RICE UNIVERSITY A History of Keyboard Hand Division: Note (Re)Distribution in Keyboard Music from the Renaissance to the Twentieth Century

By

Michael Clark

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

Doctor of Musical Arts

APPROVED, THESIS COMMITTEE

Karim Al-Zand Karim Al-Zand (Apr 22, 2021 15:21 CDT) Karim Al-Zand Professor of Composition and Theory

Danielle Ward-Griffin

Assistant Professor of Musicology

Robin Sickles

Reginald Henry Hargrove Professor of Economics and Statistics

HOUSTON, TEXAS April 2021

ABSTRACT

A History of Keyboard Hand Division: Note (Re)Distribution in Keyboard Music from the Renaissance to the Twentieth Century by Michael Clark

This thesis considers the history of redistribution, the practice of altering the hand assignment of one or more notes, in keyboard music from the Renaissance to the early twentieth century. Chapter 1 explores methods of notating and executing hand division in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries through the writings of contemporary performers and composers. Keyboard music appeared in two broad categories of notational formats: those that indicate hand distribution (“prescriptive”), such as the two-staff Italian intavolatura, and those that do not (“non-prescriptive”), including open score and Spanish and German tablature. Performers using non-prescriptive formats considered factors such as equal division of labor, wide spans, and ornamentation when determining which hand plays what, important precursors to the principles guiding the practice of redistribution. Chapter 2 traces two parallel trends in eighteenth-century keyboard music described by C.P.E. Bach. He asserts that the notation of three or more voices across two staves does not represent the hand division required to play them, establishing a particular freedom of fingering in polyphonic music. In contrast, Bach emphasizes the care he took to notate hand distribution in his own music through changes in stem direction and clef. Chapter 3 considers how Chopin and Liszt approached the division of notes in their own works. As composers, they were prescriptive, using multiple notational strategies to clarify the intended distribution of the notes between the hands, but as teachers, they were flexible. Chopin’s own markings in his students’ scores and Liszt’s comments in master classes reveal that they suggested alternative note distributions in their own compositions. Chapter 4 examines the history of “practical” or “instructive” editions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, using Beethoven’s piano sonatas as a case study. I survey the uses of redistributions in five editions of the sonatas: those of Sigmund Lebert/Hans von Bülow, Karl Klindworth, Moritz Moszkowski, Alfredo Casella, and Artur Schnabel. My analysis reveals five broad applications of alternative distributions that are common to each, representing a strong consensus for how redistribution was used by pianists of this era.

Acknowledgements

Many mentors, colleagues, friends, and family supported me in completing this project. I want to especially thank my advisor, Karim Al-Zand, for his perceptive feedback and expertise that enriched this project. I am deeply grateful to my piano teacher, Robert Roux, the king of redistribution, for believing in me, challenging me, and inspiring me to new levels of artistry. To my former piano teachers, Nancy Weems (the queen of redistribution), Jennifer Hayghe, and Melinda Smashey Jones, I remain forever indebted. I would like to thank many other Shepherd School of Music faculty who influenced me during my time here, especially Anthony Brandt, Brian Connelly, David Ferris, Jeanne Kierman Fischer, Pierre Jalbert, Richard Lavenda, Sohyoung Park, Jon Kimura Parker, Janet Rarick, Kurt Stallman, and Danielle Ward-Griffin. I am grateful to Suzanne Taylor for encouragement and guidance through all the logistical hurdles of this degree. Many thanks to Courtney Crappell, Jeffrey Sposato, and Katherine Turner for challenging me to become a stronger researcher and writer. This project would not have been possible without the assistance of Patrick Lenz. I am grateful for his good humor, curiosity, and fastidious efforts in engraving the numerous musical examples in this thesis. I would like to extend my gratitude to Richard Zimdars and Alexander Silbiger for thoughtfully answering research questions via email. Thank you to Mary Brower, Paul Novak, Christy Shelenberger, Allison Shinnick, and the entire Fondren Library Interlibrary Loan staff for helping me access important documents for my research. I am grateful to the Bibliothèque national de France, the Allen Music Library at Florida State University, and the University of North Texas Music Library for access to rare scores. Thank you to Christoph Wagner and his mother for deciphering and translating Old German text, to Kamila Swerdloff for additional German translation assistance, and to Eleanor Bolton for her help in proofreading. I extend my heartfelt thanks to my dear friend Kate Acone for her encouragement, advice, and long-distance companionship throughout this project. Finally, I am eternally grateful to my parents, Wayne and Lee Ann Clark, for their enduring support of my life in music. Thank you for providing an instrument, lessons, and an environment in which I could thrive as a young pianist.

