gave it to
Marie-Laure de Noailles20 as a Christmas present in 1934. She then gifted it to US
composer Ned Rorem in 1951. It was in his possession until he donated his collec-
tion to the Library of Congress in Washington D.C., where it now resides. (Rorem
has kept a photocopy in his possession.)21 This manuscript is the only one whose
location is currently known.
Poulenc performed the trio throughout his career. It always received positive
reviews and can easily be considered one of his most successful compositions. In
1929 Poulenc recorded it with Lamorlette and Dherin on the Columbia label22 and
again in 1957, with Pierre Pierlot (oboe) and Maurice Allard (bassoon) on the Vega
label.23 He used the first edition for both recordings.

Back to Table of Contents

 THE DOUBLE REED 115

Why the Rorem Manuscript is a Sketch

Caldini notes four main arguments for why the Rorem manuscript (RM) is a later
version of the Trio and thus the final will of the composer: 1) Poulenc wrote Brouillon
dfinitif (trans: final draft/sketch) on the title page, 2) Stravinskys comments may
have arrived too late to be used in the first edition (FE), 3) there is the 16 MARS 1928
stamp from the French copyright society, and 4) there is a signature by Poulenc.24
A closer examination of Poulencs compositional habits, however, shows that none
of these arguments can serve as proof for the dating of the RM.
The issue of brouillons is an interesting one in Poulencs life. Dedications on
his few remaining sketches (or brouillons as he called them) indicate that he trea-
sured them and only gave them to his closest friends.25 He also wasnt a composer
who was easily satisfied with a published version.

Im the terror of publishers because there isnt a single work of mine that hasnt
undergone transformations, sometimes radical ones. With every new edition, there
are either simple details that I correct, or sometimes whole pages that have to be
re-engravedMy sketches, my drafts indeed are covered with crossing-out, and
once my musics published, that doesnt, for me, mean it cant be altered. Im not
one of those composers who listen to their music at a concert nodding their head
complacently, like those mothers who, with adoring eyes, follow their daughters
revels at their first balls. I, on the contrary, say to myself suddenly: How ghastly!

ARTICLES
My Andante has a wart on its nose, my Scherzo is hunchbacked, my Finale limps.
Quite often its only years later that I see what has to be changed26

Even if one translates brouillon definitif as final copy, which Caldini does,27
one can easily see that nothing is necessarily final in Poulencs mind. He routinely
altered published compositions and certainly would have done so with the Trio had
he not been content with it. He also had ample opportunity to make these drastic
changes from the FE to the RM. First, he could have easily asked Hansen to alter
the work in a subsequent edition. However, when Hansen did release a second print
of the Trio in 1954, there were no changes. Secondly, shortly after he submitted the
Rorem manuscript for copyright protection in 1928, he recorded the trio for the first
time.28 In this recording he chose to use the FE, even though he could have chosen
to use the RM, for which he had just ensured the copyright. Poulenc so clearly states
in the above-mentioned quote, with every new edition, there are either simple
details I correct, or sometimes whole pages that need to be re-engraved. And yet,
he did not do so with the Trio. Why not? It would have been completely in line with
his compositional habits. The obvious answer, in my opinion, is that he had already
corrected the simple details and entire pages: he created the FE from the RM. His
Trio went through a long labor of love, and in the end, Poulenc was extremely satis-
fied with the result. Yes, I am rather fond of my Trio because it sounds well and its
sections balance each other.29 Would someone be praising his own work so much
if he thought it needed an overhaul?
 116 MESSING WITH A MASTERPIECE: WHY THE 2016 EDITION OF THE POULENC TRIO IS ONLY A SKETCH

The mere fact that Poulenc signed the RM and that there is a stamp by the French
copyright oce proves nothing as far as the timeline or importance of this document
is concerned. This is also not an indication whatsoever that he continued to work
on the Trio past 1926. As mentioned above, Poulenc would give away his sketches
as presents to close friends. We actually have no indication as to when he gave this
sketch to Linossier. We do know that, according to Rorem himself, she returned it
to him just before her early death30 (January 30, 1930). However we do not know
when exactly it was returned. It would stand to reason that Poulenc would have
filed for copyright protection of this manuscript before giving it away as a gift. It
was after all, as far as he was concerned, the only manuscript left after having sent
one to Hansen and possibly one to Falla. But another explanation would be that he
actually gave her the signed manuscript in 1926, around the time of the publication,
and that she returned it to him before March of 1928, at which point he filed for
the copyright protection, realizing that he did not have a copy of the manuscript.
Linossier and Poulencs relationship was at its peak in the early/mid-20s, but waned
after that. It was in 1928 when Poulenc tried to rekindle their friendship and even
asked her to marry him, despite his proclivity for homosexual relations. 31 She
declined, and it is possible that she returned the manuscript then. While all of this
is simply conjecture, it does show that there are many reasons why Poulenc would
have signed this manuscript and why he would have sought copyright protection in
1928. And while he continued to perform the Trio throughout his life and recorded
it twice (both times using the first edition), we have no indication that he continued
ARTICLES

