I have to comment on the fact that many slurs used in this concerto, as it happens many of the very long ones in Beethoven’s middle period, indicate a form of softness, a way to ensure that the performer will not use too much ‘license’ (licenza) when playing the phrase, because the long slur gives it direction, simply because everything that happens under a slur must be contained within it in a vocal gesture, as van Oort’s article shows. In the opening of the concerto, the ‘dolce’ (stronger than piano) dynamic used is combined with two-bar slurs, therefore there is a generous sound, because within one long slur more contrast of the swell can be obtained compared with a shorter slur, which is exactly what happens in the reprise of this theme bar 43 :
There is here more suspension, less ‘feeling’ of the hypermetric unity, due to the very simple and unchanging quality of the accompaniment, as well as shorter, one-phrase slurs in the main melody.
Bar 172-4 : here Beethoven has crossed out what would have been a calm undulating figure around weft around the string’s closing motif : but the very tense state we’ve reached before would therefore be immediately broken by a pastoral flow, lacking in contrast. This change of mind shows in retrospect that Beethoven wanted the antagonism between soloist and orchestra, ornamentation and strength, to be kept unresolved until some point in the form (point which we’ll reach quite soon). Noticeably, the piano’s left hand here hammers all four beats in the piano version, reminiscing the objective timpani motif as a musical element that brings forward the form (here, toward the third theme). Had the figuration he crossed out been kept, it would be too calm, too united between the two belligerents of the movement, so Beethoven choses to expose this theme first in the orchestra. It is repeated, but now, due to its previous absence, this figuration appears, at its beginning in a positive light, with great scalar gestures, before becoming a threat to the order established by the orchestra.
the ‘forte’ indication is chosen for two reasons : because it comes on a weak hypermetric unit, the slur shows the progression from the ‘forte’ two bars before, as well as the fact that this chord is held for two more beats (the p, bar 14). The extension of the chord, as well as the fact that we are at the end of a hypermetric unit of 4 bars, and the beginning of another, as well as in the middle of a 8 bar hypermetric unit comprised of respectively 4 bars+2 beats for the first unit, 6 beats for the second one, and a bar each for the more classical last two bars. The excessive harmonic sustain on this harmonic, this relationship between d sharp and the V chord, is heightened by the fact that there is no melodic-motivic relationship between the two elements (we might think that the d sharp ‘resolves’ into an E, but that is specifically what Beethoven doesn’t want to do). Both ‘f’ should be sustained, of course, but I would also advise to reattack the slurred piano notes on the upper strings, bar 14, so as to match the basses’ motion, and therefore create a sonic relationship with them. Over the next long ‘p’ slur and offbeat bass motion, I think a mezza di voce must be used, so as to sustain the conflictual opposite motion, then on the last two bars, no messa di voce.
After this tension is dramatically developed with a crescendo, the reasoning factor of harmony calms the rhythmic brooding by introducing the vector of tension and dissonance into the fabric rather than outside of it :
"Some very important things start with an hesitation"
In the next section, there is our first homeomorphic transformation of the opening : there is a huge translation that is operated and finds its most extreme utterance in the next bars, a great fragmentation, a contemplation of musical material being shred into pieces by rhythmic attention and flow, with a complete suspension of the order that was brought by the timpani motif, as represented by the fact that Beethoven himself was lost when writing this section (bar 53-6) :
The inclusion of running triplets being another disturbing AND constructive element of this section, the profile of the main theme is kept, but dissolved, which is what I would call an homeomorphism, when the properties of motion are kept in a continuous motion, but presented in an uncanny manner : but it is my theory that this uncanniness is the result of a process of enstrangement within the orchestra that is latent since bar 1. The triplets were latent (they were never denied), the complementarity of the brass and drum with the basses’, all leaves us with a glacial feeling of rest and unease, it seems like the trajectory of the work isn’t inevitable, the ordonnance of the work doesn’t seem vital because none of the iterations are ‘expressed’, they are rather abstract presentations, without flesh, of portions of a theme. This comes from Beethoven’s understanding of the biased relationship between solo and orchestra in the case of a solo violin, and therefore his reduction and shattering of the orchestra ; this also comes from Beethoven’s hypermetric plays.
