In the middle of the eighteenth century expressive accentuation and dynamic nuance was left largely to the discretion of the performer. As a rule, composers indicated only the most important dynamic contrasts and accents in their music. J. A. P. Schulz remarked in 1771 that dynamic marks ‘are often put there only so that very crude improprieties may not be committed … they would, if they were really adequate, often have to be put under every note of a piece’.146 For the effectiveness of their music in this respect, composers relied on performers' taste and experience in applying generally understood principles of phrasing and accent. To a great extent, therefore, stylish accentuation and dynamic shading during the late eighteenth century depended on the executant's recognition of the phrase structure of the music, its character, and so on. Even in the middle years of the eighteenth century this was seen to present considerable difficulties for the average performer; it was felt to be so subtle and variable that, as Schulz had implied, it could only effectively be learned from observing great musicians.147
The markings employed in mid-eighteenth-century music to indicate the contrasts and accents that composers regarded as essential were few and, as a rule, sparingly introduced. These instructions might encompass ‘fortissimo’,
‘forte’, ‘poco forte’, ‘mezzo forte’, ‘piano’, ‘pianissimo’, and from time to time, composers who were especially concerned to achieve a quite specific effect, such as Gluck, might employ less common terms like ‘piano assai’148where something particularly arresting was required (Ex. 3.1.) The additional dynamic shading and accentuation supplied by performers, partly in accordance
146 In Sulzer, Allgemeine Theorie, 2nd edn. iv. 709.
147 Ibid. (quoted in Ch. 1 above, n. 55.)
148 e.g. in the Vienna MS of Gluck's Semiramide reconosciuta. österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. mus. 17.793, repr. in Italian Opera 1640–1770 (New York, Garland, 1982).
Ex. 3.1. Gluck, Semiramide riconosciuta, österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, Cod. mu. 17.793, pub. in fac. in the series Italian Opera 1640–1750 (New York and London, Garland, 1982)
with established conventions and partly according to their individual tastes, was an important element in the criteria by which, in the case of solo parts, their quality as artists would be judged. In orchestral playing, too, the ideal was certainly a well-controlled and aptly nuanced performance, but since this demanded uniformity of expression among all the players it necessitated control by the director if, in addition to the observance of the composer's usually scanty dynamic markings, anything other than the phrasing-off of appoggiaturas and the application of similar simple and universally accepted conventions were expected. Thus markings were even more necessary here than in solo music. J.
F. Reichardt's discussion of crescendo and diminuendo in the orchestra illustrates the growing feeling, in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, that composers needed to specify their requirements more fully. He observed:
If the composer wants to have it absolutely precisely performed he will do well to include all these different gradations exactly under the notes where they should occur … Or he must come to an understanding with his orchestra on particular occasions, namely that every whole or half bar should become to a degree brighter or darker, or whatever may be agreed. From time to time, however, precise specification will nevertheless be necessary so that one player does not get louder more quickly than another. The composer may, therefore, merely write p p . in the first bar, in the second cresc. and in the ninth f f .; in any case he may also add the sign
and the orchestra will make the second bar p. the third poco p. the fourth rinf. the fifth poco f. the sixth mf. the seventh più f . the eighth f . and the ninth f f .149
