Movement I - Measures 107 to 112

One might expect measures 107 to 112 to be the same as the corresponding section in the exposition but in the key of F major. Beethoven, however, makes quite a few changes. Here is the passage in the exposition:

And here it is in the recapitulation:

In the exposition, Beethoven presents a statement (forte). He then then answers the statement (piano) by sequencing it up a minor third. He repeats this process, then ends with a cadence on the dominant.

In the recapitulation, the statement and answer are switched. Originally, the first phrase was the statement; the second phrase was the answer. In the recapitulation, the first phrase overlaps with the flourish of the previous passage. So it is the second phrase that becomes the statement. To clarify this new function, Beethoven changes the dynamic to forte and drops the dotted-rhythm inner voice.

The third phrase, marked piano, becomes the new answer. But the melody is changed. The F-E-C that used to be the melody becomes an inner voice (presented in the dotted rhythm characteristic of the answer in the exposition). The new melody (B natural-C) anticipates the cadence and drives home the F major tonality. The statement and answer then repeat an octave higher, after which we have the cadence, marked sforzando. Note this procedure requires an additional measure. The passage is now seven measures long rather than the six measures we had in the exposition.

In the literal transcription below, I have followed Beethoven's procedure (from the exposition) of alternating the melody between the first and second violins.

In his arrangement, Beethoven makes some of the same decisions he made in the exposition. Specifically, (1) he replaces the alternating dynamics with sforzandi on beat three of each measure; (2) he incorporates the dotted quarter rhythm in all three upper parts at the cadence; and (3) he replaces the final chord with octave Cs (as I did in the transcription). We discussed these decisions when we examined measures 16 to 22. So we will restrict this discussion to decisions that are new in this passage.

One such decision is in the viola part. In the exposition, the viola alternated between doubling the first and second violin at the third or sixth. Here, the viola always doubles the second violin. This makes sense, since the second violin always has the more interesting part in this passage. 

Beethoven chooses to omit the first violin altogether in the first measure. This thinning of texture offers a respite from the business of the preceding measures and supports the crescendo that begins in measure 109. When the first violin does enter, Beethoven changes the articulation, making the C a staccato quarter note rather than a half note. This makes the passage decidedly cleaner. As you can hear in the literal transcription, leaving these Cs as half notes weighs the passage down. (This isn't true on the piano because of the piano's faster decay.)

Even though the cello plays only repeated Cs, there are some changes to its part as well. For one, the sforzando is omitted in the first measure. Beethoven seems to be thinking of the inner voices as one unit and the outer voices as another unit. So he waits for the first violin to enter before the cello joins in the sforzandi.

Also, Beethoven changes the spot where the bass moves up an octave. In the piano version, this happens on beat three of measure 109. In the string version, it happens on the second eighth note of that measure (mimicking the similar move in the exposition). One could argue, however, that these spots are rhetorically identical. In each case, the octave leap occurs immediately after the phrase ends. But, because the last note of the phrase is a half note in the piano version and a staccato quarter note in the string version, the end of the phrase occurs in different places. In other words, the change in the cello part is simply a consequence of the change in the first violin part.

An interesting detail is Beethoven's treatment of the C on beat two of measure 107. In the piano version, this C ends the phrase from the previous measure. This phrasing made sense in the exposition, since this note was part of the motive. In this passage, however, it makes more sense to end the phrase on the E one beat earlier, at the end of the first violin's sixteenth-note flourish. In the string version, Beethoven does just that. The phrase ends on E, and the C becomes transitional, an anacrusis to the main motive. To make this clear, Beethoven gives the C to the second violin and makes it staccato.This is another example of Beethoven's paying more attention to voice leading in the string version than he did in the piano version.

Movement I - Measures 101 to 106

Measures 95 to 100 are unchanged from the exposition, so we will skip to measures 101-106.

In the exposition, these measures feature the main theme in F major, modulating to C major. Here, the main theme enters abruptly in D-flat major. The appearance of the B natural in measure 106 converts the D-flat chord into a German sixth, which resolves, on the downbeat of measure 107, to the dominant of F major. Thus Beethoven has performed the customary Viennese Classical trick of retaining the modulatory feel of the bridge without actually modulating. Despite the jolt when the theme enters in D-flat major, we wind up right back in F major where we started.

Here is what a literal transcription would sound like. (Measures 101 and 102 are taken from Beethoven's actual arrangement of the exposition.)

There are two problems with this transcription: (1) It is not as energetic as the piano version. The long, held notes bogs the passage down, especially in measures 105 and 106. (2) There are parallel fifths between the second violin and cello leading into measure 103, and it's not easy to see how to fix them. The second violin's G can't resolve to an F, because the violin can't go that low. And dropping the second violin out and leaving the G hanging would sound strange.

Beethoven fixes both these problems with his arrangement.

