The
Development of Mozart's Slurring and its Possible Functions in Performance
|
The
Development of Mozart's Slurring and its Possible Functions in Performance
|
|
INTRODUCTION II
Chapter One - Confusion Concerning Mozart's Slurring II
-- The Mystery of Mozart's Slurring
PhD thesis (University of Manchester)
Beth Pei-Fen Chen
| In seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century publications, slurs were often introduced as signs used
to assist authors' various expositions of technical, notational and performing
guidance. Apart from the treatises mentioned in Chapter One, there were
other musicians who explained or implied how slurs should be played or sung.
In his Principles of the Harpsichord (1702), French harpsichordist
Saint Lambert suggested one should hold all the notes under a slur after
playing each of them [1] (this suggestion did
not include other functions that a slur may have also indicated later for
keyboard playing). When Italian violinist Francesco Geminiani explains violin
bowing in his The Art of Playing on the Violin (1751), he uses slurs
to indicate notes which should be played within one bow stroke.[2]
In his Anleitung zur Singkunst (1757), German singing master Johann
Friedrich Agricola slurred appoggiaturas to main notes when illustrating
how to sing 'Vorschlag'.[3] Flautist François
Devienne, in his Nouvelle Méthode Théorique et Pratique
pour la Flute (Paris, 1794), said, 'tongue only the first note under
each slur'.[4] Indeed, in some eighteenth-century
treatises, slurs were introduced as a functional sign in notation to technical
guidance. This implies that to some composers at the time, slurs were the
signs used to indicate performing or notational guidance. As for how the
usage of slur signs varied during different periods, and whether the use
of slur signs varied considerably from individual to individual, all this
seems to be mostly unknown or forgotten today. A reason for this, as previously
indicated in Chapter One, is that the superficial meaning of the terms,
such as Bogen and slur, for the symbol does not and cannot imply
the detailed functions of a sign which composers might have meant. Another
reason is that the complication of the usage of slur signs exceeds what
a dictionary can define - composers might have indicated slurs differently
not only because of the instrument for which they wrote, but also because
of individual habits or demands for the music, or even because of the kind
of convention which was unfamiliar or unknown today, such as slurring inconsistencies.
It is not clear whether Mozart's use of slurs was similar to that of most writers of treatises, but it is highly likely that to some extent Mozart knew how others applied slur signs. He certainly knew the theory indicated in his father's book, and he may have had his own reasons for indicating slurs if his usages were different from those of others. The problem is, to musicians of the present day, Mozart's slurring discrepancies, his use of slurs, and the functions of his slurs seem to be in question because those usages are no longer familiar to modern scholars and performers. Without understanding Mozart's use of slurs or knowing how his slurs work, scholarly editors could be the first ones to be in a dilemma when transcribing what seems to be 'unclear' or 'unusual' slurring in Mozart's autographs. As for performers who are aware of the importance of using Urtext editions, they may in fact still have little chance of knowing some of Mozart's original slurring, if the presentation of an Urtext is actually a mixture of Mozart's original slurrings and editors' interpretations. Below is a very good example showing that scholarly editors faced with the dilemma of deciding whether to link a slur to a tie or not, when transcribing a Mozart passage from his keyboard sonata K. 330 (Ex. 2.1). Below are five Urtext editions. In these transcriptions, editors intend to present composers' original intentions, but there is a great deal of uncertainty as to how to interpret Mozart's slur. Why are the messages of slur signs not clear any more? Terminology could be a reason if the surface meaning of modern terms cannot clarify various functions or usages of a sign. Consequently, the concept of the sign in Mozart's time cannot be perceived through the terms. Another reason could be that either general or individual usages of the sign from the past are still unknown. As a result, a lack of understanding of past usages may cause difficulty in transcribing or explaining unfamiliar or unusual slurring found in autographs. If the results of modern transcribed slurring were possibly against composers' wishes, then the confusion concerning the meaning of composers' slurring arises (this will be discussed in Chapter 2). In Part I of this thesis, the two introductory chapters give an overview of these two issues on terminology and on the complication of Mozart's slurring which seems to be still unknown. Before moving onto the discussion on the mysterious relation between the sign and the term in this chapter, below is a brief introduction of how early the curved-line sign was already used and introduced before Mozart's time. Ex. 2.1 K. 330, I bars 21-22 and 108-109 (2.1a and 2.1b are in soprano clef)
