Jonathan Del Mar

Once again: reflections on

Beethoven’s tied-note notation
n Early music, xvi (Feb 1988), Paul Badura-Skoda minims as in ex.1 (as we had been used to hearing),
I wrote a splendid article (‘A tie is a tie is a tie:
reflections on Beethoven’s pairs of tied notes’)1
but a series of tied pairs of minims as in ex.2, I
cited Badura-Skoda without hesitation in the
which serves as an excellent starting-point for the Critical Commentary to my new Bärenreiter edition
examination of this still intractable problem. At that as a guide to the correct interpretation of these
time I embraced whole-heartedly Professor Badura- tied notes.2 Essentially, he argues that the reason
Skoda’s conclusion—‘I propose to treat Beethoven’s why Beethoven sometimes wrote qr Y instead of the
ties just as ties’—because it apparently made musical apparently identical q is that notes ‘played in
and logical sense, and when (in that same year) I the usual way, that is, neither detached nor slurred’
discovered that Beethoven’s final text for the violin were generally somewhat shortened, so qr Y would
parts in bars 503–6, 515–22 of the Trio of the Ninth sound significantly longer and more sostenuto
Symphony, in his own handwriting, was not staccato than q .3

Ex.1 Beethoven, Symphony no.9, op.125, ii (as traditionally performed)

         
[Presto]
515
          
vn 1  
f dimin.
      
vn 2    



  



  

f dimin.
                
 
   
va
  
f dimin.

Ex.2 Beethoven, Symphony no.9, op.125, ii (as Beethoven notated)

[Presto]
515          
          
vn 1  
f dimin.
      
vn 2    



  



  
f dimin.
     
va                 
 
   
  dimin.
f

Jonathan Del Mar is a conductor and musicologist. His Urtext edition of the Beethoven symphonies,
published by Bärenreiter, was completed in 2000 and is performed by orchestras worldwide.
The Beethoven cello sonatas will follow in spring 2004.

e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04 7
 Ex.3 Beethoven, Cello Sonata in A, op.69, ii
Allegro molto
vc
              
p

4 3      
   
4
3  3
 4 3
4 3

              
4

   
  

ff
pf
         p
                       
   

Ex.4 Beethoven, Piano Sonata in B , op.106, iii

[Adagio sostenuto]
165  4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 
   
  
f più f
                        
        
       
6
6 6

Ex.5 Beethoven, Piano Sonata in A , op.110, iii

Adagio ritar - dando
                              
5 4 3

  
tutte le corde dimin.

  
 


 

sempre tenuto


Ex.6 Beethoven, Piano Sonata in A , op.110, iii

[Adagio ma non troppo]

125
       4 3  4 3
   
p cresc.
              
             

Ex.7 Ex.8
      
   

8 e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04
 However, despite my efforts to influence their which are patently no more than that. And Leopold
musical judgement, most conductors using the new Mozart tells us exactly how to play tied notes:
edition have persisted in playing these tied notes
If both [notes connected by a slur] are the same note, they
with what, for the sake of convenience, we shall call a are held on as if it were one note. Thus [ex.7] is in effect
Bebung.4 There is some controversy regarding the identical to [ex.8]. The first crotchet of the second bar is—
use of this word, and we shall examine this later; but granted—made perceptible in the early stages [i.e. of study]
for the purposes of this discussion I suggest the defi- and made distinct from the previous note, by extra pressure
nition of a Bebung as a type of articulation, half way of the bow, without lifting it [i.e. like a Bebung!], but this is
only done in order to keep one more precisely in time. Once
between a tie and a portato, in which the sound the time is secure, the second note beneath the tie must never
never ceases, and there is no distinct point of attack again be made to stand out by any extra pressure, but only
on the second note, but the weight is partially held on as if one were playing a minim.* Now whichever way
released during the first note, to be smoothly you may be playing it [i.e. whether you are student or
reapplied for the second, like a wave-pattern. This teacher], you must always take care not to hold the second
note for less than its full value, for this is a common fault
is, of course, easy to execute on string and wind which makes the tempo uneven and stilted.
instruments, though it has not, I believe, ever been
prescribed as a style of playing in any 18th- or 19th- *It is bad enough that there are people who think of them-
selves as great artists, yet who cannot hold a single minim—
century treatises or tutors, nor been documented by hardly even a crotchet—without splitting it audibly into two
any contemporary writers as an effect that generally parts. If one wished to have two notes, one would quite cer-
existed. tainly write them down. [He’s talking about a simple h here,
Badura-Skoda launches his investigation with an of course.] Such notes must be attacked strongly, and then be
examination of the four instances where Beethoven sustained without any new pressure being applied [my italics],
dying away gradually, like the sound of a bell which, when it
stipulates the change of finger from 4 on the first tied is struck sharply, gradually fades.5
note to 3 on the second, whose purpose must obvi-
ously be to achieve an effect that, without this finger- All this is as clear as we could wish, though
ing, would not be achieved. These four examples Leopold does not specifically discuss tied notes
appear in the Cello Sonata, op.69, ii [i.e. the second which are followed by a rest (as in our Beethoven
movement of op.69], the Piano Sonata in B , op.106, op.69 example, ex.3), and presumably these would
iii, and twice in the Piano Sonata in A , op.110, iii (on the contrary) be assumed to be somewhat short-
(exx.3–6). I suggest, however, that we can acquire a ened. However, in Mozart Symphony no.40, ii, bars
perception of precisely what it is that Beethoven is 20–21, 22–3 (ex.9), for instance, they must not be
requiring here only by starting at the diametrically shortened too much, because they need to be still
opposite pole of the discussion, i.e. at tied notes sounding when the chord underneath resolves.