First, the technical problem. Beethoven does avoid the parallel fifths by resolving the second violin's G to an F, but he resolves it to a high F, bringing the second violin up above the first violin. He then makes the F a quarter note to get out of the way of the melody, which seems to emerge unexpectedly from the texture. This emergence quality is enhanced by the B flat at the end of measure 101, which makes the theme a continuation of the soprano line rather than the disjoint entity we hear in the piano version. The disjointedness in this arrangement comes not from the voice leading, as in the piano version, but from the dynamics. Beethoven changes the diminuendo in measure 102 to a crescendo, so the ensuing pianissimo offers more of a jolt.

How does Beethoven keep the energy high in the remaining measures? In measures 103 to 104, he presents the melody in a single line (rather than the chords of the piano version) and distributes the energetic accompaniment among all three lower strings. The extra voices give him some additional flexibility. For one thing, they enable him to retain the pedal tone in the lower octave. Rather than run up to the high D flat, Beethoven keeps the cello on the low D flat and changes the sixteenth-note run into a trill. The second violin and viola take over the eighth note figure at the end of the measure, which become rising chords rather than a restatement of the pedal tone.

In measures 105-106, Beethoven makes some changes to the run in the first violin. As usual, for ensemble purposes, he has the run begin on the downbeat, eliminating the sixteenth note rest. But this change renders measure 107 problematic. Since we have heard the same rhythm (an eighth and two sixteenths) on beats one and three of measure 105, we expect to hear the that rhythm a third time in measure 106. Beethoven accommodates us by shifting the sixteenth notes of measure 106 over half a beat. He then fills out the extra half beat by adding a turn on beat three.

As for the accompaniment, we observed earlier that the cello's long D flat in the transcription bogs these measures down. So Beethoven replaces the long D flat with a descent from D flat to B natural, doubled by the viola. This new line delays the German sixth until beat three of measure 106. Beethoven highlights its arrival with a sforzando and double stops in the second violin.

Movement I - Measures 91 to 94

In the recapitulation, Beethoven changes the character of the main theme. He plays it forte, with chords in the right hand and fast ascending F major scales in the left hand. Here is the original piano version, followed by a literal transcription for string quartet:

Beethoven changes the character of the main theme in his string arrangement as well. But he doesn't change it in quite the same way. Recall that the exposition of the piano version featured octave doublings of the melody on beat three of each measure, which gave beat three a little extra weight:

In the string version, he omitted these octave doublings, so that theme did not have this emphasis on beat three. But, as it turns out, Beethoven did not actually abandon this element of the theme. He simply waited until the recapitulation to feature it. Now he emphasizes beat three with a vengeance: (1) He adds a sforzando in the first violin and cello. (2) He adds a double stop in the first violin (doubling, more interestingly, at the sixth rather than at the octave). (3) Rather than have an ascending scale throughout the measure, he ascends up to the sforzando, then has a descending scale away from it. And finally (4) he marks the passage as piano to set the sforzando off more effectively.



What else does Beethoven change? To begin with, he gives the cello an eighth note (rather than a sixteenth note rest followed by a sixteenth note) on the downbeat of measure 91. This change was predictable. Beethoven has consistently had the strings begin passages together for ease of ensemble playing.

He also adds some harmonic interest to the passage by using different descending scales in the second half of each measure. The descending scales outline, in order, the harmonies V/IV, IV, and V. Note the E-flats in measures 91 and 92. These E-flats were not present in the piano version. Here, they tonicize the subdominant, giving the theme a more grandiose feeling.

Finally, note his scoring of measure 94. In the exposition, he scored this measure as follows, using the second violin and viola to add support to the high F in the first violin.

In the recapitulation, he lets the first violin trail off by itself, not wishing to slow down the action by the sudden introduction of half notes in the middle strings.

Movement I - Measures 85 - 90

In the piano version, the second phrase of the retransition (measures 85 to 88) is an exact repetition of the first phrase. Measures 89 to 90 then lead back to F major for the recapitulation:

A literal transcription follows:

In the string arrangement, Beethoven treats each phrase differently. We discussed measures 81 to 84 last week, but I repeat them here for comparison:

In measure 85, the cello plays the theme an octave lower than in the first phrase. (This answers the first question from last week. The low Cs at the end of measure 84 were preparation for this octave drop.) The viola plays the same notes as before (also an octave lower) but now plays half notes instead of eighth notes. Together, these changes reinforce the feeling of a stretto that Beethoven began in the first phrase. The entrance of the theme in a new octave sounds like a new voice, a fourth statement of the subject. The half notes in the viola sound like a counter subject, and the fact that the half notes begin on beat three rather than beat one reinforces this impression.

