As we’ve seen already twice before, Beethoven treats the four-note motif as a pure entity, actually devoid of a relationship to hypermeter or phrasing, and his own hesitation about the placement of such motif has already happened twice until now, and the third comes now :
How can music change ?
Accidental and essential properties of this musical ‘subject’ are numerous, which has been alluded to before, and they are :
- Essential : notes of equal weight rhythmically, of great harmonic stability, devoid of chromaticism (non-functional motif, as it is not its harmonic content which leads to a repose on the next downbeat).
- Accidental : may apply to several notes (but alternating), different degrees of articulation, dynamic and instrumentation. May or may not define an entire hypermetric unit. May apply to dissonant notes while not, in itself, enter in conflict with said harmony. May be written in many different manners depending on the instrument or the effect sought after in terms of expression and driving force (as was said earlier, eigth notes with eigth notes rest might mean a more straight-forward and heavy approach than quarter notes, which ‘lead’ more into the next bar – my performer’s interpretation of this).
These are but a beginning for a definition of qualities, but I think using existential philosophy’s distinction between essential and accidental qualities and properties of an object so as to understand, as a performer, what changes the identity of a work with its idea, is a helpful synthetic tool.
Bar 282-4 : here we have the first ‘special’ dynamic of the piece, and that for several reasons :
- On a hypermetric level, we are just at the beginning of a four-bar unit but this unit starts unexpectedly, instead of having the previous V-I chords resolve in this spot.
- On a purely instrumental level, the preceding section has had 36 bars of continuous fortissimo, in contrast to the exposition, which only had 14, therefore going back to piano, as Beethoven realized, is a very daunting task given the formal implications.
- On a formal level, and in consequence of the two preceding levels, this signals of course a very dramatic turn of events, since this is a flat VII exposition, and the beginning of the development.
While this may seem a simple example for interpreting peculiar dynamics, one question must be asked : why a twice underlined piano, why not a single line ? I think the point the N. Kitchen makes about expression is true, though I don’t think Beethoven saw dynamics uniquely or even mainly as a tool for expression. A simple look at manuscript informs us that he would revise his scores only in order to specify dynamics, meaning that the work and its form only make sense on the condition that we respect these dynamics. That is also why some of his most formally inventive music uses these dynamics the most (the late quartets, and the serioso quartet op.95), while other works barely feature these dynamics, because Beethoven found through other ways the means of expressing musical content (through homeomorphic development, in that piece). Beethoven uses these to abstract us from normal discursive thought of everyday musical exposition.
Also, one of my main conclusions is at hand : This special dynamic, pp, means that one must reach this dynamic, but disregard any swell or change that might be implied by agogic, rhythm, or natural instrumental behavior : these dynamics indicate that one must think and perform abstractly.
But as the hypermetric units extend, the rhythmic pattern dissolve and bear none of the fact that rhythm, as was put forward by C. Rosen, may legitimate harmonic modulation and pace, as well as hypermeter : here the constant stagnation between the soloist’s triplet arpeggios and the orchestra’s diatonic eigth notes blurs and stops the harmonic motion into g minor, even though before the second section of this development (bars 331 and following), there is one last surge of rhythmic activity, in the original manuscript, of vigor, before we reach the classical and romantic heart of the movement.
I use the word romantic here precisely because have been set up the disctinctive qualities of ambiguity in text that were put forward by D. Stein : complementarity of harmony’s and rhythm’s parameters, so as to produce a general effect rather than a localized one : here the texture is very romantic, because we are not bound anymore to hypermeter (one of the defining qualities of romantic music, which most of the time doesn’t correspond to Beethoven’s compositional research).
Maybe novelty will do it.
I might suggest another possibility for interpretation, and that is to play from the first note of the above example on, piano. I think the piano dynamic Beethoven writes is a formality so as to avoid being too loud when going up the octave (following van Oort’s clever acoustic vision of the tessituras of the instrument), as well as a necessity in that the violin must have a defined dynamic due to the very soft entrance of the horns.
But the very high jump, the return to the middle-low register of the instrument, tempt me into going softly after the very large arpeggio – it’s not to my taste to fall on the trill with a huge and, though very convincing and possibly satisfying, quite distastefully pachydermic sforzando.
