2
IDRS Conference, Tempe, Arizona . . . 3
God Save the Queen (Version No. 3) . . . 4
William Waterhouse The Interpretation of the Ornamentation in Mozart’s Oboe Quartet K. 370 . . . 5
Trudy Fraase If Mozart Had Been a Bassoonist: Suggestions for a First-Movement Cadenza to K. 191 . . . 15
James A. Grymes Double Reed Players of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, 1936 . . . 20
Sketches by Gerome Brush A Comparative Examination of the Notation of Selected Orchestral Bassoon Solos . . . 29
Mark Avery Oboists and Electronics: Embracing a New Era . . . 43
Aaron Cohen Poems . . . 50
Travis A. Cox, Karen Hoagland, Maria Mendoza The Bell of a Bassoon Made by W. Hess . . . 51
Dr. Klaus Gillessen A Bassoon Part to Mozart’s Coronation Mass . . . 53
Dr. Klaus Gillesson Cartoons . . . 56
Lauris MacKenzie, K. L. Davis-Mendez, David Riddles IDRS Honorary Members . . . 58
Yard Sale Bassoon . . . 59
Paul Lein Vivaldi Identification Information-Cross Reference Chart, Part 2 . . . 63
Trevor Cramer Obituaries: Charles W.P. Cracknell, William S. Buzzard, Wilbur H. Simpson . . . 65
Making Modern Music in Moscow: a Travelogue . . . 67
Dr. Jeffrey Lyman Back Issue Order Form . . . 72
How to Make UltraLyte Easy Playing Bassoon Reeds . . . 73
Arthur L. Gudwin, M.D. A Nearly Foolproof Method of Forming Bassoon Reeds . . . 79
Nicola A. Adamo The History of the Oboe Class at the Prague Conservatoire . . . 81
Miloslav Masier From the Past: Reprints of Double Reed Articles from Woodwind Magazine . . . 83
The Reed Problem Don Christlieb . . . 83
Letter from England Gwydion Brooke . . . 85
Woodwind Intonation Theodor Poduus . . . 87
The Horrors of Bassooning Sol Schoenbach . . . 89
The Vibrato Problem, I & II George Opperman . . . 90
The Truth About Vibrato Josef Marx . . . 94
Bassoon and Powder Puff No. 2 Gloria Solloway . . . 97
Simplifying the Bassoon Simon Kovar . . . 100
From Paris Ben Spieler . . . 102
Paul Bunyan-Bassonist Extraordinary Floyd E. Low . . . 104
International Double Reed Society Membership Application . . . 106
Bassoon Music Reviews . . . 107
Ronald Klimko IDRS Online . . . 114
Playing “Short” High Notes on the Hautboy . . . 115
Bruce Haynes A Bassoon Lite, Please - Der Fickle . . . 119
Alan Goodman Stan the Man . . . 121
Alan Goodman Regression Analysis as an Aid in Making Oboe Reeds . . . 122
Katherine Ceasar-Spall, James C. Spall Report of the Executive Secretary/Treasurer . . . 128
Lowry Riggins Lost Sheep . . . 129
Contributing Members . . . 130
The Use of the IDRS Trade Marks . . . 133
Classified Ads . . . 133 Advertisers Index . . . 134
The
Journal
of the
Cover IDRS OfficersINTERNATIONAL
DOUBLE REED
SOCIETY
JOURNAL NO. 25, e-Edition
JULY 1997
THE DOUBLE REED ISSN 0741-7659
Ronald Klimko and Daniel Stolper, Editors; e-Edition edited by Yoshiyuki Ishikawa
© International Double Reed Society
Idaho Falls, Idaho, U.S.A. - I997
Designed and Printed by
Falls Printing Company
Idaho Falls, Idaho
IDRS OFFICERS
President
Yoshiyuki (Yoshi) Ishikawa College of Music: Box 301 University of Colorado, Boulder Boulder, CO 80309-0301
Bus.: (303) 492-7297 FAX: (303) 581-9307 E-mail: [email protected] 1st Vice President
Marc Fink
School of Music: UW-Madison 455 North Park Street Madison, WI 53706-1483 Bus.: (608) 263-1900 FAX: (608) 262-8876 E-mail: [email protected] 2nd Vice President Roger Birnstingl 12 Chemin Kermerly 1206 Geneva, Switzerland Tel/Fax: 022 3474425 Past President Charles O. Veazey College of Music - UNT P.O. Box 13887 Denton, TX 76203-3887 Bus.: (817) 565-3718 FAX: (817) 565-2002 Home: (817) 565-2002 Secretary Norma R. Hooks
Western Maryland College 2423 Lawndale Road Finksburg, MD 21048-1401 Home: (410) 876-2171 FAX: (410) 857-9144 E-mail: [email protected] At-Large Nancy E. Goeres 100 Denniston Ave. #52 Pittsburgh, PA 15206-4042 Phone/FAX: (412) 661-3004 Cynthia Koledo DeAlmeida 2210 Almanack Ct. Pittsburgh, PA 15237-1502 Phone: (412) 369-5325 Executive Secretary-Treasurer Lowry Riggins 626 Lakeshore Drive Monroe, LA 71203-4032 Phone: (318) 343-5715 FAX: (318) 345-1159 E-mail: [email protected]
Music Industry Liaison Peter Klatt, Forrests Music 1849 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94703-1585
Bus.: (510) 845-7178 FAX: (510) 845-7145 E-mail: [email protected]
Bassoon Editor Ronald James Klimko
Lionel Hampton School of Music University of Idaho Moscow, ID 83844-4015 Bus.: (208) 885-6594 FAX: (208) 885-7254 E-mail: [email protected] Oboe Editor Daniel J. Stolper 1515 West Kalamazoo St. Lansing, MI 48915 Bus.: (517) 355-7727 FAX: (517) 432-2880 E-mail: [email protected]
IDRS On-Line Publications Editor Yoshiyuki (Yoshi) Ishikawa E-Mail: [email protected] IDRS WWW: HTTP://idrs.colorado.edu Librarian
James C. Prodan
School of Music: UNC Greensboro Greensboro, NC 27412-5001 Bus.: (910) 334-5789 FAX: (910) 334-5497 E-mail: [email protected] Gillet Competition Bassoon Chair Barrick R. Stees School of Music
Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1043 Bus.: (517) 355-7663 E-mail: [email protected]
Oboe Chair
Nancy Ambrose King School of Music University of Illinois 1114 W. Nevada Street Urbana, IL 61801 Bus.: (217) 333-3360 FAX: (217) 244-4585 E-mail: [email protected]
Associate Editors: Referee Board William Davis - Athens, GA David Dutton - Spokane, WA Charles Koster - San Fernando, CA David Rhodes - Waterford, Ireland Arthur Weisberg - Boca Raton, FL Wilma Zonn - Hendersonville, TN Jeffrey Lyman - Tempe, AZ Legal Counsel
Jacob Schlosser 4937 West Broad Street Columbus, OH 43228-1668 Home: (614) 262-1974
Bus.: (614) 878-7251 FAX: (614) 878-6948
Table of Contents
IDRS JOURNAL 3
Martin Schuring, Host
TEL 602 /965.3439
E-M Martin.Schuring
@asu.edu
Jeffrey Lyman, Co-host
TEL 602 /965.3726
E-M Jeffrey.Lyman
@asu.edu
Camelback Odyssey Travel
supports IDRS ’98 with
contri-butions based upon the
num-ber of participants booking
with Marlene Rausch. For
more information, please call
her at: 1- 800/480.7947 or
602/473.2425.
