Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Contemporary and historical performance practice in late eighteenth-century violin repertoire observations on articulation, bow strokes, and interpretation Jun He An exegesis submitted to Massey University and Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the degree of the Doctor of Musical Art in violin performance NEW ZEALAND SCHOOL OF MUSIC 2014 1 Abstract Since the 1970s, historically-aware performances of late eighteenth- century repertoire (and that of Mozart and Beethoven in particular) have prompted demands for a finer stylistic awareness on the part of the performer. Articulation in late eighteenth-century repertoire is of particular importance in this regard. In violin performance, bow strokes constitute the primary technique with which to render articulatory effects. In this study, I consider not only the link between the theoretical discussions of historically-informed performance (HIP) practitioners and the conventions of mainstream performance practice on the violin, but I investigate how best to merge musicological discussions of HIP with the practice of frequently performed repertoire on modern instruments today. Violin bow models play an important role in any discussion of articulation and bow strokes, and the use of old-style instruments represents the main divergence between HIP and mainstream performance. In this regard, observations on execution with the bow models used during the Classical era are important, and the differences between the so-called transitional bows and modern bows in performance will be informed by my own practice with a copy of a 1785 bow. Notation, which conveys the interpretative instructions of the composer, is one of the major areas of critical research of contemporary studies of the performance practices of the Classical era. Slurs, staccato markings, and passages without any articulation markings will be discussed from an interpretative perspective. Editorial issues of music scores and contemporary violin performances of the Classical repertoire will be touched upon, in conjunction with the consideration of performers’ interpretative choices and understandings of late eighteenth-century notation. 2 Acknowledgement I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my primary supervisor, Dr. Martin Riseley, for his continuous support and helpful advice on my performance and writing throughout the entire study. My deepest appreciation also extends to my academic supervisor, Dr. Erin Helyard. Without his expertise and knowledge of historically-informed performance and his sensible guidance on academic research, I could never have completed this study. I would also like to thank Alix Schultze sincerely, for effectively proofreading the entire exegesis. My special thanks extend to Kirsten Reid from the Student Learning Support Service of Victoria University of Wellington. This exegesis would have remained a dream without her immense help in improving my English writing. I owe my deep gratitude to the following musicians who contributed their musical gifts to play with me in the recitals for this study: Jian Liu, Matthew Oswin, Rafaella Garlick-Grice, and Emma Sayers. I would also like to express my special thanks to Shelley Wilkinson for advising my practice with the transitional bow model, providing her valuable experiences of baroque violin performance. It also gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the support and help of the New Zealand School of Music. I am deeply grateful to Paul Altomari who has been continuously solving issues regarding the administration of my study. I would also like to thank Belinda Behle for her help in scheduling all my recitals during the study. My sincerest thanks also extend to the following administrative staff of the NZSM: Roy Carr, Stephen Gibbs, Mark McGann, and Fiona Steedman. I am indebted to many colleagues and friends who have supported me and provided professional advice to help me in improving my performance. 3 I would like to specially thank Prof. Donald Maurice for his sensible guidance and help in processing the application of this DMA programme in the very beginning. My sincere appreciation also extends to Dr. Keith Chapin who enormously inspired me in the special topic course for this study. I would also like to express special appreciation for Inbal Megiddo and Donald Amstrong, for their sincere comments regarding my recitals. My deep appreciation is also given to Haihong Liu, Zhongxian Jin, Beiyi Xue, Pam Jian, Andrew Filmer, John Roxburgh, Vincent Hardaker, Alexa Thomson, Megan Ward, Karlo Margetic, Ben Booker, and Blythe Press. Last, I owe my deepest gratitude to my husband Hao Peng and my family, for supporting me spiritually throughout my life. 4 Index Example List Introduction …………………………………………………………………………... 10 1. Chapter 1: The Bow …………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 1.1. The Transitional Bow Models …………………………………………………………………. 16 1.2. Observations on Execution with the Transitional Bow and the Modern Bow ………………………………………………... 21 1.3. Discussion on the Practice ……………………………………………………………………… 28 1.3.1. The Kinds of Sounds and Articulations …………………………………………..…. 29 1.3.2. Approaches and Traditions ……………………………………………………………….. 31 2. Chapter 2: Performing Styles and Slurs ………………………………………………………………. 37 2.1. The Slur ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39 2.2. The ‘Accented – diminuendo’ Controversy …………..…………………………………. 58 3. Chapter 3: Staccato and Staccato Markings ……………………………………………………….. 64 3.1. Dots and Strokes for Staccato Strokes …………………………………………………….. 65 3.2. Staccato Marks in Other Uses .……………………………………………………………….. 72 3.3. Discussion of the ‘Dualism’ of the New Mozart Edition …………………………………………………………………………..…. 80 4. Chapter 4: Figures and Passages without Slurs and Other Articulation Marks ………………………………………………………….. 85 4.1. Bowings Implied in Unmarked Passages or Figures ………………………………… 86 4.2. Performing Traditions Implied in the Bow Stroke of Unmarked Notes …………………………………………………………… 97 4.3. Recordings: Contemporary Performance Practice of Classical Repertoire for the Violin ……………………………………………………….. 106 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 116 Appendices …………………………………………………………………………... 125 Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………...... 127 5 Example List Ex.1.2.1 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 5 in A major, K.219, 1st mov. bar 62 – 67. Ex.1.2.2 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 113 – 116; Violin Concerto No. 4 in D major, K.218, 1st mov. bar 53 – 56. Ex.1.2.3 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 1st mov. bar 13 – 18. Ex.1.2.4 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 28 -30. Ex.1.2.5 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 1st mov. bar 45 – 47. Ex.1.2.6 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 76 – 78. Ex.1.2.7 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 1st mov. bar 117 – 124. Ex.1.3.2.1 P. Baillot, The Art of the Violin, ex.12.23, pp. 173. Ex.1.3.2.2 P. Baillot, The Art of the Violin, ex.12.55, pp.186. Ex.2.1.1 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 74 – 79. Ex.2.1.1a W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 77 – 79. Ex.2.1.2 /2a W. A. Mozart, Violin Sonata in A major, K. 305, 1st mov. bar 30 – 35. Ex.2.1.3 /3a L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. Bar 91 – 105. Ex.2.1.4 /4a L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 410 – 426. 6 Ex.2.1.5 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 91 – 105; bar 410 – 426. Ex.2.1.6 /6a /6b /6c L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 2nd mov. Var. 3 Minore. Ex.2.1.7 /7a L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 234 – 238. Ex.2.1.8 /8a /8b L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 300 - 320. Ex.2.1.9 Clive Brown, Performance Practice, ex. 6.31. Haydn, String Quartet op.64/4/ii. Ex.2.1.10 /10a /10b L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 2nd mov. Var. Maggiore. Ex.2.1.11 J. Haydn, String Quartet Nr. 6 in E flat major, Hob.III/op.64, 3rd mov. Ex.2.2.1 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 5 in A major, K.219, 2nd mov. bar 23 – 28. Ex.2.2.2 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 3rd mov. bar 489 – 492. Ex.2.2.3 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 3rd mov. bar 263 – 267. Ex.3.1.1 T. -J. Tarade, Traité du Violon, Rondeau de Mr. Davaux, pp.60. Ex.3.1.2 Leopold Mozart, Treatise, chapter VII §6 Ex.3.1.3a /3b F. Fiorillo, 36 Caprices for the Violin, etude 21. Ex.3.1.3c H. E. Kayser, Thirty –six Elementary and Progressive Studies for the Violin, etude 1. Ex.3.1.4 Beethoven, Violin Sonata in D major, op.12 Nr.1, 1st mov. bar 127; W. A. Mozart, Sonata for Violin and Piano in A mojor, K.305, 1st mov. bar 5; G. G. Cambini, Nouvelle Méthode, except of Haydn’s Symphony no. 85. Ex.3.1.5 /5a /Ex.3.1.6 Leopold Mozart, Treatise, chapter 1, section 3 §17. 7 Ex.3.2.1 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No.5 in A major, K.219, 2nd mov. bar 23 – 28. Ex.3.2.2 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 2nd mov. Var. 2. Ex.3.2.3 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 5 in A major, K.219, 3rd mov. bar 98 – 101. Ex.3.2.4 A. Stamitz, Viola Concerto No.2, 2nd mov. Ex.3.2.5 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 5 in A major, K.219, 1st mov. bar 202 – 209. Ex.3.2.6 W. A. Mozart, Violin Sonata in C major, K. 296, 1st mov. bar 29 – 36. Ex.3.2.7 Leopold Mozart, A treatise, chapter 4 §29. Ex.3.2.8 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No.5 in A major, K.219. Ex.3.2.9 G. G. Cambini, Nouvelle Méthode, 2nd Part ; T. –J. Tarade, Traité du violon, Chapter 10. Ex.3.2.10 J. F. Reichard, Violin Concerto in E-flat major. Ex.3.2.11 L. Mozart, a Treatise, VI, §8; XII, §13. Ex.3.2.12 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No.5 in A major, K.219, 3rd mov. bar 1 – 4. Ex.3.3.1a W. A. Mozart, Violin Sonata in C, K.6, 2nd mov; W. A. Mozart, Violin Sonata in D, K.7, 3rd mov; W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto in B flat major, K.207, 1st mov. Ex.3.3.1b W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto in G major, K.216, 1st mov; W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 4 in D major, K.218, 1st mov; W.A. Mozart, Violin Sonata in F major, K.376/374d, 2nd mov. Ex.3.3.2 W. A. Mozart, Violin Sonata in A major, K. 305/293d, 1st mov. Ex.3.3.3 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 5 in A major, K.219, 1st mov. bar 98 – 103. Ex.3.3.4 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 5 in A major, K.219, 1st mov. Ex.4.1.1 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 5 in A major, K.219, 1st mov. bar 100 - 107. 