The violins play the eighth note accompaniment, but with a twist. Instead of repeated Cs, each triple begins with a B natural, the dominant leading tone. This adds variety to the second phrase, but I think there is a more subtle reason for this change that will become apparent later on. We can now answer the second question from last week. Why did Beethoven not resolve the B natural in the second violin part? He does; he just waits until beat two to resolve it.

In measure 87, we have the final entrance of the subject in the first violin. The second violin joins the viola in playing half notes while the cello takes over the eighth-note accompanimental figure. Having three voices playing half notes and one playing eighth notes (rather than the other way around, as in the piano version) lends the serenity to this passage that a retransition requires. Note the cello omits the B natural in the second triple of each measure, thus avoiding a cross relation in measure 89.

As expected, Beethoven revoices the chords in measures 87 and 88 to avoid the parallel octaves. But why does he give the viola the higher part? Presumably because lower part is the counter-subject, which the viola has already played. In fugal writing, each entrance of the subject or counter-subject is taken up by a new voice. So Beethoven is simply continuing to treat this passage as a stretto.

In measure 89, Beethoven starts the modulation to the home key of F major. Purists will object to calling this a modulation. Technically, going from F minor to F major is a mode shift, not a modulation. But it certainly feels like a modulation. The B-flat in the melody has a definite turning-the-corner-and-heading-back-to-home feel to it. And that, I think, is why Beethoven added all those B naturals to the accompaniment. He wanted B natural ringing in our ears, so the B flat would have this effect.

At the very end of the phrase, Beethoven adds an eighth note C to the melody. Again, he is paying close attention to voice leading. Without that eighth note, we would expect the next note in the first violin to be an F. But, since the next measure starts the recapitulation, it is going be a C. This added eighth note keeps that C from sounding incongruous. In the piano version, the eighth note is unnecessary, because we can hear the return of the opening theme as a new voice rather than as a continuation of this line. (A sensitive pianist would certainly play it that way.)

One last thing to puzzle through is the change in dynamics. In the piano version, Beethoven writes a diminuendo in this passage. In the string version, he drops to pianissimo and crescendos. Why this change? I suspect it is due to what happens next. In the piano version, the recapitulation begins forte. In the string version, it will begin piano (for reasons we will consider next week). Beethoven wants a sudden dynamic shift at the start of the recapitulation. So, if it is going to start piano, he must change the diminuendo in this passage to a crescendo.

Movement I - Measures 81 to 84

In measure 81, Beethoven begins the retransition. We have two phrases in F minor, each consisting of a statement and answer of the opening motif:

In the piano version, the second phrase is an exact repetition of the first phrase. In the string version, Beethoven will, of course, not be satisfied with an exact repetition. We will hold off on phrase two until next week. This post will focus on the first phrase.

Here is what a literal transcription would sound like. (Ignore the diagonal lines for now.)

Note there is a voice-leading problem. There are parallel octaves between the first violin and viola going from measure 83 to 84. Mr. Rappaport would never have let me get away with that. But the truth is, even a purist like Mozart did not worry about these things so much in his piano works, provided the parallelism was between the melody and an inner voice and provided the texture was homophonic. What, after all, is the alternative? In an ensemble, you might change the tenor's E to a C, doubling the bass. But you wouldn't hear it as doubling on the piano. It would just sound as if one of the voices dropped out. On the piano, it sounds better to retain the full texture, even with the parallel octaves.

I would not, however, expect Mozart or Beethoven to let this slide in a string quartet, where you hear the voice leading more clearly. So I suspect Beethoven will get rid of the parallel octaves in his arrangement.  Here is his solution:

First, Beethoven eliminates the pedal point in measures 81 and 82. This makes sense. The retransition serves to cool things down after the stormy developmental core, so the texture needs to thin out. The pedal point sounds okay on the piano, with its fast decay. But in strings, it would make the texture too heavy. Beethoven also drops the first violin, leaving the second and viola to handle the accompaniment on their own.

In measures 83 and 84, Beethoven makes more radical changes. He reduces he eighth note accompaniment from two voices to one as it is taken over by the cello, and he has the viola double the second violin at the sixth. The first violin finally enters at measure 84 with a third statement of the opening motive. If we hear the viola line as a continuation of the cello line from measures 81 to 82, then the whole phrase takes the form of a fugal stretto.

The amazing thing is Beethoven accomplishes this by simply redistributing the notes in the original version to different voices. As the diagonal lines show, the viola's C-A flat-G-D line comes from moving from the tenor to the alto and back again. The first violin's statement of the theme comes from choosing the C from the bass, then the F from the alto. The only notes from the original that are not redistrubuted are the F and E in the tenor. But these are the precisely the parallel octaves that we wanted to get rid of anyway. Very clever.

Note that Beethoven resolves the first violin and viola lines on the downbeat of measure 85. Why did Beethoven not resolve the second violin line?  And why did he drop the cello to a low C on the second half of measure 84? Both of these questions will be answered when we see Beethoven's arrangement of the second phrase next week.