International Double Reed Society Conference
2 – 6 June • Arizona State University • School of Music • Tempe AZ 85287
Double reed artists revive our past, define our present,
and shape our future. The
1998
Conference includes
a special invitational series of premieres, retrospectives,
experiments, and chronologies entitled Identity.
ThD
God Save the Queen (Version No. 3)
By William Waterhouse
London, England
his is a footnote to the Trio for Oboe,
Bassoon and Piano written by Jean Françaix
in 1994 in response to a commission by the IDRS in conjunction with four other DR Societies. It is intended to draw attention to a musi-cal quotation which might otherwise escape due notice. It occurs during the very last five measures of the work. With characteristic wit the composer has marked the right-hand of the piano part ‘le chant surnoisement en dehors’, which may be trans-lated as ‘the tune surreptitiously to the fore’.
In a letter dated the 11th August 1995 written to Erik Langeveld, co-host of the IDRS Conference at Rotterdam. Françaix referred to it thus: “The allusion to God Save the Queen with which it ends is a wink of the eye at my old friend Waterhouse, to whom the trio is dedicated.”
For the work’s premiere in Rotterdam, the
com-poser contributed the following programme note: “If people don’t like my ‘Trio pour Hautbois, Basson et Piano’, I have a scapegoat: my old friend Waterhouse from England, who pushes the European spirit so far as to play his German bas-soon with a French sonority. It was he who, by dint of constant requests, persuaded me to write for a Trinity unknown to the New Testament. This com-bination of instruments balances better than that of violin, cello and piano. All too often the strings are drowned by Steinway power: but the oboe and bassoon can get the pianist to dance to their tune without making him draw in his claws — which most of them hate having to do. On the other hand the oboe and bassoon, being wind players, need their bars rest to enjoy the odd breather — to the delight of the pianist, who can use the occasion to let off steam. I have enjoyed manipulating my three Graces by adopting a very classical style, although I am unable to guarantee my harmonies to be entirely free of fifths and octaves … May the audi-ence derive a similar pleasure from it!”
After the show I couldn’t resist writing to the composer to tell him that his ‘wink of the eye’
con-stituted, from now on, my favorite version of our national anthem. He replied: “I wish to confirm that from now on there are three versions of the British National Anthem: the one that belongs to Charles, the one that belongs to Diana, and ‘la version Jean (Françaix)’. And yet nonetheless, this anthem is as indivisible as the French Republic itself — of this fact the France of today is a proof. Ah, sweet mystery of the Holy Trinity — Church of England style!” *
Here are the new harmonies to which Jean Françaix has set the opening strain of God Save
the Queen (known also to Americans as My Country Tis of Thee). For the actual text of his
version, with its syncopated rhythms, the print-ed score (©1995 Schott Musik International, Mainz) should be consulted.
Here to conclude with is some good news for
all fellow bassoonists. Last February, I was in Paris to view an exhibition celebrating the com-poser’s recent 85th birthday and to visit the Maître. To my surprise and delight he told me that he had just finished a two-movement work for bassoon and piano entitled Petite
divertisse-ment militaire. He had written it for a pianist
friend living outside Paris whose American-born wife happens to play bassoon. I was able to inspect the finale, which at first glance seemed to be in much the same vein as the finale of the Trio. He had not as yet shown it to his publisher. Let us hope that in the meantime he has already done so, and that an exciting new addition to our repertory will soon be available to his many admirers throughout the world. ❖
With acknowledgements to the composer and to Messrs. Schott: translations are by the author.
* O mystère anglicano-chrètien de la Sainte Trinité!
t is generally agreed that the practice of orna-mentation came about through improvisation, traced as far back as the ornamental neumes of the early Medieval Ages. Neumann (1988, p. 72-73) speculates that the first ornaments were pitches a singer added to the melody of a song, thereby forming two or more pitches to a syllable; that is, a melisma. He goes on to state that “[s]uch ornamentation was ‘melodic’ in the sense that pitches were added between the regular, or struc-tured notes of the song … Up to about 1600 all ornaments were of this ‘melodic’ kind; they deco-rated and enlivened the melody, but did not have any effect on the harmony.” The first “harmonic” dissonances were made by displacing “a note on a strong beat with another a step above or below, forming an appoggiatura.”
From this evolved the countless varieties of ornamentation. Some of the ornamental figures were used often enough for them to be grouped into formulas, which then came to be “repre-sented by the shorthand device of a symbol.” (Neumann 1988, p. 73). Herein begins all the trouble.
Neumann (1988, p. 71) identifies three ways in which ornamentation is reflected in notation: 1) indicated by symbols, 2) written out in regular notation, 3) not notated at all. It is with the first notation of ornaments, the symbols, with which this paper is concerned. The obvious problem is, of course, how to properly interpret these sym-bols. Even with instructions from theorists of the period under discussion, there is still room for doubt. “Treatises give full and explicit instructions on the performance of melodic ornaments. Yet no full agreement concerning notation of performance of these figures.” (Ratner 1980, p. 196).
One might question why the use of symbols remained so widespread when, even at the height of their use, there was no agreement as to their precise interpretation One theorist of the time, Schiebe, supported their use as “he had in mind that a performer who sees only the main notes (chiefly the harmony notes) of the melody writ-ten down writ-tend to give these main notes their nat-ural weight, and to festoon his own ornamental figuration in between with the requisite lightness
and elegance This makes everything clear, and in proper balance. But if the ornamental figuration has been fully written out by the composer, it all looks equally important to the eye, and the per-former tends to play or sing the ornamental notes as emphatically as the structural notes.” (Donington 1963, p. 94). Neumann (1988, pp. 72-74) looks at it with a slightly different slant. He feels that “All ornaments are born of free impro-visation and as such they were born free … It is emphatically not the function of ornaments to harden, stiffen, to regularize the musical texture. An ornament that is rendered with military drill precision is a contradiction in terms.” With this view of the ornament in mind, Neumann prefers the use of the symbol because it “is not only a convenient shorthand device, but is actually a superior notational device because it allows it to assume, however subtly. ever differing shapes.”
How the ornaments are to be executed then, is ultimately left up to the performer. “As with articulation, tempo, and dynamics, application of ornamentation was often dictated by personal taste.’’ (Warner 1964, p. 134) Obviously, this leads to a multitude of interpretations, none of which can be labeled incorrect as long as the character of the ornament remains clear: to dec-orate but not to obscure the melody, and to be delivered in a free, improvisatory fashion.
As we look into the use of ornamentation in the music of Mozart, we must keep in mind that the heyday of the use of embellishments had already passed.“Free ornamentation began to lose its sta-tus as a primary element of interpretation during the second half of the eighteenth century.” (Donington 1963, p. 117). Cole (1990, p. 170) observes that “Mozart himself opposed excessive embellishment by performers” and Warner (1964, p. 163) takes a quote of Quantz; “In no event should excessive ornamentation occur.” This frees us from any sense of obligation to fill up Mozart’s music with every kind of free ornamen-tation applicable. A performer could feel safe with keeping his music simply decorated with only the ornaments that Mozart indicates.
In doing the research for this paper, I found the topic of ornamentation to be quite large. The material could, and has, taken up several books. I
IDRS JOURNAL 5
The Interpretation of the Ornamentation in Mozart’s
Oboe Quartet K. 370 (368b)
By Trudy Fraase
Zeeland, North Dakota
have therefore restricted myself to the discussion of those ornamental formula commonly found in the wind instrument solos of Mozart. Those orna-ments more suited to the voice, string, or key-board instruments will not be covered here.
