Bars 4-5
The seemingly peaceful opening of the movement is both contradicted and confirmed by a V-pedal (a stagnation on a tense chord=an harmonic oxymoron) throughout the first hypermeter (mm.1-4), only to be broken by the crescendo and sudden rise of the pedal, influenced by the chromatic motion of the right hand. All parameters seem to be leading toward a (this time) truly peaceful phrase, with softly moving harmony : indeed it is what we have in the following bars (b.6)
There are less ambiguous questions in the second variation, but I would like to point out the following elements :
In the minore variation, both instruments have often different dynamics : the continuous flow of the preceding sections comes to a near-halt here, with the melodic motion being very much disparate from the accompanying figures (we often have simultaneous elements of arpeggios with diatonic and here chromatic motion) and the erratic lines of flight of both instrument bringing the previously merry, ‘andante’ figures to a state of rare eloquence, often seen as an ‘adagio’ (referring to the point I made in 1.2.2.1). I don’t think such a change in tempo is necessary in order to bring the new character, since the bass line’s motion is linear (g-a flat-b flat-c), therefore having actually more drive than the theme.
The contrary motion of bar 6, despite the crescendo, could indicate a diminuendo followed by a natural crescendo – or the other way around, if we follow the swell of the slur. The pedal sign also helps us here in dealing with the piano dynamic in bar 7 : I think it is subito. The unfolding, organic process of this movement comes here very near to its completion, and the dramatic guise of this variation allows such extreme while not sudden movements of the soul (in this regard, it is comparable to the g minor section of the first movement of the Violin Concerto). While the other variations do have subito ideas springing, there, the horizon is met and the scope of the dramatic situation is very grand.
The lead provided by the left hand shows that there is an arrival, though a sustained one of the right hand, while the left hand doesn’t ‘carry over’ to the rest of bar 5. Perhaps we might indeed see the diminished chord as more tense than the rather sensual g-sharp which only alters slightly the fabric of tension created by the diminished chord. Even more so, the second beat of that bar is rather empty, since the left hand doesn’t play, carrying over it a dotted quarter note : should both hands have different phrasing ?
The crescendo is in fact a ‘localized’ one, it applies only to the right hand, while the writing of the left hand follows different, if not contradictory instrumental rules : there are no octaves on what would be the summit of the right hand’s phrase, and after that summit only (on the ‘p’) the left hand remerges with a diatonic harmonic motion, as opposed to the upper chromatic line, which would imply a crescendo by the very fact that it is a rising diatonic motion.
But the crux of the question is whether the ‘p’ here is a subito or not. While the music tenses up with the diminished chord in the beginning of the bar, is the last augmented V chord more tense, or less so than the first chord of bar 4 ? the chromatic line, unbroken until the top A, as well as the fact that the dissonance is on the first, strong, beat, might prove that the tension dissolves. However, there is the crescendo marking : could it mean – as van Oort says was rather normal for such a short musical period – that the first chord is immediately stronger than the preceding line (emphasized by the new slur on that very note), and that this level of loudness is held continuously until the end of the bar ? Or should we follow the two-bar slur, carrying the music over to the other section of the musical phrase, and give a sense of summit to the middle of the slur (a messa di voce over the two bars), from the g-sharp to the a ?
In the Minore variation, the first chord resolves into the second one, while in the theme, the suspension of the diminished chord only resolves to a still tense chord. Therefore, the summit of the crescendo in the theme should not be the first note, but rather the second : it is the one that brings us back to F major. While the theme is longing after resolution, this variation faces the shock of the omnipotent diminished 7th chord (omnipotent because it can lead to any major chord, depending on the leading tone we chose, as was shown to me in music analysis class by Bruno Ducol) This failed arrival is believed to be related to Beethoven's affinity and personal knowledge of tragedy, whether that is greek or his own (Brisson 2000)
A first lead in dynamics
There is a further lead in this opening : the piano dynamic is, unlike bar 5, a ‘special’ one : p in both hands : there is a contained lyricism and contained articulation, almost fragile, tentative quality to this beginning, which would bring it closer to the slow movement of the Waldstein sonata than this violin sonata’s twin slow movement, the variations of the appassionata sonata. Once we reach the end of bar 4, we have reached a ‘normal’ piano dynamic – normal in the sense that it may allude to an unrestrained sound production, according to van Oort 2016: 40 ('character' chapter). So, no subito !