Finally, if you haven't already done so, I invite you to 'like' my professional page at https://www.facebook.com/PhillipMartinComposer. Perhaps you can even listen to a composition or two on the Bandpage tab and decide for yourself whether Beethoven has been able to teach me anything.

Movement I - Measures 75 to 80

Standard procedure in the development section calls for a pre-core (material of lesser emotional intensity) followed by a core (material that is unstable and dramatic). The core consists of a model that is sequenced in different keys.

Beethoven follows this procedure here. Measures 61 to 64 constituted the pre-core; measure 65 began the core. The model (measures 65 to 70) was first stated in B-flat minor. In measure 75, Beethoven begins a restatement in D-flat major. The restatement is interrupted, however, by a modulation to F minor.

In the piano version, Beethoven has consistently used dynamics to highlight the structure of the core. He continues to follow this procedure here. Measure 77, which begins the modulation, is marked pianissimo, as if to whisper "You didn't expect that, now, did you?"

In the string version, however, Beethoven highlights the structure by modifying the accompaniment. Had he followed by pianistic scheme and patterned the accompaniment here after the original model, we would have this:

Instead, Beethoven gives us this:

Rather than simply repeat the earlier pattern, he has the viola echo the cello's arpeggios, leaving the second violin to manage the tremolos on its own. This interplay raises the intensity of this passage, an effect that is enhanced (as observed last week) by the fact that the arpeggios were eliminated altogether in the bridge between the model statements.

In measure 79, Beethoven does something he has not previously done in the core: give the cello sustained notes, rhythmically doubling the melody. We have heard nothing but eighth notes in the cello for the past 14 measures. So the sustained notes provide a dramatic build-up to the climax on the downbeat of measure 80. After the climax, the cello immediately returns to its eighth note tremolos.

None of this drama is present in the piano version with its relentless arpeggios. At least it is not present in the score.It's up to the performer to discover the harmonic narrative and bring it out in performance. Since the string quartet has a greater expressive range than the piano, there is no need for Beethoven to be so coy.

The final measure illustrates some voice-leading considerations. Adding the long line in the cello in measure 79 required changing the bass in measure 80. The bass is now a D rather than a B-flat. But a second inversion vii/V chord resolving to V does not provide the dramatic half-cadence Beethoven wants. So he flats the D, changing the chord into a German sixth.

Note the way Beethoven resolves the German sixth at the very end of the phrase. Later composers would resolve the viola's A-flat to a G, since the German sixth came to be considered as an exception to the prohibition against parallel fifths. Beethoven, however, still feels the need to avoid the parallel fifths and resolves the A-flat upward to a C.  He also meticulously drops the viola's F down an octave before moving to the A-flat. Why? So that he approaches the dissonance (A-flat against the melody's G) in contrary motion. Approaching the dissonance in similar motion (from the high F) would not sound as good. Such Bach-like attention to detail is one of the things that makes Beethoven's music so exceptional.

Movement I - Measures 71 to 74

Visually, measures 71 to 74 look similar to the preceding six measures.

There are, however, several differences:

(1) The harmonic motion speeds up. Previously, the harmony changed every two measures. Now it changes every measure.

(2) The previous passage, in B-flat minor, was harmonically static.This passage modulates, reaching D-flat major on the downbeat of measure 75.

(3) The melody is transformed. In the previous passage, we heard the same melody three times. In measures 71 to 72 that melody is (roughly) inverted. And in measure 74 it is interrupted and replaced with a new syncopated figure.

In the piano version, Beethoven retains the same accompanying figure in these measures that he used in the previous measures. The only clue the accompaniment offers that something different is going on is the octave drop in measure 74, which, along with the new syncopated melody, dramatizes the arrival in D-flat major.

In the string version, however, Beethoven helps us hear the newness of this material by changing the accompaniment. Had he followed the same pattern as in the previous section, we would have this:

Because the harmony now changes every measure instead of every two measures, this scheme doesn't work well. It sounds strange to arpeggiate the harmonies in the odd measures but not the even measures. Beethoven might have added arpeggios to the even measures as well. But he preferred to dial things back instead. He drops the arpeggios altogether and has the cello join the middle strings in their tremolo. (As we shall see next week, dialing things back now gives him the chance ratchet things up more effectively later on. This is a technique known to all good composers and horror film directors.)

Even though the cello joins in the tremolo, it retains its individuality by playing eighth notes to the middle strings' sixteenth notes. It also employs the device Beethoven has used previously to accentuate the downbeat: an octave dip on the first note of each tremolo.

