Appoggiatura’s (2): Beethoven Sonata’s (1)

The Vorschlag in Beethoven’s Sonata’s

Part 1: The Vorschläge written as symbol’s (smaller notes)

Prior to this blog I wrote a quasi introductory article, a sort of thesis, in which the problem in general is raised. Would you like to read this first, please click here.

It is particularly interesting to apply the “problem” of Vorschläge from score to theory. I will certainly do this extensively with music of Mozart and Haydn. Here I want to focus on the clavier sonatas of Ludwig van Beethoven. And in the first place on the Vorschläge which are written in the form of a symbol (a smaller note).

It had already struck my attention that the number of “symbol-notated” Vorschläge decreased in the works of Mozart as he neared the end of his short life. Beethoven continues this evolution. Looking through his sonatas, the Vorschlag has almost completely disappeared.

That this small ornament troubled already much longer the minds of composers, is clearly stated by Leopold Mozart in his Violinschule. In 1756 he pleaded passionately for writing out the long appoggiatura in regular note values. Consequently, the short appoggiatura should be written as a symbol (smaller). With this idea, Leopold Mozart set a trend that will end in the 19^th century with an “exact” score. The composer shall then determine as precisely as possible what he expects of the performer. The latter will also receive less and less space for adding all kinds of variations and embellishments. Carl Czerny writes in 1839 that not a single note can or shall be added to the works of Beethoven. Or Beethoven himself would agree with this already in 1795 is another question, but the striving for an notation clarity is certainly something that kept him busy, to a greater extent than his illustrious predecessors.

The Vorschlag gradually disappears from the score. That does not mean that it is banished from the music. We are probably not enough aware of the fact that also earlier composers have always written in full notes what was clearly ment to be an ornament or Vorschlag. Parallel to the use of symbols. And always combined in one composition. In other words: It is not because the Vorschlag is not written as a symbol, that it wasn’t conceived as such. Mozart and Haydn give some excellent examples. Beethoven, however, modernises this issue and from his first major sonata on (opus 2), he bans the symbol of the Vorschlag almost entirely from his manuscript.

Is he an interesting subject of study in this series on Vorschläge? Absolutely. Even though he simplifies the notation, there are still ornaments to be found. Often written in full, what gives a unique insight into how he approached this matter. Beethoven is positioned clearly in the last period of this classic Vorschlag issue, what could shed light on earlier composors and habits.

There are two important aspects:

1.A discussion of the Vorschläge, written as a symbol
2.A discussion of long and short Vorschläge, written out in regular notes

The second point will be treated in a future article.

Vorschläge, written as a symbol

As mentioned above, this is a rather small group within the Beethoven Sonatas. In general we can say that their influence on the essential elements or characteristics of the composition is almost negligible. Where with Haydn and (especially) Mozart the effect or interpretation of the melody or theme changes drastically, with Beethoven this is (no longer) the case.

1. Unveränderliche (short) Vorschläge

The majority of Vorschläge appear in jumps. Among the already very small group this is the largest “subdivision” (Moscheles edition 1858):

or in part four of the same sonata:

or in the Pathetique (Schenker edition):

These ornaments are most probably short. In the highly structured method of Türk we read about the Vorschlag to distant notes, whether or not prepared. He puts them under the category of “discussion”. Many teachers, he writes, classify them as long, but therefore he is actually too short:

It seems preferable to me to execute this ornament short. On the beat, not before, so that a short “vacuum” is created, by which the main note is slightly delayed, and therefore receiving a very dynamic accent. Exactly this use of the short Vorschlag is considered by F. Neumann to be impossible in his 1986 book on Mozart. This leads him to the conclusion that the 18th century descriptions are purely theoretical and would never have been applied in to practice. Sadly, because this use as described by Türk, and perhaps wanted by Beethoven, gives a very specific colour to many passages. A colour that is hardly or not to be heard in performances today.

Short also is probably this one (opus 10/3 part 1):

This appoggiatura could be played long as well. But the ‘g’ is already a long Vorschlag, written out, and it is rather unusual to have a long appoggiatura preceded by another.