Even though I have no idea (bar 154), what is the original source for this bar comes from, I think it proves that Beethoven thought of this section as going back and forth between separate strokes (on different strings, e.g. bar 154 of the preceding example) and uniting strings and harmonies under one gesture – whether that be with the bow, or with the pedal. However, I think that the use of frivolous articulation doesn’t match the seriousness and almost afflicted emotion of this section (with a dactylic or anapestic rhythm very much like those of a funeral march). Beethoven’s own undecisiveness when it comes to this section, his choice of leaving the rhythm openly simple and exploring registers within the frame set up by the string section must be respected.
Here on, the d sharp motif is very much included, in another homeomorphism the d sharp is put this time in a landscape of harmonic stability (around A), and is presented in a melodic setting of great musical significance : the rising chromaticism calls out for a resolution. The case of slurs in relationship to messa di voce is a difficult one : one must, I think, not ‘open’ the dynamic too much (following N. Kitchen’s example of the diamond-shaped dynamic swell) : the opening solo of the violin is a prime example of this approach toward expression and length. The slur must rarely show a contentment, a state of stasis, but rather an element of desire, of longing in the music (with an exception we’ll discuss later, thanks again to N. Kitchen) : and that longing can only be expressed through a lively tempo and a free approach to bar signature.
Compared with the more normal one-slur-per-bar phrasing of the preceding utterance of this second theme, the violin, with its register and longer notes in the second bar, has the opportunity to play a generous messa di voce with the two half notes, before suddenly picking up martelé the last bar.
Note to self : I’m still very much nostalgic that Kolisch’s and Leibowitz’s recording of the concerto they made together in 1964 is still very much difficult to access – even though the classic Heifetz/Toscanini comes close in tempo, but certainly not in character, and the Kopachinskaya/Herreweghe is a bright, innovative approach to the text. Heck, I came close I think in my own recording of it ! Kolisch said of the work that it was « ‘removed from the realm of music at the hands of the Entertainers, and is petrified in this condition (reinforced by the conformity of their ‘individual rubati’ ».
Here, the rhythmic accompaniment helps us divide the phrase in two halves rather than four quarters, as is often the case when performing the violin version : we understanding clearly here that the second half strives toward the next downbeat, this half going further and further in harmonic tension, while the triplet motif in the left-hand stabilizes the right hand’s growing ornamentation : the triplet motif brings form into focus : the necessity of going to A major for the second theme. There is also an interesting overlap between sixteenth notes and triplets.
Despite the forte dynamic two bars before this excerpt, why should people play the low e piano, but not its preceding d sharp ? According to van Oort (following the logic of van Oort 2016: 73), and we agree with this, the register and rhythmic break appears before the d sharp, and even though it is still part of the preceding harmony, it is also the leading tone of e.
By homeomorphic, yes, I am saying that the situation we’ve reached has been continually in motion, even when in stagnation. That every bar, every note even was decisive in the fact that we almost arrive at another composition : the reversible, exchangeable quality of this theme makes it all the more impervious to change and permeable to background development. The absence of hierarchies in the choirs of the orchestra recalls Boucourechliev’s comments on the nature of the Diabelli variations, where he hints at the supple nature of the work through the use of the expression ‘general constants’ when trying to come to terms with the wretched mess of a feeling that the work may imbue us with at a first approach (this is of course, not my, nor obviously Boucourechliev’s opinion on op.120).
As we can see, the work here is open-ended, full of textural and parametric contradictions which will come to light in the development.
Here, he might in fact be going for a lighter texture than the more transitory and mysterious bar 151 (which features the first almost-complete chromatic scale of the work), a texture that is harmonically suspended (leaving this task of harmonic clarity to the orchestra), which might be why he chose to write ‘bleibt’ over the less harmonically affirmative variant for bar 152, especially with the C natural on the downbeat of 153. The absence of keilen after the first beat, following Occam’s razor, is that it was either put by another hand as a reminder, or by Beethoven himself, as a reminder of the motion that was started on the previous bar. But he didn’t write ‘sempre’ though, which leaves it all open once more...