Contents

List of Musical Examples ...... v

Introduction ...... 1

1. Before 1700: Initial Principles of Keyboard Hand Division ...... 6

2. The Eighteenth Century: Counterpoint and Crossings ...... 31

3. The Nineteenth Century I: How Chopin and Liszt Approached Hand Division as Composers and Teachers ...... 45

4: The Nineteenth Century II: The History of Redistribution in Beethoven’s Sonatas ...... 60

Conclusion ...... 97

Appendix A: Annotated List of Resources Addressing Redistribution ...... 103

Appendix B: Table of Redistributions in Beethoven’s Sonatas ...... 107

Bibliography ...... 115

v

List of Musical Examples

Because this thesis centers on questions of musical notation, special care has been taken to present the musical examples as precisely and clearly as possible. The majority of examples were reproduced from primary sources by Patrick Lenz, strictly respecting original clefs, staff layout, and beaming. Where appropriate, images of original documents appear to illustrate key notational features.

0.1 Faber and Faber, “The Opposite Song”: mm. 1–4 ...... 1 1.1 Fragment of MS British Museum Add. 28550 (Robertsbridge Codex) ...... 6 1.2 Groningen, University Library, Incunabulum no. 70, recto ...... 7 1.3a Buchner, setting of Quem terra pontus with fingerings ...... 10 1.3b Buchner, setting of Quem terra pontus with fingerings (modern transcription) ...... 10 1.4a Der Allmeyer Dantz: mm. 7–9, intabulated by Ammerbach ...... 12 1.4b Der Allmeyer Dantz: mm. 7–9 (modern transcription) ...... 12 1.5a Palestrina, Angelus domini, intabulated by Paix ...... 13 1.5b Palestrina, Angelus domini, intabulated by Paix (modern transcription) ...... 13 1.6 Bermudo, open score transcribed into Spanish keyboard tablature ...... 15 1.7a Correa, Tiento de Quinto Tono: mm. 1–12 ...... 16 1.7b Correa, Tiento de Quinto Tono: mm. 1–12 (modern transcription) ...... 16 1.8 Diruta, Ricercar: mm. 1–4 ...... 20 1.9 Diruta, Ricercar: mm. 73–76 ...... 21 1.10 Diruta, Ricercar: m. 52 ...... 22 1.11 Frescobaldi, Toccata No. 3: mm. 1–2 ...... 23 1.12a Froberger, Toccata in D Minor, FbWV 102: m. 18 (Libro Secondo, 1649) ...... 24 1.12b Froberger, Toccata in D Minor, FbWV 102: m. 18 (Bourgeat, 1693) ...... 24 1.13 Byrd, Galiardo Mistress Marye Brownlo: mm. 7–12 ...... 25 1.14a Chambonnières, Gigue in A Major: mm. 10–14 (Bauyn MS, fol. 31) ...... 26 1.14b Chambonnières, Gigue in A Major: mm. 10–14 (1670) ...... 26 1.15 Jacquet de la Guerre, Allemande in D Minor: mm. 1–3 ...... 27 1.16 D’Anglebert, Gigue in G Major: mm. 1–3 ...... 28 1.17 Froberger, Allemande in D Minor: m. 1 (Libro Secondo, 1649) ...... 29 1.18 Kuhnau, Praeludium: mm. 1–8 ...... 30 2.1 C.P.E. Bach, Versuch, Figure LXV ...... 33 2.2 J.S. Bach, Fughetta in C Major, BWV 870a: mm. 10–13 (Bach’s fingering) ...... 34 vi

2.3 J.S. Bach, Fugue in the C Major, WTC II, BWV 870: mm. 19–26 (Czerny) ...... 35 2.4 C.P.E. Bach, Sonata No. 4, H73: I. mm. 1–4 ...... 37 2.5 C.P.E. Bach, Sonata No. 4, H73: II. mm. 1–4 ...... 38 2.6 C.P.E. Bach, Sonata No. 6, H75: I. Allegro di molto, mm. 1–6 ...... 38 2.7 J.S. Bach, Fantasia in C Minor, BWV 906: mm. 9–10 ...... 39 2.8 J.S. Bach, Partita No. 1 in B-flat Major, BWV 825: Giga, mm. 1–4 ...... 39 2.9 D. Scarlatti, Sonata in F-sharp Minor, K. 25: mm. 12–16 ...... 40 2.10 W.A. Mozart, Sonata in A Major, K. 331: I. mm. 73–76 ...... 40 2.11 W.A. Mozart, Sonata in C Minor, K. 457: III. mm. 90–101 ...... 41 2.12 Beethoven, Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, no. 2: IV. mm. 147–53 ...... 42 2.13 Beethoven, Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, no. 2: IV. mm. 147–48 (Czerny) ...... 42 3.1 Chopin, Ballade No. 1 in G Minor, Op. 23: mm. 1–3 ...... 46 3.2 Chopin, Ballade No. 3 in A-flat Major, Op. 47: mm. 47–49 ...... 46 3.3 Liszt, Sonata in B Minor, S. 178: mm. 18–20 ...... 47 3.4 Liszt, Sonata in B Minor, S. 178: mm. 44–49 ...... 47 3.5a Liszt, Etudes d’éxécution transcendente, S. 139: X. mm. 13–15 (original notation) ...... 47 3.5b Liszt, Etudes d’éxécution transcendente, S. 139: X. mm. 13–15 ...... 48 (hand division shown through stem direction) 3.5c Liszt, Etudes d’éxécution transcendente, S. 139: X. mm. 13–15 ...... 48 (hands remain on individual staves) 3.6 Chopin, Prelude in B-flat Major, Op. 28, No. 21: mm. 1–12 ...... 51 (Jane Stirling’s copy with Chopin’s pencil marks) 3.7 Chopin, Prelude in D-flat Major, Op. 28, No. 15: mm. 48–52 ...... 51 (Jane Stirling’s copy with Chopin’s pencil marks) 3.8 Chopin, Prelude in D-flat Major, Op. 28, No. 15: mm. 5–10 ...... 52 (Camille Dubois’ copy with Chopin’s pencil marks) 3.9 Chopin, Scherzo No. 2 in B-flat Minor, Op. 31: mm. 170–86 ...... 53 (Camille Dubois’ copy with Chopin’s pencil marks) 3.10 Chopin, Etude in C-sharp Minor, Op. 25, No. 7: mm. 42–45 ...... 54 (Jane Stirling’s copy with Chopin’s pencil marks) 3.11 Chopin, Nocturne in C-sharp Minor, Op. 27, No. 1: mm. 26–28 ...... 55 (Jane Stirling’s copy with Chopin’s pencil marks) 3.12 Chopin, Impromptu No. 2 in F-sharp Major, Op. 36: mm. 55–58 ...... 55 (Camille Dubois’ copy with Chopin’s pencil marks) 3.13 Chopin, Nocturne in C Minor, Op. 48, No. 1: mm. 48–49 ...... 56 (Camille Dubois’ copy with Chopin’s pencil marks) vii