Ex.9 Mozart, Symphony no.40, k550, ii

[Andante]
   
             
20
 
vn 1                    

f p f p
 
vn 2          
      
      
f p
f p

                        
va  
f p f p
       
          
vc, cb
   
f p f p

e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04 9
 Ex.10 Beethoven, String Quartet in C minor, op.18 no.4, iii
[Allegro]
         
66
 
vn 1         
p
  
 
vn 2            
p

va            
p

     
vc
        
p

Ex.11 Beethoven, String Quartet in B , op.18 no.6, i

[Allegro con brio]
       
68

vn 1   
  
p cresc.
   
vn 2           
p
     cresc.

va         
p cresc.
  
       
vc
 
[ p] cresc.

A similar example in Beethoven is the String Quartet

in C minor, op.18 no.4, iii, bars 66–7 (ex.10).
Now the identical principle to this exists within a
bar, as in the String Quartet in B , op.18 no.6, i,
bar 69, or iv, bar 8 (exx.11–12). Here, because there is Ex.12 Beethoven, String Quartet in B , op.18 no.6, iv
no barline, the ‘tied’ note is written as a minim,
7 [Adagio]
precisely as Leopold Mozart says. But in fact it needs  
vn 2   
to be sustained for longer than a minim would nor-
       
mally have been held at that time; and by op.18
Beethoven has not yet realized that this is a problem
va             
which he might address. That comes only later.
But before we examine these more difficult exam-
      
ples (from op.55 on), we need to eliminate from the vc

discussion an entire category of tied notes which
can, it seems, only be irrelevant. In Symphony no.9,
iv, bars 654–762, we are in 6/4 and Beethoven some-
times writes w. and sometimes h. Yh. , apparently (this
is the only possible conclusion) interchangeably. We

10 e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04
need look no further than bars 671, 673 and 676, and altos, was significant. However, in bar 741 all the
comparing sopranos with upper woodwind (ex.13). sources have h. Yh. consistently in altos and strings,
In bar 751 all the sources actually have sopranos and so I restored it; comparing this bar with bar 737
altos h. Yh. Y (ex.14), which in my edition I naturally (see ex.16), we might conjecture that in bar 741 the
rationalized to w.Y to match tenors, basses and tied-note notation flowed from Beethoven’s pen in
strings (ex.15), not suspecting I should release any a subconscious awareness of the intensity of the
can of worms. But there cannot possibly exist an crescendo, and that this notation encourages a
argument that the distinction, here, in only sopranos tenuto which was not so urgently required in bar 737.

Ex.13 Beethoven, Symphony no.9, op.125, iv

[Allegro energico]
       
671
  a2         
fls  
 a2          
obs        

       
S           
[Hei] - - - - - - - - - - - lig - tum.

Ex.14 Beethoven, Symphony no.9, op.125, iv (as shown in sources)

[Allegro energico]

   
751
    p

S  
Ster - - nen - zelt Muß

  p
A         
Ster - - nen - zelt Muß
p
     
T   
 Ster - - nen - zelt Muß

       p

B
 
Ster - - nen - zelt Muß

        
vn 1     
p
   
   
  





vn 2

p

va         
p

       
vc, cb

p

e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04 11
 Ex.15 Beethoven, Symphony no.9, op.125, iv (as in the Bärenreiter edition, 1996)

[Allegro energico]

    
751
   p

S  
Ster - - nen - zelt Muß

  p
A         
Ster - - nen - zelt Muß
p
     
T   
 Ster - - nen - zelt Muß

       p

B
 
Ster - - nen - zelt Muß

        
vn 1     
p
   
   
  





vn 2

p

va         
p

       
vc, cb

p

Ex.16 Beethoven, Symphony no.9, op.125, iv

[Allegro energico]
         
        
737
vn 1       
cresc.
        
vn 2                
cresc.

va      
                 
cresc.

vc, cb
 
  
 
                 
cresc.

