Download Spohr Violin Duo op 67 no 1 analysis and commentary

Spohr Violin Duo op. 67 no. 1
Louis Spohr’s output is of great value as regards performing practice of
this tradition not only because he was a player of great influence, but also
because his detailed tabulation of performing style associated certainly with
his own output provides a remarkably detailed view of his own performing
practices. Indeed, in the absence of recordings of his own playing, his written
remarks and detailed editing gives us perhaps as exact an image of his playing
as written media is capable of doing. Notwithstanding modern player’s
disregard of many of his performance requirements (as set out in particular,
by fingerings that testify to his use of the portamento), his editions are in
some respects quite prescriptive and accord with his well-known attempts to
control the performances of his own music to be in accordance with his own
predilections. Spohr’s activities as a conductor (including, of course, his wellknown pioneering activities as an early adopter of the baton1) show that
discipline and order were an important part of his attempts to raise orchestral
performing standards. As an editor he marked his works very precisely, and in
this and other works performed in this project, we attempt to follow his advice
as exactly as possible, against the backdrop of his more general stylistic advice
as given in his Violinschule (Vienna, 1833). The performance of the slow
movement of his 9th concerto by Marie Soldat-Roeger (1863-1955) – herself a
notably faithful protégé of Joachim and Brahms, shows a remarkable
adherence to his performance markings as found in his Violinschule (although
there are also a number of differences and a tendency to use vibrato a little
more often, which is hardly surprising perhaps after the elapse of almost a
century between his 1833 edition and her 1926 performance2). More closely
related to this work is the 1924 performance of the Larghetto movement of op.
67/2, by Jelly-D’Aranyi and Adela Fachiri3 (themselves of course having a
close pedagogic lineage to Joachim). Here, if one disregards the frequent use
of vibrato, which was not a trait of the classical German style, much of Spohr’s
style can still be discerned.
In many respects therefore, performance of this work is relatively
straightforward in the sense of performance practice for players with a good
working knowledge of Spohr’s output and with a wholehearted attempt to
practice his stylistic advice. I, of course, studied his Violinschule in
considerable detail in my doctoral studies (particularly as regards his stylistic
ideals enshrined in the concept of a ‘fine’ style of delivery) whilst Clive Brown,
Spohr’s biographer, is a noted Spohr scholar.
Spohr’s markings provide a clear and relatively unambiguous scheme
for expressive performance bearing in mind his definitions of ‘fine’ style, as
laid out in his Violinschule:
D. Milsom, ‘Mendelssohn and the Orchestra’ in S Reichwald (ed), Mendelssohn in
Performance (Indiana, 2008), 88.
2 Union A 3000/1 (c.1926), re-released in The Recorded Violin Volume 1 (Pearl; BVA 1).
3 Jelly d’Aranyi & Adela Fachiri, Spohr Duo op. 67/2 – larghetto – Mat. M. 03490; Vocalion D
01246 (1924), re-released in The Recorded Violin Volume II (Pearl; BVA II).
1
‘A correct style or Delivery requires: perfect
intonation, exact division of the notes in a bar,
according to their duration, a strict observance of
time, of light and of shade, & also of the different
kinds of bowing, slurs, doubleturns, shakes &c.
A fine style or delivery besides the preceding, requires
the following technical expedients 1st, the finer shades
of the management of the bow, as regards the
character of tone; viz strong, even, rough, soft, fluty
or, in the accentuation and separation of Musical
phrases 2nd The artificial shifts which are not used
merely on account of any easier mode of playing, but
for expression and tone, to which belongs also, the
gliding from one note to another, and the changing of
the finger on the same tone; 3rd The tremolo in its four
degrees. 4th. The increasing of time in furious,
impetuous, and passionate passages, as well as the
retarding of such as have a tender, doleful, or
melancholy character.
But all these means of expression lead to a fine style
or delivery only, when good taste watches over their
application, and when the soul of the performer
guides the bow and animates the finger. When,
therefore, the Scholar is so far advanced, as in some
measure to command the mechanism of playing, it
will then be time to cultivate his taste and to awaken
his sensibility. The best way is to let him often hear
good Music and distinguished singers and performers,
pointing out to him the beauty of the composition as
well as the method used by the Singer or Performer to
heighten the expression and give effect to the piece.’4
Technically, these works present very considerable difficulties. Spohr’s regular
resort to portamenti over wide intervals and double stops (as at the start of the
Andante) make good corporate intonation very difficult, particularly on gut
strings with their tendency to go out of tune and indeed their very dissimilar
string thicknesses, although Spohr’s penchant for the staccato (evident in the
finale of the op 45/2 quartet or indeed, in this set, at the end of the op. 67/2
duo) is largely absent. In accordance with Spohr’s well-known distaste for the
off-string staccato, all passages with staccato dots are taken in the upper half
of the bow, and on the string. Spohr, as in the case of Ferdinand David, often
includes long slurs, which we have maintained, necessitating a relatively rapid
tempo and allowing a delicate diminution of tone. Spohr, as a violinistcomposer, rarely if ever marks anything that is not fundamentally ‘natural’ in
this respect. Two bars before letter E in the first movement (violin 1), the long