8 Ex.4.1.2 L. van Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D major, op.60, 1st mov. bar 215 – 224. Ex.4.1.3 N. Paganini, 24 Caprices no.24, op.1, Var. 2. Ex.4.1.4 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 5 in A major, K.219, 1st mov. Ex.4.1.5 /5a /5b W.A. Mozart, Violin Sonata in C major, K.303, 2nd mov. bar 74 – 79. Ex.4.1.6 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 5 in A major, K.219, 2nd mov. bar 91 – 96. Ex.4.1.7 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 5 in A major, K.219, 2nd mov. Ex.4.1.8 /8a L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 1st mov. bar 210 – 217. Ex.4.2.1 L. van Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D major, op.60, 1st mov. bar 138 – 140: G. Henle Verlag Urtext. Ex.4.2.1a L. van Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D major, op.60, 1st mov. bar 138 – 140: Wilhelmj Edition (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, ca.1883); Léonard/Marteau Edition (Leipzig: Steingräber, 1909); Léonard/Nadaud Edition (Paris: Costallat et Cie, ca.1910) . Ex.4.2.1b L. van Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D major, op.60, 1st mov. bar 138 – 140: Francescatti Edition (New York: International Music Company, 1965). Ex.4.2.2 L. van Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D major, op.60, 1st mov. bar 138 – 140: Saint-Saens Edition (Paris: Durand, 1916). Ex.4.2.2a L. van Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D major, op.60, 1st mov. bar 138 – 140: Auer Edition (New York: Carl Fischer, 1917); Hubay Edition (Budapest: Rosznyai, 1918). Ex.4.2.3 L. van Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D major, op.60, 1st mov. bar 138 – 140: Rostal Edition (Mainz: Schott MusiK International, 1971). Ex.4.2.4 L. van Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D major, op.60, 1st mov. bar 181 – 185: Rostal Edition (Mainz: Schott MusiK International, 1971). 9 Ex.4.2.5 L. van Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D major, op.60, 1st mov. bar 181 – 185: Wilhelmj Edition (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, ca.1883); Léonard/Marteau Edition (Leipzig: Steingräber, 1909) ; Léonard/Nadaud Edition (Paris: Costallat et Cie, ca.1910) ; Saint- Saens Edition (Paris: Durand, 1916) ; Auer Edition (New York: Carl Fischer, 1917); Hubay Edition (Budapest: Rosznyai, 1918); Francescatti Edition (New York: International Music Company, 1965). Ex.4.2.6 L. van Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D major, op.60, 1st mov. bar 189 – 190. Ex.4.2.7 L. van Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D major, op.60, 1st mov. bar 189 – 190: Comparison between Marteau and Nadaud. Ex.4.2.8 L. van Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D major, op.60, 1st mov. bar 189 – 190: Hubay Edition (Budapest: Rosznyai, 1918). Ex.4.3.1 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 48 – 52. Ex.4.3.2 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 48 – 52: Y. Menuhin Bowing. Ex.4.3.3 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 48 – 52: G. Kremer Bowing. Ex.4.3.4 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 48 – 49. Ex.4.3.5 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 48 – 52: I. Perlmann Bowing. 10 Introduction Today's concept of the ‘Classical’ style refers to the new style and tradition developed by Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven in the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries. The sanctification of these three composers by nineteenth-century musicians and scholars has prompted the application of a strict standard to the present-day performances of their works, where a performance must be perfect in technique while conforming to a conceptualised ‘Classical’ style. Moreover, the rise of historically informed performance practice has brought a finer awareness of the Classical style and tradition to the attention of modern performers and audiences. Among a wide range of major issues dealing with historically informed performance practices of the Classical era, articulation is one of the essential elements, linking various subjects such as instrument making, notation, and the change in aesthetics between the past and the present day. Musicians of the seventeenth century had already been aware of the importance of articulation in musical performance, where articulation clearly demonstrated the structure, content, and form of a musical work, just as pronunciation and grammar did for a poem.1 The purpose of this study is to investigate the articulation issues that are relevant to playing technique and style, and to consider the extent to which these articulation issues affect modern performers’ understandings of the style and tradition developed in the late eighteenth century in order to enhance the performance of the present-day's frequently performed repertoire for the violin of the Classical era. 1 Judy Tarling, Baroque String Playing for Ingenious Learners (UK: Corda Music Publications, 2001), 9. 11 The repertoire of this study will focus on mostly canonical eighteenth- century pieces for violin solo or for violin and piano, familiar to many modern performers, institutions, and audiences. Some examples of string quartet music will be used, but only for demonstrating specific executions modern performers might not be aware of. Otherwise, most of the examples are extracted from the repertoire of the recitals performed during this study. While the study focuses on the details of playing technique relating to articulation on the violin, the broad discussion of the ideals of the historical performance movement and a wide range of major issues of late eighteenth-century performance practice, such as tempo markings, tempo modification, ornamentation and so on, will only be touched upon in relation to the influence of the changing conventions of performance on the interpretation of the notation of Classical composers. In addition, this study is based upon my own practice, thus the discussion mainly refers to my performance-related responses to the contemporary and historical performance practice. As articulation is directly related to the various performing techniques and styles of different schools, issues of articulation differ for keyboard, string and wind instruments, and for vocal performance. In violin performance practice, issues of articulation emerge mainly in the right hand: namely, bowing. One fundamental question is this: where and when should performers consider utilising a slurred stroke versus a bouncing stroke, or a separate stroke? And for unmarked passages, is a legato or staccato effect more appropriate for the style of a particular piece? The answers to the questions above are relevant to the influences of the different bow models of the time, modern performers’ decipherment of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century articulation markings, and the differing traditions of performance between the violin schools of the Classical era and those of the present day. The period performances of today have a significant 12 influence on the younger generation’s way of interpreting and hearing music. Because of this, and because bows are directly related to the variety of bowings and articulation, the study will start with practice with a transitional-model bow, investigating the articulatory effects of transitional bows and modern bows in violin performance practice, and aiming to understand the relationship between instrument making and the changing of performance traditions in conjunction with compositional genres of the late eighteenth century. 13 Chapter 1. The Bow In historically-informed performance practice on the violin, the way in which bow models differ from each other probably has more direct relevance to composers’ articulation markings (slurs or dots) and their consequent bowings than the instrument itself. During the eighteenth century, the violin bow model changed dramatically in length, structure, and materials. These changes in the physical characteristics of bows are significant in distinguishing the articulatory effects of later bows from those of earlier models. Some bow strokes, forceful accented strokes in particular, were rare in execution until articulatory effects such as strong accents became available with new bow models later in the century. Accordingly, the relationship between bow models and articulation in performance adheres to the violin performance practices of the eighteenth century. On the other hand, the different set-up of the violin in the eighteenth century makes a significant difference to the sound production of the instrument and may affect the capacity of eighteenth-century bows in execution. For example, pure gut strings, which were in use in the eighteenth century, produce a very different sound to metal or nylon strings. Djilda Abbott and Ephraim Segerman (1976) describe the tone of plain gut strings is ‘thicker or duller’ than the overspun strings.2 Abbott and Segerman also mention a significant characteristic of pure gut strings: the pitch distortion, in which pressing a string down or strongly bowing the string would stretch the string and then sharpen the pitch.3 The gut strings wound with silver used in the early eighteenth-century appear to 2 Djilda Abbott and Ephraim Segerman, ‘Gut Strings’, Early Music, Vol. 4 (1976), 430. 3 Ibid, 430 – 431. 14 have been invented in the mid-seventeenth century and must have reached England by 1664.4 The overspun strings considerably reduce the pitch distortion. This technique was mainly introduced to the low G string and occasionally to the D string of the violin in the eighteenth century. For the A and E string, pure gut continued in use until the twentieth century.5 In this case, the lightness of eighteenth-century bows may also be helpful in reducing the pitch distortion of pure gut strings. Moreover, accented strokes in eighteenth-century violin performance, such as bouncing spiccato or on-string staccato, may not have been as forceful as they are in modern execution due to the pitch distortion of pure gut. Further features of the violin used in the second half of the eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries are the size of the soundpost and bass-bar, and the length of the neck and fingerboard.6 The size of the soundpost and bass-bar has considerable effect on the timbre of the violin and the length of the neck and fingerboard mainly affect the tonal range of the instrument but sometimes also affect the timbre.7 These features of the ‘Classical violin’, together with the characteristics of eighteenth- century bows, construct a general picture of the sound production in the given period. However, in present-day performance practice, playing with old-style bows means not only recapturing the kind of sound and articulation of the old-style bows, but also observing whether execution with old-style bows can better achieve performers’ expected intentions with various bowings. In his book on the history of violin playing before 1761, David D. Boyden (1963) states that ‘…I do not underestimate for a moment the magnificent qualities of the modern bow; I simply think that the old bow 4 David Boyden and Peter Walls, ‘Violin, 4. History and repertory, 1600 – 1820, (b) Characteristics of “Baroque” and “Classical” violins’, in Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, , (July 7, 2014). 5 Stephen Bonta and Richard Partridge, ‘String, 3. Bowed and plucked string instruments’, in Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, , (July 7, 2012). 6 Boyden and Walls, ‘Violin’, in Grove Music Online, , (July 7, 2014). 7 More details regarding the features of violin set-up in the second half of the eighteenth century and the early nineteenth, one must read Peter Walls’ article ‘Mozart and the violin’ which was published in the Early Music vol.20/No.1 in February of 1992. 15 is better for the music for which it was designed’. 