In the autograph, Mozart seems to have been more careful with his slurring indication in bars 21-22 than in bars 108-109 (above Ex. 2.1a and 2.1b), and so the slurrings in the two passages are not identical. The ambiguous slurrings are in bar 22 and 109; the slur in bar 22 starts from the demisemiquaver B, whereas the slur in bar 109 after the tie seems to link from the previous tied note D. Karl Heinz Füssel and Heinz Scholz (above Ex. 2.1c) drew a longer slur covering the previous tie. Stanley Sadie (above Ex. 2.1e), Wolfgang Plath, and Wolfgang Rehm (above Ex. 2.1f) followed Mozart's bar 109 slurring (above Ex. 2.1b) for both of their transcriptions in bars 22 and 109, whereas Ernst Herttrich (above Ex. 2.1d) and Ulrich Leisinger (above Ex. 2.1g) followed Mozart's bar 22 slurring (Ex. 2.1a) for both of their bars 22 and 109.[5] Clearly, consistency was the main solution; here they selected one answer for both bars rather than following what seems to be differently shown in the autograph. In addition, Füssel/Scholz's big slur (covering the previous tie) (above Ex. 2.1c) in bar 22 is in fact not a faithful transcription but an interpreted version of Mozart's slurring. This big slur is a common slurring today, but it might not have been a common indication in Mozart's time or in the year when Mozart wrote this sonata. This example in K. 330, I, reveals one of the difficulties in transcribing an equivocal slur, yet it actually prompts three questions concerning Mozart's slurring. Firstly, was slurring consistency a necessary and frequent practice in Mozart's music? Did his slurring discrepancies sometimes his intended performing guidance? Secondly, did Mozart change his slurring practices from time to time or in different periods of his composition? Did the presentation of different slurring patterns actually show the development or changes of his notational habits or intention? Thirdly, did Mozart indicate slurs in order to guide the detail of playing technique or other performing guidance? If so, what did his slurs mean? How do players follow his slurring guidance? Mozart's slurring discrepancies and modern transcriptions As editors must have noticed, slurring discrepancies appear frequently in Mozart's autographs. Sometimes editors may have no clue about whether Mozart really intended to indicate slurs inconsistently. Mozart's slurring discrepancies could not always be his careless mistakes, particularly he was a composer who seems to have been very careful about notational details (this will be discussed in the following chapters). It is highly likely that many of Mozart's inconsistent slurrings lead to the change of musical ideas or guidance on articulation or on other performing issues. Yet, if editors tend to change Mozart's inconsistent slurrings into consistent slurrings according to today's comprehension of how slurs and music should work, the practice of Mozart's original intention will never be known. Here are a few examples which show how often editors indicated their own editorial slurs in so-called Urtext editions. Some of these interpreted slurs are printed in dotted slur lines which clearly inform readers what the editorial slurrings are, but some of these editorial slurs are in fact printed in solid slur lines, which provide readers with no chance of knowing Mozart's original slurring, particularly when these changes are not specified or not detailed described elsewhere in the edition or in the commentary. In the keyboard sonata K. 280, II (below Ex. 2.2a), an editorial slur is added in the second voice of the right-hand part in bar 30 because the similar phrase in either the first voice or the left-hand part has a slur.[6] In the horn concerto K. 417, I, two dotted editorial slur lines are indicated in bar 152 in the first violin part (Ex. 2.2b), as the editor assumed that the violin part here in the recapitulation might have the same slurring as that in the solo horn part or as that which Mozart had indicated earlier in the exposition section. Nonetheless the question is: would it be a necessary practice to have the same slurring for the horn and the violin parts? There are many more passages in which editors have altered Mozart's original slurring for consistency's sake.
In Christoph-Hellmut Mahling's edition of violin concerto K. 211, II (below Ex. 2.3a), consistent slurring appears in the second violin and viola parts, even though Mozart actually indicated different slurrings in one part from that in the other (Ex. 2.3b), and has clearly indicated such inconsistent slurring twice in the movement in bars 1 (14v) and 59 (17v).[9] In Mahling's printed score in 1987 (Ex. 2.3a), editorial slurs are printed in solid slur lines rather than dotted lines. Readers therefore will not notice that these slurring are editorial slurs unless they consult the autograph or Henning Bay's NMA critical report (which published years later in 2005). Since Mozart indicated the same discrepancy twice in the exposition and recapitulation, this implies that he might have wanted to give different slurrings between parts (Ex. 2.3b): in the first time the slurrings were different between the second-violin and viola parts, and then the second time between the first-violin and second-violin parts. In bars 1 and 59, there is a harmony change from G major I to IV [6/4]. If slurring means bowing, then in Mahling's edition, all the string players will change bow at the same time at the moment when the harmony changes on the third beat. Mozart may have wanted a continuation of the middle accompaniment part (Ex. 2.3b); he then slurred the upper part from the second beat to the third beat. This could avoid either a clear gap or bowing changes to be heard between the second and third beats. It is also likely that he simply wanted different articulations between the two middle parts.