2. Veränderliche Vorschlägen (long)

It seems that the rather small number of long appoggiatura’s is written down accidentally, or in other words, by the force of habit slipped in Beethoven’s pen. They suddenly feel a bit archaic. They are not always unambiguous, so we give some extra examples.

No doubt long are the Vorschläge from the minuet of the sonata opus 2 / 1:

Compare for example, bar 3 and 4 of this fragment. It would be not logical to play three ornaments short, where Beethoven in bar 4 writes he same figure in full as long. Moreover, Türk also writes that if the composer uses as well symbol’s as written out ornaments for the same passages or figures, the performer better adapt the symbol to the written out ornament. Which is clearly the case here.

A particular dilemma occurs in his Opus 10 / 3, last part, bar 8 and others:

Long or short? This is one of those places that is not very clear and yet has a rather big influence on the sounding result. At first sight it seems to be a short Vorschlag. Indeed, the “e” already anticipates for the ‘d’. And as we said before, a Vorschlag for another is usually played short. Played on the beat, as it should, it feels rather uncomfortable. The “fis” is too dissonant with the chord of the left hand to be played without accent. If we choose to play the ornament long, it sounds like this:

The ‘fis’ gets 2/3 of the value of the dotted ‘e’, which shares the remaining space with the ‘d’, the so called the 2/3rd rule. This implementation seems strange, but does not sound bad at all. The ‘d’ is can also be regarded as a Nachschlag to the same note in the next bar. This Nachschlag does not appear any more in bar 91 where Beethoven writes everything in full notes:

This ‘f sharp’ is clearly a written out long appoggiatura. Türk advises similar passages to be played the same, so it feels logic to adapt this rule here.

Another difficult ornament occurs in opus 10/3 last part:

Following the theory, this is a clear example of a long Vorschlag. Played like this:

The somewhat faster tempo (allegro assai) also points rathertowar ds a long appoggiatura. We hear it nowadays most often as a Nachschlag. Certainly legitimate, but with a weak historical basis.

3. Nachschlag

Nachschläge are ornaments that belong to the final part of the main note, very short played just before the new bar or accent.

I believe following ornaments to be Nachsläge (sonata opus 2/2, Part 2 Moscheles edition 1858):Here it seems obvious to the see the ornament as an endpoint of the Doppelschlag.

More doubtful, but not impossible as Nachschlag are ornaments in his opus 2/3, first part:

When played as a Nachslag, the ornament sounds logic and does not disturb the melodic line. Only the bows point in the direction of a short Vorschlag (jump). However, the triad in bar 180 is to be considered as a preparation for this (very innovative!) passage, written out as a Nachschlag, so to be played before the beat. In analogy with that could the ornaments from bar 181 onwards to be seen equally as Nachschläge.

Conclusion

Beethoven wrote very little Vorschläge in the form of a symbol (small note). They even almost disappear from 1800 onwards. Many of these ornaments seem to be short, but the force of habit or tradition made Beethoven occasionally write a symbol where he wants a long appoggiatura. But within the very small group of Vorschläge (small note notation), the long one is the smaller group. Although a single solution is not always evident, the choice of performance does not have a major influence on the composition, as they have with Haydn and certainly Mozart.

Is to be continued in one of the following blogs with the title Appogiatura’s (3): Beethoven Sonatas (2)

©Wim Winters 24 March 2011

 

 

 

Appogiatura: k’ Zàamtatatàm or Pàtatatatàm?

Appoggiatura’s, short or long: an insolvable problem?

Anyone who listens today to music from the second half of the 18th century, knows undoubtetly what I mean: the appoggiatura (Vorschlag) being played very short and before the beat: “k zàamtatatam. Type Mozart’s Turkish March:

It became a typical habit in the world of historically oriented performance practice. Vorschläge of this and other types are usually played very short, before the beat whit the main note accentuated. The traditionally trained pianist and orchestral musician on the other hand play a lot of these ornaments long. They seem to follow a 19th century tradition, as is demonstrated in editions of that time, such as Breitkopf’s Mozart edition. Often, these appoggiatura’s are considered as “long” and transcribed into regular note values. Here the Breitkopf Mozart edition, published by  Brahms published in 1878 (and of which we can assume that at least Brahms played it like this in 1878):

When pianoforte players decided to change this tradition, it was conceived as fresh and innovative. And since it is convincing in these (often very fast) performances, we assume that it is in line with what we know from the 18th. But is that really so?