Let us turn first to the simplest and most com-mon of embellishments, the Vorschlag. Simply speaking, the Vorschlag is a single ornamental pitch that precedes, and is slurred to, its principal note. I will follow Neumann’s designations of “appoggiatura” for a Vorschlag that falls on the beat, and “grace note” for one that precedes the beat. In the writings of other theorists, the terms “long” and “short” appoggiaturas have been used. In the interpretation of the appoggiatura, many theorists and performers follow the three rules established by Türk: 1) “Whenever it is possible to divide the main note into two equal parts, the appoggiatura relieves one-half.”
2) “When the main note is dotted, the appog-giatura relieves two-thirds of it, and the main note one-third.”
3) “If the main note is tied to another, shorter note, the appoggiatura relieves the whole value of the main note.” (Hamilton 1930, pp. 17-18).
Hamilton says exceptions to these rules are made if it would interfere with the desired har-monic or rhythmic progression. Here too, he cautions: “All three rules, indeed, should be interpreted in the light of the performer’s artis-tic sense.” Quantz, C.P.E. Bach, and Leopold Mozart supplemented these rules with one more about an “overlong” appoggiatura “that takes the whole value of the principal note if the latter is followed by either a tie or a rest.” (Neumann 1988, p. 93)
Many other theorists support this method of interpreting appoggiaturas for Mozart. Dannreuther (1895, p. 95) advises the performer: “In case of doubt, sing or play the main notes of the entire phrase without ornaments, but in full tempo. Then insert the sign where it seems want-ed, and interpret as you are told - e.g. in Leopold Mozart’s Gründliche Schule.” Ratner (1980, p. 201) feels that “ … Türk’s recommendations regarding tempo, articulation, accent, and dynamics are valid generally for the music of his time.” Does this imply acceptance of his recom-mendations for ornamentations also?
In applying these rules to W.A. Mozart, some writers believe the rules of Leopold Mozart, which agree with Türk’s, can be applied to the music of his son. “Mozart’s ornaments are based mainly on the practice of his father, Leopold Mozart (1719-1787), as set forth in the latter’s
Gründliche Violinschule, published in 1756.”
(Hamilton 1930, p. 5). “There is no evidence which could lead one to believe that W.A. Mozart departed from his father’s practices as regards the rendering of ornament.” (Dannreuther 1895, p. 95)
Neumann takes a firm stand against this assumption. “In a very extensive search I found out … that Mozart followed the ‘half-a-binary’ rule only for appoggiaturas before the relatively short (a quarter-note or less) principal notes; that he did not honor the ‘two-thirds of a ternary’ rule; that with regard to the ‘overlong’ pattern I had found only two instances out of countless thou-sands that would apply to be a rest and not a
sin-gle one that would apply to a tie.” (1988, p. 93). He
suggests that the “overlong” manner was going out of style or that Mozart was leaning toward Italian ways. Neumann also disagrees with the rules set down by Türk whether applied to Mozart or not. “Türk shows his pedantry by not taking into account the need for music to breathe and not be shackled by a mechanical beat.” (1986, p. 15).
There are variations and differences to Türk’s rules by his contemporaries. For example, “C.P.E. Bach tried to establish the rule that the small note should represent the true value of the appoggiatura … a practice which was not how-ever, invariably followed.” (Hamilton 1930, p. 17). The theorist Geminiani gave the auxiliary note over half the length of the principal note.
Neumann still councils for flexibility and resists the application of set rules for the execution of this ornament. The symbol of an appoggiatura, he feels, “invites greater dynamic and rhythmic flexi-bility than would a regular note.” (1986, p. 6). He suggests the possibility of slight variations in length. The quarter-note symbol, for example, would stand for a mostly-long appoggiatura and will be held for approximately (not exactly) the value of a quarter-note (1986, pp. 32-33).
Special mention must be made of the rhyth-mic figure eighth and two sixteenths preceded by a grace note. Beyschlag (1953, p. 196) asserts that as with Haydn and other composers of this era, the notation is always realized as four six-teenths, end of discussion. Hamilton (1930, p. 17) evidently agrees as he lists that solution under the first rule of Türk (see illustration 1). Neumann calls this equalization, and concedes that it probably applies in most cases for Mozart. However, he feels there is still and area of ambiguity. He quotes Quantz as saying the appoggiatura must be played in the time of the preceding note.
C.P.E. Bach and Agricola, he notes, both call for short appoggiaturas, that is, no equalization. Even Türk seems to call for short appoggiaturas except when the figure grows out of a sequence of sixteenths-notes, in which case one should play them as equal with an accent on the appog-giatura (Neumann 1986, pp. 81-84).
Neumann seems to carry no strong prefer-ence for the realization of this figure, and rather just sums up the choices available to the per-former (1986, pp. 88-89).
The main variations to be considered are 1)
evenly spaced notes with the first one empha-sized beyond its normal metrical stress (which is probably what Pleyel had in mind); 2) in slow tempos, and mainly for the scale formula [a descending or ascending pattern], a slight lengthening of the Vorschlag note (which is what Steglich had in mind); 3) the shortening of the appoggiatura in the sense of Hiller, Lasser, and Türk; 4) once in awhile grace notes in the sense of Dannreuther, Döbereiner, and, pre-sumably, Peter.
Certainly soloists can use their inherently greater freedom of execution to vary the rendi-tion of the formula in one of these ways when the musical context favors such adjustment.
The most difficult problem of the use of the grace note, or short appoggiatura, is in deciding when its use is necessary. Here C.P.E. Bach advocated the practice of using a small note of low value (such as a sixteenth or thirty-second note) to indicate a short appoggiatura. It was later improved by adding a dash through the stem of the small note. However, when his device was first coming into use, the supple-mentary dash was often left out, thereby mak-ing it difficult to determine whether a long or short appoggiatura was intended (Hamilton 1930, pp. 22-23). Another factor causing difficul-ty is discussed by Neumann (1986, p. 65). “In his early years, Mozart was often casual in choos-ing the value of his Vorschlag symbols. With maturity Mozart became more circumspect about his Vorschlag notation, but never fully consistent.”
Neumann (1986, pp. 40-58) lists several situ-ations in which the Vorschlag should probably be treated as a grace note. One very important consideration is that a characteristic rhythm not be disturbed by ornamental additions. Such cases require the grace note realization to keep the integrity of the rhythm. He feels that groups of three in binary meter are probably in the greatest need of preserving the characteristic rhythm. Upward leaping instrumental
Vorschläge will generally be grace notes but will
occasionally need appoggiatura treatment as suggested by the context. Vorschläge usually get grace note treatment when they appear before a staccato note or when they rise a half-step to the main note (and are written as a six-teenth or shorter). Two or more repeated notes, each of which are preceded by a
Vorschlag which rises by a half-step almost
always should be a grace note. Along the lines of the characteristic rhythm situation is that of syncopation, which also needs to preserve its
integrity (i.e. grace note treatment). Especially important are the rhythms dotted-eighth, six-teenth, eighth in 3/8 or 6/8 time, and the anapest figure below.
Finally, when it appears the main note itself is an appoggiatura to another note, the grace note real-ization for the small note is probably safe.
Outside of such specific cases, Neumann has some general advice to help determine the use of short or long appoggiatura (1986, pp. 62-69). “Whenever an appoggiatura would obscure rather than embellish the underlying melody, we should substitute a grace-note, since a melody has a right to its basic integrity … The greater the disparity between the value of the symbol and that of the principle note, the more the scales are weighted toward grace-note intention … Generally we find many more instances in which a Vorschlag is rendered shorter than its denomination than the oppo-site.”
