Lost Notation 5
Posted: 07 Jun 2020, 23:06
After a meritorious start, staccato indications in the humorous second movement of Beethoven’s Sonata op. 31 no. 3, become more and more sporadic in the first editions. Beethoven starts to use occasional sempre staccato indications and leaves out dots in numerous places that he must have felt were self-evident. Most editions have supplied these. However the situation may have caused a sublety to have escaped notice.
At the end of the development, just as he is preparing for the return of the opening idea, Beethoven places a very strange sempre staccato over m.88, a measure already containing staccato dots. (This has happened once before in the piece and may be the result of crowding or carelessness in the manuscript since he does once get it right.) In any case, since it is so unlikely that he would have used a sempre staccato indication for a following single measure, most editions apply it to the left hand sixteenth notes in the following 7 measures. Yet in both the first and corrected first editions, staccato dots appear with the two encircled groups but not the ones that follow, thus pairing them up in two groups: staccato-not staccato / staccato-not staccato! This fact has been disregarded in every edition that I am familiar with.
Note that along with this strangeness the relevant p dynamic marking appears misplaced to the beginning of m. 93. Shouldn’t it be moved over to apply to the right hand roulades as with the previous alternating f and p groups?
My theory:
The beginning of m. 93 is the exact moment when the previous E diminished seventh chord is transformed into the dominant chord needed to end the development. But the transformation is at first not conclusive, and the two chords fight it out, with the diminished seventh chord angrily swelling in resistance until the dominant silences it with the abrupt syncopated solid chord in m. 95. This is followed by several measures of laughter celebrating the victory.
This hilarious bit of musical humor is enhanced if the E-flat dominant chord is set off from the diminished seventh chord dynamically, thus the change to p, and by a change of articulation. thus the staccato dots. The dominant chord might therefore be played non legato and the E diminished seventh with a biting staccato to exaggerate the humorous effect.
But issues do remain. Did Beethoven expect the player to apply the swell in m. 94 as well as 93? Editors vary in their opinion. Schenker thought so, Schnabel thought not. And should a sf that appears in the first English edition be applied to the triumphant off beat chord in m. 95? Fewer editors favor that.
Perhaps this is one of those spots that should be left to the inspiration of the moment in a performance. I can imagine applying but toning down the swell and articulation effects a little in m. 94, and supplying a sf not only in m.95, but also to all the off-beat low E-flats in the following passage. Many editions supply a sf in m. 97 only and on no authority that I am aware of
At the end of the development, just as he is preparing for the return of the opening idea, Beethoven places a very strange sempre staccato over m.88, a measure already containing staccato dots. (This has happened once before in the piece and may be the result of crowding or carelessness in the manuscript since he does once get it right.) In any case, since it is so unlikely that he would have used a sempre staccato indication for a following single measure, most editions apply it to the left hand sixteenth notes in the following 7 measures. Yet in both the first and corrected first editions, staccato dots appear with the two encircled groups but not the ones that follow, thus pairing them up in two groups: staccato-not staccato / staccato-not staccato! This fact has been disregarded in every edition that I am familiar with.
Note that along with this strangeness the relevant p dynamic marking appears misplaced to the beginning of m. 93. Shouldn’t it be moved over to apply to the right hand roulades as with the previous alternating f and p groups?
My theory:
The beginning of m. 93 is the exact moment when the previous E diminished seventh chord is transformed into the dominant chord needed to end the development. But the transformation is at first not conclusive, and the two chords fight it out, with the diminished seventh chord angrily swelling in resistance until the dominant silences it with the abrupt syncopated solid chord in m. 95. This is followed by several measures of laughter celebrating the victory.
This hilarious bit of musical humor is enhanced if the E-flat dominant chord is set off from the diminished seventh chord dynamically, thus the change to p, and by a change of articulation. thus the staccato dots. The dominant chord might therefore be played non legato and the E diminished seventh with a biting staccato to exaggerate the humorous effect.
But issues do remain. Did Beethoven expect the player to apply the swell in m. 94 as well as 93? Editors vary in their opinion. Schenker thought so, Schnabel thought not. And should a sf that appears in the first English edition be applied to the triumphant off beat chord in m. 95? Fewer editors favor that.
Perhaps this is one of those spots that should be left to the inspiration of the moment in a performance. I can imagine applying but toning down the swell and articulation effects a little in m. 94, and supplying a sf not only in m.95, but also to all the off-beat low E-flats in the following passage. Many editions supply a sf in m. 97 only and on no authority that I am aware of