149 Ueber die Pflichten, 65–7.
Reichardt's assumption that performances would commonly be under the composer's direct control also hints at one reason why such markings were relatively infrequent in mid-eighteenth-century music, which was seldom written with a view to publication. In practice, very few composers in the 1770s or 1780s took the sort of care with their scores that Reichardt recommended, and very few orchestras seem to have achieved his ideal. This is reflected in his comments about ‘loud and soft and their various nuances’, where he remarked:
This is, for our feelings, what the attractive force of the moon is for the sea: it will just as surely cause ebb and flow in us. The majority of orchestras only recognize and practise forte and piano without bothering about the finer degrees or the shading of the whole. That is to say they paint the wall black and white: it is all very well if it is beautiful white and beautiful black, but what does it say? It is difficult, extraordinarily difficult, to get a whole orchestra to do that which already gives a single virtuoso much trouble. But it is certainly possible: one hears this in Mannheim, one has heard it in Stuttgart.150
The idea that orchestras were only just learning to produce effective dynamic contrasts at that time is supported by Christian Gottlob Neefe's report of 1783 that Kapellmeister Mattioli in Bonn ‘was the first to introduce accentuation, instrumental declamation, careful attention to forte and piano, all the degrees of light and shade in the orchestra of this place’.151Reichardt's treatment of the subject also implies that matters were not helped by confusion about the meaning of some of the terms employed at this period. He stated that such markings as m. v. (mezza voce) and f.v. (fatto voce—occasionally used as a synonym for ‘mezza voce’) were sometimes taken to mean the same as mf (mezzo forte) and sometimes even the same as fz. (forzato).152He might have added to his list pf. When this marking stood for ‘poco forte’, as proposed by Türk, and still occasionally used by Brahms (for instance in the second movement of his C minor Piano Trio), it indicated a dynamic level between f and mf; but it might easily be confused with pf standing for
‘più forte’, for example, in Galuppi's L'Olimpiade, where a crescendo is shown in something approaching Reichardt's manner by f — pf — fortissimo (Ex. 3.2.)
Ex. 3.2. Galuppi, L'Olimpiade, Act I, Scene i
150 Ibid. 59.
151 Magazin der Musik, 1 (1783), 377.
152 Ibid. 68.
The situation was further complicated by the fact that some of the same terms might be employed to indicate either an absolute dynamic level, an accent or a dynamic nuance. ‘Rinforzando’, for instance, was sometimes synonymous with
‘crescendo’, sometimes designated an accent on a single note and seems sometimes to have indicated an emphatic style of performance for a phrase or passage. And, as Reichardt's remarks and Gallupi's practice suggest, a composer might use a sequence of apparently abrupt dynamic levels to indicate a smooth crescendo or diminuendo. Terms such as
‘smorzando’, ‘morendo’, ‘calando’, ‘decrescendo’, ‘diminuendo’, might be used as synonyms or they might have particular and specific connotations; ‘calando’, for example, could be synonymous with ‘decrescendo’ and
‘diminuendo’, but it could also imply a slackening of tempo as well as a decrease in volume. Despite the pioneering example of a few composers, it was not until the last decade or so of the eighteenth century that the convention of indicating a gradual increase or decrease of volume by terms such as ‘cresc’ or ‘dim.’, or by ‘hairpins’, became commonplace.
Rapid diversification of musical style in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century progressively weakened the relationship between, on the one hand, clearly recognizable categories of music or conventions of notation, and, on the other, particular types of accentuation and dynamic shading. Schulz had already complained about this with respect to so-called ‘heavy and light’ performance styles in the 1770s.153Many composers, especially in the German sphere of influence, came increasingly to regard accentuation and dynamic nuance as integral to the individuality of their conceptions and were unwilling to entrust this merely to the performer's instinct. During the nineteenth century there was a proliferation of markings, designed to show finer grades or types of accents and dynamic effects, and performance instructions of all kinds were used ever more freely.
Pierre Baillot, from the vantage point of the fourth decade of the nineteenth century, was well aware of the consequences attendant on the development of a more individualistic, expressive, dramatic style in composition during the second half of the eighteenth century; he was also conscious that concomitantly with the growing reliance on notated dynamic and accentual detail came a decreasing awareness of the conventions that had conditioned such things in earlier music. He remarked:
This tendency towards the dramatic style was to give rise to the need to increase the number of signs and to notate every inflection in order to correspond as closely as possible to the wishes of the composer. This is what modern composers have done and this is what makes music written before this era much more difficult to perform and interpret well: we stress this point in order that students may not be in any way discouraged at the prospect of the
153 See Ch.16.
large number of works where the absence of signs makes an appeal to their intelligence which is bound to turn out to their advantage if they will only take the trouble to deepen their studies.154