Other theorists have a few guidelines also. Donington (1963, p. 148) quotes Wolf in his
Unterricht of 1787 “[Short appoggiaturas appear
only before short notes, when] the main note itself loses almost nothing at all.” Dolmetsch lists two situations which require a short appoggiatura (1946, p. 104). “An appoggiatura to a note of the shortest value used in the piece or passage where it occurs must be played very short … An appoggiatura to a note forming a discord with the bass, augmented fourth, diminished fifth, seventh, second, etc. must be played very short or else the discord will be changed into a concord, and the harmony spoiled.” Beyschlag (1953, p. 204) claims that there is no short appoggiatura in Mozart as he feels they did not come into use until after his death.
The other argument regarding the short appoggiatura is whether it should occur on the beat or as a pre-beat figure, and whether the stress should occur on the main note or the grace note. As stated earlier, Neumann prefers the pre-beat realization because it is described as light and the principal note accented. He feels that the figure can be light and on the beat in slow tempos, but that it becomes impractical in faster tempos (1986, pp. 8-9). He also notes that the theorist Milchmeyer in 1798 favors the
pre-beat as he illustrates the performance of a grace note preceding three eighth notes as being realized before the beat (1986, pp. 11-12). Dannreuther (1895, pp. 63-64) notes that Leopold Mozart emphasized that “short appog-giatura indicated by small semiquavers are to be played as quickly as possible.”
Later Dannreuther states that the stress is on the main note. This does not give us a defi-nite indication of pre-beat or on-the-beat place-ment, however. Donington (1963, p. 194) is a hard-core advocate of on-the-beat playing for all ornaments: “We have no such excuse for tak-ing these ornaments before the beat, or for beginning them before the beat, since all the authorities appear to assume that they fall on the beat, and a number of them, including J. A. Hiller (Anweisung zum Violinspielen, 1792), J.H. Knecht (Methodenbuch, early 19th cent.), and I. Pleyel (Méthode de pfte., early 19th cent.) actu-ally state the fact.” Hamilton (1930, p. 23) can also be counted among the on-the-beat advo-cates: “It is important to observe that through-out the classic period the short, as well as the long appoggiatura, takes its time from that of the main note, which is slightly shortened in consequence.” Cole (1990, p. 173) tends toward Neumann’s interpretation of the figure but asks an open question: “In his eagerness to combat the rigidity of the on-beat advocates, has Neumann tilted the balance too far in favor of pre-beat execution?”
One special case in the Vorschlag ornamen-tation is the cadential formula with the
Vorschlag before the fifth of the dominant.
Neumann is the only one to really discuss this as a separate case and he feels either long or short treatment will do (1986, p.76). “For this formula the NMA [Neue Mozart Ausgabe] often suggests the grace note, often the appoggiatu-ra, and the former, it would seem, more fre-quently. Both will be generally possible and it will be well to alternate their use.”
The slide is a series of two or three notes in succession that lead up or down to the main note. Here again the problem lies in the pre-beat, on-the-beat debate. Hamilton (1930), p. 59), in his definition of a slide indicates his on-beat preference: “In the slide (German
“Schliefer”), two quick notes lead up, or (less
which their time is taken [emphasis mine].” Dolmetsch (1946, p. 243) admits to some dis-crepancies but prefers the on-beat: “In all the examples of slides we have seen so far the orna-ment is played in the time of the principal note. This rule, however, was not followed by every-body. There always were some who played the graces before the notes to which they belong, in opposition to the practice of the great masters.” Neumann (1986, pp. 97-98) admits to the popu-larity of the on-beat slide but again advises the use of a little lee-way. “With the advent of the
gallant style and the spread of the on beat
prin-ciple for ornaments, German treatises usually transcribed the symbol in the Lombard style … Mozart uses the Lombard type, always written in regular notes, fairly often. The written-out form of the Lombard slide is never replaced in analogous spots by symbols, and this along
suggests a difference in meaning. Yet there are some cases where a Lombard interpretation of the symbol makes good sense.” Neumann names one specific exception to the Lombard rhythm: “A staccato mark over the principal note invites the anapest lest the sharpness of articulation be blunted.”
With the trill the argument rages over whether it should begin with the main note or the upper auxiliary note. Only two of the sources for this paper take the hard-line position that it must always begin with the upper tone. One is Dannreuther (1895, p. 63), who takes his position from Leopold Mozart, whom he says emphasizes that “All shakes, even the shortest transient shakes, start with the upper-accessory.” The other is Dolmetsch (1946, p. 180) who finds his evidence in John Quantz’s “Versuch” of 1752. “Every shake begins with an appoggiatura which is before its note and is taken from above or below.” Dolmetsch (p. 158) himself states that “the shake is closely allied to the appoggiatura from above. It can be used in the same places, the latter often serving as a preparation to it.”
Some writers merely state the ambiguity of the situation but give no help to the performer in determining which to use. “The trill could be short or long, begin on the upper or lower notes, and carry an additional ornamental turn either at its beginning or at its end.” (Rather 1980, p. 197). Beyschlag (1953, p. 204) says that if Mozart followed the maxim of his father, the trill begins
on the auxiliary note, but that Wolfgang was not always so fussy with it. Donington will admit that “as early as Daniel Gottlieb Türk (Klavierschule 1789) we find a hint that exception to the upper-note start occurred, though he does not show any such exception in his examples.” He will even go so far as to observe: “The trill was not again, in short, what it had previously been in the sixteenth century: a primarily melodic orna-ment. As such, it should perhaps more logically have a main-note start [emphasis mine]; but this is not a pressing necessity, as the upper-note start is for a harmonic trill.” Donington hastily assures us though, that the upper-note start is standard until the second quarter of the nine-teenth century, especially for the works of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert (1963, pp. 191-192).
“Mozart’s trill, following long-standing Italian tradition, is essentially a main-note trill. This is true to the point where one can say that the first [choice] for Mozart’s trill should be the start with the main note.”: so says Neumann (1989, p. 185). He is, of course, always flexible: “There are, however, contexts that favor the start with the upper auxiliary … I suggest leav-ing out the trill and askleav-ing yourself if a short appoggiatura or a grace note could be prof-itably added to the unadorned note. If so, then the trill could be sensibly rendered according-ly.” Neumann does give more specific examples of when a main-note trill is preferable, but we will come to those shortly.
Hamilton is perhaps the performer’s best guide other than Neumann, for the specific instances that call for a main-note or upper-note trill (1940, pp. 48-49).
During Bach’s time and up to about 1800, trills began regularly on the auxiliary note … Important exceptions to this rule, however, occur (a) when the trill begins a composition or section of it abruptly; (b) when it follows a stac-cato note or rest; (c) when the main note is a prominent note of the melody, such as one which occurs after a downward leap; (d) when the main note is preceded by the note immedi-ately below or above.”
If the trill is preceded by an appoggiatura, or by the note above slurred to the main note, the trill begins as though the preceding note were tied to it.
Neumann agrees with Hamilton as to when the trills should begin on the main note, but he also adds a few other circumstances (1986, pp. 117-124). Where a triadic formula or a pitch repetition is clearly thematic, the trill needs to start on the main note to maintain that thematic integrity. A scalewise melody is to be treated in the same fashion. Neumann feels that short trills that are part of a distinct melodic line need to start on the main note. This contrasts with Donington (1963, p. 193) who says that short trills or half trills start on the upper note. Neumann also notes that trill chains and trills on the leading-tone also belong on the list of main-note trills; the latter in order to bring out the tension in the pull toward resolu-tion. He concludes this all with a bit of evidence to support his main-note preference: “There seems to be no instance of a scale leading up to the written pitch of any trill, evidence that would have suggested an upper-note start … When Mozart intended a supported appoggiatura trill (i.e. one starting with a lengthened upper note) he usually indicated his wish.” (p. 114).