3.14 Liszt, Trois Études de Concert, S. 144: III. m. 29 ...... 57 3.15 Liszt, Paraphrase de concert sur Rigoletto, S.434: mm. 1–6 ...... 58 4.1a Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: I. mm. 213–20 ...... 65 4.1b Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: I. mm. 210–21 (Bülow) ...... 65 4.2 Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 22: III. m. 9 (Klindworth) ...... 67 4.3 Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: II. mm. 19–21 (Moszkowski) ...... 68 4.4a Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 31, no. 3: I. mm. 43–45 ...... 69 4.4b Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 31, no. 3: I. mm. 43–45 (Casella) ...... 69 4.5 Beethoven, Sonata in D Major, Op. 28: II. Mm. 11–14 (Schnabel) ...... 71 4.6a Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: IV. mm. 64–66 (Beethoven’s fingering) . . 73 4.6b Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: IV. mm. 64–66 (Casella) ...... 74 4.7 Beethoven, Sonata in D Major, Op. 28: IV. mm. 85–89 (Lebert) ...... 74 4.8a Beethoven, Sonata in F Major, Op. 54: I. mm. 132–35 ...... 75 4.8b Beethoven, Sonata in F Major, Op. 54: I. mm. 132–35 (Bülow) ...... 75 4.9 Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 31, No. 3: I. mm. 249–53 (Moszkowski) ...... 76 4.10a Beethoven, Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2: I. mm. 84–91 (Beethoven’s fingering) . . . . 77 4.10b Beethoven, Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2: I. mm. 84–91 (Czerny) ...... 77 4.11a Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 93–98 ...... 78 4.11b Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 93–98 (Casella) ...... 78 4.12a Beethoven, Sonata in F Major, Op. 54: I. mm. 53–56 ...... 79 4.12b Beethoven, Sonata in F Major, Op. 54: I. mm. 53–56 (Casella) ...... 79 4.13a Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: IV. m. 9 ...... 80 4.13b Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: IV. m. 9 (Moszkowski) ...... 80 4.14a Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 27, No. 1: IV. mm. 24–26 ...... 80 4.14b Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 27, No. 1: IV. mm. 24–26 (Klindworth) ...... 81 4.15a Beethoven, Sonata in F Minor, Op. 57: I. mm. 227–28 ...... 81 4.15b Beethoven, Sonata in F Minor, Op. 57: I. mm. 227–28 (Schnabel) ...... 81 4.16a Beethoven, Sonata in A-flat Major, Op. 110: III. mm. 24–26 ...... 82 4.16b Beethoven, Sonata in A-flat Major, Op. 110: III. mm. 24–26 (Bülow) ...... 82 4.17a Beethoven, Sonata in C Minor, Op. 13: II. mm. 6–7 ...... 83 4.17b Beethoven, Sonata in C Minor, Op. 13: II. mm. 6–7 (Bülow) ...... 83 4.18a Beethoven, Sonata in G Major, Op. 31, No. 1: I. mm. 93–95 ...... 85 viii