to work on/edit/tweak the Trio after 1926. Poulenc was a prolific writer of letters to
a vast number of people, and he frequently discussed his current manuscripts and
projects. Never, to the best of our knowledge, did he mention doing anything to or
with the Trio after 1926, other than perform it.
As I laid out in the description of the creation of the Trio, Poulenc met with
Stravinsky to discuss this work, and Stravinsky must have given him quite a few sug-
gestions, which Poulenc, according to his own letter, implemented. Caldini suggests
that Stravinskys comments were too late to be included in the FE.32 However the
actual timeline does not necessarily support this opinion. It is unknown when exactly
Hansen received the manuscript for the FE. It is also unknown when exactly that
FE was released. It is safe to say that both dates must have been after mid-April and
before mid-December 1926. And depending on how long after mid-April, it is very
likely that Poulenc was indeed able to incorporate Stravinskys comments. However,
even if he wasnt able to include them, he could have easily made the changes after
the fact, as was customary for him and has been laid out above.
But more problematic than the debate on the timeline is the compositional
comparison of both versions. If one is to believe that the RM does indeed postdate
the FE, then one must also believe that all changes went from good writing for each
instrument to awkward writing for each instrument, from consistent to inconsistent,
and from harmonically interesting to harmonically boring. None of this fits Poulencs
personality, nor the examples of his other major works. His writing, especially for wind
instruments, always shows a great understanding of the strengths and limitations of

Back to Table of Contents

 THE DOUBLE REED 117

each instrument. His harmonies, while relatively conservative, are normally infused
with interesting non-harmonic tones. If one does believe that the RM is a sketch out
of which the first edition was born, and from which Poulenc and Stravinsky were
working, then everything makes perfect sense. The great orchestrator Stravinsky
would have pointed out awkward instrumental treatments. He would have encouraged
him to use more interesting harmonies and would have pointed out some notational
errors, such as Poulencs harmonically incorrect usage of naturals versus double-flats.
One final general consideration: The location of the RM has been known for a
long time. Poulenc scholar Carl B. Schmidt discusses its location in his 1995 book
The Music of Francis Poulenc: A Catalogue33 and Rorem himself writes in his own
1959 book Settling the Score: The Trio is a work dear to my heart, not least because I
own the original score.34 This is important to note on two counts. First, the where-
abouts of this manuscript has never been a mystery, nor hidden. So why was it not
published earlier? Secondly, Rorem refers to the manuscript in his possession as the
original score. He was surely aware of the discrepancies between his manuscript and
the printed score when he received it in 1951. So why would he call it the original
score if he thought (or knew) he was in possession of a newer (revised) version?

Major Differences Between the Two Versions and Why the First Edition
Makes More Sense

Poulenc provided metronome markings for virtually all of his major works. One can

ARTICLES
debate whether all of them are to be taken seriously, but they are present nonetheless.
One can find metronome markings for all three movements in the FE: first movement:
Lent q =76, second movement: Andante con moto e=84, and Trs vif q.=138-144.
However they are absent in the 2016 Caldini Edition. Under closer examination of
the RM, one does find the following markings in the first movement Lent q =
and e= in the second movement. The third has no metronome marking at all.
These important details are unfortunately left out in the 2016 Hansen publication.
Additionally, the 2016 edition adds Andante as the second movement tempo marking,
even though there is no such indication in the RM. (See examples 1-4)

Ex. 1: Poulenc Trio, mvt. 1, m.1, RM Ex.2: Poulenc Trio, mvt. 1, m.1, 2016 ed.
 118 MESSING WITH A MASTERPIECE: WHY THE 2016 EDITION OF THE POULENC TRIO IS ONLY A SKETCH

Ex. 3: Poulenc Trio, mvt. 2, m.1, RM Ex. 4: Poulenc Trio, mvt. 2, m.1, 2016 ed.

