Beethoven's dots after a barline

[John Ruggero]

Since augmentation dots were not placed close to the their notes during Beethoven's time, it was not a big stretch to place them after a bar line to avoid the use of tied notes. This was particularly useful in showing hemiola effects and/or to make imitative voices more closely resemble each other.

However, in the following example from the Diabelli Variation 19, Beethoven uses both tied notes and dots after the bar line. I think that this is yet another example of Beethoven playing with notational alternatives as an expressive device. The first example uses both hemiola and imitation, which might invite continuous use of dots after the bar lines. Instead, Beethoven only uses dots after the barlines to show the beginning of the second sub-phrase in the lower voice in each case, which might easily be unclear to the player:

Var. 19A.png (247.81 KiB) Viewed 43139 times

In the corresponding place at the beginning of the second part of the variation, Beethoven inverts the material and starts the imitation in the lower voice, rather than the upper. Yet, he doesn't place the dots after the bar lines in the upper voice (at the question marks) as he did in the lower voice in the previous example:

In this case, the music is moving from low to high rather than high to low and achieves two climactic moments in the last three notes of the upper part of each phrase. The dots after barlines are now reserved to set off these three important notes:

Var 19B.png (233.78 KiB) Viewed 43139 times

I think that an expressive notational device was lost when dots after a bar line became obsolete in the later 19th century. (Brahms continued to use them, however).

A note on engraving dots after a bar line. I am finding it clearer to place the augmentation dots on the left side of note heads in an opposing voice, particularly where it might be confused for a staccato dot. I see this practice observed in the engraving of that time.

[NeeraWM]

Fascinating!
Do you think then that one should've played the two options differently?
If so, how?

[John Ruggero]

I'm glad you found this interesting, Neera.

I would play the two sections very differently from each other and than if Beethoven had written the passages with all ties or all dots after the bar lines. I would show the two different subphrases within ms. 1-4 and within ms. 5-8 more distinctly, let the second sub-phrase answer the first, and let the whole passage trail off a little indistinctly. On the other hand, I would not show the subphrases in ms. 18-21 or ms 22-25, but let the notes tumble forward and build toward the last four notes, which would. be highly articulated and played a with a small pulling back to emphasize them as something more significant than those that lead up to them.

[NeeraWM]

Thanks for this reading!
It reminds me of when we see the usage of a dotted quarter crossing the half of the bar (e.g. Mahler Ruckert Lieder), with then three quavers ending the bar, all beamed together.
Modern-notation-wise: incorrect!
Musically? Oh so clear and expressive!

[John Ruggero]

Here is the spot that you may be referring to:

Mahler.png (422.59 KiB) Viewed 42983 times

Showing a strong beat in the notation when the point of a rhythm is to obscure the strong beat is self-defeating, and usually avoided by composers of the past.

[JJP]

Oh my! I look at this type of notation and instantly understand what the composer wants. I also simultaneously want to shout that this notation is asking for a mistake when sight reading.

Such are the two minds of which we are cursed when we care about notation.

[NeeraWM]

Exactly that, John!
The music here is so clear!

I wonder if notation got simplified for business reasons. As JJP said, sight-reading this asks for mistake, and especially in the film industry, every mistake costs a fortune. In classical music, a performance should never be at sight-reading level. I believe we should keep conventions separated by contextualising their final use.

[David Ward]

… … … I believe we should keep conventions separated by contextualising their final use.

Yes!

[Anders Hedelin]

I wonder if notation got simplified for business reasons. As JJP said, sight-reading this asks for mistake, and especially in the film industry, every mistake costs a fortune. In classical music, a performance should never be at sight-reading level. I believe we should keep conventions separated by contextualising their final use.

The dotted quarters in the Mahler example are quite obvious and easy to read, for a musician above beginner's level. I can't believe that professional, and most likely very experienced, musicians in the film industry (or whatever similar venue) have difficulties sight-reading this.

[John Ruggero]

Arnstein routinely broke up rhythms like this in concert music and opera, not film scores; at the time, I just bit my tongue. I think it's a case of "better be safe than sorry." No one wants to get blamed for problems. "It wasn't my fault; look at my part." "Who engraved these parts? "Oh really. Don't use them in the future."