4.18b Beethoven, Sonata in G Major, Op. 31, No. 1: I. mm. 93–95 (Klindworth) ...... 85 4.19a Beethoven, Sonata in C Major, Op. 2, No. 3: I. mm. 129–30 ...... 86 4.19b Beethoven, Sonata in C Major, Op. 2, No. 3: I. mm. 129–30 (Casella) ...... 86 4.20a Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 31, No. 3: I. mm. 160–61 ...... 87 4.20b Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 31, No. 3: I. mm. 160–61 (Moszkowski) ...... 87 4.21a Beethoven: Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2: II. mm. 8–12 ...... 88 4.21b Beethoven: Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2: II. mm. 8–12 (Moszkowski) ...... 88 4.21c Beethoven: Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2: II. mm. 8–12 (Schnabel) ...... 88 4.22a Beethoven, Sonata in D Major, Op. 10, No. 3: III. mm. 23–26 ...... 89 4.22b Beethoven, Sonata in D Major, Op. 10, No. 3: III. mm. 23–26 (Klindworth) ...... 89 4.23a Beethoven, Sonata in C Major, Op. 2, No. 3: I. mm. 8–10 ...... 90 4.23b Beethoven, Sonata in C Major, Op. 2, No. 3: I. mm. 8–10 (Schnabel) ...... 90 4.24a Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: IV. mm. 57–58 ...... 91 4.24b Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: IV. mm. 57–58 (Casella) ...... 91 4.25 Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 21–40 ...... 92 4.26a Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 21–24 (Moszkowski) ...... 93 4.26b Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 21–24 (Klindworth) ...... 9 4 4.27a Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 31–34 (Lebert) ...... 94 4.27b Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 31–34 (Casella) ...... 94 4.28a Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 38–40 (Schnabel) ...... 95 4.28b Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 38–40 (Klindworth) ...... 9 6 5.1 Beethoven, Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2: II. mm. 25–26 (Moszkowski) ...... 100 5.2a Bartók, Piano Sonata (1926): I. mm. 103–6 ...... 101 5.2b Bartók, Piano Sonata (1926): I. mm. 103–6 (Clark) ...... 101 5.3a Barber, Nocturne, Op. 33: m. 45 (Barber’s fingering) ...... 102 5.3b Barber, Nocturne, Op. 33: m. 45 (Clark) ...... 102

Table 1 Comparison of Fingering Approaches in Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 21–40 ...... 96

1

Introduction

The first piece I teach a beginning piano student is “Alphabet Boogie” by Julie Knerr and

Christopher Fisher. Starting on the lowest white key, the student plays “A B C D E F G” with their index finger, holding for two beats on the final note before repeating the pattern in the next octave.

After the student reaches the triumphant concluding “A B C!” at the top of the keyboard, I ask them to try it again, but this time with the index finger of their other hand, so the child learns that any note on the keyboard, high or low, can be played by either hand.

Small children usually stand to play “Alphabet Boogie,” slowly stepping from one end of the piano to the other. When I ask them to sit in the middle of the keyboard to learn new pieces, they intuitively recognize that the left hand is better situated to play low keys and the right hand more easily reaches high keys. Those in the center of the keyboard are often played by either hand. Most elementary piano methods carefully mark the notes for the right and left hands with upward and downward stems, so students can quickly identify which hand plays what. Many beginners follow these instructions without much fuss, but some students rebel when playing a piece like “The

Opposite Song” by Nancy and Randall Faber.

Figure 0.1: Faber and Faber, “The Opposite Song”: mm. 1–41

1 Nancy and Randall Faber, Piano Adventures, Primer Level: Performance Book, 2nd ed. (Ann Arbor: Dovetree Productions Inc., 2011), 19. 2

“Why should I play the middle C in m. 4 with my left thumb when my right thumb just played it a few measures earlier?” they insist. I could make up reasons to placate the student (“the hands should take turns!”) or enforce a policy of strict adherence to the score (“because the composer said so!”), but usually I say, “Let’s try it your way and see what we think.”

This practice of playing one or more notes with a different hand than prescribed by the composer is commonly known to pianists as “redistribution.” The term implies the existence of an initial “distribution” or division of the notes between the two hands that is conveyed by the composer through the score. This distribution is shown through a variety of notational cues including staff placement, stem direction, and written instructions. If pianists choose to alter this note distribution for technical or musical reasons, they redistribute the notes.

Redistribution is used widely by pianists today, though the practice has its critics. Proponents of redistribution include pianists with small hands for whom wide stretches may be impossible or injurious. In Adaptive Strategies for Small-Handed Pianists, Lora Deahl and Brenda Wristen praise it as

“the optimal answer to a legion of commonplace problems.”2 Many pianists, regardless of hand size, credit it as a valuable tool in solving both technical and musical problems, including facilitating leaps, improving legato, clarifying voicing, and reducing position shifts. Robert Roux notes that effective redistribution can “eliminat[e] technical awkwardness, enabl[ing] the pianist to better convey the musical essence of the passage in question.”3 Julien Musafia goes further, asserting that “any division of the music between the two hands, however unorthodox, is justified if it makes playing easier and more efficient.”4

2 Lora Deahl and Brenda Wristen, Adaptive Strategies for Small-Handed Pianists (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 83. 3 Robert Roux, “A Methodology for Piano Fingering” (DMA diss., University of Texas at Austin, 1980), 60. 4 Julien Musafia, The Art of Fingering in Piano Playing (New York: MCA Music, 1971), 4. 3

Some pianists contend that redistribution violates the composer’s intent and should be avoided. Claudio Arrau argued against redistributions on aesthetic grounds in a challenging passage from Brahms’ Piano Sonata in F-Sharp Minor, Op. 2: “I must say that such facilitation is wrong.

