I've been working on the second movement of the Waldstein. Can someone explain why from measure 476 to 484, the G which has a trill indication, trills from G to A, but at measure 485, the trill starts from A to G. (In my Dover edition, there is an illustration above meas. 484 showing the trill is from g to a, then at ms. 485, it shows a to g.) Since trills begin on the upper note, the trill should start on A. Which is right and why? Does it matter? Help! Ornaments make me crazy..............

I'm not sure exactly what the trill conventions are at the start of the 19th century, but beginning the m.476 trill on G makes sense, because the G is the top note of a scale, which would be broken if the trill started on an A.

The m.485 trill was spelled out by Beethoven in the autograph. He specified exactly how to play it (in sextuplets), starting on the A.

(By the way, you mean the third movement of the Waldstein. You could argue that it has only two movements, combining the Introduction and the Rondo, but you're counting your measure numbers starting with the Rondo.)

-J

Yes. At a glance, I didn't know which "movement" he was talking about but figured it had to be the Rondo because I doubt the "2nd mvt" has anywhere near that many measures.

With a piece like this, I'd never refer to any "movement" except the 1st by a number, because as per what you said, it's not clear what's a separate movement after that. For this movement, I'd say either "last movement" (and suffer the wrath of the grammarians who think I'm saying 'last' for "2nd of 2") or just "Rondo." For that funny thing in the middle, I'd say either "the Introduzione" or "the Adagio."

Heh... I have no problem saying the Waldstein has three movements. As does op.101. (Isn't it interesting how few middle and late Beethoven sonatas have an interior slow movement that ends conclusively?)

And-- for god's sake-- op.110 has three movements too.

-J

Yeah -- either 3.......or 7.

I love it! Can you imagine at the recital hall:


Sonata, Op.110 in Ab ............... Beethoven

I. Moderato cantabile molto espressivo
II. Allegro molto
III. Adagio ma non troppo
IV. Adagio ma non troppo
V. Fuga
VI. L'istesso tempo di Arioso
VII. L'istesso tempo della Fuga poi a poi di nuovo vivente

That makes the structure crystal-clear...

-J

Y'know, I actually do sort of list all those things -- indeed in order to "make the structure crystal clear."
At least according to my view of the piece.

Let's see if I can find one of those listings, and see if I can format it that way on here (if I had a scanner and stuff, I'd scan a program).
BTW those 'dots' aren't really supposed to be there. I added them to achieve the "indent," didn't see any other way how. And as per what appears below, I don't indicate numbers or numerals for the movements (never do for any piece).


Moderato cantabile molto espressivo
Allegro molto
Adagio ma non troppo
Fuga: Allegro, ma non troppo
. . . . . L'istesso tempo di Arioso
. . . . . L'istesso tempo della Fuga

How about something like:

I. Moderato cantabile molto espressivo
II. Allegro molto
III. Adagio ma non troppo - Adagio ma non troppo - Fuga - L'istesso tempo di Arioso - L'istesso tempo della Fuga poi a poi di nuovo vivente


I got no problem with that.


-J

Anything's OK, but to me that's just confusing, plus (maybe mainly) it doesn't match how I see the piece.

I'm not saying mine isn't confusing. But I hope it's not.

[we're totally off-topic now; sorry OP!]

But... as I see it, op.110 is in three movements, the last of which is a complex alternation between slow adagios and fugues.

If you see it differently, then how? And if not, then how does my most recent listing not reflect that structure?

-J

I see the (first) fugue as beginning a new movement, and I see the return of the Adagio being a surprise inclusion within it.

Actually I don't really.
But that's close. And I simply don't see the whole rest of the piece starting with the first Adagio as being a single movement.

Why? Because to me, the first fugue is a clear new beginning, certainly more so than anything that follows. To me it's a new "division," as much as anything else in the piece.

I know that it's a messy view -- but somehow it feels pretty clear to me. I'm not saying it's a clearly right answer, just my clear view.

BTW, does this mean that I might pause and take out a handkerchief or adjust my underpants after the first Adagio, like we sometimes do between movements?
No.

Beet, marc c, thanks for correcting me about the "movement" error. However, me thinks my thread's been hijacked! I'm not sure I understand the explanation that the G completes the scale (ms 476). Beet, is this explained somewhere in the music literature? I've never read that as a reason for beginning a trill in the Classical period on the main note. In reading Dennis Agay's excellent chapter on ornamentation and other research I've done it was my understanding that Beethoven's trills were almost always on the upper note. So meas. 485 makes sense in Beethoven's written out example. I still am unsure why it would start on G in measure 476.

All I meant was that in the previous measure, we have a scalar passage that leads right up to that G. The D-E-F-F#-G is a natural progression which is violated if we start the trill with the A. (Because then it becomes D-E-F-F#-A-G.)

That's a good intuitive justification for me. If anyone wants to put it in a more knowledgeable historical context, please do.

-Jason

It's possible to start on the upper note without ruining the scale:

F#-G-A-G, etc.

Given that the note before the trill is F#, this is exactly what I call starting the trill on the lower note, G. Am I missing something?

-J

I actually don't pay much attention to that detail since I'm trilling the same notes for so many measures and the trills are in the background. I don't think it's really noticeable if you start M485 on the A or G unless you are playing slower, measured trills. I do notice the von Bulow edition specifically stays to start 485 on the A. Interesting.

It's not really ms. 485 that I'm unsure of for several reasons. First, we are starting on the upper note, which was the "rule" in the Classical period, bar a few exceptions. Secondly, I asked a national pedagogue and he felt it mad esense to begn on the A. Third, it's noted in my Dover edition. Lastly, I hear it in records as starting on the upper note. It's the illustration at 476 that confuses me. Like Beet, I play intuitively now, having studied ages ago. I have a music ed degree, but as a teacher, I have to constantly question myself -- why am I doing this? How do I teach this? What are my reliable sources? I don't feel comfortable teaching things that I "just know" but can't "prove." Does that make sense?