NOTATIO

Thanks so much for this list, John!

Some thoughts on a few of your very interesting and educational comments:

m. 2–3: If these are indeed accent marks rather than diminuendos, I would argue that they are better placed inside the slurs. This is particularly true if they are not to be angled, because, as you point out, the slurs forces the engraver to angle them in order to retain the ideal balance of white space.

This also makes me question whether or not the length of these markings is correctly perceived in the engraving. Shouldn't such intensity marks be a lot shorter in order not to be confused with regular hairpins?

m. 5: Disregarding the need for adherence to Brahms intentions, do you as a pianist really prefer this notation? To me, the original version of m. 5 seems a lot simpler and cleaner, and I would think that any redistribution of notes would be completely self explanatory to any reasonably competent musician.

m. 16: I agree with your objection to the rest placement, but I'm not clear on whether you prefer there to be a single rest or not. Two rests in this situation seems unnecessary, even if it is in accordance with the general practice of the piece.

m. 17: Such a natural seems a bit unnecessary, since the A in this octave isn't altered in the previous measure. Including it will visually obstruct the short ties from both directions, and might therefore be better left as is.

m. 45: YOU CAN DO IT!

Thank you very much, Knut. I really appreciate that. Here are a few thoughts on your very interesting comments:

m. 2-3 That is an excellent point. I did however place them outside in accordance with the primary materials. Brahms seems to make a distinction between short intensity markings and longer ones, with the longer ones meaning stronger, as one might think.

m. 5 I agree that it is nicer-looking all in the RH, but the facilitation is actually better in that the lower notes of the two thirds can be more expressively played with the LH since one can use two different fingers to play it. And this is intended to be an expressive moment.

m. 16 Brahms has one rest in the normal position, and I agree with you and Brahms. To me it is as if like the engraver, put in the lower rest as if to place two, had a question about it, was overruled, left it and went out for a beer, and then forgot all about it.

m. 17 I thought so too, but actually like the way it looks with both especially with the two sharps coming up. This is not in accordance with any of the sources, of course, but seems more in accordance with standard practice, since precautionary accidentals do not depend on register.

m. 45 NO PROBLEM! I did it yesterday.

A few other errors and comments that I have found as I continue to proofread.

Errata continued:

m. 6-7 The hairpin slopes needlessly.

m. 20 The arpeggio sign tilts.

m. 41 The slur should encompass the 16th note. This is quite clear in the MS, but an error was made in the EC. This was corrected in the Complete Works edition. Several of the other errors in the first edition were not corrected in the Complete Works, giving the impression that the editors of the complete works were highly reliant on the first editions and either had no access to the primary materials or erroneously assumed that all of the first editions were very correct.

More errata:

m. 16 The hairpin should include the entire measure and be much bolder as in the MS and also the EC. It is actually showing that the downbeat is to be highly stressed, as well as that the middle voices should trail off.

m. 18 The LH downbeat fifth has the stem down in MS and EC. This is much better musically and graphically because the the higher D is subordinated as an inner voice and the low D G G# melody is more clearly presented and related to the slur.

m. 39 continuing from my remark about the missing forte. This moment is to remind us of m. 24 where a forte stands under the same melody. And thus the forte also belongs here as a reminder of the past dynamic level to which m. 39 should relate. This was probably an unconscious notation on Brahms part and either he got talked out of it because of the forte in m. 37 or the EC omitted it for the same reason or by oversight.

More errata

m. 7, 8, 16 slurs are missing in the RH middle parts such as occur in 5 and 51, 53, 54.

m. 32-33 The RH melody from the last 16th of m. 32 to the first beat of m 33 is missing the two-note slur that occurs throughout this section..

m. 33 The RH is cross-beamed in the MS and EC to keep the melody on the downbeat of 33 up-stemmed. I think that this is much better than the solution in the first edition.

In the following, the EC agrees with the first edition but not with the MS. I prefer the MS in each case, however:

m. 33-34 The LH slur is above the notes in the MS. This puts the slur above the leading voice in the LH.

m. 60 The portato is involves all three notes in the RH in the MS. This is more logical given the pattern that precedes.

m. 62 The marking is piu pianissimo in the MS rather than piu piano. This is more logical given the previous pianissimo.

m. 64 The MS has a dashed line continuing the rit. through the next measure. Since all previous rit. markings in the piece have been followed by a dashed line to show an intense holding back, this is to be expected. The EC has a much shorter dashed line in m. 64 only. The first edition has no dashed line. The MS would seem to be the preferable reading.