The lack of a number is a clear sign that this manuscript was by no means the
final version of the piece. Not only are the numbers absent, he clearly shows that he
intended to add them. As pointed out earlier, Poulenc also told Stravinsky that he
modified the tempo of the first movement. It is completely dierent. I imagine
that Poulenc had played the opening of this movement for Stravinsky extremely
slowly, who then suggested that is should go faster. Lent would not normally be
associated with q =76, so adding that number would eectively make it completely
dierent. Furthermore, when listening to both recordings of Poulenc playing the
ARTICLES

trio, one can hear that he still plays it slower, around q =63. So I would guess that
on April 12, 1926 Poulenc played it around q =50 for Stravinsky, changed it q =76,
but couldnt help himself when playing subsequently and settled in around q =63.
Considering all of these facts, it would make sense that Poulenc did not include a
marking in the sketch he showed Stravinksy, but he added it later to the manuscript
he submitted to Hansen for publication. It is incredibly dicult to imagine that this
would have occurred the other way around.
Many of the dierences between the versions are that the harmonies of the FE
tend to be more lush and complex than those of the RM. For me, it would be coun-
terintuitive for Poulenc to move from complex (FE) to simple (RM). It would seem
that a first sketch would be the more conservative, and then (with some suggestions
from Stravinsky) the second version would be harmonically more interesting. A
good example of this is in the 2nd movement, mm.41-44 in the piano part. In the
RM Poulenc maintains his harmonies throughout the measure with no dissonance
in sight and no change in register or inversion. In the FE, while maintaining the
harmonies, he changes positions in the right hand, and adds an expressive non-
harmonic note in the left hand, thus creating much more interest. Again, it is much
more plausible in my mind that he would have changed his work from boring to
interesting rather than the other way around!
Other problems with the harmony revolve around the misspelling of chord tones.
A clear example of this occurs in the opening of the first movement in mm. 12-15.
In m.12 the g7dim chord is spelled with an Ff in the FE and with an E in the RM.

Back to Table of Contents

 THE DOUBLE REED 119

However Ff makes more sense in this chord, especially when considering the chro-
matic descending motion F-Ff -Ef (downbeat of m.13 octave displaced). (Also note
that in m.12 the writing is far more pianistic in the FE than in the RM. Putting the
F in the first chord into the left hand is vastly more comfortable, both visually and
physically, than how it is presented in the RM.) Two measures later in m.14 we again
find another descending chromatic motion, this time from E f -D-Cs. However in
the RM it is spelled Ef -Ef f -Cs, which is an incorrect chromatic spelling.

ARTICLES
Ex. 5: Poulenc Trio, mm.12-15, FE

Ex. 6: Poulenc Trio, mm.12-15, RM

A further example of this correction of chromatic spellings is in the third movement

in mm.153-154. Here the RM spells the first interval in the RH of the piano part as
A-natural. However it needs to be written as it is in the FE as a B-double flat. This
preserves the chromatic nature of the line and also reflects the trill notes in the
 120 MESSING WITH A MASTERPIECE: WHY THE 2016 EDITION OF THE POULENC TRIO IS ONLY A SKETCH

bassoon. Furthermore, the second interval of the RH in the piano part should be
an A-flat and not an A-natural as printed in the RM.

Ex. 7:Poulenc Trio, mvt. III, m.153-154 Ex. 8: Poulenc Trio, mvt. III, m.153-154
(FE) (RM)

These are, in my opinion, clear examples of fine editing on the part of Poulenc,
which he would have undertaken in preparation for publication. In discussing this
ARTICLES

