Edition of Scarlatti K. 2
Posted: 11 Nov 2022, 23:10
Scarlatti K. 2 Commentary
The edition may be found at the end of this commentary.
The centered beaming used in this sonata is interesting. There are four cases:
A. With centered beaming, the broken sixths (as in m. 7 etc.) appear to move in smooth parallel sixths rather than as a series of leaping notes, which might affect the performance. The very consistent beaming in groups of 2 sixteenths may indicate pairs of slurred notes.
B. The apparently inconsistent beaming of some groups as a group of six and others as 2 + 4, (with and without centered beams) derives from Scarlatti’s desire to set off the first note of each of these measures, possibly as a note to be freely held through the following as different voice. To avoid overcomplicating the notation by adding a third voice, he probably originally wrote: The engraver used various alternatives, since this is difficult to engrave. When possible, the centered beam was retained between the first two notes, but the beam broken between the second and third notes, a common engraving strategy of the time. When a centered beam was not possible because the first interval was less than a fifth, or a ledger line was involved, either 1) the beam break and change of stem direction change was retained, or 2) if the stem direction could not be changed, the beam break was omitted and the six notes were beamed as a group of six. Since choice 2) appears illogical to me, I have substituted a beam break without a change of stem direction, so that every group retains at least the beam break.
C. ms. 36 and 77 are beamed 4 + 2 for the same reason, but now the centered beam occurs at the end of the measure to set off the last note as a pickup to the following measure.
D. Despite the ledger line, the engraver was able to retain the centered beam in measures like m. 21, which again shows two different voices combined into the one melodic line. I choose not to retain this centered beaming in the interests of clarity.
Scarlatti has been criticized for “breaking the rules”. But did he? Two examples:
m. 7-8 Scarlatti doubles the leading tone in D major and leads the two voices to the tonic in parallel octaves, a major crime in harmony class. But this was the only practical way to avoid leaving out a note, repeating the left-hand D or dropping into a lower register which would anticipate m. 11-12 where the passage is to repeat in varied form: m. 31-32 Here the chord succession A7-G or V-IV in the key of D is not a real chord progression. What would have been a four-measure phrase starting in m. 29 with the chord progression IV | I | ii6 V 6/4-5/3 | I in D major is interrupted at V in m. 32 after three measures, whereupon the phrase repeats complete as ms. 32-35. It is as if a repeat mark were placed around ms. 29-31. |: IV | I | ii6 V6/4-5/3 :| I This points out an important technique: one may place “repeat marks” around any bit of music without disturbing musical logic, just as one can repeat any word or words without disturbing the sense of a sentence. From this one may understand that harmony is not exclusively linear, and that we capable of understanding it in more complex ways. Other examples would be a V the ends a phrase with a half cadence and which therefore doesn’t resolve to the chord that follows, whether it is I or any other chord, or the V at the end of a sonata exposition or development, which are half cadences on a grand scale.
The edition may be found at the end of this commentary.
The centered beaming used in this sonata is interesting. There are four cases:
A. With centered beaming, the broken sixths (as in m. 7 etc.) appear to move in smooth parallel sixths rather than as a series of leaping notes, which might affect the performance. The very consistent beaming in groups of 2 sixteenths may indicate pairs of slurred notes.
B. The apparently inconsistent beaming of some groups as a group of six and others as 2 + 4, (with and without centered beams) derives from Scarlatti’s desire to set off the first note of each of these measures, possibly as a note to be freely held through the following as different voice. To avoid overcomplicating the notation by adding a third voice, he probably originally wrote: The engraver used various alternatives, since this is difficult to engrave. When possible, the centered beam was retained between the first two notes, but the beam broken between the second and third notes, a common engraving strategy of the time. When a centered beam was not possible because the first interval was less than a fifth, or a ledger line was involved, either 1) the beam break and change of stem direction change was retained, or 2) if the stem direction could not be changed, the beam break was omitted and the six notes were beamed as a group of six. Since choice 2) appears illogical to me, I have substituted a beam break without a change of stem direction, so that every group retains at least the beam break.
C. ms. 36 and 77 are beamed 4 + 2 for the same reason, but now the centered beam occurs at the end of the measure to set off the last note as a pickup to the following measure.
D. Despite the ledger line, the engraver was able to retain the centered beam in measures like m. 21, which again shows two different voices combined into the one melodic line. I choose not to retain this centered beaming in the interests of clarity.
Scarlatti has been criticized for “breaking the rules”. But did he? Two examples:
m. 7-8 Scarlatti doubles the leading tone in D major and leads the two voices to the tonic in parallel octaves, a major crime in harmony class. But this was the only practical way to avoid leaving out a note, repeating the left-hand D or dropping into a lower register which would anticipate m. 11-12 where the passage is to repeat in varied form: m. 31-32 Here the chord succession A7-G or V-IV in the key of D is not a real chord progression. What would have been a four-measure phrase starting in m. 29 with the chord progression IV | I | ii6 V 6/4-5/3 | I in D major is interrupted at V in m. 32 after three measures, whereupon the phrase repeats complete as ms. 32-35. It is as if a repeat mark were placed around ms. 29-31. |: IV | I | ii6 V6/4-5/3 :| I This points out an important technique: one may place “repeat marks” around any bit of music without disturbing musical logic, just as one can repeat any word or words without disturbing the sense of a sentence. From this one may understand that harmony is not exclusively linear, and that we capable of understanding it in more complex ways. Other examples would be a V the ends a phrase with a half cadence and which therefore doesn’t resolve to the chord that follows, whether it is I or any other chord, or the V at the end of a sonata exposition or development, which are half cadences on a grand scale.