12 e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04
But the point is that there cannot, in any of these (or h. respectively), and we could argue as to whether
examples, be any suggestion of a Bebung. this was a justifiable policy.
Similarly, in the String Quartet in B , op.130, ii, The broader issue of groups of tied notes in Bach
bars 54, 58 and 62 (again 6/4) Beethoven consistently is actually, within the context of the present discus-
writes h. Yh. Y (ex.17). And here it does seem that the sion, a colossal red herring; but for the sake of com-
compound metre is a significant factor. If we look pleteness it must be examined. For the point is that,
at the autographs of Bach’s St Matthew Passion whereas for portato Beethoven used the notation
(opening chorus, in 12/8) and Handel’s Messiah (two q. qY
. q. , Bach did not; he used q qq
Y , for example in the
numbers in 12/8: ‘He shall feed his flock’ and ‘How second movement of Brandenburg Concerto no.1
beautiful are the feet’), we find an extraordinary (ex.19), and its meaning is, of course, particularly
degree of inconsistency, both composers happy to obvious when the slur is drawn across a group of
write w. frequently, yet there are also many examples more than two notes. Similar examples may be
of both h. Yh. (for example, in the Bach, consistently found in the first movement (bars 27–32, which also
the last note of each phrase of the ripieno chorale, includes several qt Y ), also Concerto no.2, i, bars 51–3,
e.g. bar 36, ex.18) and, in the Handel, q. Yq. (in both no.3, i, bars 23–7, and in the St Matthew Passion, the
numbers). In the Bärenreiter editions of both, the Recitativo in Part 2, ‘Am Abend da es kühle war’,
tied notes are all (or almost all!) rationalized to w. with its many instances of     ,     and     .

Ex.17 Beethoven, String Quartet in B , op.130, ii

54 [Presto]
        
vn 1            
       
f   p
 
60

        
f    p

Ex.18 Bach, St Matthew Passion, bwv244, opening chorus

34
  
              
Sop.Srip.
rip

am Stamm des Kreu - zes ge - schlach - tet,

Ex.19 Bach, Brandenburg Concerto no.1, bwv1046, ii

 Adagio      
vn 1                 
p sempre

vn 2                        
p sempre

va                       
p sempre
            
vc, cb
   
p sempre

e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04 13
Already these examples include a few instances of same Gavotte, bars 24–6 violin II, viola) from the
two-note groups which are patently played in the context. For an Urtext Edition we could probably
identical portato style to those across three or four rule that where the difference between h. Yh. and w. is
notes. And so when we look at the most interesting obviously zero, as in ex.18, they could be consistently
examples of all, the Keyboard Concerto in D minor standardized to w. , but otherwise the slurs must
(bwv1052), ii, bars 1–2 (ex.20), and Suite no.3 in D remain; but the point is that this is a minefield of its
(bwv1068), Gavotte II, bars 1–2 (ex.21) (because own, which has nothing whatever to do with Bebung
these pairs of tied notes might perhaps seem to be in Beethoven.
precisely the same thing as we are discussing in Similarly, therefore, in the slow movement (again
Beethoven), it becomes clear that for Bach all these in 12/8) of Beethoven Symphony no.6, the authentic
were simply his usual notation for portato, as is sources have various obscure combinations of
again borne out a few bars later in the Gavotte by the tied notes: bar 6 clarinet I q. h.Yq. ; bar 43 oboe II
oboe II part in bar 13 (ex.22). Clearly Bach, unlike q.Yq.Yq. ; bar 55 clarinets h.Yh. ; bar 84 violin I q.Yq.Yh.
Beethoven, rightly assumed that you could easily (exx.23–6), all of which I judged only arose for
distinguish between portato and real ties (as in the various circumstantial reasons, and altered in the

Ex.20 Bach, Keyboard Concerto in D minor, bwv1052, ii Ex.21 Bach, Suite no.3 in D, bwv1068, Gavotte II

  Adagio
    a 3 
vn 1                 
trs

       
a2
vn 2           
   
obs

         
va    
 
           
vc, cb
 

Ex.22 Bach, Suite no.3 in D, bwv1068, Gavotte II

           
12

ob 1            

   
ob 2
         

Ex.23 Beethoven, Symphony no.6, op.68, ii Ex.24 Beethoven, Symphony no.6, op.68, ii
[Andante molto moto]
       
clars in Bb   
    obs      
cresc. f
fp cresc.