with multiple composers, it can also be considered typical: when composing a

first draft, they tend to write things down quickly and without detailed regard to
harmonic voicing or instrument-specific issues. Then later they go back and fix things.
Poulenc composed exclusively at the piano. 35 It was impossible for him to do
otherwise. So it is also easy to picture him writing the Trio with a general concept
of what he wanted, but saving the details of instrumentation for a later point. With
this in mind, it is important to note that one of the great strengths of the FE is that
it is such good writing for each instrument. It shows an intimate knowledge of the
technical and musical capabilities of each instrument. The RM has moments of
technical awkwardness, and it is hard for me to believe that Poulenc would decide
to go from less awkward to more awkward. The ending of the second movement is a
prime example of this. Having the oboe play pianistic arpeggios is very non-oboistic.
The minor third figuration on the other hand is extremely well written for the oboe
but makes far less sense in the piano. Furthermore, the pianist is required to hold
down the pedal for the last three measures of this movement. Adding the minor
thirds to the piano and saying clair mais p (trans: clearly but p) is counterintui-
tive. It just creates even more blurring. I imagine that Poulenc recognized this and
made the switch, putting the arpeggios in the piano part and assigning the minor
thirds to the oboe.
Another issue to note is that the section from m.21-29 in the third movement is
extremely rhythmically unstable in the RM and it is absolutely not this way in the
FE. Again, why use the same material, but change it from stable to unstable?

Back to Table of Contents

 THE DOUBLE REED 121

Example 9: Poulenc Trio, mvt. II, mm.62-64 (RM)

ARTICLES
Example 10: Poulenc Trio, mvt. II, mm. 62-64 (FE)

Further, in mm. 53-59 in the third movement, the RM has less than ideal writing
for both the oboe and the bassoon. In m.53 the bassoon must play a fast sixteenth
note flourish, fortissimo; however it is written in a part of the instruments range
that does not project well. The similar oboe flourish two measures later is awkward
at best, almost unplayable at worst. In both instances the FE has been changed so
that only accented eighth notes need to be played. This is musically and technically
much more manageable. Later in this section (m.58-9) we find an unnecessarily
rhythmically awkward passage in the piano, which in the FE has been altered to be
much more playable while maintaining the same musical intent.
Finally, the coda of the third movement reads ceder un peu (slow down a little) in
the RM and animez un peu (a little more animated) in the FE. While what I am about
to state is indeed more of an opinion/interpretation, I do believe that speeding up a
bit makes far more sense. Poulenc does indeed speed up in his two recordings, even
though he could have very easily made the decision to slow down for the recordings,
 122 MESSING WITH A MASTERPIECE: WHY THE 2016 EDITION OF THE POULENC TRIO IS ONLY A SKETCH

regardless of which score he was using. I also believe that the advantage of speeding
up vs. slowing down is that the musical and harmonic speed slows down in the coda
anyway. In order to keep the momentum going through the end of the piece, it is
necessary to speed up a bit. Slowing down would only make sense for the first twenty-
two measures of the coda, but one would still have to speed it back up for the rest of
the movement. But Poulenc did not give us this indication, as he certainly would have
had he wanted it to be that way. He was very particular with his tempo markings and
did not want performers to take rhythmic liberties without him indicating it: Once
a tempo has been adopted, it must not be altered at any price until I so indicate.36
These are only a few of the major dierences between the two versions. They
do not take into consideration many mistakes that are obviously present in the
RM. Caldini does provide some critical notes, in which he lays out some correc-
tions he made to the manuscript. He also included an errata in his article in The
Double Reed.37 However, both are minimal and do not address many other issues.
It is therefore unclear whether the editor overlooked these mistakes, thought they
werent mistakes, or if the mistakes occurred during the editorial process. It makes
the new publication extremely dicult to trust.
If we assume for a moment that all of Sandro Caldinis assertions are correct; that
the Stravinsky comments came too late for the FE; that Poulenc worked on the score
up to the 1928 copyright; that Brouillon dfinitif was literally the final copythen
we are still left with the most important question of all: why didnt Poulenc publish
the RM? He had the means to do so and he was accustomed to altering published
ARTICLES

scores. If he really thought that this manuscript was his final word on one of the
most important pieces of his career, would he have not made sure that the world
knew this? I believe he would have, and therefore I am certain that Poulenc did not
intend for the RM to be performed.

Conclusion

It is my firm belief that the RM is only a sketch for the first edition. I would not be
surprised if Poulenc and Stravinsky used that sketch as the basis for their discussion.
All of the changes occurring between the RM and the FE make sense when viewed
in that order. They make no sense the other way around. Poulenc had a history of
changing things within scores even after they were published. Yet he did not do this
with the Trio. Poulenc recorded this piece twice. Yet both times he used the FE. The
first time just one year after submitting the RM for copyright protection! Is there
proof that the RM is indeed a sketch? No, at least not at the point of the writing of
this article. But if we were in a courtroom, I am convinced that the large amount of
circumstantial evidence presented here would lead the jury to rule in favor of this
present argument.
Why is this so important? Current pianists, oboists, and bassoonists will probably
keep playing the FE, as that is what they are used to. However, my fear is that future
generations of musicians will turn to the new edition if they are led to believe
that it is the last will and testament of the composer. The result is that the FE will