The return of this figure in bar 12-13 brings a new element into light
(mm.46-8) this is the end of the secondary section of this small lied-form of a theme, with the lead into the return of the primary material. Compared with the two preceding examples, we can clearly see that the accompaniment figure gets denser and denser, with now the left hand having the same rhythm as the right one, and the violin. I also think here that both instruments complete each other out, with the violin trying to slur until the downbeat, but being brought back on its feet with a rhetorical staccato on the E, and an appogiatura on the downbeat, to emphasize in two ways the new phrase beginning, disregarding the united crescendo that precedes it.
The main advice we’re given as performers of music from the classical era is that tensions should be held longer/louder than their resolutions might be. However in the case of Beethoven’s entangled and explorative approach to form in general and sonata form in particular, conclusive statements are much less frequent than in his predecessors’ musical production : case on point being the conclusion to the fifth symphony.)
The dynamic markings here also show that there is some kind of subito when performing this section. But as the instruments of the time were given a stronger, less sustained attack, the staccato line serves as reminder to ‘place’ the chord, despite the fact that the violin will sound differently (coming from further away than the piano, coming out of the piano’s resonance). This resonance of the violin is also the reason why the piano has a different phrasing : by overlapping, they create a larger phrase.
It seems like this rather classically constructed movement has signs that confirm the natural tendencies of the instruments used.
Beethoven’s handling of the variation form is perhaps the furthest he has brought the organic possibilities of any form : even more so than sonata form, the potentiality that resides in the theme is all the more brave as it is bare : many Beethoven original themes stem from ‘less than nothing’ :
- A bass line: Eroica variations
- A two note theme : Appassionata sonata
- A chaconne rhythm : WoO 80 C minor variations
- A pseudo-choral running around the pitches of C major : op.111 variations
This reflection was widely developed in Solomon 2003: 14, with the beginning of these variations being far from the drama of Beethoven's sonatas.
And, of course, the Diabelli variations provide us with the grandest example of the possibilities that rise from a lunar, lunatic, banal, ‘plan-plan’ as we say in France, idea of a theme. This is NOT a way to say, like L.Bernstein, that Beethoven’s material is just and only that, a bastardization of scales and arpeggios, of V’s and I’s. The op.131 variations are incredibly elaborate in terms of harmony and counterpoint, from their onset, as well as the 9th symphony’s last two movements (which, I think are more variation than sonata, due to their philosophical implications).
The second movement of the Kreutzer Sonata
The Kreutzer sonata has often been hailed by listeners and performers as one of the more quintessential Beethoven works that he wrote. The full expression and exploration of struggle, the bipolar contrast of lightness and darkness imbue the work with colossal if not dangerous dimensions. It has also been noted that the writing is very virtuosic for both instruments, the ‘grande Sonate’ being the only one not having been written for amateur musicians. The harmonic ambiguity that opens the work – with a large orchestral introduction in A major (in the manner of the contemporaneous Symphony n.2) is followed by the a minor Presto main movement.
This scheme of a major introduction/slow section followed by a minor fast one, while unique in Beethoven, was first explored in the piano sonata in D minor op.31 n.2, which, while in a more dramatic and abstract manner, explores the relationship of slow-fast motion with minor-major harmony (the otherwise similar op.13 'Pathétique' piano sonata to my mind doesn't follow this scheme, mainly due to the minor setting of the introduction).
This exploration by Beethoven of homonymous keys in the major-minor fashion stems from the variation style, where he is very fond of providing a ghostly turn to the theme. The Leonore overtures II and III also have large ambiguous introductions, while their allegro sections start off in the major mode.
