Messing with a Masterpiece – Why the 2016 edition of the Poulenc Trio is just a sketch

Dr. Alan Huckleberry, The University of IowaNovember, 2016

Ever since its first publication in 1926 (Wilhelm Hansen publishing company), Francis Poulenc’s Trio for Oboe, Bassoon, and Piano has widely been considered the pinnacle of writing for this combination of instruments. Many, including myself, consider it to be one of the greatest chamber works ever written. In the summer of 2016 Hansen published a second version of this trio, while keeping the first version in their catalogue. The reason for printing both is that the differences between the two versions are immense. And this is where the problems begin. The editor of the second version, Sandro Caldini1, claims that this second manuscript postdates the manuscript, which was used for the first edition23. (Hansen can no longer locate this manuscript.) One would thus have to accept this version as the final will of the composer, should it indeed have been composed after the first edition. There is however no proof that this is the case. Quite the contrary: while there is also no proof that it PRE-dates the first edition, there is an immense amount of evidence, both historical and musical, that it does. I am therefore convinced that what was published in 2016 is nothing more than a (final?) sketch of the version which was published in 1926. The purpose of this article is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is indeed the case.

The Known History of the TrioIn the mid 1920s, a young 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 da Falla, Eric Satie, Darius Milhaud, Bela Bartok, Sergei Prokofiev, and Ricardo Vines (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 mention of a trio was in a letter to Paul Collaer4, 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

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 Caldini, Sandro, The Hidden Manuscript: The New Edition of Francis Poulenc’s Trio, The Double Reed, Vol.39, No.3, pp.119-1333 Caldini, Sandro, Lecture at IDRS, https://youtu.be/TyiCUAc87cI , accessed October 26, 20164 Paul Collaer was a Belgian musicologist, pianist, and conductor of Flemish background. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Collaer , accessed 11/06/16)5 Schmidt, Carl B., Entrancing Muse: A Documented Biography of Francis Poulenc, p.141

1924, The Chestarian6, one of England’s most important journals dealing with the development of musical composition and style in the first half of the 20th century, 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 Chestarian 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.

The relationship between Poulenc and Stravinsky began in 1917, when the 17-year-old student Poulenc wrote, with the encouragement of his teacher, to Stravinsky in hopes of obtaining one of his scores. This was the beginning of a long and close friendship, which would last until Poulenc’s death in 1963. The two composers routinely shared their compositions. They held each other in the highest esteem. Stravinsky, being the older and more established of the two, would offer suggestions/edits for Poulenc’s compositions. In the mid-1920s, Poulenc was particularly enamored of Stravinsky’s octet, l’Histoire du Soldat, and Les Noces. Stravinsky, on the other hand, admired Poulenc’s Sonata for Two Clarinets, his ballet Les Biches (he offered to look over Poulenc’s re-orchestration), and his trio. On April 8, 1926, almost 18 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. The topic of discussion at this dinner, which took place at Stravinsky’s house in Nice, was undoubtedly the trio, as within a week, Poulenc again wrote Stravinsky the following: “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 different.”13 This letter also remains the final documented discussion between the two on the topic of the trio.

The same letter mentions that he must return to Paris for a concert on May 2, where he premiered the trio with Roland Lamorlette (oboe) and Gustave Dherin (bassoon). Sometime in April or thereafter, Poulenc submitted his manuscript to Hansen for publication. Poulenc wrote

6 The Chesterian, one of England’s most important journals dealing with the development of musical composition and style during the first half of the twentieth century, was produced by the well-known music publisher J. & W. Chester. (http://www.ripm.org/?page=JournalInfo&ABB=CHE , accessed 11/06/16)7 Chestarian 5, no. 9 (May 1924), 222, from Schmidt Carl B, Entrancing Muse: A Documented Biography of Francis Poulenc, p.1418 Schmidt, p.1419 Chestarian 6, no.41 (October 1924), 48, from The Music of Francis Poulenc: A Catalogue: Carl Schmidt, p. 13110 Schmidt, p.14211 Stravinsky, Igor, Selected Correspondence Vol.III, p.207 12 ibid, p.21013 ibid, p.210

“February-April 1926, Cannes” on the manuscript. By mid-December 1926 it had been submitted for copyright protection in the US, with an actual copy submitted on January 7, 1927. Poulenc also sent a copy of the score or a manuscript14 to composer, friend, and dedicatee of the trio, Manuel da Falla, who on January 12, 1927, wrote a letter in return acknowledging receipt of the signed manuscript.15 Then, one year later on March 16, 1928, a second (third?) manuscript appeared and 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. Shortly before her untimely death in 1930, she returned it to Poulenc, who then gave it to Marie-Laure de Noailles16 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 collection to the Library of Congress in Washington D.C., where it now resides. (Rorem has kept a photocopy in his possession.) 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 label17 and again in 1957, with Pierre Pierlot (oboe) and Maurice Allard (bassoon) on the Vega label18. He used the first edition for both recordings.