Nearly everyone agrees that most trills should add on the two-note suffix whenever it is easily accommodated. This suffix may or may not be written out. “A suffix written out in regular notes for the soloist need not be rendered with mechan-ical precision: being an ornament it may be, and often should be, done faster, as if it had been writ-ten in little notes. When the suffix is not marked it should still be added when circumstances favor it.” (Neumann 1986, p. 113). The half-trill, or short trill, according to Donington (1963, p. 193), should be unterminated. Dolmetsch (1969, p. 188) also adds that descending passages, short notes, sev-eral trills following one another, and trills that end in several short notes that serve as a termination don’t need the two-note suffix.
“For ornaments, and especially for turns, there are always a number of possible solutions, and one needs to select the one that seems to be the most satisfying in a given context.” (Neumann 1989, p. 165) The turn offers the greatest freedom in interpretation. The theorists say little on the subject, or confine themselves to general guide-lines, hesitating to dictate a concrete example. For instance, Dolmetsch (1969, p. 237) is content to mention the advise of Türk only as: “The quick turn begins with the principal note. It must be played as indicated (a), not as at (b).
The principal note must not be played twice in succession.”
Hamilton (1930, pp. 39-43) observes that after the time of Bach, the upper of the turn is diatonic while the lower could be a half-step. Generally, the turn should be played rapidly, stoping on the last note, except in rapid tempo when the notes should all be of equal value.
When the sign is written over a note that is pre-ceded by a rest or a staccato note, the turn begins on the main note, not the upper.
The sign written between two notes indicates an embedded turn, which is usually played with a stop on the first note, and the turn is played quickly before the next note.
Hamilton feels that the turn best begins on an inconspicuous part of the beat after a long note. And finally, he advises that: “If the first of the two notes be dotted, and followed by a note of value equal to the dot, but of different pitch, the turn should end on the dot.”
Neumann (1986, pp. 136-159) in his general guide-lines mentions that Mozart often uses four little notes instead of the turn symbol. He cautions that this can be misleading “by obscuring the fact that only the first three notes are ornamen-tal, whereas the fourth is the tail end of the prin-cipal note … as such it is often, notably after dot-ted notes, held longer than the first three …” He agrees with Hamilton that the first note of the embedded turn should be a sustained if possible. Also similar to Hamilton is Neumann’s assertion
that for a binary note, the turn should go right into the following pitch whereas a dotted note will have the last pitch of the turn ending on the dot (see illustration numbers 14 and 15). As to the speed of the turn, Neumann advises: “For Mozart I would venture the suggestion that when in doubt, choose a fast rendition over a slower one … ” Neumann disagrees with Hamilton on the turn placed over a note following a rest. He feels that it is fitting for the turn to begin on the auxil-iary note, although it is not to be automatically applied.
Finally, he mentions the placement of stress: “A turn that occurs in the middle of a beat can hardly every have a claim to appoggiatura function; hence it will never be accented and will generally incline to anticipation.”
One may wonder at this point about the mor-dent, a common devise of the period and the one preceding. Mozart, however, simply did not use the mordent symbol (Neumann 1988, p. 100).
Now let us apply the information gathered above to a specific work of Mozart. I chose the
Oboe Quartet K. 370 (368b) written in 1781. The
examples I looked at were for Oboe Solos, pub-lished by Amsco Music and copywriter 1958.
The first ornamentaL figures belong to the rhythmic figuration eighth-two sixteenths.
The Neue Mozart Ausgabe (NMA) indicates in parenthesis which appoggiatura they believe should receive grace-note treatment. This is one area that they so indicate. This agrees with Neumann’s decision that this rhythmic figure should always receive grace-note realization and with the theorists (Donington and Dolmetsch) who advise grace notes for Vorschläge to short notes. As for those theorists who believe only long appoggiaturas can be used in Mozart, I honestly don’t know how it could be done.
The next ornaments we must deal with are
trills. There is a quarter-note trill in measure 19 which, according to the rules of Hamilton and Neumann, can be a main-note trill because the note preceding it is an upper note leading into it.
The figure would probably be realized as in illustration 10. Also, a finishing turn would be very appropriate here. The trills in measures 21 and 23 offer a more difficult problem. As I don’t believe the repeated pitches are clearly thematic, I think the trills could be played either upper-auxiliary or main-note, depending on the facility of the per-former. Personally, I prefer the upper-auxiliary for more flare.
Measures 25 and 26 contain the scale formula in the rhythmic pattern of an approggiatura pro-ceeding and eighth and two sixteenths, with all its possible realizations. As many theorists pre-fer equalization, and even Neumann admits it probably applies to most cases in Mozart, I think this traditions approach could confidently be used. However, I feel that the character of this movement supports the possibility of grace-note interpretation as preferred by Quantz in illustra-tion 6.
We come at last to turn figurations in measures 31 and 32. As they follow a dotted note, we can safely use the formula given in illustration 15. Those feeling a little bolder may wish to experi-ment with a less rigidly rhythmical realization as Neumann suggests, keeping in mind the need for a lengthened initial and final note.
The trill in measure 55 can be either main-note or upper-note. It is not a strong cadential trill and therefore does not require an upper note. Also, it could be considered a leading-tone trill which is
favorable to the main-note interpretation. It is for these reasons that I favor the main-note trill here; but by following the suggestion of removing the trill and playing an appoggiatura, we find that it is not out of place. The finishing turn is written out and although it doesn’t have to be in time (accord-ing to Neumann), it seems to fit so nicely.
The sequence of trills in measures 62-63 would most likely be main-note trills as they are a chain of trills, move upward in a scale-like fash-ion, and begin after a rest. Those that favor the upper-note start could argue for the resulting even number of notes in the figure, but I think the figure passes too quickly for that to be a signifi-cant determining factor.
The next figure in measures 84 and 87 is men-tioned specifically by Neumann (1986, p. 53) as being grace notes because they rise a half-step and are written as sixteenth notes. (The dash across the stem makes it a sixteenth.)
The NMA, however does not indicate that this figure should receive short appoggiatura treatment. I lean more toward the grace note as I think treating the Vorschlag long and giv-ing it the “half-a-binary” rule would place too much emphasis on the G sharp. Perhaps bet-ter would be to treat it as a long appoggiatu-ra but follow Neumann’s suggestion of vary-ing the length of the appoggiatura, givvary-ing it,
say, more or less the value of an eighth or six-teenth-note.
The trill of measure 85 and 88 needs an appog-giature as it is very definitely a cadential trill. There is a case for a main note trill as it is pre-ceded by the lower note and could be considered a leading-tone trill (leading to a false cadence). I feel the length of it, and the underlying har-monies in the strings make the upper-note trill a better choice. Here again, the termination is writ-ten in, but in small notes.
The trills in measure 112 I believe to be best rendered as main-note because they are in a chain and part of a descending scale passage. Now, I think it is most commonly done as upper-note trills, and is probably not wrong to do so. In either case, these short trills do not require a ter-mination.
In the second movement, the first ornamental symbol we encounter in measure 11 is the caden-tial formula type discussed by Neumann. Although the NMA often recommends grace-note realization, here it recommends the long appog-giatura treatment. I agree, as the grace note would interrupt the slow melodious line. I usual-ly play this as in illustration 26.
The rhythmic figure eighth and two six-teenths preceded by an appoggiatura is encountered again in measure 20. Here I favor equalization to preserve the smooth character
of the melody and because a pattern of six-teenths has already been established. The same rhythmic figure occurs once again in measure 27.