8 Boyden’s own experiences with using the old bow in performance practice and violin teaching lead him to this conclusion. Boyden’s point that ‘the old bow is better for the music for which it was designed’ is shared not only by other historically informed violinists, but also by some main-stream violinists such as Viktoria Mullova. Mullova first succeeded as a main-stream violinist in the late twentieth century before devoting herself to historically informed performance in recent years. In her interview with Inge Kjemtrup in 2004, she comments on her practice of Bach’s violin works with a Baroque bow. She states that: In a way it is easier to articulate, much easier [with a Baroque bow], because Bach composed for that kind of bow originally, so it makes much more sense. I wouldn’t be able to play Bach now with a normal bow, because it would just be difficult. The things I want to create with this music, it would not be possible to do it with a normal bow.9 Mullova’s experience with the old bow reveals a kind of modern performer’s attitude to HIP, where modern performers play with the old- style bows and violin in order to express what they have not been able to deliver in their performance with a modern instrument. However, Mullova’s experience is not echoed by all her contemporaries. Anne Sophie Mutter, who is a well-known violinist contemporary of Mullova, expresses her disapproval of using gut strings and old bows in an interview with Michael Church about her Mozart project in 2006. She states that: 8 David D. Boyden, The History of Violin Playing from Its Origins to 1761 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 498. 9 Inge Kjemtrup, interview with Viktoria Mullova, Violinist Viktoria Mullova Joins World of Gut String and Baroque Bows, 2004, available from: , accessed 25 January, 2013. 16 …I’m a strong defender of the modern stringing of the violin, because it expands its range, not only of volume, but also of colour and shading. And those expressive resources make up an integral part of Mozart's compositional style. There was a good reason for the further development of the violin bow in 1755, a search for greater expressivity and flexibility.10 Although Mutter and Mullova represent the two opposing poles of attitudes to HIP, both cases suggest that the performer’s concern about the instrument they use is with whether the technology can best help in the delivery of the worK. In addition, the instrumental hardware substantially affects playing technique. It means that the music of the eighteenth century, for example, was designed for the instruments used at that time. Thus, modern performers may find that using old-style bows to execute early music somehow reduces the technical difficulties encountered when executing the work with modern bows. However, such experience is rather subjective. Therefore, my practice with the transitional bow model will investigate the relationship between the late eighteenth-century bows and the performance practices and traditions of the period. Moreover, my practice aims to explore whether that bow model can help me achieve my expectations of the execution and interpretation of late-eighteenth- century works. 1.1 The Transitional Bow Models The so-called transitional bow is not a specific model of violin bow. Indeed, twentieth-century scholars have different opinions on the period of the use of these bows. Boyden implies the period of use for these bows was 10 Michael Church, interview with Anne Sophie Mutter, Interview on the Project, August 2005, available from: , accessed 25 January, 2013. 17 between 1750 – 1780 by referring to well-known makers of transitional bows: for example, François Tourte’s father (Tourte père), his brother (Tourte l’ainé), John Dodd, and the violinist Wilhelm Cramer who contributed to the development of the bow at that time.11 Robin Stowell (1985) does not define the period of transitional bows either, but he specifically describes that the ‘Cramer bow’ (an exemplar model of transitional bows) was commonly used between c. 1760 and c. 1785.12 Robert E. Seletsky (2004) expounds more specifically on bow models of the eighteenth century in articles published in Early Music. He describes three categories of bow models of the eighteenth century: short bows, long bows, and transitional bows. The periods of use of these three categories of bow models overlapped. Short bows were not completely replaced by long bows, which apparently appeared around 1750.13 Transitional models also overlapped with long bows, their numbers having increased by around 1770.14 Although the Tourte bow design appeared around 1780 and soon spread throughout Europe, the use of some transitional bows persisted after 1800. A famous instance of this case is N. Paganini, who appears to be playing with a Cramer bow in a lithograph by Karl Begas c. 1820 (Fig.1). 11 Boyden, The History of Violin Playing from Its Origins to 1761, 327. 12 Robin Stowell, Violin Technique And Performance Practice in The Late Eighteenth And Early Nineteenth Centuries (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 14 – 18. 13Robert E. Seletsky, ‘New Light on the Old Bow-1’, Early Music May issue (2004), 294. 14 Robert E. Seletsky, ‘New light on the old bow-2’, Early Music August issue (2004), 415. 18 Fig.1 Paganini Playing with a transitional bow model, Karl Bega lithograph, c.1820.15 As bows were not standardised until François Tourte’s design, transitional bows have varying models but generally have a hatchet-head, a slightly concave bow stick, and a shorter length than the so-called long bows, which were in use during the mid-eighteenth century, and were between 66 and 72 cm in length.16 The most well-known model of transitional bow is the so-call ‘Cramer Bow’, which is slightly shorter than the Tourte bow and has a battle-axe head. Tarling demonstrates that transitional bows have more power in their upper half due to the development of a slightly concave bow stick, and the basic bow stroke is less lifted but more linear and on the string. The transitional bow bounces naturally with its own weight, but can also produce an even tone through to the tip so the 15 Haags Gemeentemuseum, Netherlands, . 16 Seletsky, ‘New Light on the Old Bow-1’, 291; ‘New light on the old bow-2’, 415. 19 performer is able to play a longer slurred passage. 17 Seletsky also observes that ‘the bounced bow-strokes in the music of Haydn, Mozart, the Mannheim school composers and others, seem to have been responsible for the introduction of the transitional bows, which performed these effects more naturally than the long bows’.18 In general, transitional bows create naturally bouncing bow strokes through their innate designs. This feature distinguishes transitional bows from old pike’s head bows. Furthermore, transitional bows improved the evenness of long strokes, though this feature could be found also in long bows, which existed before the so-called transitional bows. However, the natural bouncing feature of transitional bows precludes players from giving more finger pressure in their execution, so the timbre of execution with the transitional bow tends to be leaner than with the modern bow. As modern bows base their fundamental design on the Tourte bow model, the Tourte bow marked a new era of bow making in the late eighteenth century. Although the Tourte bow has a similar appearance to transitional bows, the Tourte bow improves the cambre technique and the structure of the bow, such as a greater length. According to these improvements, the Tourte bow can carry more finger pressure so that performers can not only produce a more powerful tone, but the bow becomes steadier in the execution of long strokes. As Stowell summarises in his book: Variation of this [index-finger] pressure, bow speed, contact point, type of stroke and other technical considerations provided the wider expressive range so important to contemporary aesthetic ideals, in which the element of contrast, involving sudden changes of dynamic or long crescendos and diminuendos, played a significant role.19 17 Tarling, Baroque String Playing for Ingenious Learners, 242. 18 Seletsky, ‘New light on the old bow-2’, 416. 19 Stowell, Violin Technique and Performance Practice in the Late Eighteenth and the Early Nineteenth Centuries, 22. 20 The reason for the continuing use of the Tourte bow design is complex. Referring to bow making, each bow model has its own limitations in tone production and articulation. Even though transitional bow models are similar to the Tourte bow design and the modern bow in many ways, the clarity of articulation produced by transitional bows is more natural. Although no historical documentation of the collaboration between F. Tourte and G. B. Viotti in inventing a new bow design has been discovered yet, Viotti’s performative aspects must inspire Tourte’s work in many ways. Furthermore, the ascendancy of the Viotti School played a significant role in promoting the use of the Tourte bow design. Viotti’s new performing style not only swept through central Europe and established a new authority in violin performance or ‘school’, but various bow strokes associated with the Tourte bow design were also disseminated by students of the Viotti School, and these techniques were soon systemised as fundamental exercises. For example, Rodolphe Kreutzer, one of the greatest pupils of the Viotti School, constituted exercises of diverse bowings, especially of accented strokes, into his 42 Studies for the violin. Not only the variety of sound effects created by the Tourte bow model but also the capacity of Tourte bows in playing diverse bow strokes appears to have allowed composers to enlarge the vocabulary of staccato or accented bowings in their works. The innate design of transitional bows determined that transitional bows could no longer satisfy performers in execution. On account of the interaction between the composition of violin music and the systematic training of violin schools in the nineteenth century, despite small changes in weight and stick types, the Tourte bow design gradually supplanted transitional bows and became the standard model for bow making. 21 1.2 Observations on Execution with the Transitional Bow and the Modern Bow The transitional bow model involved in my practice is a copy of the bow model made by John K. Dodd, c. 1785 (Fig.2). The most noticeable feature of this bow is that the bow has a weak point in the middle, the same as my modern bow. This weak point makes the bow bounce more than my modern bow. Despite the natural bouncing point, this bow is capable of creating a steady tone throughout a long stroke. The evenness of tone in long strokes makes performance with a transitional bow very similar to performance with a modern bow, particularly when playing slow strokes in slow movements, such as the Adagio or Andante movements of Mozart’s violin concertos. However, in my practice there is a small difference in tone at the beginning of a stroke between the transitional bow and the modern bow, such that the tone at the beginning of a stroke is more immediate with the modern bow than with the transitional bow. Consequently, to achieve a smooth bow stroke change, the transitional bow requires less finger control than the modern bow, especially when replacing the bow quickly back on the string after a short lifted stroke; for example, in the passage of Mozart’s violin concerto no.5, first movement (Ex.1.2.1). Fig.2 Transitional Bow John K. Dodd model around 1785, made by Pieter Affourtit, the Netherlands, . 