Not just something …

I was seriously confronted with the complexity of appoggiatura’s when my clavichord, as a seductive partner invited me to spend a lot more time with the Viennese Classical era. Also the Baroque period contains still many controversial ornaments, but the impact on especially the classic periode is enormous. Take for instance our Turkish march, or Mozart’s sonata in B flat KV 333:

or in a minor, KV 310:

The initial thematic material or melody changes dramatically as we interpret this “material” as either ‘k ‘Zàam tata tàmtamtam or Patatata tamtamtam (333) or ‘k zàm tamtatam / Pàjam tatatam (310)… In the latter case, the d sharp is either a step to a consonant a minor chord, or a very sharp dissonant against the a-minor chord in the left hand. Quite a difference. Which decision should we make?

Historical sources

Do the 18th century sources give us a clear and uniform answer? Basically yes. But it is still no math, how much our 21st century mind would want that. The best known and probably also the most  comprehensive and practical books are C.PH.E.Bach’s “Versuch” (1756), Leopold Mozart’s “Violin Schule” (1756) and Gottlob Türk Clavier (= clavichord!) Schule (1789). Leopold Mozart’s work is particularly important. Although often neglected and sometimes even denied, it seems logical that the content of this important and highly practical book is put to practice  by the author / father when he started the musical education of Wolfgang.

Bach, Mozart and Türk treat very extensively the issue of ornamentation. Certainly the treatises from Mozart and Türk will be discussed in later blogs.

“Vorschlag” on the beat, not before …

A certitude  in  German sources, apart from Quantz, is that the ornaments generally, and appoggiatura’s certainly are to be played on the beat. Not before, because than it is called  “Nachschlag”. Of course … And with this fact we can’t but state that ‘k zàatatatàam … with the ‘k’ before the beat, is not historically grounded nor supported… The traditional pianist wins on this point…

On the beat, OK, but the “Vorschlag” long or short? Here the matter less easy. Nevertheless, a general conclusion is not impossible and in fact simple.

… and very often long

In all cited sources  the long appoggiatura serves as the basic model. So the Vorschlag gets half the value of the main note, or even more, in the case of dotted notes, or notes followed by a rest. Additional feature: the long Vorschlag carries the accent. Leopold Mozart gives only three exceptions in which the appoggiatura is short, to be executed on the beat, as short as possible, with the accent on the main note. Türk, more than thirty years later also describes the long execution as a basic pattern. But in his book we find not 3, but 18 exceptions. The short appoggiatury apparently is gaining ground at the end of the 18th century, but is subordinate to the long one and, very important, its performance is unaccented, very short, and on (!) the beat. It is not easy to do, but Türk this is very clear on this, the appoggiatura in this case can be executed short, but only if it does not disturb the movement (as I have done two years ago, see youtube, but I would play it long today):

Why not write it out in regular note values?

When most appoggiatura’s are considered to be played long, the question rises why not just write them in full, as regular note values? Leopold Mozart comments on this question in a very clear way. He pleads for a practice in which a short appoggiatura is written in full and the long one as a symbol.
So exactly the opposite of what seems to be logic. Why did he prefer the long one to remain a symbol? While it is just this long Vorschlag which is easy to transcribe.
According to Mozart, musicians are considered, even when they play a piece à vue, to add a certain amount of ornaments. When composers would write the long appoggiatura in regular notes, there is a real threat  -still according to Mozart- that the performer adds appoggiatura’s to those written out, which would produce a ridiculous effect. Simple, isn’t it?