Ex.25 Beethoven, Symphony no.6, op.68, ii

54
  
 

clars in Bb    
dolce

14 e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04
Bärenreiter edition to read q. q.Yh. (bar 6—this one but compare the Mozart example above (ex.9); here
was particularly unfortunate since cresc. begins it could be that Beethoven wanted to ensure that the
halfway through the original h. , something which, minim did not die away, but that the (written) f' still
by this time in his life, Beethoven was beginning to sounded clearly on the last quaver of the bar (com-
take particular pains to avoid; see following para- pare also no.3, i, bar 229, bassoon, ex.30).
graph), h.Yq. (bar 43) or w. (bars 55, 84). It is not con- There is one other category of tied notes that may
ceivable that Beethoven had any other agenda in be explained quite simply. From about op.59 on,
mind here, any more than in the case of the Beethoven devised a system for clarifying precisely
inevitable ties in bars 125–8 (ex.27). In particular, in where, in the middle of a long note, a dynamic
bars 6 and 43 it seems that he was thinking vertically, applies. Today we can print a semibreve at the begin-
composing harmonically and then adding ties as ning of a bar, and cresc. clearly starting at the half
required. This is surely also the explanation for the bar, but in Beethoven’s day the semibreve would
tied notation in Symphony no.3, ii, bar 206, flute II, normally be written (and in published editions, even
oboe I, bassoon II (ex.28). So also, perhaps, the odd printed) in the middle of the bar, making such
clarinet II part in Symphony no.3, iv, bar 97 (ex.29), subtleties all but impossible to notate. In the

Ex.26 Beethoven, Symphony no.6, op.68, ii

       
83
 
vn 1       
cresc.

Ex.27 Beethoven, Symphony no.6, op.68, ii

125             
  
vn 1   

127           
     
 
 

Ex.28 Beethoven, Symphony no.3, op.55, ii Ex.29 Beethoven, Symphony no.3, op.55, iv
[Adagio assai] 96

[Allegro molto]
  
         
   clars in Bb
  

fls  
p

  
obs     Ex.30 Beethoven, Symphony no.3, op.55, i
p
[Allegro con brio]
       

        
     
clars in Bb 229
  
p bns   
 
   
bns 
p

e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04 15
 Ex.31 Beethoven, String Quartet in E minor, op.59 no.2, iii
 
               
[Allegretto]  
    
112

vn 1    
ff p

Ex.32 Beethoven, Symphony no.6,op.68, iv

[Allegro]
      
     
95
 
fls   
fp cresc.

      
obs          
fp cresc.
      
  
fag 1
 
fp cresc.

Ex.33 Beethoven, Symphony no.9, op.125, ii Ex.35 Beethoven, String Quartet in B , op.130, v
423 [Presto]   [Adagio]
 
      vn 2        
cb      
p cresc. dim. pp
cresc.

va        
p cresc. dim. pp

  
Ex.34 Beethoven, Symphony no.9, op.125, ii
vc
      
   

494
[Presto]
  
     
p cresc. dim. pp
vn 1  
cresc. Ex.36 Beethoven, String Quartet in C  minor, op.131, i
    
vn 2       
[Adagio ma non troppo]


 
   
cresc.
 vn 1   
va
       
  p dolce cresc.
      
cresc.   
vc    vn 2       
  
cresc. p
    cresc.
      
cb
  va    
cresc. p cresc.
 
  
vc

p cresc.

16 e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04
 Ex.37 Beethoven, String Quartet in C  minor, op.131, i
[Adagio ma non troppo]
         
118
 
vn 1  

p cresc. dim. p più piano pp
  
  
  









 
vn 2

p p pp

cresc. dim. più piano
          
va
   
p cresc. dim. p più piano pp 
  
vc
        
 

[ p] cresc. dim. p più piano pp

Ex.38 Beethoven, Symphony no.3, op.55, ii

215 [Adagio assai]
       
vn 1                          

sf

   
vn 2
                          
 

        sf

219
     
             
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 

sf cresc. decresc. pp
    
    
 