22 Ex.1.2.1 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 5 in A major, K.219, 1st mov. bar 62 – 67. In bars 63, 65, and 67, the first notes (with strokes above the note) are usually played lightly with a lifted bow stroke. This interpretation creates contrast between the lively character of the first half of the phrase ( ) and the smooth, singing character of the second half of the phrase ( ). A technical difficulty occurs when changing from the lifted bow stroke to the slurred bow stroke. Usually, fast movements of the bow create forceful accents. In this example the action of changing bow strokes has to be quick, but at the same time a forceful accent should be avoided when changing the fast lifted stroke to a slow slurring stroke. It is easier to solve the technical difficulty of alternating between two different kinds of bow stroke using the transitional bow than the modern bow. The transitional bow is lighter than the modern bow, so it gives better control over detailed articulation. The transitional bow model also delays index-finger pressure onto the stick during fast bow strokes changes, so that the beginning of the stroke naturally creates a soft tone. However, this delay does not affect the execution of accented bowing with the transitional bow models. Regarding the capacity for accented bowing, the player can play a strong accented stroke by mainly using the lower half of this transitional bow model of 1785. This feature is very similar to execution with the modern bow. However, the difference is that violinists can execute forceful accents with nearly every part except the tip of the modern bow, while similar forceful accents can only be executed by using the lower half of 23 this transitional bow model of 1785. Although the upper half of this transitional bow is not ideal for forceful accents, the player can execute a rather sharp accent at the beginning of the stroke with the upper half. To execute this kind of accent, the player has to give a slight amount of pressure of the index finger onto the stick. Such light, sharp accents probably coincide with the present-day expectations of articulation in the rapid figurational passages of W. A. Mozart’s works for the violin (Ex.1.2.2 in black box). Ex.1.2.2 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 113 – 116 . W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 4 in D major, K.218, 1st mov. bar 53 – 56. In both passages of Ex.1.2.2, a player with a modern bow can choose either a light bouncing stroke (off-string stroke) or a light martelé (on- string stroke). With the light bouncing stroke, the player can use the elasticity of the middle point of the bow to better control the bouncing stroke. When playing the light martelé stroke, it is better for the player to use the upper half of the bow, towards the middle point. Executing either the light bouncing stroke or the light martelé stroke with the modern bow, the player might have to work harder to control the bow well in order to produce the light articulated accents. In this case, using this 1785 bow is 24 simpler because the light, articulated accents can be achieved more naturally by using the upper half of the bow. In my practice, I also discovered another feature of this 1785 bow model. In execution with the transitional bow, the tone stops ringing immediately when the stroke finishes. On the contrary, in execution with the modern bow the tone lasts slightly longer, even after finishing a stroke. It is hard to tell what exactly makes the reverberation at the end of the stroke different between the transitional bow model and the modern bow in my practice, as many factors are at play: the strings, the violin, and individual playing techniques. The lack of reverberation of the 1785 bow therefore may relate to the modern violin set-up and modern playing technique I utilised in the practice. Nevertheless, when comparing the effects of transitional bows and modern bows using the same kind of strings, this after-ringing creates a different effect on the last note of slurred pairs. For instance, in Ex.1.2.3, the last notes of the slurred pairs will be short and dry if the player has employed the same lifted stroke with the transitional bow as with the modern bow on those notes. Ex.1.2.3 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 1st mov. bar 13 – 18. Without the reverberation at the ends of strokes, the timbre created by this 1785 bow tends toward a dry and lean tone, especially using this bow model in combination with modern strings and the set-up of the modern violin. However, this feature of the transitional bow model of 1785 might contribute considerably to a clear articulation in executing the fast 25 detached figurations. On the contrary, a fast, detached bow stroke can be played as connectedly as in a moderate or slow tempo with a modern bow. In Ex.1.2.4, execution of the rapid passage (marked by a box) with a modern bow is achieved by either bouncing the bow or playing extremely short detached strokes on the string. In contrast, execution with the transitional bow model of 1785 is simpler here, as the clear articulation is more naturally achieved by this transitional bow model. Ex.1.2.4 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 28 -30. Furthermore, performers may also take advantage of the natural clear articulation of detached strokes with the transitional bow to execute bariolage figures (Ex.1.2.5). In comparison, to make a clear tone in such figures a player using a modern bow must reduce the bow pressure so that the bow will be not too firmly anchored on the string. At the same time, the bow must be controlled well by the wrist and fingers in order to make good contact with the string. Ex.1.2.5 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 1st mov. bar 45 – 47. On the other hand, the clear articulation in the execution of crossing- string figurations with the transitional bow model obstructs the player from executing a smooth string-crossing passage. In Ex.1.2.6, the player 26 can easily reach a sustained articulatory effect while crossing the string between the C of the E string and the #D of the A string in bar 76. In practice with the 1785 bow model, one must drag the bow slightly more and slow down the bow speed in order to achieve a smooth and connected effect. Accordingly, the cantabile effect of slurred figures while crossing strings is less effective with the 1785 bow than with the modern bow. Ex.1.2.6 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 76 – 79. The last but not the least important feature of the transitional bow model of 1785 is the ‘leanness’ of tone colour in execution with this bow. In my practice, compared with the modern bow, the transitional bow could scarcely carry strong finger pressure of the kind cultivated in modern practice; otherwise the tone became harsh or the bow would bounce naturally. It is harder to express different tone colours with the transitional bow, probably because of the limited use of finger pressure. The tone production of this 1785 bow is also thinner than that of my modern bow. The limitations of the 1785 bow in tone production considerably confine performers’ delivery. For example, in Ex.1.2.7 with its alternating dynamics, execution with the 1785 bow can only produce a tone contrast between loud and quiet, and between sustained and detached. By contrast, while using the modern bow to execute the passage of Ex.1.7, the player is able to arrange different colours in the forte detached figurations; such as a thicker and more forceful tone. 27 Ex.1.2.7 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 1st mov. bar 117 – 124. So far, my practice has discovered some significant characteristics of the transitional bow model of 1785. Some characteristics of this bow model are described by comprehensive studies of violin bows as common features of all transitional bow models, for example, the evenness of long strokes and the natural bouncing point. Comprehensive studies, such as Boyden’s discussion on the history of violin playing, Stowell’s discussion on violin performance practice of the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries, Tarling’s guide book of playing with old-style violins and bows, and Seletsky’s articles of bow models in the eighteenth century, expound on these common features of transitional bows in detail, such that the player can easily recognise these characteristics in his or her practice with the transitional bow model of 1785. Some features, such as the surprising after-ring of the tone and the distinctive sound production, might be related specifically to this particular bow model of 1785. Furthermore, the physical characteristics of the 1785 bow model ask for adjustment of playing techniques and bow strokes. Because of the natural bouncing point of the bow, the execution of a fast, detached stroke already creates an effect similar to modern spiccato, so that the player can play most fast passages on the string. The natural bouncing point of the bow also has an effect on accented bow strokes, where strong finger pressure would make the bow bounce on the weak point of the bow, so that the bow can hardly produce accents as forceful as the accents produced by a modern bow. Performers’ intuition of playing the 28 instrument makes the player instinctively adjust their playing technique when he or she senses the different characteristics of the bow. However, modern violinists may not know some bow strokes, as these strokes are no longer favoured by modern violin schools. Thus, practice with the 1785 bow model means we must refer to some approaches demonstrated in the eighteenth-century treatises, in addition to modern studies of the performance practice of the period. 1.3 Discussion on the Practice In recent years, the so-called transitional bow models have featured heavily in present-day historically informed performances of the music of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In 2009, Glossa released a new album of W. A. Mozart’s Sinfonia Concertante and violin concertos no. 1 – 5, with the Orchestra of the Eighteenth Century conducted by Franz Brüggen and Thomas Zehetmair as the soloist. In this album, the Orchestra of the Eighteenth Century was set up with period instruments and Zehetmair played a 1730 Stradivarius with a Classical- period bow (namely a transitional bow). In comparison with Zehetmair’s 2001 recording of the Mozart violin concertos with modern instruments, this recording with the transitional bow and period instrument band manifests a somehow fresh and stylish atmosphere, mainly because of the distinct sound produced by the period instruments. A review of this recording from Gramophone Magazine describes Zehetmair’s performance ‘with those tiny nuances more naturally achieved with the shorter, lighter Classical bow’, and the Telegraph commented that ‘Zehetmair makes an extraordinary sound, small and light and yet able to hold your attention at every moment’.20 20 Reviews attached in CD, . 29 The distinct sound production of period instruments is often underlined as a fundamental tenet in the present-day HIP practice of early music. In HIP practice on the violin, the articulation produced by an old-style bow is particularly important to sound production. How might modern violinists acquire this distinct kind of sound and articulation with old-style bows? It is probably better to start with the question of what kind of sound and articulation we expect today in the performance of the violin repertoire of the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries. 1.3.1 The Kinds of Sounds and Articulations The generally expected sound of today’s modern violin performance practice has a clean, relaxed tone without harshness; however, there might be a particular expectation for the kind of sound for the Viennese Classical repertoire, especially the violin works of W. A. Mozart. My first lesson on Mozart’s fourth violin concerto was in China when I was 14. My teacher at the time asked me to imagine a ‘delicate’ tone when performing Mozart’s works. Three years later in Salzburg, my Austrian professor guided me to achieve ‘elegant’ sound production in the performance of the same Mozart violin concerto. It seems that a ‘light brilliant tone’ is considered to be the kind of ‘Mozart sound’ in modern performance, and as such, makes Mozart’s works recognizable. The 1785 bow model I used in practice produces a clean, bright tone, which might indeed help aid more effectively the present-day ideal sound of Mozart’s violin works as noted. It seems that modern violinists’ ideal sound for Mozart’s violin works is derived from the characteristics of the violins which were favoured by violinists in the late eighteenth century. Peter Walls (1992) comments on the differing evaluation of violins made during the second half of the eighteenth century, revealing that the violins of Jacob Stainer, a German 30 violin maker, were most highly praised until the end of the century. 