Beethoven Brainteaser 3

[Anders Hedelin]

Thanks for your reply, John. Beethoven's Diabelli variations IS an enigmatic work.

[Anders Hedelin]

I obviously can't let go of this. I'm thinking about registers and dynamics. In ms. 17-24 a pp is prescribed. But, without clef changes, the left hand enters a low register while the right hand moves upwards and thickens with chords in m. 21. It would be tempting to, not to say difficult not to, start the crescendo already there! Argument, or just reflection?

On the other hand, in one of the clef-change versions I still think there's a weakness in the downward skip from B to E in m. 24, or rather in the unmotivated introduction of E. Where does that come from? Also the resolution of B into a latent or understood C is not very convincing. Not with that kind of skip, and not with Beethoven.

[John Ruggero]

I warned you about this one, Anders. Addictive.

In ms. 17-24 a pp is prescribed. But, without clef changes, the left hand enters a low register while the right hand moves upwards and thickens with chords in m. 21. It would be tempting, not to say difficult, not to start the crescendo already there! Argument, or just reflection?

In the original version I find myself doing a couple of swells within the pp outlining the upper melody in ms. 21-24, then dropping back with a subito pp at the start of the cresc. This sounds pretty natural to me. In the clef version, I would stay pretty flat as in ms. 1-8.

On a different subject, I decided that the slur in the left hand should start in m. 25 not a beat earlier. Beethoven's manuscript seems to bear this out. Note that he extended the right hand slur back to cover the upbeat in that m. 24 that he had left out, but he didn't do the same in the left hand. The copyist copy gets this right. (But note how he always tries to imitate the manuscript including the imprecision!) But the first edition is way off. If the left hand remains non legato through the E G pickup notes in m. 24 the legato change at m. 25 is more effective and covers the interpretative problem that I had mentioned.

On the other hand, in one of the clef-change versions I still think there's a weakness in the downward skip from B to E in m. 24, or rather in the unmotivated introduction of E. Where does that come from? Also the resolution of B into a latent or understood C is not very convincing. Not with that kind of skip, and not with Beethoven.

And therefore, someone might point to this as more evidence that the original is correct as it stands. None of the versions of m. 24 is very convincing. However, even with a big drop the E-G could be heard coming from the low G that figures so strongly throughout the piece starting in m. 9.

Incidentally there is a very interesting question of structure in this variation. Note the tonic harmony that replaces the expected dominant at the end of the first part.

[OCTO]

Diabelli Variations are one of the most contemporary pieces ever written for the piano. In a recent chat with the Finnish pianist Joonas Ahonen, who played Diabelli together with some Boulez, Ligeti and Stockhausen, he agreed completely.

In my opinion I would say that the clef is not missing, and the "insanity" of Beethoven's genius is just emboldened by that large leap and large distance between the hands.

[Anders Hedelin]

Schnabel and Brendel seem to agree with what Beethoven actually has written.

[John Ruggero]

Diabelli Variations are one of the most contemporary pieces ever written for the piano.

When I first encountered the Diabelli variations as a young person, I was hooked and played it constantly, however badly. It constantly stuck me that there was nothing else like it and it seemed to contain a new approach to tonality that had never really been continued on by later composers, at least in quite the way Beethoven was going, although I think the Romantics were highly influenced by it.

In my opinion I would say that the clef is not missing, and the "insanity" of Beethoven's genius is just emboldened by that large leap and large distance between the hands

Absolutely. Henle has produced a newer edition of the Diabelli and I am wondering if they have continued to "tidy up" this passage. There was a blog post at their site that discussed another "correction" that they had reversed from their first edition.

Schnabel and Brendel seem to agree with what Beethoven actually has written.

A footnote in Schnabel's edition calls the treble clef theory "certainly erroneous."

[NeeraWM]

Sometimes being outside the problem may help look at it under a different light.
As a non-pianist (really, nothing beside few chords to accompany my students, and badly!), with no experience in in-depth analysis of Beethoven's music, BUT with 12 years of engraving experience, I would consider the clefs here as NOT missing.
Why? Because he would change clefs onto an E going down, while in the previous bar he was going up to F in bass clef. Why change when there is no practical reason to do so?
If I have to find a single musical reason for that, then the treble-clef middle B against the high A strikes me as odd, while it being a bass-clef low D would not make any problem.
Have you tried a critical comparison of the recordings? What do "big names" play?

[John Ruggero]

BUT with 12 years of engraving experience, I would consider the clefs here as NOT missing. Why? Because he would change clefs onto an E going down, while in the previous bar he was going up to F in bass clef. Why change when there is no practical reason to do so?

Yes, that is one of the strongest reasons to doubt that clefs are missing, as also Anders mentioned. Notation plays an important role in deciding this question, which is why I posted it at Notat.io.

If I have to find a single musical reason for that, then the treble-clef middle B against the high A strikes me as odd, while it being a bass-clef low D would not make any problem.

That's true, but I think the orthodox-minded are mostly concerned about the lack of a resolution of the F in the bass of m. 20 to an E in m. 21 and then the immediate drop into a second inversion chord, and can't imagine Beethoven doing such "audacious" things, when actually he did a lot more daring things than that.

Have you tried a critical comparison of the recordings? What do "big names" play?

I haven't Neera. It would interesting. But, of course, it would reveal more about the various pianists than a solution to the issue.

All in all, I think I think it highly unlikely that clefs are missing.

[Anders Hedelin]

If I have to find a single musical reason for that, then the treble-clef middle B against the high A strikes me as odd, while it being a bass-clef low D would not make any problem.

That's true, but I think the orthodox-minded are mostly concerned about the lack of a resolution of the F in the bass of m. 20 to an E in m. 21 and then the immediate drop into a second inversion chord, and can't imagine Beethoven doing such "audacious" things, when actually he did a lot more daring things than that.

Actually, the most common inversion of a ninth chord (here G9), is the first, with the third in the bass. This is the form the G9 in m. 22 and 24 would take with clef changes. The second inversion, with the fifth in the bass (the form without clef changes), is much less common. This is by no means an argument in our discussion. The "insanity of Beethoven's genius", to speak with OCTO, forbids one to have an opinion on which version is "the best one".

I couldn't very well imagine myself saying to the master: "With all respect, Herr B., I don't think you intended to be quite as crazy this time." Fortunately there's no risk of that, I think.

I do have an opinion on what's more likely though, based on the facts we have: the lack of need for the first clef change, and the notational history of the music. So, there's really no rational ground to believe in the missing-clefs theory.

[John Ruggero]

A little more on this. Here is an original sketch of the variation with my attempted transcription. The small notes are conjectural. (Other opinions on the text are welcome.) While not conclusive, it certainly supports the traditional reading. One notes that in its original form, the jump was not as extreme.

Beethoven Var 15 sketch 1.png (1.08 MiB) Viewed 8303 times

Beethoven Var 15 sketch 2.png (578.98 KiB) Viewed 8303 times

Beethoven Var 15 sketch trasncription.png (190.79 KiB) Viewed 8303 times