Measure 27 also finds a trill that can easily be played as a main-note trill. It is preceded by the note immediately below it. On the other hand, it is probably not entirely incorrect to start it with an appoggiatura, either. Once again the sensibilities of the performer will have to come into play.
A cadenza is called for in the 31st measure. It is signaled by the fermata over a leading. As this paper hasn’t covered the topic of cadenzas, I will hold myself to the general principles that a cadenza should not be too long, and that it should be in the style and technical level of the rest of the movement.
The third movement introduces the use of the slide in the opening measure and again in measures 17 and 25. These slides are men-tioned specifically by Neumann (1986, p. 101). He feels they need to occur before the beat as the principal note is staccato. The aim is to pre-serve the sharpness of articulation.
The turn in measure 30 follows a quarter note and so could receive the binary treatment. That is, the first note will be held, and the turn will lead straight into the next note. Again, the length of the held note, and thus the speed of the turn, can vary.
The turn at measure 45 is discussed by Neumann (1986, p. 159). He gives two possible solutions (illustration 30). I had been using the first one, but now I prefer the second realiza-tion. It seems cleaner. Similar turns can be real-ized the same way at measures 52 and 57.
I believe the Vorschläge in measures 52, 54,
56, and 58 would be grace notes as the figure is one in which Neumann recommends preserving the rhythmic integrity. The NMA also recom-mends grace-note treatment here.
We come again to the equalization verses grace note debate in measure 96 and 100. The grace-note interpretation may well be used here as there is no established pattern and the char-acter of the movement would accommodate it. However, we may wish to keep in mind the use of equalization as this is the first chance we get to establish the meter change to alle breve. This need becomes all the more important when we consider that the piano is continuing in 6/8 time.
The subsequent trills in measures 97 and 101 can be main-note trills as they are preceded by the note immediately above. Once again the interpretation would probably be as in illustra-tion 10.
The chain of turns in measure 98 present a special problem. In spite of the fact that all the turns begin after a dotted note, the rapid tempo disallows any chance of prolonging the first note except in the first case, or of ending the turn on the dot. In this case we must follow the advice of Hamilton and give the notes equal value.
The trill in measure 111, I feel, needs the appoggiatura as it definitely has a cadential feel. The two-note suffix can and should be applied here. As the next note is below the trilled note, the effect will be of a mordent rather than a turn.
Likewise, the trill at 150 is also cadential and should receive the same treatment. This trill also resolves downward and here the suffix is written out.
The Vorschläge of measure 162 are recom-mended to be played long by the NMA and, of course, those theorists who traditionally call for the long appoggiatura over the short. I think such an interpretation goes against the charac-ter of the movement, and agree with Neumann. He refers to this spot (1986, p. 51), saying that two or more repeated notes, each preceded by a Vorschlag rising by a half-step should receive grace-note treatment.
While the trill in the measure following could start with the main note because of the preced-ing note bepreced-ing next to it, it would not be amiss to use the upper auxiliary to help emphasize its role as a cadence.
The remaining Vorschläge to the end of the piece should best be played as grace notes to keep in the style of the rest of the movement. Also, this is again that rhythmic figure specifi-cally mentioned by Neumann as preferring the grace note (as in illustration 31). In this case, the NMA agrees, and recommends the use of short appoggiaturas.
I must close this paper with the admonition, echoed by nearly all the theorist here dis-cussed, that the best method to decide how to execute the embellishments is for the per-former to play them and to experiment with dif-ferent solutions to see which best suits the individual temperament and taste. Neumann (1989, p. 159) perhaps says it best: “Any dis-cussion of desirable performance that relies solely on theoretically grounded arguments, and fails to engage the ‘subjective’ elements of
musical logic, judgment, and common sense, is bound to be at best limiting, at worst mislead-ing and disturbmislead-ing.” ❖
Works Cited
Beyschlag, Adolf. Die Ornamentik der Musik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel. 1953. pp. 195-204.
Cole, Malcom. Rev. of Ornamentation and
Improvisation in Mozart, by Frederick Neumann
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press 1986).
Performance Practice Review. 3 Fall 1990: 170-174.
Dannreuther, Edward. Musical Ornamentation (Part II). London: Novello and Company. 1895. pp. 63-95. Dolmetsch, Arnold. The Interpretation of the Music of
the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Seattle:
University of Washington Press. 1946 (reprinted in 1969).
Donington, Robert. The Interpretation of Early Music. London: Faber and Faber. 1963 pp. 88-219. Hamilton, Clarence. Ornaments in Classical and
Modern Music. Boston: Oliver Ditson Company.
1930 (reprinted in 1976).
Neumann, Frederick. Ornamentation and
Improvisation in Mozart. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press. 1986.
__ “Interpretation Problems of Ornament Symbols and Two Recent Case Histories: Hans Klotz on Bach, Faye Ferguson on Mozart. Performance
Practice Review. 1 (1988): 71-106.
__ “Some Problems of Mozart Ornamentation: A Response to Robert Levin” and “Ornamentation in the Bassoon Music of Vivaldi and Mozart.” New
Essays on Performance Practice. Ann Arbor, Mich.:
UMI Research Press, 1989. pp. 155-168 and 175-194.
Pohanka, Jarolsav. Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke. Serie VIII, Werkgruppe 20, Abteilung 2. Kassel: Bärenreiter. 1962.
Ratner, Leonard. Classical Music. New York: Shirmer Books. 1980. pp. 196-203.
Warner, Thomas Everett. Indications of Performance
Practice in Woodwind Instruction Books of the 17th and 18th Centuries. Diss. New York U. 1964 New
York, 1965.
About the Author …
The author earned a Master of Music degree from the University of Illinois in 1992 and a B.S. in music educa-tion from Dickinson State University in Dickinson, ND in 1990. She is currently teaching K-12 vocal and instru-mental music in Zeeland, ND, while working on a M.S. in music education degree during the summers at the University of Illinois. This paper won the Mu Phi Epsilon Musicological Research Competition in the area of grad-uate papers (non-thesis) in 1992.
IDRS JOURNAL
If Mozart Had Been a Bassoonist:
Suggestions for a First-Movement Cadenza to K. 191
By James A. Grymes
Tallahassee, Florida
15
ozart’s Bassoon Concerto in B-flat Major
K. 191 (186e) is one of the most
fre-quently performed works in the bas-soon repertoire. With the recent trend towards historically informed performance, there have been several studies applying current knowledge of the performance practices of Mozart’s time to K. 191.1 Surprisingly, very little
has been written on how to devise stylistically appropriate cadenzas for the concerto. Although the first and second movements of K. 191 each require a cadenza, this article will deal only with the formulation of a first-movement cadenza.
Cadenzas are extended passages of virtuosic figurations based on motives from their respec-tive movements. While cadenzas are generally thought of as having been improvised, it was apparently not uncommon for a soloist to pre-pare some or all of a cadenza prior to perfor-mance. Eighteenth-century composers would indicate where a cadenza was to be provided by notating a fermata over a tonic six-four chord (see Examples 1a and 1b). Cadenzas should not
be confused with Eingänge (lead-ins), which are much shorter passages comprised mainly of scales and arpeggios unrelated to the motives of the movement. The location of an Eingang was designated by a fermata over a dominant chord.
Eingänge are required in the first and third
move-ments of K. 191 (see Examples 2a and 2b).
The first movement of K. 191 is based on the eighteenth-century “concerto sonata” form, which involves an establishment of the tonic key, a departure from that key, and an eventual return to it. The structural function of the cadenza was to create harmonic tension near the end of the “recapitulation,” which was the part of the move-ment dedicated only to the re-establishmove-ment of the principal key. Composers would set up cadenzas by generating tension, often through a dominant pedal point, and then stopping the har-monic motion over a second-inversion tonic chord. At that point, the soloist would furnish a cadenza centered around the tonic six-four and dominant seventh chords. This continued
M
emphasis on the dominant created even more harmonic tension, heightening the anticipation of the cadenza’s tonic resolution.
