Advertise on ChoralNet
Bowings in Schubert Mass in E FlatDate: March 12, 2010
Dear Colleagues,
In the Benedictus movement of Schubert's Mass in E Flat, The Schuberts Werke edition has long slurs for the strings. I've done this work before, but I keep going back and forth on how to bow these passages. The long slurs only occur when the dynamic marking is piano or quieter, which means that the players should be able to manage those long phrases on a single bow. I'm writing to inquire if you have found that it works to retain Schubert's bowings. Does it make sense, for instance, for a student orchestra, to split up the phrases more? I'm wondering if I'll have trouble getting the players to make articulations and emphases if they are taking so many notes on one bow. My inclination is to stay close to Schubert's markings. On the other hand, the bowing markings in Schubert's day didn't always mean the same thing as they do today. I would interpret the accent marks in the middle section of the Benedictus, for instance, as bow stroke indications, and not a staccato as we would tend to read it. Any wisdom you can share will be appreciated.
John Rommereim Replies (9): Threaded | Chronological
John Howell on March 12, 2010 4:37pm
Hi, John. Any chance you could post some examples? I don't have a score handy at all.
The only way you can tell about the long slurs is to try them. And yes, the age (and therefore maturity and technique) of your players can make a difference. Playing long phrases in one bow is HARD, both musically and physically! And yes, it's even harder to make "articulations and emphases," although if you have articulations marked it would make me question the long slurs as being nothing but phrase markings. But in any case, if you have a good concertmaster, I would suggest taking it up with him or her.
But what makes you think that those are Schubert's bowings? Or that they are indeed intended as bowings and not as a pianist's phrase markings? Certainly they might be, but only if he supervised the original publication (never a given for Schubert), and if subsequent publications have followed the originals.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that, "the bowing markings in Schubert's day didn't always mean the same thing as they do today." May I ask what, specifically, you have in mind? He did write during the transitional phase between the older baroque bow and the newer Tourte model, but I have a feeling that isn't what you mean. And what kind of accent marks do you find in the middle section (and what, exactly, do you mean by "bow stroke indications")? A staccato marking is indeed a "bow stroke indication."
I'd be happy to help, since I'm a strings player, but without something more concrete to go on I really can't. I will, however, check on line to see whether I can find any downloadable scores.
All the best,
John Howell
John.Howell(a)vt.edu
on March 12, 2010 5:01pm
Followup: OK, unfortunately the only score on CPDL is a piano-vocal score, not a full score, and the long slurs are not indicated.
The articulation markings at 26 and again at 83, however, are most definitely articulation markings for a marcato bow stroke, meaning a staccato in which the bow may or may not leave the string but each note starts on the string, unlike a spiccato. (The difference is and always has been ambiguous on paper, but the wedges (rather than dots) were common in Mozart's music and do not appear to have a different meaning than dots, although they might be interpreted as being more accented.
AHA!!! There is a website with scans of some pages of D950, and the opening of the Benedictus is there. It's the orchestra only, without the voices, and it's in piano score. But there are NO long slurs in the autograph manuscript, and there are NO wedges at bar 23. So both markings are editorial, although of course we can't discount the possibility that Schubert may have been the editor, and that he didn't bother with all the details in his piano sketch. I would, however, take this as evidence that you do have the authority to change what's in the published edition, at least until better evidence comes to light. The Collected Works may have more and better information, although the Revisionsbericht is likely to be in impenetrable German!
John
on March 12, 2010 5:07pm
John Rommereim asks about bowings in the Benedictus of Schubert's Mass in E-flat.
Wow! A real question about music!!
Much depends on the tempo you take. In my experience, for the most part the marked slurs work as bowings, at least for the violins -- the violas are aided by dividing some of the slurs in two, as are the cellos/basses. But in the passage between rehearsal letters B and C (mm. 35-43) I divide the slurs into two bows even for the violins -- it's a fuller sonority there (with the winds added) and benefits from a more extroverted sound than that at the beginning. The main thing is to arrange the bowings so they can be in the optimal part of the bow as much of the time as possible. But I've only done the piece with professional orchestras.