Avoided and delayed arrivals are a staple of Beethoven’s concerti, and a sf on the A would give really to much of a sense of arrival, before the endlessly beautiful next section. If anything I would play this next section louder than the two bars shown in the example, simply because the latter lead into the former. In the scope of the entire movement – and as was discussed in the beginning of this chapter, Beethoven’s treatment of the unreconciliable sounds and sonorites of the soloist and the orchestra often force the violin to try and supplant the orchestra (as we’ll see Beethoven do heroically very soon), but this time, the orchestra does the effort of becoming so soft as to not force the soloist in the heart of the movement.
Tiles and timeblocks
But let’s go back to this important moment in the form of the first movement. It is rhythmically, formally, emotionnally at the turn, and that can be shown in the many phrasings possible for this musical apparition :
It might be possible for the soloist to play a swell (or at least sustain the first trill and drop dynamically on the second one, while the horns to not change dynamics) over the two bars – that is what I have been taught and seem to hear most of the time.
Also possible is a messa di voce over the two bars, cutting across the barline. Most interpretations have either the horns perform four very equal but quite sostenuto. One small very beautiful detail in G. Kremer’s interpretation with N. Harnoncourt conducting the Chamber Orchestra of Europe is the timing the horns take for their entrance : slightly late, just to incite doubt : we are not anymore in the realm of the battle-scene with the forward-pushing timpani strokes.
This hesitation opens up many questions at the core of the relationship between expressivity and hypetermeter, because the harmonic pace here is very clearly running through fifths
The next special dynamic and phrasing appears bar 329, which features a difficult choice for the soloist : what to make of this slur ? Is it related to the erased lower identical A, or does it indicate a vocal swell, indicating to the performer that he must not ‘’breathe’’ or retake the bow ? the texture of the trill blurs many of the contours of this section.
prokoving change through a single texture
In fact, I think the remnants and effect of the trill are seen throughout the next section, through the figure of the alternating eigth notes (related to trills in terms of shape and properties) and the crescendi going into piano subito (related to trills sonically, as a trills progressively gets louder when played longer, especially on a piano, as if lingering), as well as many of the solo part’s chromaticisms (on the meaning and effects of the trill in Beethoven's music, Shreffler 2012). The presence of the slur also indicates that the two bars are but one hypermetric unit, with the horn motif both latent in the first bar, but also announcing the next section.
This treatment of the opening motif as an upbeat gesture is, as we’ve seen, one of the main issues of Beethoven’s revisions, as well as the crux of my use of homeomorphism as a tool for analysis.
I think both very much make sense (and in fact op.61a features a variant of the manuscript ; it doesn’t feature this original gesture because his piano couldn’t reach up to the high D – probably the main problem with op.61a’s credibility as a free work of art), the latter has a more recitative quality in the last bar, while its version of bar 327 is an accelerated, hurried development of the preceding rising figure. The orchestra has by then left the soloist to itself. Beethoven probably chose this version for op.61 because the martelé strokes on bar 328 speak out in the same way a ‘deux en deux’ does on the piano (same rhetorical emphasis through different means)
On the side of the soloist, having performed and recorded this section as is written under the erasing marks, a detaché stroke, as written, works quite well, with the exception of bar 378 (after the second arpeggio going up), where a 1+7 bowing works well. There are in fact remnants of this solo part in the orchestral score, since at this very spot, the orchestra has a ‘sempre forte’ despite having a ff in the bar before.
But maybe Beethoven gave too much into an easy virtuosic solo part in this section, which wouldn’t accuse enough the formal idea of the movement, that of dialogue – and failed arrivals : the lack of the soloist is quite pregnant with meaning, too, letting the orchestra speak, just like in the second tutti. After all, this concerto being cast with deeply interconnected movements, this would be too early to have a feeling of liberation.
The ‘avoided’ arrival of the soloist at bar 386 would make sense both in the case of performing the solo or not. The subito nature of this entrance actually still works if one respects the fact that the ff solo manuscript has 4 bars of silence before the more familiar piano dolce entrance, where the orchestra takes over with rising scales. The nature of both sections’ music is different, the earlier is rhapsodic, while the latter is responsive.