Although appropriate cadenzas are necessary for any historically informed performance of K. 191, few musicians know how to prepare their own. Modern performers often resort to playing one of the popular cadenzas written by well-known bassoonists. These standard cadenzas eliminate the element of spontaneity that made cadenzas popular; eighteenth-century audiences expected to be dazzled by an original display of virtuosity. The modern cadenzas are also frequently incon-sistent with Mozart’s style. The goal of this article is to explore the type of cadenza that Mozart him-self would have prepared for the first movement of K. 191, had he been a bassoonist.
The most appropriate models for designing a cadenza in Mozart’s style are, of course, the cadenzas that he wrote. In keeping with common practice, Mozart included in his scores just the introductions and conclusions of cadenzas to facilitate coordination between the soloist and the orchestra. The main body of the cadenza was to be provided by the soloist as a means of indi-vidual expression. Since Mozart would not have devised a cadenza to a concerto that he himself would not play, there are no cadenzas to any of his wind concerti, serenades, divertimenti, or other music for winds.2
The only solo concerti for which Mozart wrote cadenzas were those for his own instrument of choice, the piano.
It seems odd that Mozart, whose improvisa-tional skills are legendary, would have taken the time to write out cadenzas. After all, Mozart him-self stated that when performing cadenzas, “I always play whatever comes to me at the moment.”3
This suggests that Mozart’s surviving cadenzas may have been composed for inept stu-dents and friends who could not improvise, mak-ing them poor examples of his true style. This generalization is refuted by the cadenzas for K. 271 and K. 488, which Mozart notated directly into the score from which he read during his own performances. The scarcity of copies to Mozart’s cadenzas outside his inner family circle further proves that he had written many of them for his own exclusive use. Other cadenzas were appar-ently intended for his sister Nannerl,4who was an
accomplished performer in her own right and was surely capable of improvising her own caden-zas. Regardless of these examples, Mozart’s extant cadenzas are undeniably the result of a deliberate compositional process and clearly rep-resent the type of cadenza that the composer himself performed.
Mozart wrote cadenzas for over two-thirds of his piano concerti, often writing more than one per concerto. When attempting to compose a cadenza similar in style to one Mozart would have written, it would be an “act of self-depriva-tion” not to examine these cadenzas.5
Various studies have shown that he was extremely con-sistent in form, length, harmony, and in his use of motives, especially in first-movement cadenzas. These commonalties allow for speculation regarding what type of cadenza Mozart-the-hypo-thetical-bassoonist would have written for the first movement of K. 191.
Using Mozart’s piano cadenzas as the only models would not be sufficient for devising a styl-istically correct cadenza for the first movement of his bassoon concerto. Since there are many aspects of writing for the piano that simply do not apply to wind instruments, one must also exam-ine the wind cadenzas that are extant from Mozart’s lifetime. David Lasocki, who examined two hundred such cadenzas,6
found several com-mon features that can be applied to a first-move-ment cadenza for K. 191.
Eighteenth-century cadenzas, including all of Mozart’s, begin on a note in the tonic triad over the orchestra’s six-four chord. This introductory note was generally written into the score by the composer. At the location of the first-movement cadenza in any scholarly edition of K. 191, the solo part includes a b-flat over the tonic six-four chord as well as another b-flat preceding it (see Example 1a). These two notes are unfortunately not often performed by modern bassoonists. Throughout the concerto, Mozart notated the bass line in the bassoon part for the tutti sections; it was custom-ary during the eighteenth century for a soloist to also play as a member of the orchestra during these passages.7 Although most modern
perform-ers prefer to rest throughout the tutti sections, there is no justification for leaving out the two notes in measures 159 and 160. The b-flats in the bassoon part do not double the bass and there-fore clearly belong to the solo part.
Introducing the cadenza with an extended fer-mata helps catch and hold the audience’s atten-tion. In Saggio per ben il flautotraverso (1779), Antonio Lorenzi suggested that the soloist slightly increase and then decrease the volume of the sus-tained note.8
This stemmed from the popular eighteenth-century ornament messa di voce, which was used on most expressive long notes. After the fermata, Mozart often notated a brief rest before re-entering with the cadenza. Other times, he connected the fermata to the cadenza through an Eingang-like transition. Milan Turkovic
accom-IDRS JOURNAL 17
plishes this by employing thematic material from the orchestral ritornelli in the introduction to his Universal Edition cadenza (see Example 3).9
The majority of an eighteenth-century caden-za is made up of material borrowed from the movement. Theorists from Mozart’s time were very specific about the types of motives that could be used as well as how one could use them. In Klavierschule (1789), Daniel Gottlob Türk warned against the incorporation of “all sorts of ideas that do not have the least relationship to what has gone before in the composition. The result is that the good impression left on the lis-tener by the composition has for the most part been cadenzaed out of him.”10 Mozart’s cadenzas
quote only short fragments of no more than three motives. After all, the composer had thoroughly developed all of the thematic material in the movement proper.
Most of Mozart’s cadenzas begin by quoting the principal theme of the movement, but not in its original harmony. He often destabilized the motive by replacing the root position triad that had ini-tially appeared under the motive with a six-four harmony. If Mozart had presented the principal motive in its original tonic key, the dominant func-tion of the cadenza would have been lost; if he had transposed the motive to the dominant, it would have undermined the fundamental relationship between the principal theme and the tonic key. This destabilization also heightens the musical tension, which is resolved only in the dominant-to-tonic progression at the very end of the cadenza.
In the first-movement cadenza to the Piano Concerto in G major K. 453, Mozart borrowed the introductory material from the piano’s first solo entrance (see Example 4a). He destabilized the
harmony by replacing the original root-position tonic harmony with a second inversion tonic chord (see Example 4b). Turkovic’s Universal
Edition cadenza (see Example 5) presents the principal motive from K. 191’s first movement
(see Example 6) in a stylistically correct manner by briefly employing the motive in an
ornament-ed form before promptly stressing the fifth scale degree, implying a six-four harmony. Other mod-ern cadenzas tend to suggest a six-four harmony only through several repetitions of the bassoon’s first entrance. Türk mandated that, “No thought should be often repeated in the same key or another, no matter how beautiful it may be.”11
Motivic openings in Mozart’s cadenzas usually lead into passage-work. This proceeds directly into the middle section of the cadenza, often pausing on a dominant seventh chord before making the tran-sition.12
The middle sections of Mozart’s cadenzas frequently employ a sequential development of the second motive from the movement. This allows the motive’s expressive effect to be transformed from an expository one, as heard in the movement prop-er, to a speculative one.13To create a Fortspinnung
(continuous development) effect, the motive is interrupted before it can round itself off with a cadence. Very few modern cadenzas for the first movement of K. 191 employ the second subject from the movement (see Example 7).
The final sections of Mozart’s cadenzas are not as predictable as the other sections. This is because he was much freer in the construction of the concluding bars of a cadenza.14
These mea-sures most often include a number of virtuosic runs and arpeggios that lead to the cadential trill of the cadenza.
