The presence of the crescendo sign I think is very much related to the perfomers Beethoven was keen to perform with (namely, F.Clement, and P. Rode), who, due to the different bowhold and to the general nature of a contemporary E-string, could hardly play with volume in the higher register. Hence, Beethoven’s solution is both instrumental and structural : for the end of the phrase of both the piano’s exposition and the violin’s repetition of the theme, Beethoven goes on a scale going up – instead of the wavy writing of the rest of this variation – and underlines this driven gesture with a crescendo, which also helps the performer in understanding that this gesture is more joyous than gracious. However, with modern instruments, one shouldn’t regard this crescendo as an important forceful idea, for the violin technique and the instrument have evolved into a very bright a resourceful high register.
Now let us go back to the slow movement’s last variation : here the dialogue, the formal classical conversation between both instruments is in the background, because the tingling timber of both instruments shines brilliantly throughout this section.
One last example from the second movement is the ‘pp’ suspended 7th chord from bars 213 to 223, and I will draw from two sources for this example :
Drawing from van Oort’s example from the ‘Adieux’ piano sonata, the Henle edition shows that the ‘equalization of markings’ method has been used here : when a dynamic appears in one part, it must be observed in the other. However, I think in terms of structural progression, the absence of ‘pp’ dynamic in both parts in bar 220 (85 in the example) can be explained in that the writing is different : in the first bar (213), the violin part, due to its very long slur, must have a ‘pp’ in order to avoid a too early ‘messa di voce’, while the piano part, which has only bar-long slurs, doesn’t need one, and in fact starts softer in bar 212, not 213, due to the register change. The subito happens in an oblique way : at bar 212 for the piano, and in the next bar for the violin. The same thing happens bars 222-223, where the violin doesn’t have slurs in the sf bar, while the piano diminishes : the violin already has the articulation of the next hypermeter prepared, while the piano has the arpeggio figuration, like in the preceding bars. Once more, the change is made progressively through two bars. I also think that adding the pp to both parts in bar 220 isn’t necessary : the writing is different (naturally louder) than the first occurrence of this chord, and Beethoven knew this very well, and chose not to restrain the instruments for the second time. This solution, in the manuscript, between continuity of form and shape, this combination of development and expression is much more interesting than a ‘forced’ copy of the previous iteration of a motif.
Following van Oort’s expertise, and Stein’s understanding of chromatic motion in both violin and piano parts, we ‘fall’ directly into the ‘p’, without the need of a subito, this section represents a sort of paradisiac vision of the theme, devoid of conflict and contrast.
We see that Beethoven blends knowledge of the instrument, with its natural tendencies and the sometimes conflictual tendencies of form and composition. The last example from the second movement has been very often performed as a subito, but I don’t see any reason as to why there should be.
After studying thoroughly this movement, we can draw a few points concerning performance and study of this work:
- rather than giving a 'general' volume level, dynamics and slurs are to be played as entities that concern only the line along which they are written: the complementarity of the voicing will turn the work into a construction that shows the way out of the variation style (especially in the case of the last one, which tries to do away with the responsive quality of the others, toward a more fantasy-like writing)
- taking into account the changing harmonic flow of a work may convince a performer to keep the tempo at a regular pace and observe how musical events may sound different and are linked differently.
- some slurs or dynamics which may seem extraneous, or some missing articulation marks seem to often be voluntary on the part of the composer - whether that is related to the contemporary instruments or to the form of the work. Peculiarities often make sense when looked at from within (from the harmonic pace of the work, especially, and how dynamics undermine or contradict it). One crucial example from the last movement will be our next step.