Physical difficulty has itself an expressive value. When something sounds easy, its meaning changes completely,” though he admits that “without exception people redistribute the notes [in this passage].”5

Influential pedagogue Heinrich Neuhaus recalled resorting to a redistribution in a live performance due to pain in his right hand and the cold temperature of the performance space. Curiously, he notes that “the result was excellent” but only appropriate because he was recovering from injury, for “a healthy pianist must always play only as written by Beethoven.”6 Most pianists encourage a moderate approach that prioritizes realizing the musical intent of the passage. Paul Wirth advises, “as long as the musical integrity is maintained, redistribute where needed.”7 Appendix A provides an annotated list of books and articles that discuss redistribution from a range of perspectives.

Though the literature includes several explorations of the applications of redistribution, we lack a comprehensive account of its use across the history of keyboard performance. Eric Tran began this task in “How to Cheat at Piano: The History and Ethics of Redistribution,” but his treatment of the history is quite brief and begins only in the early nineteenth century.8 This thesis looks back further, to the very beginnings of notated keyboard music, to attempt to find the origins of the practice. The history of redistribution is inseparable from the history of note distribution and, consequently, from the history of keyboard notation. Put differently, a particular division of the notes between the hands must be conveyed through the score in order for performers to alter it. If the notation does not prescribe a specific division of the notes between the hands—the status of

5 Joseph Horowtiz, Arrau on Music and Performance (Mineola, NY: Dover, 1992), 152–53. Italics original. 6 Heinrich Neuhaus, The Art of Piano Playing, trans K. A. Leibovitch (London: Kahn and Averill, 1993), 146–47. 7 Paul Wirth, “Ten Precepts of Good Fingering,” Keyboard Companion 18, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 29. 8 Eric Tran, “How to Cheat at Piano: The History and Ethics of Redistribution, Along with a Practical Guide” (DMA diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2020), 1–17. 4 much keyboard music of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries—performers must assign it themselves. The principles that guided early keyboard performers in determining the division of notes between the hands are important precursors to the principles guiding the practice of redistribution.

This thesis considers the evolving relationships of performers and composers to note distribution and redistribution chronologically in four chapters, spanning the first notated keyboard music to the early twentieth century. Chapter 1 explores how hand division was notated and executed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries through the writings of contemporary performers and composers. Keyboard music appeared in sharply contrasting formats during this period. The various notational approaches fall into two categories: those that indicate hand distribution (“prescriptive”), such as the two-staff Italian intavolatura, and those that do not (“non- prescriptive”), including open score and Spanish and German tablature. Performers using non- prescriptive formats considered factors such as equal division of labor, wide spans, and ornamentation when determining which hand plays what. These same principles are cited by

Girolamo Diruta in his instructions on preparing an intavolatura. The chapter concludes by tracing developments in English and French keyboard notation, developments that forge a compromise of sorts between prescriptive and non-prescriptive formats: the two-staff keyboard score still in use today.

Chapter 2 centers on two parallel trends in eighteenth-century keyboard music highlighted in

C.P.E. Bach’s Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen. Bach asserts that the notation of three or more voices across two staves does not represent the hand division required to play them, establishing a particular freedom of fingering in polyphonic music. This flexible approach to hand division is illustrated through comparing J.S. Bach’s and Carl Czerny’s fingerings in a passage from the Well-Tempered Clavier. In contrast to the non-prescriptive note division of the older “learned” 5 style, C.P.E. Bach emphasizes the care he took in the six sonatas that accompany his essay to notate hand distribution through changes in stem direction and clef. This trend of prescriptive hand division is further explored through comparing the two methods used by eighteenth-century composers to notate hand crossings.

Chapters 3 and 4 consider how strategic note redistribution was employed in the nineteenth century for musical and technical purposes. Chapter 3 considers how Chopin and Liszt approached the division of notes in their own works. As composers, they were prescriptive, using multiple notational strategies to clarify the intended distribution of the notes between the hands, but as teachers, they were flexible. Chopin’s own markings in his students’ scores and Liszt’s comments in master classes reveal that they suggested alternative note distributions in their own compositions.

Chapter 4 examines the history of “practical” or “instructive” editions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, using Beethoven’s piano sonatas as a case study. I survey the uses of redistributions in five editions of the sonatas: those of Sigmund Lebert/Hans von Bülow, Karl

Klindworth, Moritz Moszkowski, Alfredo Casella, and Artur Schnabel. My analysis reveals five broad applications of alternative distributions that are common to each, representing a strong consensus for how redistribution was used by pianists of this era. A complete listing of the redistributions suggested in each edition appears in Appendix B.

6

Chapter 1 Before 1700: Initial Principles of Keyboard Hand Division

Prior to the eighteenth century, keyboard music appeared in diverse notational formats. The very earliest keyboard manuscripts, dating from the fourteenth century, already reflect diverging approaches. The English Robertsbridge Codex includes dances and intabulations that combine an upper part in mensural notation on a five-line staff with a lower part written in letters (Figure 1.1).