So also on this second point, the traditional pianist is right by simply following the tradition. A tradition which apparently has roots in a very distant past. Apparently the (early) 19th century editions reflect the 18th century tradition, but with the difference that long appoggiatura’s are written in full (and not the short ones, as Leopold would have liked). We enter a time in which the score is considered more and more as a finished unity. A musician  gets less and less freedom to embellish the performance with his own inspiration. Read for instance Czerny’s remark about the works of Beethoven, where he explicitly “prohibits” to add any embellishments (Czerny Opus 500).

What about the performances of today?

On what did historical oriented musicians base their performances of appoggiatura’s where the original sources teach us something else?

One answer lies maybe in the secondary literature that is always (and rightly) interpretive in nature. For example the very important work of Frederick Neumann. He wrote the famous standard book “ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music”. Less known but equally impressive is his book published in 1986 titled “ornamentation and improvisation in Mozart.” No doubt this book has contributed much to the idea of the in this time new pianoforte culture. When I started reading this book, I was highly surprised by the first sentences of his introduction. Neumann approves the recent musical practice… and claims that the historical sources, including Bach are merely theoretical. It would never have been the intention of the 18th century authors to apply their theories into practice… Then a thick book follows trying sophistically to prove this thesis.

Or how one of the greatest music theoreticians possibly has nourished a piece of “historically performance practice” that never (or seldom) is questioned afterwards.

Or how a musician who chooses to inspire his or her performances on a historical basis, should “trust” at first only primary sources.

Even neither this blog … !

© 2011 Wim Winters

Schindler on Beethoven and Liszt. Contextual proof.

“Much has already been done in France by Franz Liszt, who so thoroughly comprehends the spirit of Beethoven.”

Anton Schindler (“The life of Beethoven”, ed. Mocheles 1841)

Anton Schindler: a reliable source?

In many comments on Beethoven, the name of Beethoven’s private secretary Anton Schindler regularly pops up. Seldom we read a positive word about him. Schindler is accused of having destroyed half of the conversation books and having added many doubtful entries after Beethoven’s death. Amongst other things…  

Although I think that we must very careful interpret information and historic facts, this is not the place to treat this matter. What does surprises me however, is the fact that Schindler’s work contains much information on performances of and by Beethoven. Information that is often neglected and not very widely known. Often very detailed information, in a way that it would surprise not to be accurate.

Schindler’s biography was translated into English by Ignaz Moscheles in 1841. Moscheles, in those days the leading musician in London, met Beethoven several times. It is striking to see that a 19th century translator could take the liberty of introducing lots of new footnotes with personal reflections on… the work he translates. Which puts this work in a very valuable perspective!

Complaints about musical performance around 1840

Out of the many interesting passages, there is an interesting part in which Schindler comments on the current (1840) musical performance practice. In general he complains about the new generation of musicians who misunderstand Beethoven’s music and especially the choice of tempo:

“The fashion of the day tends to preclude any from attempting to play one of Beethoven’s sonatas who has not for a year together practised the hand and finger-spraining  exercises of modern performers. What is now-a-days thought of a simple allegro, as written by Mozart or Beethoven? It is converted into a presto; and so other movements are accelerated in gradation.” (p.148)

In Schindler’s words, Beethoven still lived to comment on this new evolution. He blamed the new piano exercises by which the pianist becomes more capable than necessary and a loss of tradition:

“Beethoven truly remarked “that a certain class of pianoforte performers seemed to lose intelligence and feeling in proportion as they gained dexterity of fingering” (p.146) and further: “Out of a hundred pianists whose talent is being swayed by the dominion of fashion, it would be difficult to find two who know anything of these sonatas.” (p.152)

Franz Liszt as a guardian of OLD traditions?

Out of hundred only two… Schindler gives two names: Felix Mendelssohn and Franz Liszt. France would be the place where Beethoven is played the fastest of all. Liszt brings there the old tradition of tempi to the audience, but the work can not be done by one man:

“Much has already been done in France by Franz Liszt, who so thoroughly comprehends the spirit of Beethoven. But the efforts of one individual are insufficient for the wide diffusion of important principles.” (p.151)

Liszt? The great virtuoso that would have played Beethoven remarkable slower than his colleagues? Let’s have a closer look on this.