  
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 

sf cresc. decresc. pp

String Quartet in E minor, op.59 no.2, iii, however String Quartet in E , op.74, ii, bars 30, 152–3 (exx.39–
(and this is the first example I have been able to 40); Missa Solemnis, Credo, bars 173–83 (ex.41);
find), Beethoven places the p as shown in ex.31, and String Quartet in A minor, op.132, iii, penultimate
in late Beethoven the notation ! h Yhcresc. becomes bar (ex.42); especially the Grosse Fuge, op.133, bar 26
increasingly common, e.g. Symphony no.6, iv, bar etc. (ex.43—a notorious controversy, this); and even
96 (ex.32), Symphony no.9, ii, bars 424 and 495 Haydn’s String Quartet in E  , op.33 no.2, iv, bars
(exx.33–4), and similarly the String Quartet in B , 66–7 (ex.44). Neither is it plausible to extract an
op.130, v, last bar (ex.35), and the String Quartet in arbitrary few from these passages which Beethoven,
C  minor, op.131, i, bars 63, 119–20 (exx.36–7). that stickler for precision, notated identically, and
It is therefore particularly difficult to argue that in plead that these, but not those, should be played
the Trio of Symphony no.9, h Yh indicates a Bebung with Bebung.
in bars 503 etc., when just eight bars earlier it At this point it is fascinating to be able to summon
patently means nothing more than a tie. And once some contemporary evidence, indeed the nearest
we accept that, a host of other instances follows in its we can conceivably get to a tape-recording of a con-
wake, namely Symphony no.3, ii, bars 218–22 (ex.38); versation with Beethoven about this precise issue. In

e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04 17
 Ex.39 Beethoven, String Quartet in E , op.74, ii
[Adagio ma non troppo]
       [] [ ]
29

vn 1            
 
cresc. f sf dimin.
  
vn 2        
          

 
cresc. f 
 sf dimin.
       
         
va
  
cresc. f
  sf dimin.
         
vc
              
cresc. f [ ] [ ] sf dimin.

Ex.40 Beethoven, String Quartet in E , op.74, ii

[Adagio ma non troppo]
150    
    


vn 1            

 
p
     
vn 2              
[ p]
    
va          
p
 
        
vc
       
p p

Ex.41 Beethoven, Missa Solemnis, op.123, Credo

173 [Adagio]
  
vn 1                     
 
cresc.

vn 2    




   
cresc.

  

va
 
cresc.
  
      
vc, cb
   
cresc.

18 e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04
 Ex.42 Beethoven, String Quartet in A minor, op.132, iii
[Molto adagio]
208            


vn 1  
cresc. p più piano pp
  
           

vn 2       
cresc. p p più piano pp
          

va       

cresc. p p più piano pp

     
      

   
vc
 
cresc. p più piano pp

Ex.43 Beethoven, Grosse Fuge, op.133

26
 Allegro
vn 1             
       
pp sempre pp

vn 2     

va
     

           
29
    Fuga
            

ff
 
     
 
         
ff sf

Ex.44 Haydn, String Quartet in E , op.33 no.2, iv

          
[Presto]

                    
64


vn 1   

        
vn 2     
         
va     


vc
         

e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04 19
April 1826 Karl Holz was discussing with Beethoven this on the violin with a Bebung, he would inevitably
the arrangement of the Grosse Fuge, op.133 for have perceived at least the possibility that Beethoven
pianoforte, and actually asked Beethoven whether might want a pianist to play two separate notes, and
it was permissible for qr Y to be contracted to q .6 not formulated the question in the way that he did.
Of course (tantalizingly!) we do not possess Beet- But ties are subtle things. Even if we take on board
hoven’s answer; but we may be certain that it was the elements of length and sostenuto, there is still a
in the form of some kind of negative expostulation, psychological difference between the oboe phrases
for the tied quavers are retained in Beethoven’s own shown in ex.45 (Symphony no.8, i, bar 200) and
four-hand piano arrangement (op.134). It is signifi- ex.46 (Symphony no.3, i, bar 287). Similarly, the
cant that Holz, a good friend of Beethoven and sec- obsessive YqtYtt YqtYttY figure in Symphony no.9, i
ond violinist in Schuppanzigh’s string quartet, could (as in ex.47) would seem rather ordinary if rewritten
ask this question at all. It tells us that an intelligent, YoruYoruY ; the same applies equally to the String
experienced string player in Beethoven’s circle did Quartet in E minor, op.59 no.2, i, bars 59–64 (ex.48).
not in principle recognize qr Y as signifying anything And a particularly interesting example of this is
much different from q . Had he expected to play actually one of Badura-Skoda’s, which no one has

Ex.45 Beethoven, Symphony no.8, op.93, i Ex.46 Beethoven, Symphony no.3, op.55, i
[Allegro vivace e con brio] [Allegro con brio]

   
dolce
 
          
286
   
obs    obs       
sf
f

Ex.47 Beethoven, Symphony no.9, op.125, i

97 [Allegro ma non troppo e un poco maestoso]

                  
1 2  
[p]cresc. più cresc.
           
cors

          
3 4
         
       
cresc. più cresc.

