Another Beethoven centered beam

[NeeraWM]

I've used a straight brace in the past, didn't like it too much, switched for a brace.
Most if not all the editions of that time only had parts, not a score.
The autograph from Dotzauer's method, though, uses braces for the cello duets so, perhaps, it is a subconscious tradition!


PS: Dotzauer & his elder son were both excellent pianists!

[John Ruggero]

I know what you mean. Straight braces are a little ""cold". Curly braces were even used for orchestral scores, way "back in the day."

[Wescott]

What about breaking the secondary beam instead of the whole beam, and giving a performance note?

Broken 2nd Beam.png (9.97 KiB) Viewed 13111 times

[John Ruggero]

Thanks, Wescott. That's an interesting idea that works well for cases where secondary beams are available. And a current engraver might very well make use of it here instead of centered beams or complete beam breaks. In fact there are many places in Beethoven's piano sonatas where later engravers have introduced secondary beam breaks. (Compare Schenker's edition of the third movement of the Piano Sonata op. 106 to the first editions.)

However, as far as I know, Beethoven himself didn't use secondary beam breaks to show rhythmic grouping or phrasing. He broke through all the beams or used changes of stem direction, which sometimes required centered beams. In this case, I have engraved centered beams as in the original, because it clearly isolates the first 16th note as the bass voice, (which might even be sustained through the following notes) and which might be why Beethoven chose this style of notation.

[Wescott]

Thanks, John. Is there an example of your engraved version of doing this you could post without any trouble?

[John Ruggero]

op 31 no. 2.3.png (518.16 KiB) Viewed 13064 times

[Wescott]

Thanks, John. Did you decide to do it this way to recreate the historical facsimile? I've never seen centered beams this drastic. Especially the 16hs with no stem to speak of.

[John Ruggero]

I did it to preserve Beethoven's notation in as clear a way as I could, because I think that it is important for the reasons I mentioned. In my opinion, no alternate notation really conveys the correct meaning. Breaking the beams in particular is very misleading. I have sometimes been forced relegated such difficult spots to footnotes. But this seems too extensive for that.

As far as the style of the engraving. I don't care for too much slope to centered beams for esthetic reasons. And in this case, too much slope might obscure reading. So this was the best solution I could find. I myself find it clear and easy to read. What do you think?

[Wescott]

Thanks, John. I understand doing it for historical purposes, but too me it looks ungainly and distracting and I can't get past not having any stems or the beam slants. To me it's over-notated. I think the musical context would tell the pianist that this is a compound line of bass + harmonic prolongation easy enough.

[John Ruggero]

Thanks for your input, Wescott I will definitely consider that in deciding whether to relegate to a footnote or not. This is a practical edition, not a facsimile.

A couple of questions. Are you OK with ms. 71-72? And what do you think of the beam slants etc. in original edition? That's up there earlier in the thread.

Just wanted to add a little more. While any pianist would recognize what is going on, these bass notes are a special case because of the relationship with the opening theme, which has bass notes that Beethoven physically isolates from the rest. (Notice the fingering.) This is probably another reason that many editions have broken the beams after the bass note in the later section.

op 31 no 1.3B.png (143.14 KiB) Viewed 12995 times