John Ruggero wrote:Thank you very much, Knut. I really appreciate that. Here are a few thoughts on your very interesting comments:

m. 2-3 That is an excellent point. I did however place them outside in accordance with the primary materials. Brahms seems to make a distinction between short intensity markings and longer ones, with the longer ones meaning stronger, as one might think.

Thanks for your responses, John!

I'm not really clear on neither the semantics nor the visual appearance of these intensity markings, so it would be very helpful if you would explain this phenomenon a little further, or direct me to a relevant source. Are they distinguished from hairpins only by context, and if so, what, and if not, what visual hallmarks do they have? Also, how are these markings actually interpreted on the piano, both physically and auditory?

Another thing, John:

I think your follow up posts on grata are great, but it would be even better if you would edit the original post rather than post them separately. That way, it's easier to cross check directly with the score (even if the relevant measures aren't marked as in your original post).

Just a thought …

I'm really looking forward to seeing your engraving.

The intensity mark (my term) tends to be a little larger than an <-shaped accent mark and looks like small dim. hairpin, but makes no sense when interpreted that way. It means to emphasize the note over which it falls in an unusually intense way that is unlike a rhythmic accent. There is no sense of impact, just more tone than one would usually use melodically.

Brahms use of this marking in measures 17 etc. might be helpful in understanding it. It would be nonsense for the 16th note to diminuendo into the following dotted 8th or 16th, because the following note is more important. So this cannot be a diminuendo. Nor can it be an accent which would be an even worse effect in such a tender place in the piece. What is meant here is an expressive leaning on or caressing of the 16ths so that they have more meaning than such static notes would normally have as they introduce the moving melody tones that follow. Singing this will help one understand how to interpret it. It would not be uncommon for someone to sing a portamento between the pairs of notes. The expressive stress on these notes should continue throughout the rest of this phrase and enhances the complex rhythmic organization which is a Brahms hallmark and important area of innovation.

The intensity marking is related to another interesting use of a longer dim. hairpin which means to suddenly up the dynamic level and then fall away.

We had a thread about all of this a while ago, but I forget exactly what we discussed. I do recall that someone mentioned that there is a section on this marking in Sandra Rosenblum's highly thought-off "Performance Practices in Classic Piano Music", which I don't own or have read. I know the marking from the piano literature in authentic editions like the Wiener Urtext. It was often misinterpreted by later engravers as an accent mark or as a dim. but now it has been finally recognized and understood. In the early days, however, when engravers just imitated what they saw in autographs, the intensity markings were preserved.

On the piano, one can play percussively or non-percussively as required by the music. Percussive noises are added to the tone by various kinds of attacks. Non-percussive tone minimizes the percussive noises of the fingers hitting the keys or the keys hitting the key beds, all of which are amplified by the soundboard and are substantial. There is also a loss of control that accompanies percussive playing as the fingers literally bounce off the keys as they strike sharply. This loss of control is part of the percussive style. But when playing an intensity marking, percussive attack is avoided and the key is accelerated in a way that minimizes hitting yet produces as much tone as required. This requires superior spatial sense and timing.

That's a great suggestion, Knut. Once I am finished, I will consolidate the errata from everyone who contributes into one list for anyone who is interested in it, since it might be helpful if they are interested in posting an engraving.

John,

thank you so much for this in-depth explanation of the intensity mark! From your explanation it would seem that they only apply to a single note, similar to an accent mark. If this is a correct understanding, it would seem that the precise length of these marks isn't very important, just as long as they're perceived correctly as 'long' or 'short' to illustrate the level of intensity. BTW, do you know if this originated with Brahms and was exclusively used by him?

I've started correcting the erata, and have some additional comments to some of the ones you've pointed out.

mm. 2-3: I've changed my mid about the placement of these marks on the basis of my understanding outlined above. It would seem important to have these marks be left aligned with – or even starting a little before – the note they apply to, which in turn would mean that they would collide with the stem if placed inside the slurs. The slurs could of course be placed above the mark itself, but that would defeat the purpose of altering the placement in the first place.

mm. 6–7: I've chosen to leave this hairpin in, but put it in parenthesis. I contemplated matching the length of the one in mm. 52–53, but left it to keep the reference to the secondary sources.