Back to Table of Contents

 THE DOUBLE REED 123

eventually fade into oblivion, regardless of whether Hansen keeps both in their
catalogue or not. I am extremely happy that the newer edition exists. Whether one
believes it pre- or post-dates the FE, it tells us a lot about the compositional process
and ideas of Francis Poulenc.
But due to the potentially serious implications of an unassuming future genera-
tion of oboists, bassoonists, and pianists, I call on the Hansen publishing company
to acknowledge serious doubt as to the order of events in the preface to the 2016
edition. The current preface strongly implies that the RM is a newer version of the
FE, and for that there is also no definitive proof. For the sake of this amazing com-
position, please let us not jump to any unsubstantiated conclusions and potentially
cause great harm to one of the greatest compositions ever written.

Praised for his impeccable musicianship, exhilarating tech-

nique, and panache (American Record Guide), pianist Alan
Huckleberry is recognized as a multi-faceted artist on the
classical music scene. He has performed in recitals as a soloist
and chamber musician in Europe, Australia, Central America,
the United States, and South America. He has ten CDs to his
name, including the complete wind and piano music of Francis
Poulenc (MSR Classics).
In addition to his performing career, Dr. Huckleberry is

ARTICLES
equally passionate about his role as an educator. He is currently professor of piano
at The University of Iowa. There he heads the piano pedagogy program, which is
rapidly becoming recognized as one of the leading programs in the nation. He is a
sought-after speaker on pedagogical topics for conferences around the world. At Iowa,
he maintains a studio of national and international students, who themselves are
leaving their mark in their field.

Endnotes

1 Sandro Caldini is instructor of oboe at the Conservatorio Statale di Musica Jacobo

Tomadini In Udine, Italy. He is also an active editor of oboe works for Musica
Rara, Doblinger, Breitkopf&Haertel, and Phylloscopos editions. (http://www.
conservatorio.udine.it/en/the-conservatory/organization/teachers/276-sandro-
caldini.html, accessed 11/06/16)
2 Sandro Caldini,The Hidden Manuscript: The New Edition of Francis Poulencs
Trio, The Double Reed 39/.3 (2016): 119-133.
3 Sandro Caldini Lecture at IDRS, https://youtu.be/TyiCUAc87cI, accessed October
26, 2016
4 Paul Collaer was a Belgian musicologist, pianist, and conductor of Flemish back-
ground. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Collaer, accessed 11/06/16)
5 Carl B. Schmidt, Entrancing Muse: A Documented Biography of Francis Poulenc
(Pendragon, 2001).141.
 124 MESSING WITH A MASTERPIECE: WHY THE 2016 EDITION OF THE POULENC TRIO IS ONLY A SKETCH

6 The Chesterian was a publication of music publisher J. & W. Chester. (http://www.

ripm.org/?page=JournalInfo&ABB=CHE, accessed 11/06/16)
7 The Chesterian 5, no. 9 (May 1924), 222.
8 Schmidt, Entrancing Muse, 141.
9 The Chesterian 6, no.41 (October 1924), 48.
10 Schmidt, Entrancing Muse, 142.
11 Igor Stravinsky, Selected Correspondence, Vol.III (Knopf, 1985), 207.
12 ibid, 210
13 ibid, 210
14 Carl B. Schmidt, The Music of Francis Poulenc: A Catalogue, 130
15 ibid, 130
16 It is unclear exactly which and what type of score Falla received. If it was a
manuscript, then it is considered lost. There is a printed score in the Manuel de
Falla archive in Granada, Spain. However, it contains no written dedication by
Poulenc, nor any annotations by Falla.
17 I was overjoyed to receive the TrioMY TRIO!so eagerly awaited. I like it so
much that, at the very first opportunity, we will perform it in Seville (keeping
the piano part to myself, of course)Many thanks, dear friend, for the joy your
music brings me, and for dedicating your Trio to me, of which I am nobly proud.
Francis Poulenc: Selected Correspondence 1915-1963, p.346-7
18 Raymonde Linossier, she was Poulencs closest childhood friend and confi-
dant. For a brief period he entertained the idea of marrying her. She was a lawyer
ARTICLES

