last three piano sonatas...enigma?

[paulverv]

Any thoughts on the strange time signatures, 6/16 and 12/32, in the last movement of opus 111?
As you may know, there is only one manuscript in existance; the one Beethoven told Schlessinger to destroy upon receipt of the revised copy. It (revised copy) apparently never arrived.
Variation 3 of this movement (on the manuscript) shows two time signatures, one (12/32) written over the other (looks like 9/16).
The really strange part is that the hand which wrote the 12/32 time sig. looks very much like Wenzel Rampl's ( the copyist) hand and not Beethoven"s

Paulverv

[Peter]

Yes these time-signatures are indeed strange and they are not stictly correct, but more appropiate from the notation point of view which would have been a nightmare of tied notes and dots. Variation 2 is marked incorrectly 6/16 - 3 main beats are divided into 2 duple semiquavers which are subdivided into 3 demisemiquavers - the correct signature should be 18/32 with all the quavers dotted. Similarly the 3rd variation marked 12/32 because of the division into 4 demisemiquavers subdivided into 3 semidemisemiquavers should be 36/64.

Clearly the 9/16 original mark for variation 3 was an error, as there are 4 beats, not 3.



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Chris]

Yikes! It's times like this I'm glad we call them "16th notes", "32nd notes", and "64th notes" here in the U.S.!

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Chris:
Yikes! It's times like this I'm glad we call them "16th notes", "32nd notes", and "64th notes" here in the U.S.!

Lol!

[paulverv]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes these time-signatures are indeed strange and they are not stictly correct, but more appropiate from the notation point of view which would have been a nightmare of tied notes and dots. Variation 2 is marked incorrectly 6/16 - 3 main beats are divided into 2 duple semiquavers which are subdivided into 3 demisemiquavers - the correct signature should be 18/32 with all the quavers dotted. Similarly the 3rd variation marked 12/32 because of the division into 4 demisemiquavers subdivided into 3 semidemisemiquavers should be 36/64.

Clearly the 9/16 original mark for variation 3 was an error, as there are 4 beats, not 3.

I think the word "clearly" is hardly the appropriate adverb for this mystery.
First, show me another example where Beethoven made a correction by writing over top of something else. That was "clearly" not his method.
Also, your explanation fails to account for the hand writing itself, which does not appear to be B.'s,
but rather looks a lot like the publisher's copyist, Rampl.
Further, I think if you do the math properly, you will find that the principle rhythmic figure ( i.e. "beam" ) in both variations adds up to 3 sixteenths, times 3=9.
Unfortunately, This has been interpreted in such a way as to create a "swing" rhythm which has been described by many as an early form of Boogie-woogie.
One writer goes so far as to call it a "celestial boogie-woogie".
Nonsense.

pv

[Peter]

Originally posted by paulverv:
I think the word "clearly" is hardly the appropriate adverb for this mystery.
First, show me another example where Beethoven made a correction by writing over top of something else. That was "clearly" not his method.
Also, your explanation fails to account for the hand writing itself, which does not appear to be B.'s,
but rather looks a lot like the publisher's copyist, Rampl.
Further, I think if you do the math properly, you will find that the principle rhythmic figure ( i.e. "beam" ) in both variations adds up to 3 sixteenths, times 3=9.
Unfortunately, This has been interpreted in such a way as to create a "swing" rhythm which has been described by many as an early form of Boogie-woogie.
One writer goes so far as to call it a "celestial boogie-woogie".
Nonsense.

pv

Well yes I agree it isn't clear. But if you do the maths properly you will have to take into account Beethoven's omission of the triplet sign and dots - so in Variation 3 not all demisemiquavers are of equal value, (depending on whether they are followed by a hemidemisemiquaver). Therefore the principle beamed figure in fact adds up to 2/16 not 3.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 09-01-2006).]

[paulverv]

Originally posted by Peter:
Well yes I agree it isn't clear. But if you do the maths properly you will have to take into account Beethoven's omission of the triplet sign and dots - so in Variation 3 not all demisemiquavers are of equal value, (depending on whether they are followed by a hemidemisemiquaver). Therefore the principle beamed figure in fact adds up to 2/16 not 3.