I’ve said earlier that Beethoven uses the peculiarities of the violin even though that means toning down some of the orchestra’s qualities : we have a strong example here : and the fact that the basses are pp is no coincidence either : everytime the motif appears in this sequence, it is in this dynamic : Beethoven is tiling the dynamics, showing the very antagonism that will make up the rest of the development : expression versus the fateful drumming. Many performers, using editions with the slur over the whole espressivo bar, chose a very tense sound, but I don’t think it matches well with the recitativo, almost ‘parlando’ quality of this section, its very slow harmonic motion, the absence of the four-note motif during these three bars provides a moment stopped in time. As was proven by Kolisch and Leibowitz in writing, and by Ernest Bour and Thomas Zehetmair in performance, a faster tempo overall only makes these moments stand out even more, and more easily.
once we leave the heart of the movement, Beethoven’s original manuscript shows this incredible ‘solo’ section, while the orchestra is playing a full FF tutti !
(transcription of the manuscript, with the original/corrected horn part for the last bar – and the different possible interpretations).
Why did Beethoven write this solo ? Because this solo both praises the union but also the fight between the two parties of the work. It is a moment of freedom due to the last-minute return of energy. The writing – unregarding of its ‘violinisticality’ – is very much different from the orchestra’s very emphatic reading of the main theme.
But despite this contradiction between a rhetoric orchestral section and a rhapsodic solo part, they have meeting points : yes, the writing for the orchestra is quite strong on heavy beats, but some of the phrasings are nothing but elaborate ways of pushing forward ;
let’s look at a few examples (mm.365-9) :
I feel like this arrival points out to many of the issues present in Beethoven’s work. I think a lot of Beethoven’s music might be informed by this peculiar use of dynamics (whether they be underlined, or ‘normal’), because each tell us a different story : and that is a difficult thing to admit when we find consecutive piano signs for example.
the upper staff is the original writing, which also happens to be the piano version, for the first bar of this picture). A clue as to why the crescendo I believe goes on until the espressivo is because the piano version trills on the f natural and the next f sharp note, then stopping after the eigth notes. But the slur leading until the f sharp then separating the f and the g is a very thoughful expressive touch from the editor, and maybe Beethoven : it’s as if Beethoven knew that much bow was needed !
When I looked at the manuscript 3 years ago, trying to dust off the erasures and scratch marks, deciphering each note, there was a unique sense of wonder and I must admit transgression : HERE there was Beethoven going wild, festively joining the orchestra and soloist in a choatic and unresolved manner !
- localized sforzandi : strings in 366, woodwinds in 367 : this makes the music breathe more easily, with different instrumental choirs responding to each other.
- sempre ff only in strings, so as to have their bows push the tempo forward – which is easier in a legato than in the woodwind and brass section. Since the brass have some repeated notes, they must play more separate than the other musicians, once again bringing momentum through an acoustic ‘air draw’
- flute going up an octave : this also creates motion, since a syncopation appears where only a diminuendo appeared in bar 3 ; this octave figure also helps sustain the sf until the last beat of the bar.
- timpani motif written as eigth note+eigth rest : version of the motif that’s held back and not leading into the sf, just like the preceding bars have pizz variants of the timpani motif also using eigth notes in their graphy. This whole bar 365 is an upbeat, just like the solo violin’s part in the manuscript indicates.
With the guidance that we have from van Oort’s article, we can conclude that the crescendo in the bass line is an indication for a messa di voce, while the soloist, respecting the phrasing of the slurs, must rise in volume until the espressivo : this is another homeomorphism of the beginning of the first solo, where the violin is doubling at the double-octave a lower voice under a pedal point. The opening triplet arpeggio has been transformed into the eigth-note turn, the pedal point is on V instead of I in the exposition.
the manuscript features – besides a wrong note, the second one, no slur. The slurring however on the Henle edition, as well as the Meyerstein copy, is very clear, indicative of a swell, a ‘localized’ espressivo on the semitone going up – then, no espressivo on the rest of the gesture. The violins’ own three-bar slur matches that of the soloist bar 102 in the exposition, but not the accompanying woodwinds in the corresponding spot, which have single bar slurs. But the reading from the Breitkopf edition is very interesting, giving us plenty of different tools to work with :