Ex.48 Beethoven, String Quartet in E minor, op.59 no.2, i

58 [Allegro]
   
vn 1           
        
pp
      
   
vn 2  
         
        
pp  
      
va                  
 
pp
      
vc
                 

pp

20 e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04
 Ex.49 Beethoven, Piano Sonata in C minor, op.111, ii


[Adagio]
   
 
   
65
        
   
pp
 

                 
                 
66    
   
  


            
sempre pp

 

Ex.50 Beethoven, Piano Sonata in B , op.106, iii

[Adagio sostenuto]
 
34
          
       
             
   


3 3 

    
 

  
 
    

 

  
  
 


36
                       
  
  
                        
p
 
cresc. poco a poco più cresc.
    
  
 
 
 
  

   
                    

  

attempted to explain in any other way: the Piano are written qrY (again, like op.111 above, matching the
Sonata in C minor, op.111, ii, bars 65–71 (ex.49), slurred quavers in 125/7) despite being in diminu-
which in many respects is similar to op.55, ii, bars endo (ex.51). It often happens in music that notation
218–22 above (ex.38). Here sometimes all the notes is inevitably, by its very nature, imprecise, suggesting
are held, sometimes one or more changes after a a message rather than stating it, and in these exam-
semiquaver; there is no possibility of any kind of ples the idea of keeping the note alive by breathing
Bebung effect, yet neither would it be appropriate to through it, cannot be far from Beethoven’s purpose.
rewrite those instances where all are tied, as a quaver. Similarly, therefore, the fugue subject of the Grosse
See also the Piano Sonata in B , op.106, iii, bars 34 Fuge would be unthinkable notated as simple crot-
and 36–7 (ex.50); surely (like Symphony no.9, iv, chets, whether or not we add tenuto over the top; the
bar 741, ex.16) this qt
Y is about intensity of crescendo, brief quaver motion in bar 29 from a' to b ' (ex.43)
hence the relaxation to e in the second half of both shows how crucial the awareness of quavers is to the
bars 34 and 35. (It’s odd that he doesn’t keep it up in subject on which the piece is constructed, and we
bar 38, though!) On the other hand, ii, bars 122–4/6 need no explicit Bebung in order to communicate

e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04 21
 Ex.51 Beethoven, Piano Sonata in B , op.106, ii
[Assai vivace]
             

122
       

                     
 

cresc.
       
        
                 
  

the intensity required in each pair of tied notes. The This is far from exclusively a Beethoven problem.
same is certainly true of another of Badura-Skoda’s More modern examples of apparently redundant
examples: the Adagio of the String Quartet in E tied notes, but where the psychological difference is
minor, op.59 no.2 (ex.52), where Beethoven writes real, include Brahms’s Hungarian Dance no.5 (bars
the rhythm q.u with no fewer than five intentionally 51–68, ex.53, precisely analogous to Beethoven’s
different articulations, the first of which, in bars op.59 no.2, ii), Sibelius’s Symphony no.3, ii (eight
8–15, is qrY↑ t↑ . (In Beethoven’s autograph we can instances, e.g. 313 violin II, ex.54, precisely analogous
clearly see him experimenting with different permu- to Beethoven’s String Quartet in E , op.74, ii, bars
tations of staccato, whether only on the last x , or on 152–3), and Elgar’s The Dream of Gerontius, at the
both qt , finally settling on the latter.) beginning of the Demons’ Chorus (ex.55), also at

Ex.52 Beethoven, String Quartet in E minor, op.59 no.2, ii

[Molto adagio]
      
                
9
vn 1      
   
        


Ex.53 Brahms, Hungarian Dance no.5

[Vivace]
55
poco ritard. in Tempo
      
   
vn 1          
     
p legg.
      
p

vn 2          
        p legg.

   

p

div.
  
           
va

p p legg.

          
vc
          
p p legg.

         

cb
          
p p legg.

22 e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04
 Ex.54 Sibelius, Symphony no.3, ii
[Andantino con moto]
   4
13
vn 1        
            
 
        
   
vn 2
        

Ex.55 Elgar, The Dream of Gerontius

Allegro
32
   pma marc.   
T             
 

 
Low - born clods Of brute earth,

          
p ma marc.
    
