Beaming in Beethoven’s “Tempest”

[John Ruggero]

The primary sources for Beethoven’s three sonatas op. 31 are unlike those for his other piano sonatas. The first publisher Nägeli made a such a mess that Beethoven disowned the edition and asked Simrock to engrave a second “first” edition. Simrock’s edition is far more accurate, but modernizes the distribution of the notes on the staves, so that an editor must consult both editions to get a good idea of Beethoven’s intentions. The fact that the two editions coincide in so many ways, however, shows how closely engravers of that time tried to adhere to what they saw in the composer’s manuscripts.

The Nägeli and Simrock editions agree on the following two cases of interesting beaming from the Sonata op. 31 no. 2. In both cases, Beethoven’s beaming has been disregarded by most later editions.

Case 1: The first movement is largely occupied with a two-note slurred motive that enters in the second measure. Despite the 2/2 meter, Beethoven beams this motive in pairs of notes wherever it appears, which enhances the broken-up, feverish feeling of the motive. Whenever it is not present, Beethoven beams in fours.

Ex 1 Simrock.jpeg (61.48 KiB) Viewed 1705 times

Later editions, like Schenker's, ignore this and beam everything in groups of four:

Ex 2 Schenker.jpeg (81.46 KiB) Viewed 1705 times

Case 2: The last movement is a perpetual motion ruled by constant right-hand upbeats: weak | strong-weak,
(that is, weak- [bar line] strong-weak), against the left hand’s | strong-weak weak |. This is interrupted at times in the movement by various ingenious rhythmic devices.

At first the upbeats are beamed and slurred like this:

Ex 3 Simrock.jpeg (73.08 KiB) Viewed 1705 times

However, shortly before the recapitulation: Beethoven suddenly changes the beaming and slurring to negate the feeling of anacrusis at X in the following example.

Ex 4 Simrock.jpeg (353.42 KiB) Viewed 1705 times

Beethoven has also changed the melody so that instead of a large jump to define the first note of an anacrusis, as in the opening theme, the first sixteenth-note either stays the same as the first note in the measure (but not always in the same octave) or moves by a third so that each measure is more of a unit. (See oval at X.)

Putting this passage into its context shows Beethoven’s clever manipulations of the accentuation:

After about 70 measure of constant and hypnotic upbeats, suddenly (at V) the final right-hand strong beat is eliminated, which changes the accentuation from weak | strong-weak to | strong-weak-weak | as in the left hand.

After 10 measures, (at W) a new accentuation enters, |weak-weak-strong |, produced by the superimposed sf’s in an added upper voice. This produces three different simultaneous groupings: | strong-weak-weak | in the left hand, weak- | strong-weak in the middle voice of the right hand, and | weak-weak-strong | in the top voice.

A X we are back to | strong-weak-weak | for 25 measures, as previously discussed. (The anomalous beaming breaks at Y do not exist in Nägeli and were probably an engraving solution to crowding, since there are no corresponding breaks in the previous phrases, where up stems make it unnecessary.)

Then at Z we have a | strong-weak strong- | weak strong-weak | hemiola over two measures. The boxes show how three previous groups of two measures have been contracted into three groups of a strong-weak within two measures.

One can only wonder why editors have overruled Beethoven’s notation in both cases in this sonata; and why, once established, this tradition has become so entrenched that even some of the most current authentic editions adhere to it.

[John Ruggero]

As an addendum and on a different subject, I would like to show the first few measures of the second movement of Beethoven's Piano Sonata op. 31 no. 3 in both the Nägeli and Simrock editions to illustrate Beethoven's system of placing the notes on the staves in his piano music.

The Nägeli appears to be a slavish attempt to interpret Beethoven's manuscript and therefore gives us a better view of it. Here it places the first eight measures entirely on the lower staff. Note that the upper notes might have been placed on the upper staff to eliminate ledger lines, which would have been very common in such a case, but Beethoven elected not to do this.

Then three chords appear entirely on the upper staff.

Then bare octaves on both staves.

This effectively "orchestrates" the music visually, and shows how the first eight measures should played with one color, the next three chords with another, and the octaves with yet another:

Nägeli op 31 no 3.2.jpeg (145.13 KiB) Viewed 1700 times

The Simrock applies the modern system of using the two staves to show the hand division. What was visually vivid in the Nägeli has become monochromatic in the Simrock:

Simrock op 31 no 3.2.jpeg (147.09 KiB) Viewed 1700 times

[John Ruggero]

A second addendum concerns the beaming in the last movement of the piano sonata op. 31 no. 3. In this case, Nägeli and Simrock differ. Nägeli beams several passages by the measure. Here is the first:

op 31 no 3.4 Naegeli.jpeg (144.99 KiB) Viewed 1646 times

Simrock this passage by the beat:

op 31 no 3.4 Simrock.jpeg (136.24 KiB) Viewed 1646 times

This presents an editorial problem that might be interesting to unravel logically.

Since it is apparent from general observation, (position of the notes on the staves etc.) that Nägeli is closer to Beethoven’s normal manner of notation, one would incline to consider the Simrock rebeaming to be an editorial intervention. However, there is also the possibility that it is a later change by Beethoven. All editions that I am aware of seem to be of the latter opinion and use Simrock’s beaming.

However, there are other considerations. Since Beethoven beams both by the beat and by the measure in Nägeli, the difference was evidently meaningful to him. For example, in the following passage he started off beaming the left hand by the beat but then changed his mind:

op 31 no 3.4 Naegeli 2.jpeg (159.7 KiB) Viewed 1646 times

This must be an example of “progressive correction” because when the passage occurs again, it is almost entirely beamed by the measure which indicates that this was his final preference:

op 31 no 3.4 Naegeli 3.jpeg (241.63 KiB) Viewed 1646 times

The two exceptions encircled in the last example show that he changes the beaming where he wants emphasis on the movement of the bass voice. That is, the difference between the two beaming patterns was indeed important to him.

Since Beethoven’s original beaming, sometimes by the beat and sometimes by the measure, adds meaning and Simrock’s rebeaming subtracts meaning, I will use Nägeli version in my edition, along with a footnote to explain the different beaming in the two primary sources.