Why the Rorem manuscript (RM)19 is a sketchCaldini notes20 four main arguments that the RM is a later version of the trio and thus the final will of the composer: (1) Poulenc wrote “brouillon definitif”(final draft/sketch) on the title page, (2) Stravinsky’s comments were too late to be used in the FE, (3) there is the 3/16/28 stamp from the French copyright society, and (4) there is a signature by Poulenc. A closer examination of Poulenc’s compositional habits, however, shows that none of these arguments can serve as proof for the dating of the RM.

14 It is unclear which Falla received. If it was a manuscript, then it is considered lost. There is a printed score in the Manuel de Falla archive in Grenada, Spain. However, it contains no written dedication by Poulenc, nor any annotations by Falla. 15 “I was overjoyed to receive the Trio – MY 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.346-716 Marie-Laure de Noailles, was one of the 20th century's most daring and influential patrons of the arts. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-Laure_de_Noailles , accessed 11/06/16)17 https://youtu.be/E-pq1h--bW8 , accessed 11/06/1618 uiowa.naxosmusiclibrary.com/catalogue/item.asp?cid=00028946579923, accessed 11/04/1619 From here on I will refer to the 2016 publication as the “Rorem manuscript (RM)”, and the 1926 publication as the “First edition (FE)”20 Caldini, https://youtu.be/TyiCUAc87cI , accessed October 26, 2016 and Caldini, The Hidden Manuscript, p.121

The issue of “brouillons” is an interesting one in Poulenc’s life. “Dedications on his few remaining sketches (or “brouillons” as he called them) indicate that he treasured them and only gave them to his closest friends.”21 He also wasn’t a composer who was easily satisfied with a published version.

“I’m the terror of publishers because there isn’t a single work of mine that hasn’t 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-engraved…My sketches, my drafts indeed are covered with crossing-out, and once my music’s published, that doesn’t, for me, mean it can’t be altered. I’m 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! My Andante has a wart on its nose, my Scherzo is hunchbacked, my Finale limps.’ Quite often it’s only years later that I see what has to be changed…”22

Even if one translates “brouillon definitif” as “final copy”, which Caldini does23, one can easily see that nothing is necessarily “final” in Poulenc’s 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 and in fact in 1954 Hansen did publish an unchanged second print of the trio. Secondly, shortly after he submitted the Rorem manuscript for copyright protection in 1928, he recorded the trio for the first time24. However he chose to use the FE, even though he could have chosen to use the RM, for which he had just ensured the copyright. Thirdly, he 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 satisfied with the result. “Yes, I am rather fond of my Trio because it sounds well and its sections balance each other.”25 Would someone be praising his own work so much if he thought it needed an overhaul?

The mere fact that Poulenc signed the RM and that there is a stamp by the French copyright office 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 Raymonde. We do know that,

21 Schmidt, p.322 Francis Poulenc: Articles and Interviews, p.241 (Interviews with Claude Rostand 1953-4)23 Caldini, https://youtu.be/TyiCUAc87cI , accessed October 26, 2016 and Caldini, The Hidden Manuscript, p.12024 Poulenc F., Lamorlette R., Dherin G., 1929 Columbia Records recording of Poulenc Triohttps://youtu.be/E-pq1h--bW825 ibid, p.240

according to Rorem himself, she returned it to him “just before her early death”26 on 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. Raymonde’s and Poulenc’s 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. 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 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 suggestions, which Poulenc, according to his own letter, implemented. The editor of the RM suggests that Stravinsky’s comments were too late to be included in the first edition.27 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 1926 and before mid-December 1926. And depending on how long after mid-April, it is very likely that Poulenc was indeed able to incorporate Stravinsky’s comments. However, even if he wasn’t able to include them, he could have easily made the changes after the fact, as was customary for him, and laid out above. But more damning than the debate on the timeline is a musical/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 Poulenc’s 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 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

26 Rorem, Ned, Settling the Score, p.14927 Caldini, https://youtu.be/TyiCUAc87cI , accessed October 26, 2016 and Caldini, The Hidden Manuscript, p.121

interesting harmonies and would have pointed out some notational errors, such as the harmonically incorrect usage of 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 Catalogue”28 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.”29 This is important to note on two counts: The whereabouts of this manuscript has never been a mystery, nor hidden, so why wasn’t it published earlier? Secondly, Rorem refers to it as the “original score”. He was surely aware of the discrepancies between his manuscript and the printed score when he received it in 1951. And he certainly wouldn’t call it the “original score” If he thought he was in possession of a newer version.

Major differences between the two versions and why the first edition makes more sensePoulenc provided metronome markings for virtually all of his major works. One can debate whether all of them are to be taken seriously, however they are present. One can find metronome markings for all three movements in the FE: first movement: “Lent ♩=76” (slow), second movement: “Andante con moto♪=84”, and “Très vif ♩.=138-144”. However they are absent in the RM. But under closer examination of the RM, one finds the following markings in the first movement “Lent ♩=” and “♪=” in the second movement. (The third has no metronome marking at all.) This important detail is unfortunately left out in the 2016 Hansen publication. Additionally, the 2016 edition adds “Andante” as the 2nd 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.)