In terms of the opposite relationship of minor-major (picardy third) exploration, quite a few Beethoven works explore this within the sonata form (rather than the template of variations) : some of the more revolutionary, extrovert works from the early period shine late in the form with the radiance of the major mode : the string trio op.9 n.3, the piano trio op.1 n.3, and the string quartet op.18 n.4, all incidentally in c minor.
We will spend three chapters on the second movement variations, this one until the minore variation, then we must discuss the issues brought up by performance of this very section, and finally spend some time on the last, larger variation-coda.
The second movement will be our entry point into the Kreutzer sonata, for its exploration of timbre and consonance of instrumental color allows for an easier understanding of the different systems of composition at hand, through the lens of the literary sources we have described in the introduction that is, in its application here, more acrobatic than the other movements.
At the same spot (bar 5) appear crescendi in the violin part, but they also coincide with a change in rhythm : slurs in the violin part are less frequent (they were playing appogiaturas on every eigth note until then). Slurs would indicate an emphasis on the slurred notes, but now that they disappear, one must compensate in terms of volume. Therefore, a crescendo is written, despite none of the staccato dots turning into the stronger staccato lines. I think that the drop to G natural also shows a softening texture on that note compared to the accidental G sharp. The crescendo is both a very local indication (for the same A-s) and a more global, structural direction given to the variation. 3.1.6.2
These however do not coincide with the ‘leggiermente’ indication at the beginning of the variation : this word is used to indicate that the slurs should not be too strong, too rhythmical, with a lesser sense of strong and weak beats.
There are a few clues also that would be helpful to know : I believe that there are different dynamics for each hand in certain points of the piece, simply because there are different slurs and harmonic motions, different metric emphasis in both hands throughout each variation : and this since the syncopations at the beginning of the movement.
The writing of the piano part, which was in the preceding bars very much that of an accompaniment, now joins the violin’s lead, with the impulse given by the crescendo : I think that gesture of crescendo is to help the performer with the sudden larger phrasing (we just left a section of rather ephemereal accents and slurs) and the fact that the summit of the slur arriving on the second eigth note, the tension must not drop too suddenly after this vocal gesture. But the rhythm I think shows a loosening of the tension in the last 32d note of bar 46, as if it were an upbeat (despite the fact that the manuscript of the piano part is very unclear due to the staff change :
In light of the last ‘aside’ I’ve written just above, the harmonic contents is more dilated, the harmonic direction is kept dormant in this movement, due to the variation style which provides stability and stagnation – as Beethoven himself pointed out in the development of this theme.
3.1.8 melancholia and the drive to live.
The combination of dynamic and harmonic changes happening in this variation also inform us of the way we should treat the theme. corresponding passages in the minore variation and the theme:
Bars 18-20 of the minore variation : do the slurs overpower the sf ? the preceding bar has a decrescendo from forte. I think also here both hands play differently. Maybe the right hand, despite the sf, has a two-beat arc against which the left hand plays. The crescendo of the next bar is written in a way so that it starts on a lighter texture (higher register of the left hand, as well as fewer notes on the first eigth note of the right hand). Maybe the crescendo starts on the second sixteenth note ? I think that there is in the middle of this flux of sixteenth notes an illusion of quarter-note meter, with the left hand tolling the second sixteenth note of each beat. Maybe the unison C of the last bar is the summit from which the crescendo dies away into p and into the next more certain downbeat, along with the rest of the piano’s register, shifting to darker areas than even the exposition of this variation. I think there’s also a degree of natural volume given by the appearance of the C-D flat dissonance, whereas the preceding bar had little dissonance. It would seem strange that a crescendo would be written when in fact the texture is lighter, but we are in the same frame of thought as we were in the theme’s fourth and fifth bars : he is fighting the limits imposed by the instrument and by the choices he makes when composing : in fact the following iteration of the theme is properly brooding, a very much contained affliction, with the left hand doubling the lower voice of the right hand – the only instance of the variations when the return of the theme is not identical : a very clear character change must operate here.