B
  
Low - born clods Of brute earth,

‘aught, aught, aught’ a few bars later, ex.56). In all Beethoven did not simply write tenuto over the top is
these cases q Ye (or whatever) means something sub- that ‘a written word is easily overlooked by the per-
tly different from q. , but it does not mean Bebung. former’.7 But here his argument is at its weakest. To
And so we reach the nub of the problem, those Beethoven, any notion that performers could be
four keyboard instances where Beethoven specifi- expected to overlook an explicit instruction, would
cally, even obsessively, wrote the fingering 4 3 over have been anathema. No: we have already seen above
each pair of tied notes. Badura-Skoda suggests that how a crotchet marked tenuto is not always an
this is still merely a tie, and the reason why adequate substitute for qrY , just as (contrariwise) the

Ex.56 Elgar, The Dream of Gerontius

[Allegro]
33
   sf  sf
2

sf


          
S

aught, aught, aught, Could

   
sf sf sf
  
A           
aught, aught, aught, Could

 
sf sf sf
 
T             
 aught, aught, aught, Could
sf sf sf  
           
B
    
aught, aught, aught, Could

e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04 23
 Ex.57 Beethoven, Violin Concerto, op.61, iv (as notated)

 11ten.
     ten.
            
          
 
delicatamente

Ex.58 Beethoven, Violin Concerto, op.61, iv (incorrectly notated)


 11                    
        
 
delicatamente

finale of the Violin Concerto must be notated as in produced here by the fingering Beethoven himself indicates
ex.57, and not as in ex.58, which has a different in op.69. It has been identified with the Bebung on the clavi-
meaning. We can continue to worry the point, sug- chord, but is really peculiar to the pianoforte, consisting of
catching the key a second time before it has finished rising.
gesting that had Beethoven simply wanted op.69, ii, When the theme is in octaves [eight bars later] the effect may
held, he could have written q Y|h q Y|h , and allowed the be given by repetition with the thumb, the upper note
minims to lighten naturally, achieving the required remaining tied.8
result. But the point is that all notations have differ-
ent psychological effects. Again, in his commentary on the Piano Sonata in B ,
The problem about these four instances, espe- op.106, Tovey says the following about Beethoven’s
cially if we take the line that Beethoven was consis- 4 3 fingering in iii, bar 165:
tent about what he wanted when he wrote the same Learned commentators have called this powerful climax a
notation, is that here he wrote a different notation, clavichord effect …[but] this kind of double touch is not the
so the same logic demands that here he must have clavichord Bebung, which was a vibrato with one finger, very
wanted something different. In the case of op.69 we effective on the clavichord, and not only meaningless on the
pianoforte but soon ruinous to the action when players fall
could argue that since the notes straddle a barline, into the gesture of it as an affectation.9
there is only one way to notate them; Beethoven can-
not write q Yq to ensure more tenuto than h ; so he According to Badura-Skoda, Schindler tells us
wrote 4 3 instead. But this argument will not hold for (and there seems no cause to doubt his testimony
op.106 and 110, so it cannot hold at all. here) that Czerny studied op.106 with Beethoven
And so at this point (and no sooner!) I propose to ‘several times’,10 and although Czerny does not
cross the fence and say: here, perhaps, Beethoven did specifically discuss this feature of op.106, such
mean Bebung, and though this was not recognized lessons would clearly be a possible source for
by string players, it was by keyboard players. We Czerny’s knowledge of what Beethoven meant by
have the testimony of two of Beethoven’s contempo- this 4 3 fingering. For in his Über den richtigen Vor-
raries, Carl Czerny and Cipriani Potter. In his 1931 trag der sämmtlichen Beethoven’schen Clavierwerke
edition of the piano sonatas, Donald Francis Tovey mit Begleitung (1846) he sets out precisely what it
tells us that Cipriani Potter published an edition of means in the case of op.69: ‘The second note is
the Piano Sonata in D, op.28, repeated in an audible manner with the 3rd finger …
in which he used a special sign to indicate that the tied notes
Ex.59
  -. 
[at i, bars 135–41] are to be repeated: [ex.59]. This is trust-
worthy evidence of Beethoven’s intention. Nobody could
-.
have invented it. The effect, which occurs elsewhere, e.g.   
in the Scherzo of the Violoncello Sonata op.69, can be

