Lost Notation 2 (Internal evidence)
Posted: 06 Jan 2020, 20:25
Here is an case where note placement in itself solves a text issue.
The first movement of Beethoven's Sonata op. 2 no. 2 has a number of controversial areas. One of these occurs at A in the following example. Did Beethoven really want A to be different from B? Since everything else repeats, some editors like von Bulow, Arrau, and Casella make the two measures conform by replacing A by B.
Others, like Schenker and Schnabel adhere to the original text. However, in my opinion the original note placement, which is usually modernized in later editions and therefore unknown to many players, makes it almost a certainty that the text is correct as written. At A Beethoven places the right hand tenor voice on the lower staff, isolating it to show that it should be brought out. When the measure recurs, the soprano is now the leading voice and the accompanying tenor notes appear on the upper staff.
Why else would Beethoven have notated it in this way?
The first movement of Beethoven's Sonata op. 2 no. 2 has a number of controversial areas. One of these occurs at A in the following example. Did Beethoven really want A to be different from B? Since everything else repeats, some editors like von Bulow, Arrau, and Casella make the two measures conform by replacing A by B.
Others, like Schenker and Schnabel adhere to the original text. However, in my opinion the original note placement, which is usually modernized in later editions and therefore unknown to many players, makes it almost a certainty that the text is correct as written. At A Beethoven places the right hand tenor voice on the lower staff, isolating it to show that it should be brought out. When the measure recurs, the soprano is now the leading voice and the accompanying tenor notes appear on the upper staff.
Why else would Beethoven have notated it in this way?