slur occurs during a diminuendo for example. This serves as an example of
how practical Spohr’s markings are if viewed with a mind open to his
interpretative ideals and not, as so often the case in modern performance,
4
L. Spohr, Violinschule (Vienna, 1833, trans. C. Rudolphus, London, 1843), 179-180.
coloured by an instinctive or even conscious imposition of modern performing
practices (many of which are in direct contravention of Spohr’s own ideals).
Spohr, who was as a young man very much influenced by the
performance style of Pierre Rode, supported the widespread use of the
portamento and it is in this respect that a sensitive and intelligent
understanding of the so-called ‘classical’ German style of violin playing should
make a distinction between Spohr, as an early manifestation of the tradition
and at the beginning of the chronology of this project and Joachim at its end.
Joachim’s playing, whilst using the device in a noticeable way, is relatively
discriminating in its employment and his editions (including the more
detailed editing of works in volume 3 of the Violinschule) suggest a degree of
economy in this respect. Appropriate Spohr performing practice, following his
own markings, would use it rather more and this we attempted to show. Allied
to a fundamentally legato conception of phrasing (which added to our
technical difficulties in the simultaneous double stopping of the Andante
movement!) the result is a richly sonorous but clean sound, with only very
occasional vibrato. In spite of the greater use of this device in the
d’Aranyi/Fachiri op. 67/2 Larghetto performance, this style of playing is still
fundamentally evident here and acts as an important influence.
In terms of tempo rubato, tempo flexibility and other related matters,
we have been economical with our approach here, bearing in mind Spohr’s
comments as preface to the edition of the 9th concerto as published in the
Violinschule:
‘The time in each part of this Concerto remains
unchanged. The compositions of the Author seldom
require the time to be increased, or decreased, to
heighten the expression. Generally, only such
compositions demand it which are not composed in
one form, or imagined in equal measure of time. The
Scholar should rarely, and with moderation, if his
feeling should induce him to do it, use the means of
expression already mentioned, as by any alteration in
the measure of time, the whole character of the
composition might be destroyed.’5
It would be well however, to point out that this is a little ambiguous. Spohr
here seems to be describing unscripted changes of tempo (as has become a
performance tradition in the G minor section of the first movement of
Beethoven’s violin concerto, for example). It need not preclude the use of
tempo rubato, although our application of it, here and elsewhere in this
project is mainly in terms of allowing a dislocation of melodic and
accompanimental time, as well as small contrametric uses and agogic accents.
These kinds of tempo manipulations are consistent certainly with the
testimony of relevant early recordings which, even in the strictest of the styles
of playing of the time evident in this so-called ‘classical’ German school rarely
ever approach the quasi-metronomic tempi of many modern interpretations.
Here as elsewhere though a great distinction must be made between smallscale tempo changes and the kinds of showy and extreme changes that
5
Spohr, 202.
characterised Wagner’s performance and that of his followers which has very
little relevance to any of the works studied and recorded in this project.
In my view, Spohr not only desired this manner of performance of his
own music, but also it might be said that to play otherwise distorts his often
complex textures and obscures the subtle and highly chromatic musical
language. This in part might explain the fact that Spohr’s waning popularity as
a composer came at the same time as radical changes to string playing style
and certainly modern performances tend to draw unfavourable comparison
with Beethoven’s later works which, arguably, are less closely reliant upon
quite specific means of performance. The impression created by many modern
renditions is of a rather wan and superficial Romanticism but in this
performance, the rich sonorities of gut strings and the firm, masculine quality
of the sound creates, in my view, a much more convincing evocation of Spohr’s
performing intentions and does more justice to his complex and often esoteric
compositional output.
Editions Note
For this project we used an edition of the work by Ferdinand David (see
‘Project Scores’). This is substantially just an amplification of Spohr’s own
edition for Peters of 1827, which has fewer fingerings etc. There are however a
number of differences. The annotated edition replicates Spohr’s edition in
respect of bowings and fingerings. I have indicated where Spohr places
fingering by annotating this edition (where I have not done so, Spohr does not
provide these). I have indicated with an asterisk where Spohr’s markings
depart from David’s. David’s changes are symbolic of the German classical
tradition – David honours Spohr’s markings and very rarely changes them in
substance although on occasions he does allow his own artistic outlook to
predominate. In terms of fingerings, one might note that David’s changes to
Spohr’s fingerings avoid the use of half position and 2nd position in favour of
odd-numbered positions and a more straight-forward scheme – this appears
to have been a characteristic of David’s editing in general.