24 e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04
that is, the first note (with the 4th finger) very tenuto, lowed by left-hand downbeat—especially in his
and the other (with the 3rd finger) smartly detached revised ff dynamic—would be merely perfunctory,
and less marked.’ 11 Some writers have declared, on and it is essential that the right hand does something
the strength of Beethoven’s letter to Czerny of 12 more than merely hold the note; an altogether more
February 1816,12 that Czerny actually played op.69 meaningful approach is needed, and honour is satis-
with Beethoven, but Sieghard Brandenburg’s foot- fied if the note is subtly resounded in the way that
note to this letter makes it clear that this was not Czerny says. But the other crucial point here—for
op.69, but one of the op.102 sonatas.13 All the same, it some cellists have sought to continue the logic fur-
does seem most likely that such a major pronounce- ther, and attempt to mimic the 4 3 effect on their
ment would not be Czerny’s fabrication or fantasy, instrument, despite the lack of any marking in the
but derive from something which Czerny, from his cello part—is that when the cello enters, this whole
experience of working with Beethoven, knew to be problem vanishes; the cello can hold the note pre-
true to the composer. cisely as written, and it will still be there when the
Looking at this opening theme of the scherzo of piano plays the downbeat chord. With Beethoven
op.69, it is not difficult to see why Beethoven might there is no possibility, had he wanted this effect also
have concocted this particular stratagem. Without in the cello, that he would have left the cello part
it, the ker-flump effect of the right-hand upbeat fol- without any indication or instruction.

I am grateful to Barry Cooper for read- by Zinman (Arte Nova 1999), Gardiner ed. D. F. Tovey (London, 1931), ii, p.68.
ing an earlier version of this article, and (DGG 1994), Abbado (Sony 1996), van 9
for his helpful suggestions. Immerseel (Sony 1999) and Goodman Beethoven, Sonatas, ed. Tovey, iii,
(Nimbus 1988). Only Mackerras (EMI p.141.
1 P. Badura-Skoda, ‘A tie is a tie is a
1998) and Rattle (EMI 2003) play true 10
Carl Czerny, On the proper perfor-
tie’, Early music, xvi (1988), pp.84–8. sostenuto ties. mance of all Beethoven’s works for the
2
Ludwig van Beethoven, Symphony 5
Leopold Mozart, Versuch einer piano, ed. P. Badura-Skoda (Vienna,
no.9 in D minor, op.125, ed. J. Del Mar, gründlichen Violinschule (Augsburg, 1970), p.3.
Critical Commentary (Kassel, 1996), 1756), p.44, my translation. 11 Czerny, On the proper performance,
p.40 (p.41 in later printings).
6
Ludwig van Beethovens Konversation- ed. Badura-Skoda, p.78.
3Badura-Skoda, ‘A tie is a tie is a tie’,
shefte, ix, ed. G. Herre (Leipzig, 1988), 12
Ludwig van Beethoven: Briefwechsel:
p.86.
p.194. Gesamtausgabe, ed. S. Brandenburg
4
See, for example, the new record- 7 (Munich, 1996), letter no.902 (p.228).
Badura-Skoda, ‘A tie is a tie is a tie’,
ings—listed here in order of length
p.86. 13
with which these notes are played, Beethoven: Briefwechsel, ed. Branden-
8
starting with the shortest—conducted Beethoven, Sonatas for pianoforte, burg, letter no.902, n.2.

e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04 25
 Free 30-day trials available!

Grove Now published by

Music
Oxford University Press
The multi-award winning Grove
Music Online includes the full text
of the acclaimed 29-volume New
Grove Dictionary of Music and
Musicians (2nd edition), the
O N L I N E 4-volume New Grove Dictionary
of Opera, and, new in March 2003,
Edited by Laura Macy the 3-volume New Grove Dictionary
of Jazz (2nd edition).
"...by far the most
comprehensive Including 50,000 articles,

music site on the sophisticated search and browse

capabilities, Sibelius-enabled musical
web..." examples, and extensive links to
THE SUNDAY TIMES
musical sites on the Internet, Grove
Music Online is the unsurpassed
authority on all aspects of music.

The ultimate authority on all aspects of music

ACCLAIMED... COMPREHENSIVE... INNOVATIVE...
Library Journal – ● 50,000 articles covering all ● Wide range of search and
Best Reference Source aspects of music from browse options
antiquity to the present day
Choice – ● Sibelius-enabled musical
Outstanding Academic Title ● Includes special features, examples
biographies, and works lists
American Library Association – ● Thousands of links to related
Dartmouth Honorable Mention sites, including sound archives
and illustrations
Booklist/Reference Books Bulletin –
Editors’ Choice: Reference Source

www.grovemusic.com 1
26 e a r ly mu s i c f e b rua ry 2 0 04