Note Beethoven changes the point where the bass drops down an octave to the low A-flat. In the piano version, this happens at the beginning of measure 74. In the string version, it happens three beats earlier. Why? Presumably, it is because the very climax of the passage has changed. In the piano version, the climax is on the sforzando in measure 74. In the string version, Beethoven eliminates this sforzando and marks a forte at the beginning of measure 73, shifting the climax to this point. In addition, he lands emphatically on the final cadence, specifying a forte-piano on the downbeat of measure 75. In the piano version, this measure is marked piano, so as not to upstage the sforzando of the previous measure. (These quarter notes aren't in the real score, by the way. I added them to avoid ending the sound sample on an unresolved dominant.)

What are these changes all about? Beethoven is being sensitive to the realities of string writing. A pianist can land forcefully and effectively on that high G-flat. But this would not work in strings. The violin's sound is too thin in that register to produce a convincing sforzando with no assistance from the accompaniment. The downbeat of measure 72, assisted by the change of harmony and a low A-flat in the cello, is a more natural place for the climax.

This is the kind of change an arranger might be afraid to make. How can you move the climax of the phrase? Isn't that tampering too much with the original? But Beethoven, who doesn't have to worry about offending himself, has no qualms about making whatever changes the new medium requires. Fidelity to the original is desirable. But it's more important that the music sound good.

Movement I - Measures 65 to 70

As I mentioned in the last post, this passage is particularly pianistic:

A literal transcription is virtually impossible at this speed, so I changed the arpeggios to something more string-friendly:

Beethoven does something quite different in his arrangement. Instead of arpeggios, he uses sixteenth-note tremolos in the middle strings. To keep this from getting boring, he adds a new countermelody in the cello. This countermelody takes up the arpeggio idea from the piano version, but the arpeggios are now staccato eighth notes and span two octaves. The countermelody provides the motion when the melody has a long note but then drops out on each even measure when the melody is moving. This scheme results in a cleaner, less busy sound.

Beethoven also changes the dynamics. The piano score contains a crescendo in the last two measures. (A short-lived crescendo. The very next measure, measure 71, will be marked piano.) Beethoven drops the crescendo in the string score and adds a forte-piano to the first beat of each odd measure. The forte-pianos add to the excitement, and it is the tremolos that makes them possible. Forte-pianos would sound very strange in the piano version.

Beethoven begins this passage with a dramatic leap in the second violin, which helps to differentiate this new section. Beethoven went out of his way to make this leap a large one. We noted last week that he gratuitously widened the spread between the second violin and viola at the end of measure 64. This widening sets up the high D-flat in measure 65. A more natural voice-leading would have had the violin leaping, less dramatically, from a B-flat.

Why does Beethoven invert the voicing in the tremolo chord, giving the second violin the B-flat and the viola the D-flat? Perhaps one reason is to make the leap in the second violin that much larger. But I suspect the main reason is he simply didn't want the viola to play the same note on the downbeat as the in rest of the measure. He did something similar in the first measure of the piece, scoring it as

rather than

This movement, in each case, ensures that we hear the chord on the downbeat as an entity distinct from the ensuing tremolos.

Movement I - Measures 61 to 64

The development section begins with a modulation to B-flat minor:

The most curious note in this passage is the C on the downbeat of measure 63. Every other melody note is doubled at the octave (unless the left hand is in the way). Here, Beethoven unexpectedly tosses in a tritone. Clearly he wants to draw attention to the modulation. We feel a jolt at this point that we would not feel if he had simply doubled the G-flat at the octave.

The literal transcription below is unsatisfactory for a number reasons. For one thing, the texture is too thick in the lower register. For another, we don't feel the aforementioned jolt on the downbeat of measure 63. The lone C in the second violin doesn't do the job.

Beethoven, in his arrangement, fixes both these problems--and others as well:

As expected, Beethoven adds a chord on the downbeat of measure 61. His reasons for doing this in measure one still apply. But he now has the addition reason of voice-leading. He must resolve the dominant chord at the end of measure 60.

Beethoven also adds a chord to the downbeat of measure 63. This not only continues the pattern begun two measures earlier. But, more importantly, it supplies the jolt that is missing in the transcription. He draws attention to this chord by tying the G-flat in the melody. It is the change in harmony that is important here, not the melody.

After the downbeat, the lower strings leap up an octave. This leap continues the pattern from measure 61. But, conveniently, it serves two other purposes as well: (1) It brings the lower strings closer to the first violin, avoiding the muddy texture of the transcription. (2) It gives Beethoven the chance to have the bass descend over the next two measures as the melody ascends. The widening wedge to support a crescendo is a device we already encountered in measures 50-56.

In the piano, the device used to support the crescendo was a thickened chord texture (which was true in measures 50-56 as well). The wedge makes that unnecessary, and Beethoven sticks to four-note chords. In the first chord, he drops the seventh. In the remaining chords, he simply avoids doubling the melody. This means dropping the E-flat at the beginning of measure 64. Since the E-flat is in the bass, dropping the E-flat means choosing a new bass note, which fits right in with the widening-wedge plan. Look how nicely that all worked out.