Authorities from the eighteenth century agree that a cadenza should conclude with a long trill on the second scale degree. This trill, like the introduction to the cadenza, was usually notated by the composer. Mozart’s piano cadenzas all employ a trill in the right hand over a dominant seventh chord in the left. Since wind players could obviously not simultaneously perform both functions, they played just the trill on the super-tonic. Halfway through the trill, the full orchestra would enter on a dominant seventh chord.15
This was apparently so common that it was rarely notated in the score. Unfortunately, this practice has been forgotten; the chord is omitted in mod-ern editions and is consequently not performed by the accompaniment. The final trill of any cadenza is ornamented with a two-note close (see Example 8). The note following the bar line rep-resents the final note of the cadenza and the first note of the last orchestral ritornello.
Mozart also demonstrated remarkable consis-tency when it came to the length of his cadenzas. This uniformity is a result of both the limits of the dominant function and the structural level to which the cadenza belonged; a lengthy cadenza would alter the formal proportions of the move-ment. Mozart treated the cadenza as an impor-tant structural event, but by no means a domi-nating one that might be comparable to an “expo-sition” or a “recapitulation.”16
Baroque treatises dictate that cadenzas should only be as long as one breath. This rule does not apply to cadenzas from the late eigh-teenth century. In 1791, Johann Georg Tromlitz advised that contemporary performers could take a few breaths, but only if they carefully arranged the melody and figures in such a way that the continuity of the cadenza and the impe-tus to the final trill would not be disrupted.17
Performers of Mozart’s time were very conscien-tious about limiting their cadenzas to the length of only a few breaths; most woodwind cadenzas were only two to four lines long. This brevity is probably due not as much to the soloist’s need to
breathe as to a wind player’s inability to sustain interest without harmonic support.
The lengths of Mozart’s cadenzas are directly proportional to the overall lengths of their corre-sponding movements. Ellwood Derr has found that Mozart cadenzas tend to be roughly half as long as the “development” sections of the move-ments for which they were written.18
The “devel-opment” section of K. 191’s first movement is twenty-seven bars long (measures 71 through 97), which would suggest a cadenza length of only thirteen or fourteen measures. While recording K. 191 on a period instrument, Milan Turkovic instinctively noted, “The extended cadenzas cus-tomary today . . . seemed out of place.”19 The
cadenzas Turkovic used are similar to his Autograph Edition of cadenzas for K. 191.20 The
first-movement cadenza, which is just seventeen measures long, is among the shortest of modern cadenzas for the bassoon concerto.
Another problem with most twentieth-century cadenzas is their use of complicated harmonies. The cadenza’s location at the end of the move-ment imposes significant restrictions upon its har-monic design. In keeping with the form on which the first movement of K. 191 is based, there can-not be any harmonic excursions in the “recapitu-lation” section, including the cadenza, that under-mine the tonality of the movement. Furthermore, harmonies that obscure the dominant function of the cadenza would weaken its final cadence.
Mozart’s own cadenzas do not include any substantial modulations from the main key of the movement. They generally consist of a simple progression from the tonic six-four chord to a dominant seventh, which is resolved on the final note. This was also a structure common for woodwind cadenzas. In the few instances in which Mozart did briefly diverge from the princi-pal key, the deviations were limited to the har-monic and modulatory intricacies of the particu-lar movement. This is consistent with eighteenth-century common practice. Türk advised that when performing cadenzas:
In no case should one modulate to a key which the composer himself has not used in the compo-sition. It seems to me that this rule is founded on the principle of unity, which, as is well known, must be followed in all works of the fine arts.21
An analysis of the first movement of K. 191 shows that Mozart used very simple harmonies throughout the first movement; the most compli-cated harmonies are secondary dominant and diminished-seventh chords. Any cadenza for this movement should not include any harmonies that are more complex.
IDRS JOURNAL 19
Of course, there is no such thing as the “ulti-mate cadenza.” Mozart himself demonstrated this by sometimes writing more than one set of cadenzas for a given concerto. With careful arrangement, however, one may be able to design a first-movement cadenza for K. 191 similar to one the composer might have written, if Mozart had indeed been a bassoonist.
ENDNOTES
1 See Frederick Neumann, “Ornamentation in Bassoon
Music” in New Essays in Performance Practice (Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMl Research Press, 1989) and Milan Turkovic, Analytische Überlegungen zum klassischen
Bläser-Konzert am Beispiel von Mozarts Fagott-Konzert KV 191 (München: Emil Katzbichler, 1981).
2 In addition to raising numerous questions on the
authenticity of the Sinfonia Concertante for oboe, clar-inet, horn, bassoon, and orchestra in E-flat major, K. 297b (Anh. C 14.01), Robert Levin has found that its cadenza was not written by Mozart. See Robert D. Levin, Who Wrote the Mozart Four-Wind Concertante? (Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1988) xvii.
3 W.A. Mozart to L. Mozart, 22 January 1783, in Emily Anderson, ed., The Letters of Mozart and His Family, 3d ed. (London: Macmillan Press, 1985) 837.
4 See W.A. Mozart to L. Mozart, 22 January and 15 February 1783, Ibid., 837 and 840.
5 Brian K. Kershner, “A Study of the Classical Cadenza and a Manual for Writing Cadenzas for Classical Wind Concertos” (D.M. treatise, The Florida State University, 1986) 92.
6 See David Ronald Graham Lasocki, “The Eighteenth-century Woodwind Cadenza” (M.A. thesis, The University of Iowa, 1972).
7 See Terry B. Ewell’s advice on “Playing Those ‘Missing’ Notes in Baroque and Classical Concerti” that appeared in the Vol. 20 No. 1, 1997 Double Reed. 8 Quoted in David Lasocki and Betty Bang Mather, The
Classical Woodwind Cadenza (New York McGinnis
and Marx, 1978) 16. 9
Milan Turkovic, “Kadenzen” to W.A. Mozart, Konzert
für Fagott und Orchester KV 191, ed. Milan Turkovic
and William Waterhouse (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1987).
“Daniel Gottlob T ü r k Klavierschule, trans. Raymond H. Haggh (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982) 298. Emphasis in the original.
11 Ibid., 300.
12 Eva and Paul Badura-Skoda, Interpreting Mozart on the Keyboard, trans. Leo Black (New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 1962), 217.
I3 Robert D. Levin, “Improvisation and Embellishment in Mozart Piano Cadenzas,” Musical Newsletter 5:2 (Winter 1975): 12.
I4 Badura-Skodas, 225.
I5 Betty Bang Mather, “The 6/4-Chord Cadenza for Classical Concerto Movements,” Flutist Quarterly 13:l (Winter 1988): 35.
16 Joseph P. Swain, “Form and Function of the Classical Cadenza, Journal of Musicology 6:1 (Winter 1988) 43-44.
17 Johann George Tromlitz, “Unterricht die flöte zu spie-len,” trans. Linda Bishop Hartig (Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University, 1982) 444.
18 Quoted in Mary Robbins, “Reinterpreted Elements in Mozart’s Cadenzas for His Piano Cadenzas,”
Mozart-Jahrbuch 1991: 187.
I9 Liner Notes to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Concerto in B-flat major for Bassoon and Orchestra, K. 191, Concentus Musicus Wien, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, con-ductor (Teldec 9031-77603-2) 1987.
20 Milan Turkovic, Autograph Edition of Cadenzas for
Mozart Concerto in Bb, K. 191 for Bassoon, as recorded
on Telefunken 6.4236lAW (Spokane, WA: Jones Double Reed Products, 1980).
21 Turk, 300.
About the Author. . .
James A. Grymes is currently working towards Masters degrees in Historical Musicology and Bassoon Performance at Florida State University, where he studies with Jeff Keesecker.
Double Reed Players of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, 1936
Sketches by Gerome Brush
IDRS JOURNAL 21
IDRS JOURNAL 23
IDRS JOURNAL 25
IDRS JOURNAL 27