These transcriptions shows that editors tended to question Mozart's slurring discrepancies even though these slurrings were clearly indicated and legible in autographs. When Mozart's slurring discrepancy appears to be too unusual and illegible (difficult to decipher where slurs end), it is even more frequent that editors would have to transcribe these unclear slurring as what they think these slurs should be. Mostly, these slurring discrepancies become consistent ones. A good example is in the keyboard sonata K. 330, I (below Ex. 2.4). In the autograph (Ex. 2.4: a1 and a2), the slurrings in the two similar passages in bars 129-132 and 135-138 are different. The major difference is that slurs in bars 129-130 end at the bar lines while the last slur in each of bars 135 and 136 extends across the bar lines to bars 136 and 137 respectively. In addition, it is not definitely clear whether Mozart wanted a single long slur or two slurs in bars 130 and 136, because he seems to have attempted to prolong his slurs by connecting them in these two bars. Ex. 2.4 K. 330, I, bars 129-132, 135-138. (a1 and a 2 autograph is in soprano clef)
In the latest edition of Mozart's sonatas in 2003, Ulrich Leisinger transcribed these slurrings consistently as cross-bar slurs (above Ex. 2.4: b1 and b2). It is nearly impossible for readers to notice that these slurring are to some extent editorial slurrings, because there are no brackets or square brackets to show that there are editorial changes for these slurs.[11] Even though there is a statement on this in the commentary, it only indicates 'Ketten-bögen'; this really cannot describe the detail of Mozart's original inconsistencies. The result of this transcription, with its cross-bar slurs, seems to suggest that Mozart's separate slurs could be regarded as longer slurs, strokes could be indicated at the end of a slur, and the slurring consistency was the main consideration. But are these Mozart's intentions? Ulrich Leisinger's suggestion seems to have been that the separate slurs were not practical in playing, and that regarding the phrases, it made more sense to indicate a long legato line as this was also what Mozart indicated in bar 129 (above Ex. 2.4: a1). The pianist Alexei Lubimov, however, demonstrated that Mozart's original irregular slurrings were practicable, as he could play these detailed articulations musically and with ease on either a fortepiano or a modern piano.[12] If these unusual slurrings are practicable and make sense, then there is no reason to assume that Mozart did not want a variation on articulations when his slurring was really not consistently presented. As early as 1978, Dene Barnett pointed out in an article the irregularities of slurring in eighteenth-century works.[13] His investigations centred on extant autographs of Haydn's symphonies, including the 64 movements which were believed to have been corrected by Haydn. Surprisingly, quite a few irregular slurrings occur within vertical unison orchestral parts and horizontal sections. Out of the 64 Haydn-corrected movements, 221 non-uniformities are still found.[14] This implies that it is possible that Haydn allowed these slurring inconsistencies or he intended to indicate so. Slurring discrepancy also appears quite often in Mozart's autograph scores, either within vertical orchestral parts, as in K. 211, II (above Ex. 2.3b), or within a horizontal section, as in K. 330, I (above Ex. 2.4). (This will be discussed in the following chapters.) If composers intended to give different slurrings within vertical orchestral parts, they might have wanted to provide different performing guidance for different instruments. Thus, if editors today tend to transcribe Mozart's inconsistent slurring into consistent slurring, it is highly likely that editors would give a string part's slurring to a woodwind instrument's part or vice versa. In this case, performers might either receive an incorrect message regarding performing guidance from editors, or lose the chance to find the relation between Mozart's original slurring and the notes he originally slurred. As for slurring discrepancy within horizontal sections, this is very common in Mozart's autographs. In the previous example in K. 211, II (above Ex. 2.3b), if the slurring inconsistency in bar 1 was a mistake, then surely it would be too coincidental to have the same mistake again in bar 59. In the preface of his new edition of Mozart violin sonatas, Cliff Eisen specifies a systematic inconsistency in the violin part of K. 303, II. A figure appears four times in bars 25-32 (Ex. 2.5). Mozart only added slurs to the two figures in tonic in bars 25 and 29, but not to the other two in dominant in bars 27 and 31.[15] If slurs indicate bowing, the slurring discrepancy here suggests that Mozart wanted different bowing for the same figure when the harmony changes. Separating bows was a method to present a different colour or character of the same figure. It is highly likely that this slurring inconsistency was intentional, for bowing the music differently. Ex. 2.5 K. 303, II, bars 25-32 (ed. Cliff Eisen)