The final chord could have been voiced differently. Beethoven might have retained the A in the second violin and had the viola drop down to a C. That, in fact, would be more typical voice leading. But Beethoven apparently wanted to extend the wedge device to the inner voices as well.

I made a suggestion a few weeks ago that any composers reading this blog should try to do their own arrangements before reading about what Beethoven did. That applies especially to next week's passage. It is highly pianistic, so a literal translation is virtually impossible. I'm curious how other composers might try to arrange this passage. So, if you feel so inclined, feel free to post your solution in a comment either on the blogspot.com page or on the associated Facebook page. I doubt you will come up with the same solution as Beethoven. But that's not necessarily wrong. There is a variety of possible solutions, and I'm sure that among us we can up with several ways to achieve the desired effect.

This is the passage:

Movement I - Measures 57 to 61

Measures 57 to 60 modulate back to the tonic for the repeat of the exposition:

In the transcription, I have, of necessity, eliminated the low Cs in the accompaniment:

I brought the first violin in on measure 59 to handle the extra chord tones. That's not an entirely satisfactory solution. The return of the main theme in measure 61 would be more dramatic if the first violin were tacit until that point. Perhaps it would be better to handle the extra chord tones with double stops in the viola? I'm curious to see how Beethoven solves this problem.

Before we get to his solution, however, let's take a look at how he arranges measure 57 and 58:

Beethoven eliminates the opening eighth note rest and has all four instruments play on the downbeat. Recall that he did something similar in the first measure of this movement.

became

In measure one, Beethoven voiced the first chord differently than in the rest of the measure, which helped to articulate the downbeat. In measure 57, however, Beethoven voices the chord the same way. So the effect is different here than it was in measure one. We don't feel the downbeat so strongly, and the passage feels more like a transition than a beginning, as it should.

If accentuating the downbeat is not Beethoven's purpose in making this change, then what is his purpose? I suspect he was simply giving the players a helping hand. A slight retard was implicit in the previous measure, so it will be difficult for the players to get back in tempo unless they begin this measure together. This is why Beethoven adds the apparently extraneous quarter-note C in the first violin part. The players will look to the first violin for their cue, so Beethoven must give him something to play.

So how does Beethoven solve the aforementioned problem? That is, how does he fill out the chords in the accompaniment without destroying the dramatic effect of the return of the main theme? He borrows a trick from Mozart.

In the retransition in the first movement of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet (a work we've already compared to this quartet in a different context), Mozart has the clarinet hold an E for three measures while the strings modulate back to A major. Only when we reach A major on the downbeat of the fourth measure do we realize that this E we've been hearing in the clarinet is actually the first note of the primary theme. The recapitulation has actually already begun; we just didn't know it yet. The clarinet began the theme by itself, then waited for everyone else to catch up. It's one of my favorite moments in all of Mozart:

(Score in concert pitch)

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Beethoven had the Clarinet Quintet in mind when he scored this passage. Like Mozart, he has the soprano instrument begin the primary theme three measures early, then wait for everyone else to finish the modulation. But, instead of just holding the note for three measures, he elaborates it with a couple of turns.

These turns serve two purposes:

(1) They hark back to the secondary theme. The secondary theme began with the same opening gesture as the primary theme--a dominant rising to tonic--but with a turn thrown in:

This transition is an elongation of that same idea.

(2) They fill out the harmony in the accompaniment. The two turns are not identical. Beethoven manipulates them so that, on the first and last of the three eighth-note chords, the first violin plays the precise chord tones that are missing in the lower strings.

So Beethoven fits in the extra chord tones not by adding the first violin to the accompaniment as I did in the transcription nor by using double stops as I speculated he might do. Instead, he slyly incorporates the extra chord tones into a new melody that prepares us for the return the primary theme. All in all, it's quite an elegant solution.

Movement I - Measures 50 to 56

This passage consists of three phrases, rising from piano to fortissimo. In the piano version, Beethoven supports this crescendo by thickening the texture. He begins with four-part harmony and finishes with full fortissimo chords.

Since these chords aren't practical for string quartet, I've retained four-part writing throughout in my transcription:

In his string arrangement, Beethoven uses a different technique to support the crescendo: He gradually increases the spacing. The parts begin in the same octave and finish with the bass and soprano more than three octaves apart.

In phrase one, Beethoven raises both the bass and tenor one octave, placing the viola above the second violin. In the second measure, this close spacing crowds the viola out. There is no good note for the viola to play on the first beat of this measure. A D, as in the piano version, would anticipate the resolution of the melody (which will sound worse in strings than it does on the piano). Doubling the cello's F would be fine at the octave (as in my transcription). But a unison doubling on a note that screams for a strong vibrato is not a good idea. So Beethoven omits the viola part altogether and switches to a three-voice texture.