sorry Peter,but I have to disagree with you. Here's why; In order to compensate for the lack of consistency in the math between the two hands, it has been assumed, by pianists and musicologists alike, that B. meant triplets some of the time and left out dots and ties. To me,it is the 64ths in the accompaniment figure which are very much suspect. The original editions, one by Schlessinger, the other by Cappi & Diabelli ( you can check this out at the digital archives at the Beethovenhaus in Bonn website) , contradict one another in the placement of these 64ths. That made me wonder whether they were meant to be there at all ( after all, B. repeatedely wrote to his publishers desperately telling them to destroy the copy they had immediately upon receiving the second because there were so many errors in it).) . When they (the 64ths in the accompaniment) are removed, we are left with six 32nds which equals three 16ths, the same as the other hand (clef). Try playing this accompaniment figure just with the right hand and you will find the rhythm familiar ( and far more pleasing and 'simple' than the one with 64ths), especially if you know the other two sonatas well enough. It is the same rhythm B uses for the theme ( 'A' and 'B' themes) from Opus 109 last Mvt. Naturally, the resultant rhythm when these two parts are executed at the same time is completely different from the 'norm', and is in fact quite difficult to execute without a strong rhythmic sense and command of the instrument. It is, however, well worth the attempt because, at least to my ears, it is far more pleasing and (for lack of a better adjective) Beethoven-esque. ( He did borrow the idea from Bach, however; the same rhythmic idiom can be found in the St. John Passion from the Aria "It Is Finished" or sometimes translated "fulfilled". This same Aria also contains the melody which B. quotes in Sonatas 109 (first movement just after returning to 2/4 time) and 110 ( Adagio Ma Non Troppo).
These ( and more!) thematic links give meaning to a quote attributed to B., that he conceived the last three last sonatas "in one Breath". ( and by the way, there never was a celestial or any other boogie-woogie in late Beethoven. ( What a Hoax!))

pv

pv

[paulverv]

Originally posted by Chris:
Yikes! It's times like this I'm glad we call them "16th notes", "32nd notes", and "64th notes" here in the U.S.!

I know what you mean. I thought my mind was stuttering when I tried to read semidemisemiquavers...what do you call a 128th note? semidemisemidemiquaver?
pv

[Peter]

Originally posted by paulverv:
sorry Peter,but I have to disagree with you. Here's why; In order to compensate for the lack of consistency in the math between the two hands, it has been assumed, by pianists and musicologists alike, that B. meant triplets some of the time and left out dots and ties. To me,it is the 64ths in the accompaniment figure which are very much suspect. The original editions, one by Schlessinger, the other by Cappi & Diabelli ( you can check this out at the digital archives at the Beethovenhaus in Bonn website) , contradict one another in the placement of these 64ths. That made me wonder whether they were meant to be there at all ( after all, B. repeatedely wrote to his publishers desperately telling them to destroy the copy they had immediately upon receiving the second because there were so many errors in it).) . When they (the 64ths in the accompaniment) are removed, we are left with six 32nds which equals three 16ths, the same as the other hand (clef). Try playing this accompaniment figure just with the right hand and you will find the rhythm familiar ( and far more pleasing and 'simple' than the one with 64ths), especially if you know the other two sonatas well enough. It is the same rhythm B uses for the theme ( 'A' and 'B' themes) from Opus 109 last Mvt. Naturally, the resultant rhythm when these two parts are executed at the same time is completely different from the 'norm', and is in fact quite difficult to execute without a strong rhythmic sense and command of the instrument. It is, however, well worth the attempt because, at least to my ears, it is far more pleasing and (for lack of a better adjective) Beethoven-esque. ( He did borrow the idea from Bach, however; the same rhythmic idiom can be found in the St. John Passion from the Aria "It Is Finished" or sometimes translated "fulfilled". This same Aria also contains the melody which B. quotes in Sonatas 109 (first movement just after returning to 2/4 time) and 110 ( Adagio Ma Non Troppo).
These ( and more!) thematic links give meaning to a quote attributed to B., that he conceived the last three last sonatas "in one Breath". ( and by the way, there never was a celestial or any other boogie-woogie in late Beethoven. ( What a Hoax!))

pv

pv

That is a very interesting argument which I will look into (time allowing as I'm away next week then back to teaching). I have studied Op.110 and am working now on Op.109, but never Op.111! I didn't know about the St.John passion link either, thanks for that. What is your explanation for the 12/32 signature, presumably you are saying Beethoven intended 9/16 and that a copyist changed this? I believe it was published in three different cities, do all 3 original versions concur on this time signature?

Having said all this, I think you'll also agree that Beethoven intended the thematic pulse to remain the same, though many pianists speed up.


P.S 64th notes are Hemidemisemiquavers, I presume your 128th notes are semihemidemisemiquavers!

------------------
'Man know thyself'



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 09-01-2006).]

[DavidO]

Originally posted by paulverv:
sorry Peter,but I have to disagree with you. Here's why; In order to compensate for the lack of consistency in the math between the two hands, it has been assumed, by pianists and musicologists alike, that B. meant triplets some of the time and left out dots and ties. To me,it is the 64ths in the accompaniment figure which are very much suspect. ... When they (the 64ths in the accompaniment) are removed, we are left with six 32nds which equals three 16ths, the same as the other hand (clef). Try playing this accompaniment figure just with the right hand and you will find the rhythm familiar ( and far more pleasing and 'simple' than the one with 64ths), especially if you know the other two sonatas well enough.

Would you mind recording yourself playing this part as you think it should be played, & then posting the audio file for us to hear? I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean based on your description alone.