In contrast, the intabulations found in the Grongingen Library use two five-line staves (Figure 1.2), the format still used today. Despite their differences, both systems employ a common layout with practical applications for hand division: two parallel notational streams, the upper one indicating the notes for the right hand and the lower one indicating the notes for the left hand.

Figure 1.1: Fragment of MS British Museum Add. 28550 (Robertsbridge Codex)1

1 As reproduced in Willi Apel, The Notation of Polyphonic Music: 900–1600, 5th ed. (Cambridge, MA: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1953), 38. 7

Figure 1.2: Groningen, University Library, Incunabulum no. 70, recto2

Over the next three centuries, notational formats varied widely by region.3 Unique tablature traditions developed in Germany and Spain, while the more commonly used, two-staff format prevailed in England, France, and Italy. These two-staff scores appeared with diverse numbers of staff lines and other idiosyncrasies that distinguish them from modern staff notation. Italian and

Spanish sources also include a large body of keyboard music notated in open score, one staff per musical line, with prominent keyboard composers like Claudio Merulo and Girolamo Frescobaldi using both two-staff and open score formats.4

2 As pictured in Maria van Daalen and Frank Harrison, “Two Keyboard Intabulations of the Late Fourteenth Century on a Manuscript Leaf Now in the Netherlands,” Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeshiedenis 34, no. 2 (1984): 103. 3 For a succinct summary of the various approaches, see Alexander Silbiger, “Introduction: The First Centuries of Keyboard Music,” in Keyboard Music Before 1700, ed. Alexander Silbiger, Routledge Studies in Musical Genres (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2003), 2–10. 4 The number of Italian sources dwarfs those of Spanish origin, but open score was used in both countries. In Italy, open score appears more frequently in print sources than in manuscripts, but in Spain the only surviving manuscripts of the sixteenth century are in open score. See Robert Floyd Judd, “The use of notational formats at the keyboard: A study of printed sources of keyboard music in Spain and Italy c. 1500- 1700, selected manuscript sources including music by 8

Though the peculiarities of each format are of much interest in themselves, most relevant to this study is whether these formats specify the division of notes between the hands. The various notational approaches fall into two categories: those that indicate hand distribution (to be labelled

“prescriptive”) and those that do not (“non-prescriptive”). The two-staff formats, especially those employing more than five lines, are prescriptive, maintaining a clear distinction between notes for the right hand (on the upper staff) and the left hand (on the lower staff). Non-prescriptive systems include Italian and Spanish sources in open score, Spanish keyboard tablature, and the new German organ tablature.5 Performers reading these formats were left to determine on their own how best to divide the notes.

This chapter explores the principles that guide hand division in this era of notational diversity through the perspectives of performers and composers. As may be expected, discussions that address the distribution of notes between the hands come from keyboard players using non- prescriptive formats, especially the German and Spanish tablature systems. Lacking indications of hand distribution within the notational system, these musicians considered factors such as equal division of labor, wide spans, and ornamentation when determining which hand plays what.

Girolamo Diruta offers the composer’s perspective, describing the process of note distribution in preparing a two-staff intavolatura from open score in his 1609 treatise Il Transilvano. The chapter concludes by tracing developments in English and French keyboard notation that forge a compromise of sorts between prescriptive and non-prescriptive formats: the two-staff keyboard score still in use today.

Claudio Merulo, and contemporary writings concerning notations,” (PhD diss., The University of Oxford, 1988), 1:62– 63.

5 Old German tablature might be considered non-prescriptive as well, in light of Buchner’s fingered example discussed below. 9

Hand Division in Non-Prescriptive Formats

German Tablature

The earliest mentions of hand division in keyboard performance derive from two sixteenth- century German sources: Hans Buchner’s Fundamentum of 1517 and the preface to Jacob Paix’s Ein

Schön Nutz unnd Gereüchlich Orgel Tabulaturbuch of 1583. These volumes straddle the transition between the so-called old and new German organ tablatures, marking the system’s evolution from prescriptive to non-prescriptive note distribution.

The old German organ tablature of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries continued the notational tradition preserved in the Robertsbridge Codex in which the division of notes between the hands was usually quite clear: the right hand played the upper part, written in mensural notation, and the left hand played the lower parts, written with letters.6 This notational system was well suited to the repertory of the mid-fifteenth-century Buxheim Organ Book, the largest keyboard source of the period, containing liturgical and secular cantus firmus settings in three-voices, of which the highest voice is by far the most active.7 As Cleveland Johnson notes, “the apposition of the discant staff and the lower letters tended to divide the music (and the keyboard) into two distinct regions: the ‘busy’ discant region (from around middle-c and above) and the lower accompanimental region.”8

By the early sixteenth century, new trends of polyphonic composition emerged that expanded the role of the lower voices. Hans Buchner’s Fundamentum, completed around 1520, was an early exponent of this more imitative style. In addition to guidance on intabulation and cantus firmus composition, his treatise presents the earliest known discussion of keyboard fingering.