Two statements are to be “tested”:

1. Beethoven, and other classical works is played generally much too fast around 1840.
2. Franz Liszt was a rare exception in this evolution, sticking to the old tradition

We will return to this matter of tempi in next blogs. Here we focus on the fact if we can find a way to conform Schindler’s idea. To do so, we must place his book in a broader context. Only contextual research gives a perspective to the researcher and performer.

Czerny and Moscheles: agree or disagree?

With regard to the first point. Do we find other sources that confirm the idea that tempi increased considerably around 1840? The answers is…yes, and more surprisingly exactly in the same period as Schindler.

Moscheles

Let us first turn to Moscheles. I will certainly speak about him more extensively in a next blog, while he is a very interesting figure, being born in the middle of the classical era (1794) and only died in 1870. He sat on the first row to witness all the changes in tradition and performance practice. Here are three quotes of his diaries, taken from a recent edition (Smidak):

(1839) The disciples of this (= Clementi) school, while supposedly taking its guidelines as their basis, actually despise them on principle, and their strength is derived only from the enormous power of their hands. While enthusing in their unbelievably sickly manner, they seek their most piquant effects by the swiftest alternation between the sustaining pedal and the soft pedal, or in the use of rhythms and modulations which, although not entirely frowned upon, were previously permitted only in the rarest of cases. (p.119)

(1858) The Gewandhaus began its concert cycle in earnest: the first part with only ecclesiastical music, the second part with Mozart’s C-major Symphony, played impeccably and yet to my mind the tempi of the first and last movement were too fast.(p.186)

(1862) If only our friend Mendelssohn lived on… (…) the racing speed that swallows many notes, the spinning out of an Andante until it becomes an Adagio, an Andante Con Moto in which the Moto is missing, an Allegro Comodo which makes itself no longer comfortable. (p.199)

So, more of this in a next blog, but it is not hard to see a confirmation of Schindler’s remark of the increased tempi.

Czerny

Another reliable source is Carl Czerny, who left us an extensive and very interesting pianoschool opus 500, an extensive writing on the performance of Beethoven’s  Part 4 of this work is about Beethoven: “Über den richtigen Vortrag der sämtlichen Beethoven’schen Klavierwerke”. Published in 1842.

Czerny is much more polite, writing a book instead of a diary. But he mentions in his conclusion that he felt the time requested a work on Beethoven, in which by help op the metronome the correct tempo was set. (we will come back on the metronome…).

“Es is bekannt, wie häufig, besonders bei öffentlichen Productionen, das Tempo vergriffen wird.” (p. 121)

At the conclusion of the comments on the sonatas, Czerny writes this: “Beethoven lebte und schrieb alle seine Werke in Wien. Es ist natürlich, dass der Sinn für deren Verständniss und richtigen Vortrag hier vorzugsweise (wie durch Tradition) bewhrt werden konnte, und die Erfahrung hat bewiesen, dass das wirklich der Fall ist. Denn wie oft mag in anderen Gegenden sowohl das Tempo, wie der Character dieser Compositionen verfehlt worden sein! Und für die Zukunft wäre dieses noch mehr zu besorgen. “

Czerny clearly states a change in tradition and certainly in choice of tempo was to be observed around 1840. But being assured by the metronome marks, he does not tell if he meant an increase or a slowing down of the tempo choice… Within this blog about Schindler we must search a quote that could help us placing Czerny’s remarks in a wider perspective. For that, we must not search long. Moscheles foot note comments in his translation of Schindler’s biography contain a defensive passage in which he defends his MM-marks as well as those of Czerny:

“By way of excepting myself from the sweeping censure here bestowed upon all who have attempted to fix the metronomic signs to Beethoven’s compositions, I hope I may be permitted to state, that in superintending for Messrs. Cramer & C°. the new edition of his works, and in metronomizing the several compositions, I have not merely listened to my own musical feelings, but been guided by my recollections of what I gathered from Beethoven’s own playing, and that of the Baroness Ertmann, whom I have heard perform many of his works in his presence, and to his entire satisfaction, at the musical meetings alluded to by M. Schindler in this work (p.73), and at Mr. Zmeskall’s. In some of the quick movements, I have purposely refrained from giving way to that rapidity of piano-forte execution, so largely developed at the present time. It is with satisfaction that I add, that the tempi I have ventured to give differ very slightly from those affixed to Haslinger’s Vienna edition, by Carl Czerny, whom I consider to be a competent authority in the matter.” (p.145)

I could have cut this quote to the last sentence, but find it too interesting not to share in this post. Moscheles clearly states a new tradition of piano-forte playing that increases the tempi considerably. And that the tempi he gave in his edition are perfectly in line with those of Czerny.

