This chapter reviews and documents the appropriation of Webernian and Schoenbergian procedures in Dallapiccola’s second serial phase. I asserted in the previous chapter that this phase is demarcated by the second and third tonal translations, Tartiniana (1951) and Tartiana seconda (1956). Its works include the Quaderno musicale di Annalibera, for piano, and its orchestral arrangement, the Variations for Orchestra; Canti di liberazione, for chorus and orchestra; Goethe-Lieder, for mezzo-soprano and clarinet trio; Piccola musica notturna, for orchestra; and An Mathilde, a cantata for soprano and orchestra. With the exception of An Mathilde, these works are well known to scholars and performers alike: recordings are plentiful, and individual movements from the Quaderno and Goethe-Lieder are popular choices for analysis textbooks and anthologies.

Speaking broadly, the second-phase compositions are highly expressive, accessible, transparent, and formally concise. Perhaps their signal attribute is an increased sense of rigor and control. The literature contains many close readings and technical accounts of individual movements (though few deal with entire works), and the influence of Webern’s twelve-tone practice is widely (if not universally) acknowledged. This chapter does not attempt to revisit these analyses; rather, it documents the acquisition and formation of techniques in this period.

Without question the end of the Second World War played a key role in the technical developments of this phase. Composers were again able to travel freely, attend concerts, and obtain scores. After the war Dallapiccola spent a great deal of time studying Schoenberg’s and Webern’s works. His study was fueled by an inscribed copy of René Leibowitz’s recently published Schoenberg et son école. Leibowitz’s book contains many technical descriptions of the procedures, forms, and aesthetics championed by Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg. We can be certain that Dallapiccola read the book quite closely: his copy, which is housed in the archives in Florence, contains a number of corrections and detailed comments in the margins. I would surmise that these annotations were made in preparation for a book review he published in 1947.

It is not hard to imagine that Leibowitz’s writings would resonate strongly with Dallapiccola, who was by nature drawn to intricate frameworks and polyphony.