On the cadence, Beethoven has the cello drop down an octave for the second G. Repeating the high G would not work, since the final chord would not be in root position. This octave drop supplies Beethoven with a new motive, which he duly exploits. He gives the cello another octave drop at the end of phrase two and an octave rise at the end of phase three. This octave rise turns the last two notes of this passage into an echo. Very clever. Beethoven takes an idea born of necessity and turns into a unifying feature.

The final change Beethoven makes to phrase one is to add a sforzando. Perhaps he thought the six-voice chord gave the climax sufficient weight in the original. In the string version, the number of voices is actually reduced in the climax, so the sforzando becomes necessary.

Phrase two returns to four-voice writing, with the bass and tenor again raised an octave. This time, however, the second violin takes the raised tenor part (starting on beat three) and the viola takes the alto. Why didn't Beethoven do this is the first phrase as well? Apparently he prefers to give the second violin whichever part moves in similar motion to the first violin. In the first phrase, that's the alto part; in the second phrase, it's the tenor.

In phrase three, both the tenor and bass drop down to their normal register. (The new octave-drop motive now serves yet another function: preparing this register change.) The second violin doubles the melody an octave below, leaving the viola to cover both inner voices with double stops. The combination of the octave doubling of the melody and the lowered bass effects the grandeur supplied by the chords in the piano version.

At the cadence, Beethoven adds a retardation in the viola part so that it moves in thirds with the melody.This is one of those changes that are obvious in retrospect. Beethoven is simply paying more attention to good voice leading in the string version than he did in the piano version. Note the crisp effect of having staccato in the bass while the other three voices play legato.

The final measure puzzled me at first. Beethoven chose to fill out the final chord by adding a D. But why give the D to the second violin? Beethoven went out of his way to cross the parts, so there must be a reason. The reason, presumably, is that the B is the "melody." But so what? We are going to hear the higher note as the melody no matter which violin plays it. Then it occurred to me. Yes, we will hear the D as the melody. But Beethoven wasn't writing for us. He produced this arrangement for amateur string players who get together on Sunday afternoons to play through some popular pieces. The performers themselves will be aware that the B is being played by the first violin. So I suspect they will hear the B as the melody.

At least that's my guess. Another possibility is that the D was an afterthought.  Perhaps originally the second violin was silent on this chord. Then Beethoven decided to add a D. Rather then scratch out the first violin part and rewrite it, he just gave the D to the second violin. As someone who learned to compose before music notation software and actually worked with dip pens and onion skin, I can attest to the temptation to do such a thing. But, if you look at some of Beethoven's manuscripts, you can see he wasn't shy about crossing things out. So I'm not sure that explanation holds up.

Movement I - Measures 46 to 50

Measure 46 begins the cadential material:

 

Here is Beethoven's arrangement:

The most noticeable change on paper is probably the least notable change to the ear, namely replacing the cello's triplets with a sixteenth note followed by two thirty-second notes. At this speed, it's hard to see how it matters. It's more of a visual cue for the performer. Beethoven probably just wants to ensure that the cellist doesn't rush the first note so that we hear the added sforzando.

Adding a staccato to downbeats for both the cello and viola is to be expected by now. Beethoven has been making changes like this all along to ensure a crisp downbeat. What is perhaps not expected is his having the viola repeat the C--with a sforzando no less--on beat two of each measure. This is the change we hear most readily when listening to the two versions. The transcription, with its sforzando only on beat three, sounds almost march-like. In Beethoven's arrangment, the round robin of sforzandi on beats two, three, and four and half, keeps the passage from sounding square.

This is a shorter passage than usual for one of these posts. So I'll take this opportunity to make a few general comments about this blog.

Two of the earliest influences in my education as a composer were, strange as it may seem, Edgar Allen Poe and Benjamin Franklin. Poe will have to wait for another time. Franklin's influence comes from this excerpt from his autobiography where he discusses how he taught himself to write prose:

"About this time I met with an odd volume of the Spectator.... I bought it, read it over and over, and was much delighted with it. I thought the writing excellent, and wished, if possible, to imitate it. With this view I took some of the papers, and, making short hints of the sentiment in each sentence, laid them by a few days, and then, without looking at the book, try’d to compleat the papers again, by expressing each hinted sentiment at length, and as fully as it had been expressed before, in any suitable words that should come to hand. Then I compared my Spectator with the original, discovered some of my faults, and corrected them."

I ran across this passage when I was in college. It seemed Franklin's technique should work in the field of music composition as well, so I decided to give it a try. I began with the Bach chorales. I would take a chorale melody, harmonize it, then look at how Bach had harmonized it. Then I would slap my forehead and say, "Why didn't I think of that?" I improved as the project progressed. By the time I finished, I was "thinking of that" more often than not.

