Progressive correction in op. 54

Discuss the rules of notation, standard notation practices, efficient notation practices and graphic design.
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Progressive correction in op. 54

Post by John Ruggero »

In the second movement of Beethoven's Sonata op. 54, the pairs of boxed measures occur three times with three different styles of expressivo indications. The first time, there is no espressivo at all, the second time an expressive on the second measure only! and in the third, espressivo on the first measure only. Needless to say, this has caused consternation to editors since there is no musical reason why there should be such a strange variation between these measures.
op 54.2 A.png
op 54.2 A.png (648.89 KiB) Viewed 1552 times
op 54.2 B.png
op 54.2 B.png (610.62 KiB) Viewed 1552 times
I believe that progressive correction is the best explanation for what is going on. Beethoven writes the first pair in the sequence, then, half way through writing the second pair, it strikes him that an expressivo marking is needed clarify how intensely he wants the the pairs of resolving appoggiatura chords to be played. So he immediately writes espressivo over the second measure of the second pair. Since he has now decided upon the espressivo indication, he immediately writes it over the first measure of the third pair, expecting the player to apply it to both measures and of course all of these measures. But then he keeps writing and forgets to correct the previous two groups. Or he expects the editor to figure it out, which in this case, didn't happen.

Now if we continue to perpetuate this error in editions on the grounds of "urtext", would Beethoven be pleased and say "Thank you so much for presenting an obvious error with such reverence, as if my music were something to be displayed in a museum, rather than a living work of art."
Last edited by John Ruggero on 31 Dec 2022, 18:27, edited 1 time in total.
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
ttw
Posts: 12
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 11:55

Re: Progressive correction in op. 54

Post by ttw »

I think you are correct. Though Beethoven did vary stuff for different occurrences of the "same" object, this seems different in that there are no other signals. I would guess that he probably would have also changed articulation or slurs or dynamics if he really wanted to move the expressivo around.
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Progressive correction in op. 54

Post by John Ruggero »

Exactly. No other signals. And in my experience, composers like Beethoven, Mozart etc. thought on a large scale and their music was interesting enough without trivial variations for the sake of "variety".
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
Harpsichordmaker
Posts: 62
Joined: 10 Apr 2016, 08:19

Re: Progressive correction in op. 54

Post by Harpsichordmaker »

John, I like very much your posts on Beethoven, I don’t jump in the conversations because I am a very scarce connoisseur of Beethoven.
Things like the “espressivo” you explained us are the reason why I advocate critical editions as opposed to “urtext”. In fact the concept of urtext is plainly rejected by the classical and romanistic philologues, it is mainly a thing of the music philology.
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Progressive correction in op. 54

Post by John Ruggero »

Thank you very much, Harpsichordmaker.

Could you spell out the differences between an "urtext and a "critical edition" and how this relates to philology? I know urtext vs critical has come up before, but it sounds like you have some interesting and deeper ideas on the subject.
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
Harpsichordmaker
Posts: 62
Joined: 10 Apr 2016, 08:19

Re: Progressive correction in op. 54

Post by Harpsichordmaker »

John, I am honoured by your interest. I’ll try but can’t be sure I will be able to convey all the nuances of this complex matter as English is not my primary language (Italian is). So, sorry for errors and obscurities and please feel free to point out and ask for clarifications.

Definitions.
The concept of urtext was conceived in biblical research to mean the reconstruction of the text as it was before the ancient editions. Important to note: we are here speaking of the macro-variants in structure, theological meanings, and so on, not on microvariants and errors like faulty readings, lacunae, and all the variants we today call “Lachmann variants”.
Under this definition (the “Ur-definition”, we could say), there is simply no possibility nor nevessity nor utility for Urtext of, say, Goldberg Variations or Juppiter symphony or Beethoven’s ninth. We already have the urtext, the urtext is the only text transmitted by the sources.
While we do need urtexts of, say, Don Carlo and many Operas, or some Scarlatti Essercizi or Bach’s first prelude of WTC2. They have different texts transmitted to us, because the sources testimony different statuses of the composition we can’t and shouldn’t conflate.
We must think differently the author’s variants (like WTC2 or Don Carlo) and the copyist’s variants. The latter are mere errors occurring during the copy. Most often they are unvoluntary: a bad reading, a complex harmony deemed “wrong” by the copyist and thus corrected, and the other usuals: “saut du meme au meme”, bad interpretation of symbols or abbreviations, etc., etc. The most authoritative academic source, still studied in the universities, is Paul Maas, “TextKritik”, it’s translated in every language, so you will experience no difficulty in finding an English translation.

