Beethoven Violin Sonata op. 24
Beethoven’s famous ‘Spring’ sonata was one of the first works to be looked at in this project. The work was performed in the context of Joachim’s performing practice, and was discussed and performed at the International Joachim Symposium in Kitsee, Austria, in July 2007.
Part of the reason for using this particular sonata in this context came from its celebrated status – the work is perhaps one of the most famous of all of his works and, by means of its fairly modest technical demands, is performed frequently. We attempted to display Joachim’s practice, on period instruments, by following his edition as faithfully as possible and integrating traits associated with the classical German school. It has the distinction of being one of only two works in the project to be performed with the later of the two Erard grand pianos in Clothworkers’ Centenary Concert Hall, Leeds. This instrument, of about 1870, was sent away for restoration shortly after this recording was made, only to return to Leeds in 2009. It is also worth saying that the recording, from a technical point of view, was not as eventually decided upon. The studio recordings in Leeds were preceded by quite lengthy preparatory sessions to find a good mixture of microphones, and microphone placement. Since other recorded performances of this work were ‘live’ concerts (often with more rudimentary recording equipment and, in the case of the Kitsee performance, with a modern Bosendörfer piano) I thought it appropriate to include this early performance in the archive.
In this performance, Jonathan Gooing and I displayed the fruits of the first few months of research on this project. The thinner, sparer sonorities of the Erard piano, allied to the rich but clean sound from the violin gut strings (delivered with only very occasional vibrato) produces a much clearer texture than one is used to in this work which, for many, is synonymous through its fame with the very many performances and recordings of it made by violinists of much later artistic sensibilities throughout the twentieth century. In addition, I attempted to phrase the work carefully along classical lines (executing notes with staccato dots on the string in the upper half of the bow, as recommended by most violinists of the period in classical works[1]) and took an open-minded view to Joachim’s fingerings and their invitations for portamento. Joachim edits the work quite lightly, and it is only in the B-flat minor passage of the slow movement that the device is really possible in a substantial way, although David’s edition in this passage is a little more inviting of the effect in comparison to Joachim’s rather plain and even austere scheme.[2] In terms of bowing, it is interesting to note that David slurs in the quavers at bar 34 of the first movement (which, in the context of the time, one can assume are to be taken in the length of the bow, on the string) whereas Joachim leaves these separate, as Beethoven marks it. By contrast, the 1901 edition by Arnold Rosé does the same as David (and on paper at least, Rosé’s edition is very similar to David’s) but marks this ‘mitte des bogens’ implying a sharper attack on re-taken up-bows – a much more modern style of execution. Equally, Rosé’s fingering of the B-flat minor passage of the slow movement has many more complex position changes and portamenti marked than either David or Joachim. Whilst it is outside the parameters of the present study to make systematic comparisons between these and other Beethoven sonata editions (this being a task to be undertaken as part of the aforementioned LUCHIP/CRHIP AHRC Research Grant editions project[3]), this does provide further corroboration of the fact that Arnold Rose, in spite of his playing on record seeming superficially ‘old fashioned’ and thus more like that of Joachim than many others of the time, nonetheless represented a very different manner of performance and not one that can be equated directly with the classical German tradition of Spohr, David and Joachim, a matter commented upon at greater length elsewhere in this project.
[1] See the discussion of sprung bow strokes in the section on Mendelssohn string quartets.
[2] In the discussion of Mendelssohn’s piano trio op. 49, I mention Carl Flesch’s views on Joachim’s editions. Flesch felt that Joachim only edited the Corelli and Beethoven sonatas very lightly – to his detriment as an editor. Of course, one might see this as a sign of Joachim’s editorial modernity, particularly in the present age in which the ‘urtext’ edition is considered the most appropriate for use. It does give rise to doubts, or at least questions, concerning what Joachim expected the player to do with the edition. It may be that he intended the player further to embellish the edition with a scheme of personal fingerings that would allow for far more instances of, for example, portamenti. This can be seen, for example, in the pencilled fingerings in the David edition included here for comparison purposes – these were made by an unknown English violinist, probably in the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries and, in the passage in question here, these pencilled fingerings invite portamenti in a way that is fascinating in itself. We decided however, to perform fairly strictly in accordance with Joachim’s printed markings.
[3]19th and Early 20th-Century Annotated Editions of String Music: Bibliographical Problems, Editorial Content and Implications for Performance Practice (AHRC Research Grant project, Universities of Leeds and Cardiff, 2008-12).