So as a conclusion to the statement n°1 of Schindler that tempi are increased in the 1840′s, we may add a confirmation of both Moscheles and Czerny, two of the greatest authorities at the time.

Back to Franz Liszt

So, what about Franz Liszt? Was he indeed a true Beethoven performer, faithful to the classical tradition of the late 18th century?

Carl Czerny, as far as I know, has not made a comment on Liszt’s performances of Beethoven in regard of this tempo-matter. Although Liszt was Czerny’s most famous student, which does not guarantee us that he carried on playing in the way his master teached him to. But there is a chance that he did and we might assume Czerny would have mentioned it if otherwise. Which is of course not an argument.

But Moscheles knew Liszt also very well, being named by Liszt “one of the pillars of piano playing”. And Moscheles once attended a Liszt concert in which he played the Beethoven concerto in E flat major. Here is what he had to say:

“I must also mention that I found Liszt’s performance of Beethoven’s E-Flat concerto to be highly satisfying, for the most part, I cannot imagine the energetic spiritual part of the work being played better, but there were other passages which I would have preferred to hear in a more relaxed manner.” (p. 147, Smidak)

So Moscheles agrees on Liszt’s approach in a time where he distances himself clearly from a new generation of pianists that focused more and more on technique, effect and fast tempi. Yet he found Liszt tempi slightly too fast, but would have used other words when he would have distanced himself fundamentally from his tempo choices.

Another beautiful quote is to be mentioned, much later, bringing this matter into a much wider perspective. The quote is taken from a very interesting biography of Charles-Marie Widor, written by Ben van Oosten. Widor met Liszt several times with an important meeting while introducing the new Cavaillé-Coll organ of the Trocadero to Liszt in the presence of the organ builder. In return Widor was allowed to the Erard castle where Liszt stayed and practiced. Liszt, in 1878, studied three hours before noon and Widor attended all sessions.  “Le souvenir le plus extraordinaire de ma vie artistique” (p.133), he would state later to Dupré. Further, in an interview in 1934 he said: ” La maestra d’un Liszt ou d’un Rubinstein qui ne jouaient pas vite a remué le monde.” (p.331) and further: “On joue presque toujours trop vite; la jeunesse cède facilement au désir d’éblouir l’auditoire par ce moyen: prenez-y garde, c’est de la virtuosité à faux qui regarde le cirque, non la tribune. (…) Liszt ne donnait jamais la sensation de jouer vite.”

Conclusion

Schindler might be controversial on certain biographical matters. His comments about the musical performance and practice however tend to be much more accurate and indeed imbedded in a classical, late 18th and early 19th century tradition. The increase of tempi he finds objectionable and in this matter at least, we see similar remarks by musicians as Czerny and Moscheles.

Which rises the question whether today we play again in the classical tempi, or we are pupils  of a tradition born around 1840 and taken further to the extremes…

…is to be continued.

© Wim Winters 2011



Introduction to this blog

This blog will be a non-scientific, non-academic, and a non-coherent collection of thoughts, mostly about personal musical-technical reflections on performance practice.

I will write in Euro-English… However, I could write in Dutch, my mother language, fluently, better and much more eloquent (of course) but a particular bad evolutionary moment in the 17th or 18th century (you see it’s not scientific!) prevented Dutch to hold its position as world language… so forgive me the Euro-English…

I (Wim Winters) was trained in Amsterdam as an organist and pianist, but I devote much of my present time to the unfretted clavichord and music of the Viennese Classical era (Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and others). This period will be the main focus of this blog, in which I will share with you general thoughts as well as reflection on particular details.