In a wider sense, slurring inconsistencies could happen between Mozart's works from different periods of time or from different years. That is, if Mozart's slurring indication changed in his later works for the same purpose of guidance, then these new slurrings should not appear in his early works. If editors mix Mozart's new slurring practice with his old practice, this may reduce performers or researchers' chance of investigating whether his new slurring guides or implies something else. Did Mozart change his slurring practice? In the previous example in K. 330, I (Ex. 2.1), there are three versions of the transcriptions for the slurring in bar 22. Obviously, editors had different opinions on Mozart's original slurring indication (Ex. 2.6 below) and they must have believed that their transcriptions were faithful or close to Mozart's. Yet, since the three transcriptions look different, would it be likely that the three versions of transcriptions were actually Mozart's three different notational slurring practices? Ex. 2.6 K. 330, I, bar 22
Füssel and Scholz's indication of a slur over a tie was a common slurring indication in 19th-century notations, yet such indication might not have been an ordinary slurring in Mozart's early works or even in his later works. Sadie and Plath/Rehm's transcription of an adjoining tie and a slur could be a common slurring notation in Mozart's autographs, but to Mozart this may have actually conveyed a different meaning from Herttrich and Leisinger's version: a slur separated from its previous tied note. Actually, the separation of a tie and a slur seems to have been a very common indication in Mozart's autographs. For instance, in the violin concerto K. 219, II (Ex. 2.7 below), Mozart nearly always indicated clearly that his slur was separated from its previous tied note (apart from the one in bar 96 f. 25r). Presumably, he wanted a bowing change after the tied note. Ex. 2.7
The three versions of slur transcriptions of Mozart's bar 22 reveal the fact that how Mozart used the slur sign is to a large extent still unclear. Herttrich and Leisinger's version looks more faithful to Mozart's original indication than that of others, but does this mean much if most scholars and performers still do not know whether there are differences between the above three transcriptions with regard to notation and to performance? Perhaps the unknown area of Mozart's slurring is that Mozart would sometimes or at some stages change his slurring indication or pattern for giving the same or similar guidance. Alternatively, his similar slurring notations might actually serve different purposes. Here are three passages from Mozart's symphony K. 385, keyboard sonata K. 457, and string quartet K. 590 (below Ex. 2.8). In the passages of K. 385 (Ex. 2.8a) and K. 457 (Ex. 2.8b), Mozart indicated adjoining ties and slurs in alternation. It seems that he wanted the phrases to be played legato, but he did not mark a long cross-bar slur for each of these passages. Instead, he linked several slurs to tied notes. Possibly, to keyboard players, it is not very different between a long cross-bar slur and adjoining slurs and ties, but to string players, a long cross-bar slur in this K. 385 phrase could mean one-bow stroke whereas the link of ties and slurs in alternation perhaps suggest bow changing, or it was simply a typical way Mozart notated for a long legato line. Ex. 2.8a
Ex. 2.8b
In his last string quartet K. 590, IV, however, Mozart indicated several unusually long cross-bar slurs for string parts, for example the one in bars 36-42 (below Ex. 2.8c). The long slur seems to be not practical at all in terms of bowing (too many notes for a bow stroke), yet such slurring appears unusually in this last string quartet. It seems that in most of his works before K. 590, Mozart only indicated long slurs for other instruments, but not such a long one for string parts. Ex. 2.8c
The three passages in Ex. 2.8 prompt a question: would it be possible that Mozart's usage of slurs was changed at some stages of his compositions in order to give different messages through the sign? For instance, he might have considered bowing when marking slurs, but he did not (perhaps thinking only long legato line) when indicating long slurs in K. 590, IV, for strings. Or perhaps, in order to show his minute details, Mozart had to give unusual slurring indications, such as double slurs. In the string quartet K. 458, I (below Ex. 2.9a), there are double slurs in the first-violin part, which is unusual but it is clearly indicated (will be discussed in Part III). He might have wanted a legato line in bars 236-237 whereas he also wanted to emphasize the articulation within this legato, and thus he added a small slur inside the big slur. Also, in his last work, the Requiem, he indicated a slur to link the two syllables 'mosa' of the word 'lacrymosa' (Ex. 2.9b). This seems not to be a common slurring practice either.