28 Schmidt (Poulenc catalogue) p.129-13129 Rorem, p.149

(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 on adding them. Poulenc also told Stravinsky, as pointed out earlier, that he “…modified the tempo of the first movement. It is completely different.” 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 ♩=76 and adding that number would constitute it being “completely different”. Furthermore, when listening to both recordings of Poulenc playing the trio, one can hear that he still plays it slower, around ♩=63. So I would guess that on April 12, 1926 Poulenc played it around ♩=50 for Stravinsky, changed it ♩=76, but couldn’t help himself when playing subsequently and settled in around ♩=63. Considering all of these facts, it would make sense that a sketch could not have a marking, but that he would add it later to the manuscript, which he submitted for publication. It is incredibly difficult to imagine that this would have occurred the other way around.

Many of the differences between the versions are that the harmonies of the FE tend to be more lush and complex than those of the RM. For me, this is a counterintuitive move on Poulenc’s part to move from the FE to the RM. It would seem to me that in a first sketch he would be more conservative, and then, with some suggestions by Stravinsky make it harmonically more interesting. A good example of this is in the 2nd movement, m.41-44 in the piano part. In the RM he maintains the 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 a beautiful 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 it from “boring” to “interesting” than the other way around!!

Other problems with the harmony revolve around the misspelling of chord notes. The RM uses A-naturals as opposed to B-double-flats in the FE. A-naturals in these instances make no harmonic sense, and I cannot imagine that Poulenc would make such a mistake in what is being presented as the final copy. These might be issues on the current copyist side of things, but by simply looking at the score, one cannot tell.

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 and makes far less sense in the piano. Furthermore, the pianist will need 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” (clearly but p) is counterintuitive. It just creates even more blurring. I imagine that Poulenc recognized this and made the switch and put the arpeggios into the piano and the minor thirds into the oboe part respectively. It is also interesting to note that Poulenc exclusively composed at the piano. It was impossible for him to do otherwise. So it is also easy to picture him writing this passage (and others) with a general concept of what he wanted, but saving the details of instrumentation for a later point.

The section from m.21-29 in the third movement is rhythmically extremely 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?

In the section from m. 53-59 in the third movement the RM has horrendous writing for both the oboe and the bassoon. First, in m.53 the bassoon must play a fast sixteenth note flourish in ff; however it is written in a range of the instrument which does not project well. The similar oboe flourish two measures later is virtually unplayable. 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 intention.

Finally, the coda of the third movement reads “ceder in peu” (slow down a little) in the RM and “animez un peu” (a little more animated) in the first edition. While this is 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 made the decision to slow down for the recordings, regardless from which score he was playing. 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. If at all, slowing down would only make sense for the first 22 measures of the coda, but one would have to speed it back up for the rest of the movement. However 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.”30

These are only a few of the major differences between the two versions. They do not take into consideration many mistakes, which are obviously present in the RM. Caldini does provide some critical notes, in which he lays out some corrections he made to the manuscript. He also

30 Bernac, Pierre: Francis Poulenc, The Man and his Songs, p.44

included an errata in his article in The Double Reed. 31 However, both are minimal and do not address many other issues. It is therefore unclear whether the editor overlooked these mistakes, thought they weren’t mistakes, or if the mistakes occurred during the editorial process. It makes the new publication extremely difficult to trust.

Final reasonIf we assume for a moment that all of Sandro Caldini’s 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 definitif” was literally the final copy – then we are still left with the most important question of all: why didn’t Poulenc publish the RM? He had the means to do so and he was accustomed to altering published scores. If he really thought that this manuscript was his final word on one of the most important pieces of his career, wouldn’t he have made sure that the world knew this? I believe so, and therefore I am certain that Poulenc did not intend for it to be performed.

ConclusionIt is my firm belief that the RM is simply a sketch of 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 that occurred 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 amount of circumstantial evidence would lead to the conviction that it is indeed just that. 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 naturally turn to the “new” edition if they are led to believe that it is the last will and testament of the composer. And why wouldn’t they? The result is that the FE will 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 generation 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 proof. For the sake of this amazing composition, please let us not jump to any unsubstantiated conclusions and potentially cause great harm to one of the greatest compositions ever written.

Bibliography

31 Caldini, The Hidden Manuscript, p.133

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 Poulenc’s 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.com/mainsite/blurbs_reviews.asp?item_code=8.553611&catNum=553611&filetype=About%20this%20Recording&language=English

Poulenc, Francis, Trio pour piano, hautbois et basson, Wilhelm Hansen Edition

No.2720, Copenhagen (Denmark), 1926-1954 _____________, Trio pour piano, hautbois et basson, Wilhelm Hansen Edition

No.32859, Copenhagen (Denmark), 2016

_____________, Echo and Source: Selected Correspondence 1915-1963, ed. Sidney Buckland, Victor Gollancz, London, 1992

Poulenc F., Lamorlette R., Dherin G., 1929 Columbia Records recording of Poulenc Triohttps://youtu.be/E-pq1h--bW8

Poulenc F., Pierlot P, Allard M., 1957 Vega Records recording of Poulenc Triouiowa.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