The next section is a gordian knot : why is there no keilen after the first beat ? How can the solo part be this different from the one we know ? Once again – and at the corresponding section – we find the rhythmic ambiguity Beethoven faced in bars 51 and following : he switches up the bars with the quarter note motif and the one with the whole note, highlighting the fact that there are no true downbeats nor upbeats in this motif, that it is a very pure musical idea, devoid in fact of emotion.
This motif, once more, happens to be only made out of substance : it drives momentum forward as much as it pulls it back (and here Beethoven too uses this simple push-and-pull, omnipotent idea to extend the developmental reach of this motif, which led me to borrow homeomorphisms so as to explain such transformations of the motif in the fabric of the movement).
But in the face of this dilemma, he choses to leave out entirely the opening motif from this section, instead chosing to have it feature in a moving harmonic setting (bar 154), or in the manner of a filigree in the solo part’s voicing. While in the preceding bar, Beethoven carefully places a keil over each note
Are here to blur the idea of four beats in a bar, since the breaking of these thirds does not match in regularity a four-beat scheme for the bar : as Kolisch puts it, and Leibowitz with him, this is clearly ‘alla breve’. Once again, there are transformations of the opening material (the diatonic oboe line), but exposed in a hidden manner.
The huge messa di voce/slur of the four-bar example above must be observed in any way possible, with a diminuendo while still going down, rather than arriving forte on the last bar.
beginning of the second exposition.
Another question is : how do we bring forward the return of the timpani motif ?
Because it seems of great importance in the original version, where the soloist is fact doesn’t play an upbeat to its theme : one must decide which solution in the lower staff, of the octave run or the triplet arpeggio run, keeps the timpani’s appel clear : the solution of the published score was opting for the triplet : it coincides with a timpani stroke, but nonetheless, being in a triplet gesture, recalls the conflict between different parts of the material (bar 53), here, however, expressed with grace. The 16th note run, while being closely connected motivically to the preceding bars, springs out of the middle of the bar’s timpani stroke : another gesture of grace (which might be expressed in a legato rather than a non legato stroke). The triplet opens the harmonic scope of D major very subtly for the first and only unaccompanied utterance of the primary theme (which is accompanied in the piano version by Alberti figurations which very much go in the way of Kolisch’s theory about alla breve tempo. The simplicity of this statement might not be apparent when only looking at the solo part, but its absence of conflict but also of reflection must be evaluated as only a passing state within a continuous musical development : and many of these simplicities of writing take on another meaning when the music is considered to be built alla breve, many questions, notably of articulation and freedom take on another aspect to them when we observe different texts, and see that suspension, desire, are only bringing the music forward : as in many Beethoven works, complementary materials drive each other since they are filling each other’s missing qualities : here the quarter note motif and the triplet motif (Leibowitz 1986: 160, 252 and following, where Leibowitz shows that complementarity is a unique tool for the flow of tempo despite discrete articulation)
This next bit of transition is often littered with various slurrings in the violin editions which in fact divert us away from the formal necessities of the work : Beethoven’s 1808 ‘Meyerstein’ copy of the work, which features both piano and violin versions, here with no obvious phrasing : but the presence of low E’s in the left hand, as well as doubling the ornaments when the strings are playing, creates a double dialogue between soloist and orchestral choirs, as well as information about the volume of such choirs : the woodwinds are light, whereas the strings, strictly repeating the figures the former have just played, have more volume to their sound ; going down in the register also means louder, with octaves playing the last bar. Low E’s also appear in the next bar, hammering the new V degree.
Beethoven’s change of mind concerning the end of the opening run is, I think, rather understandable : with the entrance of the woodwinds, he might have wanted a different texture for the soloist, who, going up very high in register, might need more assertive (separate) bowstrokes to gather courage and reach the top D. But nonetheless, this run written in the darker ink must be nonetheless played with the idea of continuity that was very much alive in the original crossed out solo part : there is no character change, only a brighter color bringing the orchestra back.