Best regards,
Jerome Hoberman
Music Director/Conductor, The Hong Kong Bach Choir & Orchestra
Principal Conductor, Baguio Cathedral International Music Festival (Philippines)
on March 17, 2010 7:57am
Dear Colleagues,
I apologize for starting this bowings thread and then going silent. I was busily marking parts. I ended up keeping most of Schubert's slurs. Looking at the score overall, it does seem that there has been a lot of care in how the parts are slurred. The longer bows never occur in louder sections, for instance. Jerome Hoberman's suggestion to break up the slurs between letters B and C in the Benedictus seems like an excellent idea. In the opening of the Benedictus, the long slurs are effective because the strings are playing quietly on their own, and they don't need to project over the choir or winds. Since we don't have a large orchestra, it makes sense to have them use more bow in the middle section, however, where, as Hoberman points out, "a more extroverted sound" is called for.
Elsewhere, there are interesting details with regard to slurs: In the "dona nobis pacem" section, the slurs are every half measure except for at a few strategic spots, where the bowing is across the full measure. If you retain the slurs as Schubert (presumably) marked them, you get an interesting variety of emphasis. If you even it out and remove the full-bar slurs (as someone did in the parts we're using), making each bar the same, then, I think, it might be too regular. Part of the charm of the "dona nobis" is the frequency with which accents occur in unexpected places.
When I said that "bowing markings in Schubert's day didn't always mean the same thing as they do today," I was thinking of manuscripts that I had seen from the early 19th century with vertical strokes to indicate bow changes. My impression was that those marks did not necessarily always imply a short note or even an accent. I notice that in Rilling's recording, which I greatly admire (Bach Collegium Stuttgart), the passage marked with the slashes in the Benedictus (letter A to B) is not performed staccato, or even strongly accented. He seems to be interpreting the slashes in the winds as a tonguing mark, or something like a tenuto. The overall effect (not overly accented or staccato, a firm forte, roughly non-legato) maintains the stately character of the movement. My main point was to discourage the players from assuming that they should always accent or play the note short whenever they see the vertical stroke in their part.
Many thanks for your ideas -- and sorry again for dropping out abruptly.
John Rommereim
on March 12, 2010 5:57pm
You mean all those two-bar long slurs?
>>Does it make sense, for instance, for a student orchestra, to split up the phrases more?
If the student can't manage, or produce not-beautiful sound because of the bowing, by all means change the bowing.
You should always concider the composers slur markings as "suggestion." (Even the composition for modern compoers too. Most of the composers don't play string instruments, anyway. So there are always chances for better markings which would bring the composers' ideal better)
In general, treat any articulation markings like the general attitude of the perticular lines. You would have more musical success, if you use articulation markings as "keys" to draw more beauty, power and etc of the perticular sections.
on March 14, 2010 6:09pm
Thank you, Stephen. Now that I've seen it, John's questions are easy to answer. (And this score is from the Schubert Collected Works, which means that in the editors' opinions the markings are either Schuberts or close enough for jazz.)
The two-bar slurs are NOT all that long. (You had me worried, picturing 8-bar slurs!!) Especially not in cut time, even a moderate cut time. I wouldn't mess with them.
The articulation marks at 23 and later do indeed call for a sharp marcato bowing, especially when the passage is marked forte. No question.
This is fairly normal string writing, and we must remember that while we think of Schubert as a pianist he was also a string quartet player.
All the best,
John H
on March 14, 2010 8:23pm
John,
This is a great site which has become useful for fact checks.
Last year, I was at the pre-concert talk before the Syracuse Symphony Orchestra concert. Da Falla's Nights in the Garden of Spain was my particular interest of the evening and the pianist and guest conductor were effusing about da Falla's great love of Wagner and he used the Tristan Theme some in his works. I mentioned the mavelous appearance of the the Tristan Theme in the uplifting climax of the First Movement: four fortissimo horns deeply in love over tutti ochestra. The conductor sniffed and dismissed that appearance. I can only think that he might be splitting hairs because when I went to this site in hopes of finding the score, there it was, in a different key, but clearly the theme loudly proclaimed. VINDICATOR!
S
|
Help support ChoralNet by buying via these links
|