and student of orientalism, who worked at the Muse Guimet at the time of her
death. Poulenc dedicated a number of his most important works to her or to her
memory Schmidt, Entrancing Muse, 480
19 Schmidt, Entrancing Muse, 159-161
20 Marie-Laure de Noailles, was one of the 20th centurys most daring and influential
patrons of the arts. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-Laure_de_Noailles,
accessed 11/06/16)
21 Ned Rorem, Settling the Score: Essays on Music (Anchor Doubleday, 1989), 149
22 https://youtu.be/E-pq1h--bW8, accessed 11/06/16
23 uiowa.naxosmusiclibrary.com/catalogue/item.asp?cid=00028946579923, accessed
11/04/16
24 Caldini, https://youtu.be/TyiCUAc87cI, accessed October 26, 2016 and Caldini,
The Hidden Manuscript, p.121
25 Schmidt, Entrancing Muse, 3.
26 Interview with Claude Rostand 1953-4. Nicolas Southon, Francis Poulenc: Articles
and Interviews (Routledge, 2014), 241.
27 Caldini, https://youtu.be/TyiCUAc87cI, accessed October 26, 2016 and Caldini,
The Hidden Manuscript, 120.
28 Francis Poulenc, R. Lamorlette, and G. Dherin, Recording of Poulenc Trio
(Columbia, 1929). https://youtu.be/E-pq1h--bW8
29 ibid, p.240
30 Rorem, Settling the Score, 149.

Back to Table of Contents

 THE DOUBLE REED 125

31 Schmidt, Entrancing Muse, 159-161

32 Caldini, https://youtu.be/TyiCUAc87cI, accessed October 26, 2016 and Caldini,
The Hidden Manuscript, 121.
33 Schmidt (Poulenc catalogue), 129-131.
34 Rorem, Settling the Score, 149.
35 Rostand, 265 Its true, facility isnt my strong point, and I greatly envy Milhaud
and Hindemith for being able to write a symphony in a hotel bedroom! The fact
is that as I cant do without a piano, Im subject to fewer surprises.
36 Pierre Bernac, Francis Poulenc: The Man and his Songs (Kahn & Averill, 2002), 44.
37 Caldini, The Hidden Manuscript, 33.

Bibliography

Bernac, Pierre, Francis Poulenc: The Man and his Songs, Kahn & Averill, London, 2001
Caldini, Sandro, Lecture at IDRS, https://youtu.be/TyiCUAc87cI accessed October
26, 2016
____________, The Hidden Manuscript: The New Edition of Francis Poulencs Trio,
The Double Reed, Vol.39, No.3, Baltimore, MD, 2016
Collaer, Paul, Correspondance avec des amis musiciens, Editions Mardaga, Brussels,
1994
Hell, Henri, Francis Poulenc, Grove Press, New York, 1959
Naxos Records, About this recording, accessed October 29, 2016, http://www.naxos.

ARTICLES
com/mainsite/blurbs_reviews.asp?item_code=8.553611&catNum=553611&filet
ype=About%20this%20Recording&language=English
Poulenc, Francis, Trio pour piano, hautbois et basson, Edition Wilhelm Hansen
No.2720, Copenhagen (Denmark), 1926-1954
_____________, Trio pour piano, hautbois et basson, Edition Wilhelm Hansen
No.32859, Copenhagen (Denmark), 2016
_____________, Echo and Source: Selected Correspondence 1915-1963, ed. Sidney
Buckland, Victor Gollancz, London, 1992
_____________, Articles and Interviews; Collected, introduced and annotated by
Nicolas Southon, trans. by Roger Nichols, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Burlington,
VT, 2014
Poulenc F., Lamorlette R., Dherin G., 1929 Columbia Records recording of Poulenc
Trio, https://youtu.be/E-pq1h--bW8
Poulenc F., Pierlot P, Allard M., 1957 Vega Records recording of Poulenc Trio, uiowa.
www.naxosmusiclibrary.com/catalogue/item.asp?cid=00028946579923
Rorem, Ned, Settling the Score: Essays on Music, Open Road Media, New York, 1959
Schmidt, Carl B., Enchanting Muse: A Documented Biography of Francis Poulenc,
Pendregon Press, Hillsdale, (NY), 2001
______________, The Music of Francis Poulenc: A Catalogue, Oxford University
Press, 1995
Stravinsky, Igor, Selected Correspondence Vol. III, ed. Robert Craft, Faber Finds,
London, 1982