6 Silbiger, “Introduction,” 3. 7 John Butt, “Germany,” in Silbiger, Keyboard Music, 148–52. See also Willi Apel, The History of Keyboard Music to 1700, trans. and rev. Hans Tischler (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972), 55–71. 8 Cleveland Johnson, Vocal Compositions in German Organ Tablatures 1550–1650: A Catalogue and Commentary (New York: Garland, 1989), 38. 10

Buchner provides a fully-fingered cantus firmus setting of Quem terra pontus with a tenor that is nearly as active as the discantus. Consequently, the hand division implied by the visual layout of the tablature (that is, the discantus in the right hand, the tenor and bassus in the left hand) is not always maintained, as illustrated in Figure 1.3.9

Figure 1.3a: Buchner, setting of Quem terra pontus with fingerings10

Figure 1.3b: Buchner, setting of Quem terra pontus with fingerings (modern transcription)11

9 The numbers with slashes indicate left hand (5 = thumb, 1 = index finger, 2 = middle finger, etc.). 10 Hans Buchner, Sämtliche Orgelwerke, vol. 1, Fundamentum und Kompositionen der Handschrift Basel FI8a, ed. Jost Harro Schmidt, Das Erbe Deutscher Musik 54 (Frankfurt: Henry Litolf, 1974), 10. 11 Buchner, 11. 11

From the opening notes, Buchner recommends that the tenor and bassus, the two voices notated in letters, be divided between the hands. The tenor then transfers to the left hand as the discantus enters. When all three voices are active, Buchner generally assigns the tenor to the left hand, but he transfers it to the right hand when the distance between the lower voices is greater than an octave. In total, over one third of the pitches of the tenor are designated for the right hand.

Buchner’s fingerings suggest that the connection between hand division and the visual distinction of the staff and letter notation was already eroding in the early sixteenth century.

As the century progressed, four-voice textures predominated, with the added voice also notated in letters. In this thickened texture, the lower three voices could no longer be managed entirely by the left hand. Moreover, the layout of the lower voices varied significantly between sources, with many collections placing the bass line above the alto and tenor, thus scrambling the visual cues of hand division.12 The old divide between staff and letters no longer represented the compositional or practical features of the music, and by the final quarter of the century, the new

German tablature system, in which all voices are notated with letters, became the norm. This new system, which first appeared in print in Elias Nikolaus Ammerbach’s 1571 Orgel oder Instrument

Tabulatur, makes no explicit indication of hand division, though two voices per hand can reasonably be assumed as the default arrangement. Figure 1.4 shows an excerpt from Ammerbach’s collection that requires an unusual distribution of notes between the hands. In m. 8 the alto and tenor voices cross, and the distance between the soprano and alto lines reaches a tenth, requiring one of the following alternatives: the alto line could be played with the left hand while the tenor is played with the right or the lower three voices could be taken by the left hand.

12 For a table comparing the notational differences (including voice orders) of tablature collections before 1550, see Johnson, 39. 12

Figure 1.4a: Der Allmeyer Dantz: mm. 7–9, Figure 1.4b: Der Allmeyer Dantz: mm. 7–9 intabulated by Ammerbach13 (modern transcription) 14

A new consideration in determining hand division when reading tablature was described by

Jacob Paix in his preface to Ein Schön Nutz unnd Gereüchlich Orgel Tabulaturbuch of 1583:

The benevolent buyer should know that wherever in my book (which is entirely my own work) an embellishment fills a complete tactus [streich], it can be played equally well either with the right or the left hand (which may seem rather strange). Then, if one hold with the right thumb, the embellishment [coloratur] is easily executed with the third and small fingers [fingers 4 and 5]; the same can be done with the left hand. For I have industriously explored how three voices can be played with one hand so that an embellishment may result at the same time.15

Paix demonstrates a flexible approach to dividing the notes between the hands, highlighting the

particular advantages of consolidating many voices in one hand to free the other hand for quick-

moving coloratura. Though Paix’s notation lacks any indication of hand division, ornamental figures

pervade his Tabulaturbuch, offering many opportunities to apply his instructions. Figure 1.5 illustrates

one possible realization of Paix’s fingering approach in an excerpt from the motet intabulation

Angelus domini. As the upper voice begins a long series of running notes, the lower three voices may

be played by the left hand.

13 Elias Nikolaus Ammerbach, Orgel oder Instrument Tabulatur, (Leipzig, 1571), fol. J3v. 14 As transcribed in Elias Nikolaus Ammerbach, Orgel oder Instrument Tabulaturbuch (1571/1583), ed. Charles Jacobs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 76. 15 Jacob Paix, Ein Schön Nutz unnd Gereüchlich Orgel Tabulaturbuch (Lauingen, 1583), iii; translated in Sherry Rudolph Seckler, “The Jakob Paix Tablature Ein Schön Nutz unnd Gereüchlich Orgel Tabulaturbuch Translated and Transcribed” (PhD diss., University of Iowa, 1990), 8. 13

Figure 1.5a: Palestrina, Angelus domini, intabulated by Paix16 (editorial dotted line indicates a possible division of the notes between the hands)

Figure 1.5b: Palestrina, Angelus domini, intabulated by Paix (modern notation)17

Combining the fingerings of Buchner and the instructions of Paix, three principles guiding hand division emerge from German sources:

(1) when only two voices are present, they may be divided between the hands;

(2) when two adjacent parts are separated by more than an octave, one or more notes should be transferred to the other hand;

(3) multiple voices may be consolidated in one hand to free the other hand to accommodate fast-moving notes or ornamentation.