So, the aim of an urtext isn’t the reconstuction of the author’s will in the sense of a “correct” text, a text without errors both of the copyist and the author. Its aim is to reconstruct the author’s will in the sense of the version (not the single readings) of a work how the author coinceived it in a definite moment of the composition (or, precisely: the author’s last will, as “Fassung lestze Hand”; or author first will, as the first-representation of an Opera. If we should aim to a first or last version, it will depend on the particular case).

All this in theory. In practice, current urtexts are critical editions disguised. Even where there isn’t any Ur-text distinguished by the received text (take for example the Italian Concerto), the modern urtext editor corrects the transmission errors (I mean, a wrong note, a wrong slur, something like that, not an entirely different version of the work), and call it urtext.

But still the original concept does surface, so if an esitor thinks of their edition as a urtext, they will be paychologically inclined to take a too strict fidelity tonthe source in that they will choose one source or a principal source, discarding the others; or, they will be less prone to correct author’s errors, still evident; or, they will follow the chosen source even when evidently faulty.
In one word, they will frequently develop an irrational faith in their source, thinking that source is the one representing the “true text”.
Of course, even autograph sources can be misleading. The one famous case is Giovanni Boccaccio’s “Decameron” (circa 1349). There is an extant autograph (codex Hamilton 40), which is incredibly faulty for an autograph. And many of the manuscript copies are more correct than the autograph. How can be this? Simple: the other manuscripts were copied from a previous autograph (now lost) while the Codex Hamilton was copied by Boccaccio himself when an old and tired man, without a good proof-reading. I remember you pointed out some similarities when discussing Beethoven manuscripts.

In conclusion, I think the mere concept of Urtext subtly influences the attitude of the music editor. It’s worthy of note that urtext - safe in the abstract concept of the biblical studies I told at the beginning, is a term never used in literary philology or literary textual criticism. You will find “critical editions” of Plato, Cicero, Lysias, Dante Alighieri, Sophocles etc., not “urtext editions”. I think rhere are both psychological and practical reasons for this.

To make the things more convoluted, the “author’s philology” I described before is applied to “critical editions” as well.

I am aware I haven’t been able to be clear enough. It’s a vast and subtle matter and I don’t master English enough to discuss it. I’ll try my best to clarify where needed.
If you are interested with the literary counterpart of editing, I’ll be glad to give you an essential bibliography.
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Progressive correction in op. 54

Post by John Ruggero »

So if I understand correctly then, the term "urtext" should be strictly reserved for Biblical (and perhaps other similar) research and has been misapplied in music editing in a way which can create confusion in an editor's mind. I've seen this in some of the articles on the Henle blog. The editor feels compelled to transmit a clearly absurd reading in the main text simply because it occurs in the main primary source. I have termed one aspect of this phenomenon "standardization phobia."

Some have called Heinrich Schenker's edition of the Beethoven piano sonatas the first "urtext" edition, but he never used this term. He termed it "reconstructing" the text from the primary sources within the framework of a practical edition. He was under no illusion that he was creating a critical edition with every variant reading identified and weighed according to philological principles, and felt no anxiety about making editorial decisions based on musicality and common sense. This has provided performers with very valuable information.

I have read Grier's The Critical edition of Music but don't feel comfortable with a philological approach to editing music. I feel compelled to make my editorial decisions based only what seems to me to be musically superior and then to explain my decisions in footnotes. I call this an "authentic" edition.
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1742
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Progressive correction in op. 54

Post by OCTO »

Very interesting to read both Harpsichordmaker and John!
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 27.3 • Sibelius 2023.5• MuseScore 4+ • Logic Pro X+ • Ableton Live 11+ • Digital Performer 10+ /// MacOS Monterey (secondary in use systems: Fedora 35, Windows 10)
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Progressive correction in op. 54

Post by John Ruggero »

Thanks, OCTO!

To summarize: I think that internal evidence can be a much more powerful tool in deciding textual matters in well-written music than it can be in written language. Therefore, editing music must, at times, be based on a different principle.
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
Harpsichordmaker
Posts: 62
Joined: 10 Apr 2016, 08:19

Re: Progressive correction in op. 54

Post by Harpsichordmaker »

Internal evidence is heavily used in textual criticism. Only, texts can count on “external” evidence which in music is often elusive. I’d say the relative weight (as opposed to absolute) of internal and external evidence can be different between texts and music.

As for the principles, I don’t know. After all the “psychology of the copy” is the same, so the types of errors made by the copyists are about similar. Music can rely on autographs much more often than texts can, this of course is a huge difference.
Post Reply