If Mozart's slurring really changed in different stages of his composition, this suggests that he might have thought of the potential of a slur sign to convey his various musical messages or performing guidance differently. In this case, his new slurrings may have appeared unusual. In addition, the functions of his new slurrings might have been unusual too. His use of new slurrings also implies that he might have never indicated these slurrings before when he started to use them. So far, Alan Tyson's examination of paper types and watermarks and Wolfgang Plath's survey of Mozart's handwriting are the two methods of dating Mozart's autographs.[16] If Mozart changed his slurring practice in different periods of his works, then the observation of Mozart's slurring patterns would also be helpful for dating his autographs and for transcribing his slurs. Furthermore, the change of his slurring practice might have also meant a change of his musical styles or even notational styles too. Slurs and performing issues Since slurs are part of notational indications, these signs are supposed to be indications that composers used to transmit their messages to players. With regard to the messages of Mozart's slurs, various arguments arise due to a lack of understanding of the usages of slurs, and there are still questions regarding whether Mozart's slurring was performing guidance and how it worked. The potential questions are: did Mozart indicate slurs differently for different instruments? Did he always mean to have a separation between slurs? How do players follow Mozart's slurring as performing guidance? Are those unusual slurrings Mozart's intended indications? Are Mozart's slurs playable? Keyboard slurring In the previous example in K. 330, either Füssel's (Ex. 2.1c) or Plath's (Ex. 2.1f) slurring transcription in bar 22 gives an impression that there shouldn't be a gap between the first tied note D and the end of the slur on the quaver G. As for Herttrich's and Leisinger's faithful transcription of the tie and the slur in bar 22 (above Ex. 2.1d and 2.1g), it is highly likely an unfamiliar indication to many modern pianists. Modern pianists may wonder whether to have a tiny gap between the tie and the slur when playing this phrase, or even question whether such slurring indication is musically meaningful. These questions exist because many players are used to playing Mozart's phrases as Chopin's long melodic lines by shaping the phrases with longer legato lines than Mozart seems to have indicated regarding the detailed articulation. Also, most listeners have been used to such interpretation for a long time too. Fortepianist Alexei Lubimov and Macolm Bilson, however, are among the ones who tend to play each slur as Mozart indicated. Lubimov plays each slur clearly and musically without changing Mozart's consecutive slurs into a big slur. His articulation is based on Mozart's slurs. This can be clearly heard from his recent recording of Mozart's concertos for two and three pianos.[17] He even demonstrated that some of Mozart's unusual slurrings in the autographs are practicable and meaningful (further discussion of this is in Chapters 5 and 12). Bilson described the gap between slurs or after a slur as an articulatory silence.[18] For instance, when he played the passage of the keyboard concerto K. 413, I, in bars 274-278 (below Ex. 2.10), he ended each right-hand slur with a diminuendo. Also, a very tiny articulatory silence between slurs can even be heard in his 1983 recording.[19] Ingrid Haebler in her 1965 recording, however, linked each group of two slurs as a smooth five-note legato line by joining each two consecutive slurs together as if there was merely one slur indicated.[20] This coincides with Paul and Eva Badura-Skoda's suggestion that continuous slurs sometimes mean a long legato line.[21] Ex. 2.10
Paul and Eva Badura-Skoda's suggestion has actually been a very common practice among modern pianists for interpreting some of Mozart's consecutive slurs. For example, in a passage of K. 330, I, although slurs stop at bar lines in bars 59-61, modern pianists such as Ingrid Haebler (1963), Christoph Eschenbach (1967), András Schiff (1980), Robert Riefling (1987), and Alfred Brendel (1998), all played the passage (Ex. 2.8) as if there were cross-bar slurs over each group of notes to combine a whole-bar slur with a two-semiquaver slur. When Paul Badura-Skoda recorded K. 330 on a c. 1790 Johann Schantz fortepiano, he also played these phrases as cross-bar legato.[22] Ex. 2.11
Bernard Harrison disagrees with the idea of combining slurs, as he found that there were no eighteenth-century treatises which stated that short slurs were a mere conventional method of indicating longer slurs.[23] Indeed, authors of past treatises seem never to have mentioned this. Instead, as indicated in Chapter One and earlier in the present chapter, some authors tended to imply or introduce slurs as a symbol for indicating bowing, tonguing, finger pedaling, or as other notational or performing guidance. This, however, seem to be not sufficient to answer many modern performers' question regarding whether to have a gap between slurs or between a tie and a slur. In fact, a break between a tie and a slur is not totally a foreign concept in modern times. In Richard Jones's edition of J. S. Bach's keyboard works, he tended to use an editorial comma to show what he thought the 'obvious breaks' in a phrase, as in the right-hand part of bar 20 in Courante, English Suite BWV 808 (Ex. 2.12).[24] His suggestion of this break is right in the middle of a phrase line, yet this comma does not actually mean a musical break but an articulatory silence within a phrase. Ex. 2.12 J. S. Bach English Suite No. 3 Courante (ed. Richard Jones)
In a recent study, Betty Suderman pointed out the problem of the last note of a Mozart keyboard slur, a relevant issue to the question of whether there is a gap between slurs.[25] Through C. P. E. Bach, D. G. Türk, Leopold Mozart and J. J. Quantz's treatises, she attempted to find clues about how Mozart's slurs were played on keyboards. The implicit information she found mainly focuses on different degrees of emphasis for the first note of a slur. As for the ending of a slur, she also throws light on the question of whether there is a gap between keyboard slurs. According to C. P. E, a slight détaché on the last note of a slur is expected. As in his Fig VI (below Ex. 2. 13; see further explanation in Chapter five), when playing the last slurred note détaché, it results in a noticeable or unnoticeable rest or break.[26] Ex. 2.13
Yet, do these articulatory breaks necessarily interrupt a musical line? In his most remarkable explanation for the slur sign in the sixth chapter of Klavierschule (1789), Türk gave an example of how articulation can works within a legato line. When he states that the first note of each slur should be very slightly accented, and that notes under slurs need to be slurred (Ex. 2.14a), he also gave an unusual example of double slurring (Ex. 2.14b). This on the one hand explains that accents must be softly marked in order to articulate each slurred two-note group,[27] yet on the other hand indicates the possibility of having a legato line within which the notes can be articulated. This proves that players can still produce a musical line even though playing detailed articulations within a legato line. As for how it work practically in this double slurring example, there might be not a clear break between the two-note slurs, but a slight lift of the finger when playing the second note of each two-note slur.