21 Walls suggests that ‘in the late eighteenth century Stainer instruments seemed to offer clarity where Stradivari instruments offered fullness of tone’. 22 Synthesising Walls’s description of the Stainer violins and the characteristics of the transitional bow model I discovered in practice, it appears that performers in the late eighteenth century preferred a clear and rather shining tone in violin playing. However, it remains in question whether the clarity of tone and articulation produced by the bow model of 1785 is determinative in the creation of the work, and whether a performance with a modern bow can achieve the same expressive properties of Mozart’s violin concertos or not. After summarizing the kind of sound which the old violin and bow could produce in violin music before 1750, Boyden suggests that ‘although it is quite possible for a modern violinist to achieve the kind of sound just mentioned, I urge anyone really interested in recapturing the old sound to experiment with the old-style bow.’ 23 Although Boyden’s experience in practice with the old-style bow makes him believe that students can achieve a kind of articulation in earlier repertoire more easily with the old bow, he does not ignore the possibility that modern bows can produce some similar effect to the sound produced by the old-style bow; for example, a lighter modern bow is often chosen by modern violinists when performing the works of Mozart. In this manner, modern bows are capable of producing the same kind of sound and articulation as the old-style bows did, but performers may have to employ different techniques or bow strokes with the modern bow in order to achieve a sound and articulation similar to that of the old-style bow. Therefore, in my practice with the bow model of 1785, recapturing or reconstituting the kind of sound and the natural articulation of the 21 Peter Walls, ‘Mozart and the violin’, Early Music, Vol. 20, No. 1, Performing Mozart’s Music II (Feb. 1992), 8 – 9. 22 Ibid, 9. 23 Boyden, The History of Violin Playing from Its Origins to 1761, 497 – 498. 31 transitional bow is the first step. It is important to observe the influences of the transitional bow’s distinct sound and articulation on the execution of bow strokes, and how the execution of bow strokes with the transitional bow contributes to the understanding of the performing styles and traditions of the period. 1.3.2 Approaches and Traditions The physical characteristics of the transitional bows together with the eighteenth-century violin set-up determine that the execution of some bow strokes will be different from the same articulations performed with modern bows. Although the transitional bow model of 1785 is very similar to my modern bow, differences are found in the execution of some kinds of bow stroke. The most obvious difference in execution between the transitional bow model of 1785 and the modern bow is the execution of fast détaché strokes, particularly accented strokes such as martelé. It is better to execute the fast détaché strokes with the transitional bow model of 1785 by using the part towards the tip of the bow, where performers with a modern bow would acquire a better effect for the same kinds of strokes by using the part towards the middle point of the bow (Illus.1). As there is a bouncing point in the middle of the transitional bow model of 1785, it is not ideal for the player to execute fast détaché strokes (especially the martelé stroke) by using this part of this bow. 32 Illus.1 On the other hand, the transitional bow designs may correspond to eighteenth-century playing techniques, where the bow grip and the low position of the elbow were different to those of the modern violin schools. Stowell demonstrates the bow grip described by different schools in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, where the hand mostly suggested holding the bow stick near the frog. 24 (Fig.3) According to Stowell, such bow grip may afford a more even balance of the type of bow used in the given period but possibly ruled out the use of the middle of the bow; because the clearest articulation can be made by the point of the bow, the player is forced to the point for detailed passage-work.25 The general style of bow grip in the second half of eighteenth century and the early nineteenth were likely to be a performing tradition rather than a technical approach to a particular kind of bow models. Pierre Baillot’s figuration of bow holding in his treatise (1834) clearly displays that the bow is a Tourte design. (Fig.3a) 24 Robin Stowell, ‘Violin Boing in Translation: A Survey of Technique as Related in Instruction Books c1760 – c.1830’, Early Music, Vol. 12, No. 3, String Issue (Aug. 1984), 318. 25 Ibid. 33 Fig. 3 The bow hold as illustrated in B. Campagnoli, New and Progressive Method on the Mechanism of Violin Playing, (Milan: Ricordi n.d. 1827), ppII, figs. 1-3. Fig.3a P. Baillot, The Art of the Violin, (Mainz & Antwerp: les fils de B. Schott, n.d. (1835), pp.12 – 13, Illustration 2, Fig.14. 34 Among the treatises for violin playing from this period, Baillot’s work The Art of the Violin is particularly remarkable for its detailed demonstration of various kinds of détaché. Baillot categorised détaché strokes as strokes produced on the string, strokes produced using the elasticity of the bow, and sustained strokes. 26 In his demonstration, Baillot specifically illustrates the execution of diverse détaché by using different parts of the bow. For example, referring to the execution of martelé, Baillot suggests using the part closest to the point of the bow (Illus.2). Illus.2 P. Baillot, The Art of the Violin, pp.174 Baillot’s approach to executing martelé is similar to Campagnoli’s method (1797), who also recommended the use of the tip of the bow to execute the martelé stroke.27 Moreover, Baillot also specifically addresses the duration of the notes in the execution of some détaché strokes, such as Grand Détaché or Light Détaché (Ex.1.3.2.1, Ex.1.3.2.2). 26 Pierre Baillot, The Art of the Violin, trans. Louise Goldberg, (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1991), 171 – 191. 27 Bartolomeo Campagnoli, Nouvelle Méthode De La Mécanique Progressive Du Jeu De Violon : Divisée En 5 Parties Et Distribuée En 132 Leçons Progressives Pour Deux Violons Et 118 Etudes Pour Un Violon Seul : Op. 21 (Milan: J. Ricordi, 1824), XVIII. 35 Ex.1.3.2.1 P. Baillot, The Art of the Violin, ex.12.23, pp. 173. Ex.1.3.2.2 P. Baillot, The Art of the Violin, ex.12.55, pp.186. The difference between Grand Détaché and Light Détaché is that Grand Détaché is played on the string and is used in tempi faster than Allegro.28 The execution of Light Détaché applies the elasticity of bow to create ‘an imperceptible bouncing of the bow’, and Light Détaché is used in a moderate tempo.29 Indeed, Baillot requires ‘rests’ between the notes in all kinds of détaché except sustained détaché, which is employed in tremolando. Baillot’s articulated détaché can be traced back to the execution of detached strokes with the old pike’s head bows in the eighteenth century. The construction of the old pike’s head bows determines that the execution of detached strokes with the old bows creates a natural articulation, for the tone decreases at the end of the 28 Baillot, The Art of the Violin, 173. 29 Ibid, 186. 36 stroke so that a slight gap between down bow and up bow is created.30 Observing Baillot’s methods of bow strokes, one can assume that in the first half of the nineteenth century, the execution of bow strokes such as martelé and détaché were likely to become a kind of performing tradition, where the non-legato execution of detached strokes no longer resulted from the physical characteristics of the bow. Subsequently, as the bow model was standardised by the Tourte bow design in the nineteenth century, variations in bow stroke were less conditioned by the natural sound production and articulation of the bow; rather, they were focused more on exploring the capacity of the bow and various approaches to achieve better effects with bow strokes. In this manner, the performance traditions of the time encouraged performers to explore a new approach in executing certain kinds of bow strokes; meanwhile, a new approach also promoted the rise of a new performing tradition. It seems that the evolution of bow models during the eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century was a progressive movement; not only in instrument making, but also in the history of violin playing. The sound production and articulation properties of pre-Tourte bows reduce some of the technical difficulties encountered when executing pre-Tourte repertoire with modern bows. The increasing praise of the Tourte bow model encouraged a new performance style and aesthetic of tone production towards the end of the eighteenth century. The new vocabulary of bow strokes of the Tourte bow models contributes not only to performers’ creativities in enhancing the virtuosity of violin playing, but also to the creation of compositions; wherein the composers might expand the variations of motifs, expressions, and characters in their works. Here, the creation of new bow strokes can be reflected in the notation of a score, particularly with the use of articulation markings which also function as graphic symbols of bowings. 30 Boyden, The History of Violin Playing from Its Origins to 1761, 393 – 395. 37 Chapter 2. Performing Styles and Slurs The legato and staccato styles are two of the most important performance styles understood to be in opposition, yet complementary. The manifestation of legato is a smooth, connected, sustained tone. In contrast, staccato is best understood as articulated and separated tones. The connected quality of legato and the clarity of staccato together constitute the musical language. Legato style refers to the characteristically singing style which is best typified in Italian vocal music of the eighteenth century. A long bow stroke is the basic approach of performing legato in violin playing. Compared to legato, staccato execution is more varied in respect to bowed instruments because of the great diversity and variety of detached bow strokes. Besides, the so- called ‘non-legato’ style, apparently lying somewhat between legato and staccato, is controversial in terms of interpreting the proper degree of separation or articulation between notes so designated. The question for performers, both at the time of composition as well as today, is when and where to employ legato, staccato, or non-legato when none of these styles are specifically marked by slurs or Italian terms. Eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century writers such as Leopold Mozart, Johann Joachim Quantz, and Pierre Baillot relate these performing styles to the characters, moods, and styles of the works. In these cases, performers can be instructed by composers’ tempo terms, such as Adagio, Allegro, or Presto. Indeed, tempo markings indicate not only the speed of the piece, but also serve as a description of the appropriate mood or style, especially before the nineteenth century.31 Referring to the designated 31 Clive Brown, Classical & Romantic Performing Practice 1750 – 1900 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 336 – 337. 