Beethoven's dots after a barline

[JJP]

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.

That's a reasonable assumption, but the reality is not so simple. In a case where performers are reading multiple cues with varying tempos and time signatures one after another, stopping and starting, punching in at different locations, perhaps penciling in adjustments to the music; it can become easy to mistake a pattern that is not notated in a standardized way.

That doesn't mean the performer completely plays a wrong rhythm or pitch. A simple hesitation for a fraction of a second that results in an attack not being perfectly together, or a phrase not perfectly in tune, is enough to warrant another take and lose valuable time. That's why we are trying to make notation as "mistake-proof" as possible. It's about reducing the pressure on the performers so they can perform at their peak.

The performers appreciate it as well. There has been quite a noticeable drop in the quality of what is put on the stand in the last few decades. Performers won't say anything to the composers or orchestrators for fear of losing their jobs, but they will complain loudly behind closed doors about how they have to work so much harder because of parts deemed "good enough".

[Anders Hedelin]

Thank you JJP, for your detailed and enlightening reply! It seems quite obvious the way you put it, but then, you have to know before it's obvious to you!

[JJP]

Thanks should go to John Ruggero for creating another thought-provoking thread that led us here! I was not aware of the post-barline augmentation dot of the past, and it made me think hard about why we do what we do today. The Beethoven and Mahler examples were excellent and musically meaningful; and then this thread became a perfect reminder that there are different notational priorities for different uses of the music we create.

I guess I should say, “Thank you, everyone for contributing!”

[John Ruggero]

Thank you very much for saying that, JJP. I really appreciate that. And thank you for your insightful contributions.

One of the main problems with dots after the bar line is the potential confusion with staccato dots, as I mentioned. And they easily get lost in the shuffle, particularly with hand-copied parts. So as augmentation dots were placed closer and closer to note heads, dots after the bar line went the way of the dodo. However, with the precision and clarity possible in computer engraving, I see no issues in using them again in ultra-authentic editions of solo music, particularly keyboard music where there are usually other clarifying voices. But never, never, never, would I do this in ensemble music. That could lead to complete disaster.

[NeeraWM]

In Marcello's cello sonatas first edition one can see the dot occupying the rhythmical position the tied note should have.
Plenty of modern editions took that as "an ink's stain" or "a badly written rest".

In modern notation, I could see writing the Beethoven's dotted quarter with the dot next to the note, but with the barline being shifted 1/8 to the right only for that stave. It would be very interesting to see the reaction to an edition like that!!

[John Ruggero]

I'm not sure I would want to see that reaction!

Below are examples of dots after a bar line from the manuscript (1857?) and first edition (?) (1875) of Brahms Piano Concerto no. 1. (Note that most of the augmentation dots are now close to the note heads in modern style.)

There seems to be a strong inclination for some composers of this time to use this device in passages in which the hands alternate dotted rhythms to keep the imitations looking consistent. At one point Brahms forgot and placed the dots next to the note instead of after the bar line and had to blot them out. (First example encircled.) This points out the thought-process when one is playing such a passage. One is simply alternating pairs of 16ths between the hands and holding them through each other. Brahms was evidently feeling this as he wrote.

Brahms op 15 MS.png (244.87 KiB) Viewed 20480 times

Brahms op 15 1st ed.png (365.02 KiB) Viewed 20486 times

[NeeraWM]

Provoking question: what if this was simply a way of saving time during the hand-writing compositional process?
I have a manuscript from Herbert Murrill, British composer, who wrote every single note with the stem on the left-hand side of the notehead.
Clearly wrong, but it must have saved him a good deal of time to do so.
Now, I think to recall that also Colin Matthews' Cello Concerto no 2 (whose score has been published as a manuscript by Faber) uses some shortcut like that.

[John Ruggero]

Provocative questions are the best questions.

It certainly saved time to do it as Brahms wrote it, rather than with all the extra notes, ties and whatever, just as all dotted notes save time and why they are used in the first place. But I think that Brahms probably considered dots after the bar lines more logical and easier to read than breaking up some of the dotted notes and not others in a passage of that type. I personally much prefer the cleaner look of this passage as he wrote it to the following from the complete works edition and later editions. To me a simple, beautiful and quite original concept has become a complex, head-scratching affair:

Brahms op 15 B&H.png (129.27 KiB) Viewed 20471 times

I should add one other factor. Note the syncopated beaming, which extends over the bar lines. The whole passage is fighting the bar lines. Acknowledging the bar lines by breaking up the dotted notes would be counter-productive to this concept.

[NeeraWM]

Couldn't agree more!
When practicing pieces with these issues on the cello, I recall penciling in the true value of the note below/above it :-D