With regards to the angle: I disagree that it slopes needlessly. Because of the upper staff beams in m. 7, leaving it horizontal would force you to do one of two things; either move the hairpin down so that it is no longer aligned with the following dim. hairpin, or increase the distance between the staves enough to align the hairpins, which would compromise the greyness (BW balance) of the page. Personally, a slight angle does not bother me at all, and takes care of both the alignment and the greyness issue.

m. 16: I agree with you about the length of the hairpin, although the comment calls into question the exact length of several other hairpins in the score. The with, however, is another matter. it's clear to me that in this case it is drawn very slight, not to indicate a limited flux, but to prevent from having to space the staves too widely apart. Even with the extended length, the opening can be only slightly increased without compromising the ideal spacing and greyness of the staves. The MS places the hairpin above the staves to prevent a collision, but because of the dynamic indication the following measure, I tend to agree with the engraver's placement.

EDIT: After placing the missing slur in the right hand, I actually prefer the MS solution of placing the hairpin above the staves. I'm a bit ambivalent about the ideal placement of the following p, but leaving it between the staves is probably the best option, considering the initial lone bass note on the downbeat. As a result of this, the hairpin opening can be increased without needing to re-space the staves.

m. 17: Upon reading your comment and trying it out, I agree.

m. 20: The tilt in the arpeggio sign is too slight to be an issue for me. It's vertical placement, however, is not. It should be pulled down, slightly to line up with the noteheads.

m. 22: Agreed. One important note, however: Even Brahms stems the last r.h. 16th notes in m. 20 down in the MS, in accordance with conventional practice, while the EC does not. In this context, I think the EC should have been followed by the engraver, but this might be a reason why it wasn't.

m. 33: To my eye, the regular beaming style chosen by the engraver is clearly the best solution. The interval between the first and last notes just isn't large enough to neither facilitate nor necessitate a cross beam, at least not an elegant one. If such a style was chosen, the stem on the first note would need to be very short, while proportionately longer on the last note. In turn, the beam would need to be extremely steep, as well as broken to avoid obscuring the clef change, as it does in the MS.

mm. 33–34: Regarding the left hand slur: I agree with the engraver's decision here on the basis that the slur starts on the first down-stem note, as well as the fact that the two voices move in parallel octaves.

mm. 50–51: I tend to agree, but the slur in mm. 14–15 might prove otherwise?

Thank you, Knut. The intensity mark was used throughout the 19th century and probably beyond. They occur in abundance in Chopin, for example, and I may have given an example from the Wiener Urtext of these markings in the previous thread.

The lengths and positioning of the hairpins is definitely an interesting issue and your presentation is exactly my understanding of it. However, while they generally concern a single tone, they might also be used for a small group in some cases.

m. 16 I was very tempted to put the hairpin above the staff for the reasons you mention, and I am still pondering it. The meaning of this hairpin is really lost between the staves.

m. 33 I went with the cross-beaming even though I was concerned that too much would be made of it. Reason: the alternative is even worse to my eye. I like cross-beaming, and my edition of the Bach Inventions and Sinfonias preserves the cross beaming in the MS. There is LH cross-beaming in the MS and EC at the end of this piece that I would have loved to have preserved but reluctantly concluded was better as engraved for various reasons. However, in general, I feel that discarding cross-beaming is an error, because it often brings out phrasing and multi-voicing within single lines.

m. 33-34 Your point is well taken, I had considered it, and I am still considering it. But my main problem with the slur below is that it leaves the first LH note of the measure without any slur, and this is the note that continues from the previous measure and initiates this sub-phrase. Of course in an orchestral context there would be slurs on both the cello and the doubling bass part. The problem is really intractable because the real bass voice is transitioning from the higher register to the lower within this measure.

m. 50-51 ( i.e. 4-5) vs m 14-15 The situations are different. In m. 5 the two left hand notes represent a transposed repeat of m. 4. and are relatively self-sufficient. (Note that the situation continues in m. 6-7 and the slurring is the same.) Those in m. 15 are a continuation of m. 14 , not a repeat, and are not self-sufficient. Put another way, the notes of m. 5 are the root position bass notes of two independent harmonies which parallel the two main harmonies of the previous measure. The first two bass notes of m. 15 are only decorations for the third note, and the measure represents one main harmony: C#7 which flows seamlessly out of the previous measure and is then suspended and resolves to F# within the next measure.

PS I sent you a private message.