38 character of tempo markings, Robert Riggs extracts and systematises Türk’s consideration of the correlation between tempo markings and interpretation.32 L. Mozart emphasises the importance of observing the moods of passages, stating that ‘merry and playful passages must be played with light, short, and lifted strokes, happily and rapidly; just as in slow, sad pieces one performs them with long strokes of the bow, simply and tenderly’.33 Quantz’s descriptions of bowing relate directly to different national styles. He describes the Italian bow stroke as the ‘long and dragging’ stroke and the stroke in French manner as ‘short and articulated’. Quantz advocates ‘the light, short and lifted strokes’, which is likely to be the French stroke, for rapid movements and in accompaniment.34 Baillot observes that the given mood of each piece is a topic much deserving of a performer’s attention. He also emphasises the importance of understanding different composers’ styles, because ‘each composer possesses a seal that he impresses upon all his work, a style of his own which depends on his manner of feeling and expression.’35 Furthermore, the performance traditions of various violin schools in the second half of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries had considerable influence on the contemporary aesthetics of violin playing. Bow designs changed along with the ascendency of particular violin schools of the time. For instance, Fétis implied that the Tourte bow is believed to have been designed through Tourte’s collaboration with G. B. Viotti, who advocated a new style of violin playing and was the founder of the so-called ‘Parisian violin school’ in the early nineteenth century.36 Also, one transitional bow model is named by Fétis and Woldmar after Wilhelm Cramer, who was known as one of the finest violinists of the Mannheim 32 Robert Riggs, ‘Authenticity and Subjectivity in Mozart Performance: Türk on Character and Interpretation’, College Music Symposium, Vol. 36 (1996), 38 – 40. 33 Leopold Mozart, A Treatise on The Fundamental Principles of Violin Playing, trans. Editha Knocker (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), 223. 34 Johann Joachim Quantz, On Playing the Flute, trans. Edward R. Reilly (London: Faber, 1985), 230 - 231. 35 Baillot, The Art of the Violin, trans. Louise Goldberg, 7-8. 36 Stowell, Violin Technique and Performance Practice in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, 18. 39 violin school in the second half of the eighteenth century. 37 The characteristics of a bow model such as W. Cramer’s ‘Cramer bow’ reflect the performing tradition of the eponymous violin school of the time. W. Cramer was especially famous for his off-string-bowing playing technique. This may be the reason that his name was associated with a transitional bow model, which is ideal for bounced bowing.38 The differences between the various performing traditions of violin schools from the mid-eighteenth to the early nineteenth century probably emerged primarily from their exponents’ articulatory interpretation of passages without any articulation marks. This is because the absence of articulation marks allows more interpretative freedom for performers, in some respects to demonstrate their own musicianship as typified by the ‘school’ in which they were trained. In regard to this, the use of slurs plays a significant role in signifying those differences between performing traditions, because slurs are frequently used as a bowing mark to indicate diverse slurred bowings. The use of slurred bowing directly relates to the performing style of one’s interpretation of the work as the musical context can be changed according to the length of a slur. 2.1 The Slur The slur has had a myriad of different meanings and connotations for different performers and composers since its inception. In the sixteenth century the slur was initially used to specify legato, especially in vocal music.39 In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the slur was used in instrumental music to indicate bowing, breathing, and tonguing. In the nineteenth century, especially the second half of the century, slurs began 37 Stowell, Violin Technique and Performance Practice in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, 14. 38 Simon McVeigh, ‘Wilhelm Cramer’, in Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, , (July 10, 2012). 39 Clive Brown, ‘Articulation marks, 4. The staccato mark’, in Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, , (September 24, 2012). 40 to take on their modern significance as references to the beginning and ending of a phrase. Generally, the musical effect of the slur is inevitably a sense of coherence and continuity.40 For violinists from the past to the present, slurs primarily imply bowings, in that the notes under a slur should be executed under one bow stroke. Yet, the slurred group of notes is restricted on account of the limited length of the bow. Indeed, long slurs were rare in use before the end of the eighteenth century. 41 Identifying the meanings of slurs in works from the mid-eighteenth to the early nineteenth century becomes crucial for modern violinists who wish to acquire a more comprehensive understanding of the musical context. Although long slurs are rarely seen in works from before the end of the eighteenth century, once the occasional long slur is identified it calls performers’ attention to exploring what message it carries from the composer, primarily because of its novelty. The question for violinists is whether one must treat the slur, whatever its length, as a mark of one- stroke bowing? If not, then why does the composer of the work employ a long slur? Perhaps the most awkward situation for violinists is that some long slurred groups of the eighteenth- century repertoire are possible to play under one stroke, but the player might physically tense up, or the player’s expression might be restrained. This is because one must either slow down the bow speed or speed up the tempo of the passage for the execution of a long stroke. An example of such an awkward situation is found in the first movement of Mozart’s Violin concerto No.2 K.211 (Ex.2.1.1). 40 Geoffrey Chew, ‘Slur’, in Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, , (September 10, 2012). 41 Brown, Classical & Romantic Performing Practice 1750 – 1900, 235. 41 Ex.2.1.1 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 74 – 79. The written slur from the #C of bar 77 to the A of bar 79 (marked by the black box) is a rather long slur, which is rarely seen in Mozart’s worK. Literally, it seems possible to play all of the slurred notes in one stroke, but the player may feel restrained in their performance because of the slowing down of the bow speed. Eighteenth-century violinists often used slurred bowings for legato performance because of the natural articulation of eighteenth-century bows. The normal bow stroke of the pre-Tourte bows is thus considered to be a non-legato stroke in general, and true legato bowing could only be achieved with the old bows through slurred bowing.42 As Mozart’s performing activities as a violinist occurred mainly before 1780, it is reasonable to assume that at least his early violin works, including his five violin concertos, were associated with a pre-Tourte bow model. Accordingly, although some long slurs (such as Ex.2.1.1) in his violin works seem non-ideal as bowings to modern violinists, it might have been legitimate for Mozart at the time of his violin playing to utilise them to indicate long one-stroke bowings, in order to achieve a total legato effect in the passage. On the other hand, as such a long stroke might not be technically ideal for execution of Ex.2.1.1, the long slur here can be considered as the composer’s interpretative instruction that slurred strokes must be employed in this passage. In this case, the long slur is here used to group 42 Stowell, Violin Technique and Performance Practice in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, 170. 42 the notes, indicating the phrase. Yet, it is important for the player to consider which division of bow strokes would be better for the expression of the phrase. In my suggestion for the bowing of Ex.2.1.1a, the first slur of C#, E and F in an up bow over the bar line can retain the effect of blurring the strong beat of bar 78. The start of a new down bow stroke on the F# with the trill can continue the ascent of the initial phrase with the long slur. An extra up bow stroke for the G# with the trill can continue the crescendo through to the A, which is the top note of the phrase on the strong beat of the next bar. Furthermore, beginning the trill on a new stroke can hide a bow change in bar 78 and the phrase can stay legato. Ex.2.1.1a W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K.211, 1st mov. bar 77 – 79. As Mozart was significantly influenced by his father in his violin playing, Leopold’s approach to slurred bowing might provide some clues as to the significance of slurs in Mozart’s violin works. According to Leopold Mozart’s Versuch, ‘the notes which are over or under such a circle [slur], be they 2, 3, 4, or even more, must all be taken together in one bow- stroke; not detached but bound together in one stroke, without lifting the bow or making any accent with it’.43 Leopold’s statement clearly shows that the slur was an indication of slurred bowing for mid-eighteenth- century violinists. Although W. A. Mozart might have been influenced by contemporary composers in the use of articulation marks for composition, he was very careful to use the slur as an indication of bowing in his violin music, especially in the early sonatas and the concertos, which he performed before he turned completely to the piano. For example (Ex.2.1.2), Mozart uses different slurred groups between the violin and 43 L. Mozart, A Treatise on The Fundamental Principles of Violin Playing, 45. 43 the piano part in the second subject group of the first movement of his Violin Sonata in A major, K. 305. Ex.2.1.2 W. A. Mozart, Violin Sonata in A major, K. 305, 1st mov. bar 30 – 35. The theme of the violin part is an octave higher but otherwise the same as the right-hand part of the piano, yet Mozart divides the long slurred group of the piano (bar 30 to 32) into two groups in the violin, and the whole-bar slur of bar 34 in the piano is divided into two in the violin part. It is clear to see that Mozart was aware of the meanings of slurs to violinists as one-stroke bowings, and also the limit of notes under one- stroke execution. Thus, Mozart used different slurs in the violin part to the piano part and made a sensible bowing for this passage (Ex.2.1.2a). Ex.2.1.2a W. A. Mozart, Violin Sonata in A major, K. 305, 1st mov. bar 30 – 35. 44 The above examples of Mozart show that long slurs might primarily be used as a device of legato performance in the second half of the eighteenth century, because the early bow models of the eighteenth century were not ideal for sustaining tone during bow changes. However, as the sustaining effect during bow changes had improved with later models of the bow, a long slur tended to indicate the beginning and ending of a phrase in a so-called ‘phrasing slur’, which was invented in the second half of the nineteenth century. Accordingly, it becomes difficult for modern players to distinguish whether the long slurs originally marked by eighteenth-century composers in the scores are bowing instructions or indications of phrasing. Another issue is that related to different editions of the score where a new editor has re-arranged slurs to conform to modern practice, often at odds with the expectations of performers of the time of the original composition. Brown indicates that: Their [the late nineteenth-century musicians] efforts to make sense of earlier composers’ admittedly inconsistent practices added another layer of confusion to the situation, particularly where late nineteenth-century editions obscured the original composer’s intentions by replacing short slurs on individual figures with long phrasing slurs.44 Even in the published works of composers like Beethoven or Haydn who are known for their care in notation, one may sometimes still encounter difficulty in capturing the meanings of the slurs in their works. Referring to Beethoven’s slurs, Brown indicates that ‘twentieth-century notions of accuracy and completeness can rarely be applied’.45 For example, in the first edition (N. Simrock, Bonn, 1805) of his ‘Kreutzer’ sonata for violin and piano op. 47 (Ex.2.1.3), we find a long slur that groups eight bars in the second subject group (indicated with a red arrow) of the first movement. 44 Brown, Classical & Romantic Performing Practice 1750 – 1900, 238. 45 Ibid, 237. 45 Ex.2.1.3 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 91 – 105. (First Edition) The slur of Ex.2.1.3 is too long to be a bowing: not only because the group is eight bars long, but also because the lengths of the notes in this passage are extremely long, most of them being semibreves. Since the slur here is impossible as a bowing indication, the long slur might be interpreted as a grouping indication. In this case, the harmonic progression of the theme is helpful for signifying the phrasing of the passage. (Ex.2.1.3a) Ex.2.1.3a L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 91 – 105 46 The four-bar motif of this theme is rather clear in the piano: the E major chord as tonic in bar 91, the subdominant seventh chord following in bar 92, bar 93 returning to the tonic E major chord, and then leading to the dominant seventh chord in bar 94. Beethoven repeats this four-bar harmonic progression and the motif again in the piano part, but varies the violin melody with ornaments in bar 95. Beethoven prolongs the theme from bar 99 to bar 105. Accordingly, the long slur of the violin part from bar 91 to 98 in the first edition might be used as a ‘phrasing slur’ by Beethoven, to group the four-bar motif and its repeat together as the main theme of the second subject group. However, it appears that Beethoven did not use the same long slur in the piano part to signify phrasing. Indeed, according to the markings in the piano part, the phrasing of the theme becomes more reasonably grouped into four-bar phrases. Moreover, violinists must change strokes during the passage in order to better present their expression, without any of the physical tension caused by playing a long bow stroke. The problem in changing these slurred patterns is that present-day performers may have different ideas pertaining to the expressive nuances of slurred groups which signify phrases. Beethoven’s long eight-bar slur may, to some extent, deliver a message that the passage should be played as smoothly and connectedly as possible and that no audible separation should be heard until the new slur begins in bar 99. Indeed, the long slurs of early nineteenth-century works ask for more than one stroke, as Stowell notes in the ‘slurred bowing’ of the bow strokes from 1800 to 1840 that: The capacity of the slur was further enlarged in keeping with contemporary taste and although many of these longer slurs are more likely phrase markings, indicating the need for sustained legato bowing using more than one stroke.46 46 Stowell, Violin Technique and Performance Practice in the Late Eighteenth and the Early Nineteenth Centuries, 197. 47 Nevertheless, Beethoven’s inconsistency in the use of slurs makes the examination of his slur marking difficult. According to the surviving manuscript of the Kreutzer Sonata, carefully revised and corrected by Beethoven’s student Ferdinand Ries, the long eight-bar slur marked in Ex.2.1.3 is divided into two shorter slurs in the same theme of the recapitulation from bar 410 to 415 (Ex.2.1.4). Ex.2.1.4 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 410 – 415 . The German original edition published by Simrock in 1805 exactly copies the slurs of this passage from the manuscript, where the slur of bar 412 ends towards the bar line between bars 415 and 416, and a new slur begins at bar 417 (Ex.2.1.4a). The reason the editor of the manuscript left bar 416 out of the slurred group might have been in order to make sure that the ornament sign could be placed in bar 416, making the reviser delay the slur until bar 417 out of consideration for the neatness of the score. 48 Ex.2.1.4a L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 410 – 426. (First Edition) Such inconsistency in the apparent meanings of the slurs is problematic for performers who attempt to determine what the composer intended by their notation. The G. Henle Verlag Urtext edition reorders Beethoven’s articulation marks in a consistent way, thus the eight-bar slurs of bars 91 – 98 and the slurs with unequal length in bars 412 – 419 are replaced by two four-bar slurs in the urtext (Ex.2.1.5). Ex.2.1.5 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 91 – 105; bar 410 – 426. Despite the extremely long slurs, violinists often understand slurring many notes in one stroke as grouping. For instance, in the beginning 49 phrase of the Minore variation of the second movement of the Kreutzer sonata (Ex.2.1.6), a long slur over three bars is seen in the right-hand piano part. Apparently, this long slur implies legato. As the bass line clearly shows the pulse of the phrase in the first beat of each bar, the one-bar slurs in the left-hand piano part might be viewed as grouping indications. Ex.2.1.6 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 2nd mov. Var. 3 Minore. (First Edition) The violin melody moves concurrently with the piano line and Beethoven puts down a one-bar slur rather a long slur. Here, one can execute all of the slurred notes in one stroke, as in Beethoven’s slurring. Even though some might prefer to arrange more strokes in order to better the flow of the melodic line, performers would still consider the phrasing as notated by Beethoven. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the one-bar slurs of the violin part potentially indicate both bowing and grouping. However, the grouping of violin part and the left-hand piano part might not encourage performers make these grouping audible. Taking into account the suggestive long slur Beethoven marked in the right-hand piano part, both Breitkopf & Härtel (Ex.2.1.6a) and G. Henle Verlag Urtext 50 edition (Ex.2.1.6b) place a long slur instead of one-bar slur in the left- hand piano part. Ex.2.1.6a L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 2nd mov. Var. 3 Minore. (Breitkopf) Ex.2.1.6b In its dedication to the ‘long line’, the G. Henle Verlag Urtext edition even ties the first semiquaver to the next bar in the violin part. In fact, the manuscript copy revised by Ries clearly shows that the D flat of bar 109 is tied to the following bar (Ex.2.1.6c). 51 Ex.2.6c L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 2nd mov. Var. 3 Minore. (Manuscript, revised by Ries) It is possible that the editor of the first edition, respecting the hierarchy of the bar, decided to separate the upbeat note from the slurred group of bar 110. Although it is a small change, the articulation might be altered by someone accordingly detaching the upbeat note from the slurred group of bar 110. As the urtext ties the upbeat note as in the original version, performers would recognise the expected smooth effect of this beginning directly and then would respond with an appropriate interpretation. From the above examples of Beethoven’s score, even a slight change of a composer’s slurs in the score may make the performer respond to passages with different interpretations in regards to articulation, bowing, and phrasing. However, some grouping-like slurs in Beethoven’s violin works also hold ambiguous meanings, even in urtext editions, where one might expect the rationalising principle to hold. An example of this situation is found in the first movement of his Kreutzer sonata, where the patterns of the passage seem to be different to the notated slurred groups (Ex.2.1.7). 52 Ex.2.1.7 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 234 – 238. In this passage, the violin has the same figures as the piano, but with slurs. The motif of the bass line is clear in that it begins on the half of the bar and ends on the first beat of the next bar, as Beethoven ties the long notes to the first beat of the next bar. The violin also begins its motif on the half of first beat in bar 234, continuing in the same way in following bars until another motif arrives at bar 238. Yet, Beethoven slurs the fast notes of the violin into one-bar groups, so that the figures of the violin part are visually altered. The slurs in the violin part seem to be Beethoven’s own bowings. As the slurs here mainly indicate bowing, changing the bowing as in Ex.2.1.7a may clear the ambiguity of the figure groups to performers. 53 Ex.2.1.7a L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 234 – 238. If the slurred groups of Ex.2.1.7 cause confusion, then the combination of long slurs and short slurs will be yet even more complicated to understand. In the same movement of the ‘Kreutzer’ sonata (Ex.2.1.8) bars 300 – 310, it is not clear whether Beethoven intends the slur to indicate articulation (in which all notes under the slur are executed in one bow stroke), or phrasing (in which the slur groups all the notes that are intended to be performed in one kind of ‘unifying’ gesture). 54 Ex.2.1.8 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 300 - 320. (First Edition) In the piano part, two different, small grouped figures alternate between the left hand and the right hand. It is safe to assume that the slurs of the violin part aim to indicate a sustained performance in this passage, in order to create contrast with the piano part. Moreover, although both the first edition and the revised copy of the manuscript employ shorter slurs from bar 303 to 310, the last notes of the bars are tied to the first notes of each next bar, except in bar 308. It is rather obvious that the composer asks performers to connect the passage from bar 303 to 307. Hence, the G.Henle Verlag Urtext edition (Ex.2.1.8a) places a long slur over bars 303 – 307 for a better indication of what the editors assume to be an intended legato. 55 Ex.2.1.8a L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 300 - 320. However, one may find that the figure actually begins from the lower E to the higher E in bars 300 - 302, and then this figure repeats in bars 302 – 304. For this reason, the first slur and the shorter slurs of the first edition may also constitute bowing suggestions from the composer. Some editions, such as the Breitkopf & Härtel edition (Ex.2.1.8b), place the slurs differently; it is true that those slurs are more functional in terms of bowing. Ex.2.1.8b L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47,1st mov. bar 300 - 320. (Breitkopf) Undoubtedly, the above examples show that whatever bow strokes performers apply, the slurs indicate legato. This confirms Temperley’s point that ‘whatever additional meanings it may or may not bear, it always seems to have that one, unless there is another mark to contradict it (such as staccato dots, marcato dashes or rests…)’.47 47 Nicholas Temperley, ‘Berlioz and the slur’, Music & Letters, Vol.50, No. 3 (July 1969), 389 – 390. 56 In addition to indicating bowing, phrasing, and legato, some eighteenth- century composers (such as Joseph Haydn) would also use slurs, mainly long ones, to indicate that a passage should be played on the same string.48 Brown’s example of Haydn’s string quartet shows that this use of a long slur occurs in a situation in which the slurred notes can all be played in the same position (Ex.2.1.9). Ex.2.1.9 Clive Brown, Performance Practice, ex. 6.31. Haydn, String Quartet op.64/4/ii. If this case happens in a slurred pair with a larger interval, it may ask for a portamento execution. For example, in the Maggiore variation of Beethoven’s Kreutzer sonata (Ex.2.1.10), the arco figure (in the black box of bar 143) might work well with a sliding fingering. Ex.2.1.10 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 2nd mov. Var. Maggiore. Although no fingering is indicated in Beethoven’s manuscript (Ex.2.1.10a), a shift to the second or third position on the A string is sensible for execution; otherwise, too much crossing string will disrupt the cantabile character as the F which is on the E string in first position remains in the theme in the following bar (Ex.2.10b). 48 William Drabkin, ‘Fingering in Haydn’s String Quartets’, Early Music, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Feb. 1988), 51. 57 Ex.2.1.10a L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 2nd mov. Var. Maggiore. (Manuscript, revised by Ries) Ex.2.1.10b L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 2nd mov. Var. Maggiore. Another situation where slurs imply portamento appears between slurred pairs with large intervals and with the composer’s fingering. A typical instance of such a case is found in the Menuett movement of Haydn’ op. 64/ Nr. 6 string quartet in Es (Ex.2.1.11). In the Trio section, Haydn gives specific fingering on the notes after the appoggiaturas, asking for portamento. Brown assumes that Haydn’s use of portamento may relate to his association with Nicola Mestrino, who played in the Esterhazy establishment from 1780 to 1785.49 49 Brown, Classical & Romantic Performing Practice 1750 – 1900, 581. 58 Ex.2.1.11 J. Haydn, String Quartet Nr. 6 in E flat major, Hob.III/op.64, 3rd mov. In Haydn’s instance, slurs which are used as an indication of portamento often seem to be accompanied by fingering. However, violinists often apply the fingering of a single string in short slurred figures because such fingerings reduce crossing-string strokes, which are considered to be applicable in execution as little as possible. Since a portamento execution is implied by the composers of the period with slurring, modern violinists can consider a portamento execution for some slurred patterns without fingering in some of the context. Not only was the use of slurs varied in the late eighteenth century, but the execution of slurred patterns was also different from modern violinists’ perception of slurring strokes. Such different execution for slurred patterns is of both stylistic and articulatory importance. Besides the stylistic portamento execution for some short slurred patterns, modern performers are generally familiar with the so-called ‘accent-diminuendo performance’ or ‘decay’ of slurred figures, mainly in early music but also in Classical works. 2.2 The ‘accented-diminuendo’ Controversy The so-called ‘accent-diminuendo performance’ or ‘decaying execution’ of slurred figures is described by Leopold Mozart, where the first notes of a 59 slurred group ‘must be somewhat more strongly accented and sustained longer; the others, on the contrary, being slurred on to it in the same stroke with a diminishing of the tone, even more and more quietly and without the slightest accent’.50 According to Brown, placing an accent on the first note of the slurred group was accepted as an essential approach by performers, composers, and theorists in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; Brahms was probably considered rather conservative in still advocating slurred pairs in the late nineteenth century. 51 Nevertheless, the symbol ‘slur’ was already used in many different ways in the second half of the eighteenth century.52 It seems that some slurred groups, even a succession of shorter slurs, might be intended to be played connectedly just as Brown describes: Where eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century composers wrote a succession of shorter slurs it may not be the case that there was an intention to signify expressive accent at the beginning followed by diminuendo and shortening of the last note for each slurred group, particularly if the slurs are over a series of whole bars or half-bars.53 At this point, modern performers, especially string players, may encounter difficulty distinguishing in which slurred groups it is necessary to employ an ‘accent-diminuendo’ performance. Moreover, according to Brown, a composer, even in eighteenth-century music, ‘would take care to indicate the disparity between the slurring (bowing) and the accentuation’.54 Thus, it is important to observe slurred patterns in the context of dynamics, rests, or other markings. The beginning of the second movement of Mozart’s violin concerto no. 5 is shown as an example of this case (Ex.2.2.1). Mozart specifically put a 50 Leopold Mozart, A Treatise on The Fundamental Principles of Violin Playing, 220. 51 Brown, Classical & Romantic Performing Practice 1750 – 1900, 30 – 32. 52 Ibid, 30 – 31. 53 Ibid, 235. 54 Ibid. 60 forte under the first note and a piano under the last note of the second slurred figure in bars 24 and 25. Thus, it is rather obvious that these two slurred patterns, with dynamic markings, specify an accent-diminuendo performance. When making the forte-piano slurred figures more distinctive in the passage, it is reasonable to assume that the other slurred figures of the passage might not necessarily follow the same decaying pattern. Furthermore, as employing a more articulated performance in a passage consisting of a number of short slurred figures might make the melody sound choppy, it may be better for players to phrase the theme here with a smoother execution. Ex.2.2.1 W. A. Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 5 in A major, K.219, 2nd mov. bar 23 – 28. Mozart’s use of dynamics in Ex.2.2.1 is an interesting case. The dynamics of bars 24 and 25 not only indicate that the short note of each slurred group must be light, but also implies an intentional emphasis on the second beat of the bar. This example demonstrates that the composers of the Classical period sometimes used dynamic markings to indicate or reinforce the intended performance of slurred figures. One supposition may be that the crescendo sign that appears under slurred figures of Beethoven’s works may not actually indicate an increase in volume, but rather warn the performer not to decay under the slur, as would be the case in a slightly older performance practice tradition. For example, in the third movement of the Kreutzer (Ex.2.2.2), the piano marking in bar 492 after the crescendo slurred figures in bar 491 may only indicate a lack of emphasis on the strong beat of bar 492, rather than a subito piano. 61 Ex.2.2.2 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 3rd mov. bar 489 – 492. This assumption about Beethoven’s crescendo under a long slurred phrase remains in question, but the piano marking under the first beat of the bar may suggest that the composer wish the performer to avoid the metrical accent of the bar(Ex.2.2.3). Ex.2.2.3 L. van Beethoven, Sonata No. 9 ‘Kreutzer’ for Violin and Piano, op. 47, 3rd mov. bar 263 – 267. Generally speaking, the major issue of slurs for modern violinists is the theoretical ambiguity between bowing slurs and their relevance to articulation in the repertoire of the Classical period from the mid- eighteenth to the early nineteenth century. Certainly, the primary indication carried by slurs is that the notes under a slur should ideally be smoothly connected in one bow stroke. The problem, where violinists can play the slurred group under one bow stroke but may feel uncomfortable in the delivery of their expressions, arises in some slurred groups in the 62 late eighteenth-century repertoire, such as in Mozart’s works for the violin. This may be a by-product of bow designs, as slurred bowing was considered to be the main way to produce a connected cantabile style for players who played with a pre-Tourte bow model in the second half of the eighteenth century. Long slurs, which come into frequent use towards the end of the eighteenth century, indicate not only the intended phrases but also legato, particularly for slurs over a few bars. Some one-bar slurred groups may not match the figures of the passage in Beethoven’s violin music; thus, those slurs are more likely to be bowing indications. Although slurred patterns, either long or short, basically appeal for a connected legato execution, the ‘accent-diminuendo’ performance appears to have been commonly accepted by most eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century performers as the preferred execution for short slurred groups, especially groups with up to four notes. It seems that the accent-diminuendo performance of short slurred figures is considered to be a particular gesture of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century works for modern performers, especially the slurred pair with descending second. Although composers, especially string- playing composers, might employ other marks such as dots or dynamic markings to indicate an accent-diminuendo performance, modern violinists still need to be careful when there is a succession of short slurred figures in a passage. Also, in some special cases, the slur may signify portamento or performance on the same string. In this case, composers’ fingerings can make such an indication of a slur clearer to performers. This is to be found in Haydn’s string music in particular, but is entirely applicable to other repertoire and composers. Although the meanings of slurs were agreed upon in general ways by the composers and performers of the eighteenth- and early nineteenth- centuries, it seems that composers of the period would have had individual preferences when marking slurs. This is because some 63 particular uses of the slur depended on the composer being associated with the tradition or style of a particular violin school: for example, Haydn’s use of portamento for slurred pairs. Thus, it is more important for modern performers, whether trained in historically-informed performance or not, to consider what kind of use of slurs in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries suits the individual composer of the period. 64 Chapter 3. Staccato and Staccato Markings The style which is opposite to legato is staccato. The staccato execution in violin performance practice was systemised first by Pierre Baillot as ‘détaché’ in 1834, which comprises a variety of bowings that create different emotional effects and degrees of staccato articulation. As slurs have been used to connect two or more notes, composers of the late Baroque period started to use dots ( ), strokes ( )55, and wedges ( ), (the last confined to printed music) to indicate the performance of a physical and audible separation from one note to another.56 Many prolific composers of the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries adopted both dots and strokes as marks for unslurred notes in their scores.57 In today’s performance practice, the most noticeable controversy in regard to dots and strokes is found in W. A. Mozart’s scores. In 1954 the Gesellschaft für Musikforschung invited a competition on the question: ’What is the meaning