Bar 19 : despite the Henle edition having dots all the way through, the manuscript doesn’t on the last eigth : I see this as a sign of the crescendo continuing until the end of the bar : also, the left hand of the piano has continuous sixteenth-notes instead of what could be 32d notes. Despite the fact that we’re coming from a pp to a p, a subito p it must be.
Neither instrument has the same phrasing (with a strange correction in Beethoven’s hand in the piano part), the violin does not carry the slur over the barline. Should the two instruments play differently ? Given the different left hand gesture, there is more tension to this iteration of the theme than the first one. Should now the left hand be stronger than the right ?
here is the opening of the manuscript of this movement. In it, each hand is given a dynamic, and while the expressive and rhetoric markings (sf and staccato) belong to the right hand, these should not influence the simplicity of the left hand. But perhaps Beethoven wrote a crescendo in bar 4 because the left hand leaves the right hand alone so as to expose the chromatic line more clearly, thus creating a gap in the sound – filled by the crescendo. I do not think this crescendo should bring any tension with it – and the density of the diminished chord, in its voicing, brings enough power so as to not overdo it. I also think that the novelty of the larger two-bar slur is prioritary to the other parameters. It would seem rather ungraceful to have such a lilting motion and long movement be stopped so early in its course.
Let’s now look at the corresponding passage in the first variation (bar 19-20): with the same elements of the hypermeter in mind, let’s look at the differences with the theme : here the flow of the bass line stop only after the downbeat, while the ‘middle’ voice goes on with a less dense writing of single notes, but with a rather continuous line (f-e-d-c-(b flat)), not broken by the piano dynamic. If anything, with the chord density going up on the last eigth note of m.19 so as to BOTH soften and hurry the harmonic motion, I would in fact out of the two choices presented to us go softer during those last two notes – so that we may begin anew with a staccato first beat (which was not there in the theme).
I think the clarity of the return cannot be defended when there is a subito piano breaking the mold of this rather very simple theme, especially if one wants to respect the ‘sempre piano’ order given to the violin during the whole of the variation. The flowing character of all these variations I think give is better served by rare, discrete events rather than a dismembrement of the phrases. For example, the moto perpetuo is in fact – due to the nature of resonance – broken by sudden changes of dynamics that require taking time. In contrast to the first movement, we have as performers to even out the interior details of the work.
Beethoven seems to have made a very serious point about this in his famous letter to Holz the second violinist of the Schuppanzigh quartet about the op.132 quartet in 1825 (Beethoven 2010: 1379), concerning the use of staccato lines in his music. The correction Beethoven made here should be respected, so as to avoid putting an accent on the following very low chord, and give the sense of a resolution to the preceding crescendo. On the other hand, the violin does not really ‘arrive’ to the A : a new phrase begins there, emphasized with an expressive, drawn (and not written out) crescendo swell (we have one hypermetric unit finishing and another beginning : this is classical ambiguity at its finest and simplest : what does a resolution mean ?
One frequent question is why does the eigth note motion stop at bar 5? van Oort would give the answer that true harmonic motion starts on bar 5, and therefore, as with the beginning of the theme, there is represented with this rhythm a progressive softening of the texture (also due to the fact that staccato lines get shorter and stop appearing after bar 2), as well as a progressive act of leaving C as a pedal point. This is a very delicate variation, as shows by the p at the beginning (which recalls the previous variation’s sempre piano in the violin part– and both hands I think should first play different roles, and then blend in the background so that the violin part, here soloist, shines more easily in bar 5 -hence the lighter writing for the piano there) :
I don’t think the slur carries over, and while a dot may seem lacking on the ‘p’, there might be the instrumental reason that it would be difficult, given the time given, to have a piano dynamic and a soft attack combined. I think the last note of bar 46 is within a diminuendo that lasts the whole fourth eigth-note.
while this might be a difficult point to which I’ll come back, does the slur on the left hand go until the next downbeat, or stop before ? Does the staccato on the piano’s arrival indicate a strong beat, despite the fact that it comes at the end of the slur, or has the slur been corrected so that it goes UNDER the staccato instead of above ?