Sandra Rosenblum's insight into this double slurring instruction is, 'this slight emphasis would have been applicable on the clavichord or fortepiano but not on the harpsichord or organ.' [29] Here, she actually reveals a thorny problem: would slurs be indicated in different ways for different instruments? The reason for her presumption could be that she might have thought that slight accents within a big slur line were not very practicable on harpsichords or perhaps on organs either. Nonetheless, according to the renowned organist and performance practice specialist David Sanger's experience of playing the organ and harpsichord, he thinks that it is possible for an organist or a harpsichordist to give an accent on the first note of each two-note slur (or sometimes to elongate it) within a long legato line if this is what composers indicated, yet this depends on the musical text, the player's taste, and the instrument; for instance, it is perhaps easier for a player to control the touch on mechanical organs (tracker-action) than on pneumatic organs.[30] This sheds some light on the practicability of playing Türk's above-mentioned example of double slurring on various keyboard instruments either in the past or in modern days. Thus, if Rosenblum's concern with regard to different keyboard instruments is actually not a potential problem, then it is possible to assume that Türk's double slurring is practicable and it might have implied that there should not be a conflict between phrasing and articulation. Perhaps, this implication can be used to interpret Mozart's slurring in the previous examples in K. 413, I (Ex. 2.10) and K. 330, I (Ex. 2.11). Performers give soft accents on the first note of each slur. Meanwhile, players may give a noticeable or unnoticeable articulatory break between slurs while the musical line is not really broken because of the tiny articulatory silence. String slurring With regard to string slurring, discussions often focus on bowing: did Mozart use slurs to indicate bowing? Is it necessary to have a tiny articulatory silence between two slurs? As indicated previously, there is a series of adjoining tie and slur connections in the symphony K. 385, I, in bars 54-58 (above Ex. 2.8a). Presumably, Mozart wanted the passage to be played as an unbroken phrased line, but it is not very practicable to play the whole passage with only one bow-stroke, particularly when using a pre-Tourte bow which might be shorter than a modern Tourte-style bow.[31] The length of pre-Tourte bow may have varied (it could be the same length as a modern bow). It seems that changing the bow was a preferable way for playing this passage, but the passage may not sound as smooth as if it were played by merely one bow-stroke because early bows seem to have designed to produce well-articulated play. As Clive Brown indicates, the natural pre-classical bow stroke implied a degree of accent at the start.[32] So, did Mozart expect the phrase to be played with merely one bow-stroke? What did he mean when indicating this series of adjoining tie and slur connections? As Robin Stowell remarks, 'the true legato bowing with pre-Tourte models was achieved only by slurring'.[33] Slurring here means that there is no bow changing. He also cites Italian theorist and violinist Galeazzi: If the voice is not to be thought asthmatic or disjointed, smooth bow changes must be made so that the melody emerges united and not broken or with those always irritating and unnatural gaps; this unity can be obtained by changing the bow as little as possible and, now and then, by bowing the entire musical idea in only one stroke. [34] The violinists Giuseppe Tartini (1692 - 1770) and Francesco Geminiani (1687 - 1762) also used slur signs to indicate bowing. In his L'Arte del Arco, Tartini took an eight-bar tune from Corelli's Gavotte in sonata Op. 5 No. 10 as the main theme for his variations. In this work, he intended to introduce different bowing techniques through each of his variations. Although there is no surviving autograph, from varied prints it is clear that he used slurs to indicate bowing.[35] Geminiani also applied slurs as part of his bowing guidance in his book The Art of Playing on the Violin.[36] He particularly introduced bowing in his Example XVI where in the musical examples he used 'g' and 's' to indicate down- and up-bow strokes respectively. Meanwhile, the use of slur signs matches this bowing indication. Indeed,