Much later, when DAWs and good orchestral samples became available, I tried the same technique with orchestration. I took a piano score of The Magic Flute and orchestrated sections of it. Then I listened to my realizations and compared them to Mozart's.

This method of learning was clearly better than simply analyzing a score. It's only when you try to do something yourself that you get a perspective on what the problems are. If you look at a score without first tackling the problems yourself, all the choices the composer made seem pretty obvious.

As you might have guessed, this project is another of that type. Each week, I try my own hand at a musically satisfying arrangement of the passage I analyze. So, while I show you only two SoundCloud files, I am actually producing three: a literal transcription, my arrangement, and Beethoven's.  At first, I thought I might include my arrangements in the blog. But I decided against it, since they are probably be of no interest to anyone but me.

I recommend that you give this technique a try yourself. Dig out your copy of the Beethoven sonatas and try your own arrangement of the next passage (after transposing it to F major). Next week, you can see whether Beethoven agrees with your choices or not. If for some reason you don't have a copy of the Beethoven sonatas, you can use this one. I predict that, as the weeks go on, you'll become progressively happier with your decisions, even if you don't make the same ones Beethoven did.

Movement I - Measures 38 to 46

I was curious to see how Beethoven handles this passage, since it is particularly pianistic:

Here is what a literal transcription would sound like:

And here is Beethoven's arrangement:

In the piano version, Beethoven alternates between staccato and legato eighth notes in the left hand. In strings, this doesn't work. The legato eighth notes don't sound as energetic as they do on the more percussive piano. So the Beethoven makes all the eighth notes in the accompaniment staccato. In addition, he adds a staccato to the melody on the last note of each phrase. (Although this latter change is advisable in any event, given the first violin's ensuing drop.) 

Beethoven also decides to score the two phrases differently. In the piano version, the phrases are identical except for the cadences. In the string version, he opts for a light, bouncy first phrase and a more dramatic second phrase. This is more typical of the Viennese style, so it is no surprise Beethoven chooses to do this. The real question is why he didn't do something similar in the piano version. Perhaps he thought such contrasts in texture are more important in string music than they are in keyboard music. Or perhaps this is simply another case of his changing his mind.

In the first phrase, Beethoven lightens the texture by raising the eighth notes in the bass an octave (giving them to the second violin) and by eliminating the alto line altogether. He also replaces some of the repeated notes in the cello with rests, specifically on beat three of measure 38 and on the weak beats of measure 41. And he replaces the cello's dotted half note at the end of the first phrase (on the downbeat of measure 42) with a quarter note. The viola pretty much stays out of the way. In the first two measures, it merely adds color by outlining the melody in staccato. In the next two measures, it is silent. All in all, these changes produces a lighter, cleaner sound than we hear in the transcription.

One effect of switching the bass and tenor lines is that it changes the way the phrase is harmonized, as the analysis above shows. We now have root position tonic chords in measures 39 and 40 rather than first inversion tonic chords. This is unusual. One generally shies away from root position tonic chords in the middle of a phrase, especially if that phrase is going to end with an authentic cadence, since they will weaken the cadence's effect. Beethoven solves that problem by tossing in a retardation at the end of the phrase. On the downbeat of measure 42, the second violin arpeggiates a dominant chord over the C in the bass, delaying the tonic until beat three. This is a nice attention to detail. The retardation isn't necessary in the piano version. But here the phrase would sound too static without it.

The descending arpeggio is a new motive, not present in the original. And Beethoven immediately exploits it. In the second half of measure 42, he repeats the motive in orchestral unison to transport the accompaniment down into the second octave.

In the second phrase, Beethoven eliminates the sustained notes in the accompaniment. Both the bass and tenor play the staccato eighth-note figure while the second violin doubles the first violin an octave below. 

To construct the eighth-note pattern for the bass, Beethoven alternates the original bass note with the root or fifth of the chord. In the second half of the phrase, however, Beethoven makes some additional changes. Had he followed the same pattern, the end of the phrase would be as follows:

The first problem with this version is the preponderance of fifths and octaves at the end of the first measure. Beethoven solves this problem by breaking the pattern, having the bass move in thirds with the tenor:

 A second problem is the poor voice leading in the tenor. Essentially, we hear alternating notes of the viola as outlining two separate parts. If we write out these two parts, we can see the voice-leading problems more clearly.

The B-flat at the end of the first measure wants to resolve to an A. Instead, it leaps upward to a D while the lower voice moves to an A. Similarly, the F at the end of the phrase wants to resolve to an E. So Beethoven raises the last beat of the first measure up an octave and has the line descend. Each dissonance now resolves naturally: