Brahms vs Joachim on articulation
Posted: 10 Dec 2017, 18:43
Commentary
The accompanying exchange (see the attached file at the end of this post) occurred in May 1879 in letters between Brahms and his good friend Joseph Joachim. They were ironing out various technical issues in the solo part of Brahms’ violin concerto. Brahms admired Joachim both as a violinist and former composer (Joachim gave up composing after meeting Brahms) and accepted many of his ideas, even altering passage work on Joachim’s advice. However, at one point, articulation markings added by Joachim touch a nerve, and Brahms expresses exasperation. The following collision between the traditions represented by these two men is fascinating even if their discussion proves futile: they completely misunderstand each other and the confrontation seems to leave no impression on either of them, confirming Brahms’ pessimistic view of such discussions, a fact that he tries to make light of at the end.
Brahms had marked an octave passage in the last movement with wedges, a relatively new use of this symbol for short, sharply attacked notes. It is a marking that he used occasionally (Clarinet Quintet) possibly because it fulfilled a need for a light accent mark, a need I mentioned in a recent thread on Notatio. Joachim replaced the wedges with dots and slurs. Brahms objects that this is the symbol for closely bound notes (portamento or portato for us) as seen in the music of Beethoven and others. Joachim explains that unlike earlier violin composers such as Viotti, the new violin school uses this marking to show the bowing groups used for staccato passages and that portamento is now shown with slurred tenuto marks, a notation Brahms clearly detests. Joachim gives three examples of the new style. Brahms responds that he is not convinced by the examples because he doesn’t subscribe to the philosophy behind them. “You presented clear examples, which I would have marked exactly like that.” meaning that if he believed in Joachim’s approach, he would, of course, have marked them like the examples. But since he doesn’t agree with the approach, he wants Joachim to explain why bowing directions are necessary for staccato passages. Andreas Moser, the Joachim disciple who edited and provided notes for the Brahms-Joachim correspondence, suspects that Brahms, being a pianist, didn’t understand the different styles of violin staccato shown in the three examples, and that explains why he is not convinced by Joachim’s explanation. But I think that this misses the point.
Brahms felt that he was upholding the tradition of composers like Beethoven in which articulation marks derive from and clarify musical structure. For him they are abstract concepts transferable from instrument to instrument without modification. It is up to the player to find the appropriate way of conveying the meaning of the marking. For example, when Brahms writes a slur for any instrument, it is to show that the notes are to be connected together because they are a conceptual unit. Since it is most natural for a string instrument to play such groups in a single bow stroke, a violinist might think that Brahms is indicating bowing with the slurs, but Brahms is simply marking the legato units as he does for every instrument. And this has nothing to do with the fact that he is a pianist. He might just as easily be criticized for slurring his piano music like a violinist, a charge sometimes leveled at earlier composers. At the heart of this view is the concept of music as an abstract structure that is realized by instruments. Brahms never thought of music as something created out of colorful instrumental effects and therefore had little interest in a ways of notating such effects.
Joachim and his student have the new view that markings should be exact directions for instrumental performance. For example, Joachim assumes that slurs have an exact manner of performance in piano music because he believes that they should have one on the violin. He feels that confusion is created by those who use slurs as “phrase marks” to mark off sections of the music and routinely warns his students about pianist-composers who slur string music like piano music and expect clear breaks between slurred groups. He obliquely points a finger at Brahms himself when he asks him to consider the question, but this is unjustified. None of the major composers ever used “phrase marks” or expected the ends of all legato groups to be clipped. Brahms responds that the performance of slurred groups on the piano has everything to do style, context and the player’s imagination, just as on the violin, and that legato groups need not be separated from each other on the piano in the mechanical way notated by Joachim. Only two-note slurred groups are by convention clearly separated from each other on all instruments.
New markings were necessary to satisfy the desire of violinists for explicit bowing indications and composers to notate new effects. Joachim suggests wedges and slurs as an alternate to staccato dots and slurs for the passage, but then comes closer to Brahms’ view when he reveals that he himself found the correct performance of the passage obvious from the context and the rhythmic notation alone. This is what Brahms expects of musicians, since as the editor mentions, he has a very high opinion of their ability. The editor Moser feels that this expectation may be unjustified, even with the most brilliant players, which gives us insight into another aspect of the attempt to nail down everything in notation.
Needless to say, Brahms remained steadfast and retained the wedges (without slurs) when the work was published.
(Thanks to Knut Nergaard for his suggestions regarding the English translation. Other suggestions and corrections are welcome and would be greatly appreciated.)
The accompanying exchange (see the attached file at the end of this post) occurred in May 1879 in letters between Brahms and his good friend Joseph Joachim. They were ironing out various technical issues in the solo part of Brahms’ violin concerto. Brahms admired Joachim both as a violinist and former composer (Joachim gave up composing after meeting Brahms) and accepted many of his ideas, even altering passage work on Joachim’s advice. However, at one point, articulation markings added by Joachim touch a nerve, and Brahms expresses exasperation. The following collision between the traditions represented by these two men is fascinating even if their discussion proves futile: they completely misunderstand each other and the confrontation seems to leave no impression on either of them, confirming Brahms’ pessimistic view of such discussions, a fact that he tries to make light of at the end.
Brahms had marked an octave passage in the last movement with wedges, a relatively new use of this symbol for short, sharply attacked notes. It is a marking that he used occasionally (Clarinet Quintet) possibly because it fulfilled a need for a light accent mark, a need I mentioned in a recent thread on Notatio. Joachim replaced the wedges with dots and slurs. Brahms objects that this is the symbol for closely bound notes (portamento or portato for us) as seen in the music of Beethoven and others. Joachim explains that unlike earlier violin composers such as Viotti, the new violin school uses this marking to show the bowing groups used for staccato passages and that portamento is now shown with slurred tenuto marks, a notation Brahms clearly detests. Joachim gives three examples of the new style. Brahms responds that he is not convinced by the examples because he doesn’t subscribe to the philosophy behind them. “You presented clear examples, which I would have marked exactly like that.” meaning that if he believed in Joachim’s approach, he would, of course, have marked them like the examples. But since he doesn’t agree with the approach, he wants Joachim to explain why bowing directions are necessary for staccato passages. Andreas Moser, the Joachim disciple who edited and provided notes for the Brahms-Joachim correspondence, suspects that Brahms, being a pianist, didn’t understand the different styles of violin staccato shown in the three examples, and that explains why he is not convinced by Joachim’s explanation. But I think that this misses the point.
Brahms felt that he was upholding the tradition of composers like Beethoven in which articulation marks derive from and clarify musical structure. For him they are abstract concepts transferable from instrument to instrument without modification. It is up to the player to find the appropriate way of conveying the meaning of the marking. For example, when Brahms writes a slur for any instrument, it is to show that the notes are to be connected together because they are a conceptual unit. Since it is most natural for a string instrument to play such groups in a single bow stroke, a violinist might think that Brahms is indicating bowing with the slurs, but Brahms is simply marking the legato units as he does for every instrument. And this has nothing to do with the fact that he is a pianist. He might just as easily be criticized for slurring his piano music like a violinist, a charge sometimes leveled at earlier composers. At the heart of this view is the concept of music as an abstract structure that is realized by instruments. Brahms never thought of music as something created out of colorful instrumental effects and therefore had little interest in a ways of notating such effects.
Joachim and his student have the new view that markings should be exact directions for instrumental performance. For example, Joachim assumes that slurs have an exact manner of performance in piano music because he believes that they should have one on the violin. He feels that confusion is created by those who use slurs as “phrase marks” to mark off sections of the music and routinely warns his students about pianist-composers who slur string music like piano music and expect clear breaks between slurred groups. He obliquely points a finger at Brahms himself when he asks him to consider the question, but this is unjustified. None of the major composers ever used “phrase marks” or expected the ends of all legato groups to be clipped. Brahms responds that the performance of slurred groups on the piano has everything to do style, context and the player’s imagination, just as on the violin, and that legato groups need not be separated from each other on the piano in the mechanical way notated by Joachim. Only two-note slurred groups are by convention clearly separated from each other on all instruments.
New markings were necessary to satisfy the desire of violinists for explicit bowing indications and composers to notate new effects. Joachim suggests wedges and slurs as an alternate to staccato dots and slurs for the passage, but then comes closer to Brahms’ view when he reveals that he himself found the correct performance of the passage obvious from the context and the rhythmic notation alone. This is what Brahms expects of musicians, since as the editor mentions, he has a very high opinion of their ability. The editor Moser feels that this expectation may be unjustified, even with the most brilliant players, which gives us insight into another aspect of the attempt to nail down everything in notation.
Needless to say, Brahms remained steadfast and retained the wedges (without slurs) when the work was published.
(Thanks to Knut Nergaard for his suggestions regarding the English translation. Other suggestions and corrections are welcome and would be greatly appreciated.)