some authors of early treatises on violin or string playing tended to
use slur signs as bowing marks. In French writer Michel Correte's Méthode
théorique et pratique pour apprendre en peu de temps le violoncelle
dans sa perfection (1741), he indicated clearly that notes under a
slur sign need to be played with the same bow stroke: 'Que les notes comprises
sous ce signe Since there were quite a few early treatises in which writers used slur as a sign for indicating bowing, it is highly likely that most composers at the time did so when writing string music. The fact, however, is that violinists nowadays would notice that when following past composers' slurs as bowing marks to bow out a passage, bowing sometimes really turns out strangely. This also happens in most of Mozart's string music. Clive Brown suggests that slurs may carry other messages about the execution, and '[the message] must be deduced partly from the period, background, and notational habits of the composer, and partly from the musical context.' [38]Perhaps this can explain why sometimes bowing out Mozart's violin music does not work when Mozart actually did not mean that players should always bow out his passage, even though slurs were really his bowing indications (more explanation in Chapter Six). Another question for modern violinists is did Mozart always mean to have an articulatory silence between slurs? Modern violinist Viktoria Mullova recorded three of Mozart's violin concertos with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment.[39] In the solo part (below Ex. 2.15a) of K. 218, I, in bars 49-51, two-quaver slurs are well articulated with noticeable tiny breaks between slurs. In bars 57-59 (Ex. 2.15b), however, she joins each two two-quaver slur as a four-quaver slur. Actually, many modern violinists tend to play this second passage as a more legato line than the first passage by not having clear articulatory gaps between two-quaver slurs. These include Yehudi Menuhin, Arthur Grumiaux (1962), Gidon Kremer (1988, his articulation of the first passage is very clear), and Itzhak Perlman (1994).[40] In spite of the fact that these violinists do not show the articulatory silence between slurs, they still articulated the first note of each two-quaver slur in this second passage by giving a small emphasis to these notes.
To sum up, the two main issues relating to Mozart's string slurs are whether they are bowing guidance and whether a tiny articulation gap is expected between slurs. Further discussion of these issues will be in Chapters Four, Six, and Part III. Wind slurring To wind instrument players, the most common questions would be whether Mozart used slurs to indicate tonguing or breathing. For instance, at the beginning of the trio K. 498 in the viola and piano parts (below Ex. 2.16), slurs are not linked to their previous tied notes. When the same phrase appears in the clarinet in folio 2v, Mozart still gave consistent indication to all the three parts: the slur is not linked to its previous tied note. Modern clarinet players, however, tend to ignore this indication and play the phrase smoothly without tonguing the first note of the slur after the tie and without taking a breath after the second tied note, as in Matthias Glander's recording with Daniel Barenboim in 2005.[41] It seems that among many clarinet or woodwind instrument players, it is a foreign concept to take a breath after a tie and before a slur. Some players even think that it is not practical to do so considering the phrasing and the technique. Yet, regarding the practicability of taking a breath after a tie, it is in fact not difficult on a period clarinet. Period clarinetist Colin Lawson once proved that it is possible to take a breath after the tied note in these K. 498 phrases.[42] In addition, his playing was musical and beautiful. This means that it is not necessary to break a phrase or musical line even though taking a breath between a tie and a slur. It is the same theory as in Türk's above double slurring example (above Ex. 2.14b): articulation is not against phrasing. Ex. 2.16
In a passage of flute concerto K. 299 (below Ex. 2.17), Mozart again did not link a slur to its previous tied note (Ex. 2.17a), yet in Franz Giegling's transcription, the last slur in bar 42 is linked to the previous tied note (Ex. 2.17b). The slurring therefore does not suggest another tonguing or breathing within the phrase. Would this be a change of Mozart's original intention regarding detailed articulation?
Flautist Lisa Beznosiuk is one of the early-flute players who follow Mozart's slurs as tonguing guidance. In her recording of K. 285 Quartet (2006), she does not slur Mozart's unslurred semiquavers as many other modern flautists do. James Galway, for example, slurred Mozart's semiquavers casually in bar 3 of K. 285, I (Ex. 2.18).[44] Instead, Lisa Beznosiuk tongues each detached semiquaver and the first note of each slur without linking Mozart's unslurred notes or linking Mozart's short slurs as a single bigger one.[45] This proves that it is possible to follow Mozart's original notation whether there are slurs or not. Ex. 2.18
Actually, as John Butt indicates in his Bach Interpretation from various early sources, 'most writers seem to agree that a notated slur indicates that only the first note of the group is tongued, some making the obvious observation that slurred notes are to be performed in one breath'.[46] Indeed, there are several eighteenth-century treatises which introduce slurs as tonguing marks; for example, Jean-Pierre Freillon Poncein's La Veritable Maniere d'Apprendre a jouer en Perfection du Haut-bois, de la Flute et du Flageolet (Paris, 1700), Jacques Hotteterre's Principes de la Flute Traversière, de la Flute áBec, et du Haut-bois (Paris, 1707), Michel Corrette's Méthode Raisonnée pour Apprendre a Jouer de la Flute Traversiére (Paris, 1773), J. J. Quantz's Versuch (Berlin, 1789), and Flemish clarinettist Amand Vanderhagen's Méthode Nouvelle et Raisonnée pour le Hautbois (1792). It is very likely that when Mozart indicated slurs for wind instruments, he may have considered the issues of tonguing or breathing. The questions, however, are how much detail he would have been concerned with when adding slurs and how he intended the slurs to work for wind instruments. This will be discussed in Chapter 8. Vocal slurring In vocal music, slurs in the 17th and 18th centuries were supposed to be signs used to connect notes sung to a syllable, yet since beaming already serves this function of grouping notes, then what do slurs mean when Mozart indicates a slur to the notes sung to a syllable and these notes are already beamed? Do Mozart's vocal slurs merely give notational guidance or do some of them also guide performance? In Mozart's K. 476 Das Veilchen, there are very few slurs indicated. Each of these slurs is added in order to group the notes which are sung to a syllable, as in the passage in bars 7-13 (Ex. 2.19). Does this mean all the notes which have no slur added should be sung detached? In one of her recordings of this Lied (1986), soprano Kathleen Battle seems to have given a quite faithful interpretation regarding these detached and slurred notes. Possibly because of the German language, she distinctly-articulated all the notes which have no slurs added, and sang the slurred notes legato (this will be further discussed in Chapter 11).[47] Ex. 2.19
Yet, how can one explain Mozart's slur over beamed notes sung to a syllable? As in the aria K. 538 (below Ex. 2.20), slurs were added to beamed notes sung to one syllable. Since alignment and beaming were also methods to show how notes were grouped to a syllable, did Mozart actually add slurs to repeat the same notational instruction? Ex. 2.20 Arie [48]
It seems that it has never been clear whether Mozart sometimes indicated slurs in vocal parts as performing guidance, or his vocal slurs always meant grouping notes. In the 19th century, there were few composers who tended to use slurs as performing and musical guidance in vocal music, such as F. Liszt, yet this was not yet a common practice in the 18th century. Because of this confusion, many singers tend to interpret Mozart's vocal music with their own articulation. For instance, when the soprano Leontyne Price sang the aria in K. 505 'Non temer, amato bene', she sang all the phrases as long legato lines, and thus there was in fact no difference whether she sang slurred notes or unslurred notes.[49] In addition, in bar 139 she took a breath within Mozart's slurred melismatic passage.
As a musician, performer and composer, Mozart must have known the above issues of performance, and the reasons for indicating slurs in his music. What is unclear today is the relation between his slurring indications and the meaning of these signs for players and singers. John Butt has done an extensive investigation through primary sources on J. S. Bach's slurring; he noticed that some slurring patterns in Bach's music were added differently between strings, winds, keyboards and vocal music.[50] If this was in fact a common phenomenon in the notations of past composers, this would suggest that Mozart might have also added slurs differently for different instruments. If so, this will also explain why there are vertical slurring inconsistencies between instruments in Mozart's autographs. Meanwhile, this can also explain that composers might have considered the performing aspects of different instruments if slur signs were used to indicate such matters as bowing, tonguing, keyboard touching or other aspects of execution. In addition, if Mozart changed his slurring practice at some stages of his compositions, this would make his slurring more complex than others' slurring. These issues will all be discussed in Part II and III of this thesis. -- FOOTNOTES [1]
Principles, tr. Rebecca Harris-Warrick, 29. |
doivent être coulées, et faites du même coup d'archet.'[37]
In both Leopold's chapter four and chapter seven in his Versuch
(1756), he concentrated on the matter of bowing. Although he hardly mentioned
in words the slur signs, he indicated slur signs for assisting his explanation
of bowing in his musical examples. 