[paulverv]

Originally posted by DavidO:
Would you mind recording yourself playing this part as you think it should be played, & then posting the audio file for us to hear? I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean based on your description alone.

Yes, I am trying to get these files so I can post on line. I have the recordings, but not the technology at hand to post it. Soon!.
One of the other threads posted a review of a performance I did in June of the last three sonatas. I performed them as one sonata, which I believe they are.
pv

[paulverv]

Originally posted by Peter:
That is a very interesting argument which I will look into (time allowing as I'm away next week then back to teaching). I have studied Op.110 and am working now on Op.109, but never Op.111! I didn't know about the St.John passion link either, thanks for that. What is your explanation for the 12/32 signature, presumably you are saying Beethoven intended 9/16 and that a copyist changed this? I believe it was published in three different cities, do all 3 original versions concur on this time signature?

Having said all this, I think you'll also agree that Beethoven intended the thematic pulse to remain the same, though many pianists speed up.


P.S 64th notes are Hemidemisemiquavers, I presume your 128th notes are semihemidemisemiquavers!

Absolutely, the instructions given by Beethoven at both variations 2 & 3 are L'istesso Tempo. That must be stictly followed for the variations to un-fold the way B. intended. Staying in 9/16 allows for that because the bar is divided into less beats (9 instead of 12) and so there is more "space".
You are correct that most performers do not adhere to these instuctions by the Master. That is because the shift in meter does not allow it.

All the first editions were based on the "flawed" manuscript. The corrected one was (so history says) "lost in the mail".
A conspiracy-theorist might see some other explanations for this bizzarre event in musical history.
I don't make conjectures or assumptions.
I am glad to hear that you are working on Opus 109. Beware of making the same mistake so many others have made of placing the pulse (beat 2) in-correctly on the second note (B) instead of the first note (G#) in the opening measure. A completely different melody is created, depending on the rhythmic placement. The G# is not a pick-up, as so many treat it. If you play just the melody notes (those on the beats) of that first phrase and then the theme from the fugue of Op. 110, you will ( I think) notice a remarkable similarity. These are not the only thematic links in these last sonatas. There are many more.
Thanks for clearing up the quaver thing. I didn't quite understand it.
The link to the St. John passion has been over-looked because of the other missing links between the 3 sonatas. I was researching a few weeks ago when someone on a web site mentioned that there was an "apparent" quote in Op. 110 of the Aria from Bach. When I looked up the Aria, I discovered that the same rhythmic idiom which Beethoven uses in the 3rd variation ( in 9/16 not 12/32) is contained in the melodic line of the Aria; and that the melody, which he definately does quote, also appears in Op.109, but enharmonically shifted to G# minor.
Hope this helps. You must hear it to "hear" it.


pv

[paulverv]

Originally posted by DavidO:
Would you mind recording yourself playing this part as you think it should be played, & then posting the audio file for us to hear? I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean based on your description alone.

Here is a bit better ( I hope ) description of how to play the 3rd variation. Treat the principle figure just the way it appears,i.e. Each 32nd gets 1/2 beat; each 64th gets 1/4 beat.
Now, if you count it out, you will find that beat 2 is missing in the sequence of 8 notes. This missing beat is supplied by the accompaniment when it enters on the first full measure.
Remember, I am treating the accompaniment as if there are no 64ths. only 32nds, so it must be played that way for it to work.
When practicing the figure without the accompaniment, one must 'tap' or 'feel' the missing beat.It is poly-rhythmic, so it is a bit difficult at first, especially if you learned it in 12/32.
Good luck. Let me know how you are doing. If you can follow this, I guarantee you a very different experience.
pv.

[paulverv]

By the, I make no claims to fame; I'm just doing my homework, and I worship LVB>

Amen.

[Peter]

Originally posted by paulverv:
All the first editions were based on the "flawed" manuscript. The corrected one was (so history says) "lost in the mail".

Are you sure about this? It was the copy sent to Schlesinger in 1822 that was lost. However on 3rd june 1823 - Beethoven sent his copyist Schlemmer a list of mistakes for Schlesinger's edition of op. 111. The list was not intended for Schlesinger himself but served as the model for a list of mistakes, of which Schlemmer was to make a fair copy. It was then to be reproduced for the Viennese music dealers.

On June 27th 1823 Beethoven asked Diabelli to return the manuscript of op. 111 which he had sent the day before. He had sent it by mistake instead of the corrected French edition, which he had received from Diabelli. Beethoven is prepared to exchange his manuscript for the French edition although he would like to keep the latter. As the composer was not happy with the Parisian original edition of the piano sonata because it contained so many mistakes, he supported Diabelli's improved and corrected edition.

Since Beethoven took so much trouble over these corrections if he wasn't satisfied with Diabelli's edition why did he allow it to stand? There are no further letters complaining about his edition.

------------------
'Man know thyself'