16 Paix, B iiijv. 17 Adapted from Seckler, 53–54. 14

Spanish Tablature and Open Scores

Spanish keyboard music of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was notated entirely in non-prescriptive formats, whether open score or Spanish keyboard tablature.18 An early adaptation of vihuela tablature for use by either harp or organ appears in Alonso Mudarra’s Tres libros de musica en cifras para vihuela of 1546, but Fray Juan Bermudo was the first to present a system designed exclusively for keyboard in his 1555 Declaración de instrumentos musicales. Bermudo offers three ways to realize vocal polyphony at the keyboard. The first is to read directly from part books, which he admits is “very laborious because keeping all the voices in view costs great effort; but it is profitable.”19 For the player who “does not know about composition and has not had much practice in playing, but is a beginner, or does not wish to take too much effort,” Bermudo suggests transcribing the separate parts into an open score from which a third option could be produced:

“cifras,” now known as Spanish keyboard tablature.20

Bermudo’s system used four parallel lines, one for each voice, in which the pitches of each part are represented by numbers unique to each key of the keyboard.21 Figure 1.6 shows Bermudo’s own illustration of how an open score could be transcribed into tablature.

18 Robert Judd has shown that a major impetus for notated keyboard music in this era was training musicians in the art of “fantasia,” a sophisticated unwritten performance practice, somewhere between improvisation and composition. This pedagogical method immersed students in playing existing vocal polyphony at the keyboard, requiring them to read it directly from partbooks or by transcribing it into open score. See Judd, 1:7–8, 28. 19 Fray Juan Bermudo, Declaración de instrumentos musicales (Seville: Juan de Leon, 1546), fol. lxxxiiv; translated in Judd, 1:28. 20 Bermudo, fol. lxxxiiv; translated in Judd, 1:28. 21 See Apel, Notation, 47–48. Bermudo also presents an alternative system in which only the white keys are numbered. Of particular interest is Antonio Valente’s adaptation of Bermudo’s system in his Itavolatura de Cimbalo (Naples, 1576), the only known keyboard tablature publication in which hand division is explicitly indicated (Apel, Notation, 48–49). 15

Figure 1.6: Bermudo, open score transcribed into Spanish keyboard tablature22

Two years later, Luys Venegas de Henestrosa modified Bermudo’s system to use only the numerals 1 through 7 to label the keys F through E, designating octaves through added dots and slashes.23 This approach was adopted in the two remaining collections of Spanish keyboard tablature,

Antonio de Cabezon’s Obras de Musica para tecla arpa y vihuela of 1578 and Francisco Correa de

Arauxo’s Libro de tientos y discursos de musica practica, y theorica de organo intitulado facultad orqanica of 1626.

Figure 1.7 shows an example of Correa’s Tiento de Quinto Tono in both Spanish tablature and modern notation.

22 Bermudo, fol. lxxxiii. 23 Luys Venegas de Henestrosa, Libro de cifra nveva para tecla, harpa y vihvela, en el qual se ensena breuemente cantar canto llano, y canto de organo, y algunos auisos para contrapunto (Alcala de Henares: Joan de Brocar, 1557), fol. v. 16

Figure 1.7a: Correa, Tiento de Quinto Tono: mm. 1–1224

Figure 1.7b: Correa, Tiento de Quinto Tono: mm. 1–12 (modern transcription)25

24 Francisco Correa de Arauxo, Libro de tientos y discursos de musica practica, y theorica de organo intitulado facultad orqanica (Alcala de Henares: Antonio Arnao, 1626), fol. 14v. 25 As transcribed in Francisco Correa de Arauxo, Libro de Tientios y Discurso de Musica Practica (1626), vol. 1, trans. and ed. Santiago Kastner (Boca Raton: Master’s Music Publications, 1993), 28. 17

Of all the Spanish sources, only Correa’s publication addresses hand distribution. Because the non-prescriptive notation does not indicate which hand should play which notes, Correa’s thorough instructions are a welcome guide:

If at the beginning of a work two voices were to enter together, one should be played with each hand, playing the upper voice with the right hand, and the lower with the left. If three voices were to enter at the same time, the most common manner is to play the two lowest with the left hand, and the highest with the right, because then the right hand will be free to ornament the work with a quiebro or redoble. This is the case where the voices are the lowest ones (the alto, tenor, and bass), or when (if they are the highest ones [i.e., soprano, alto, tenor]) the soprano is distant from the two others. If the soprano is close to the alto, one can also play two notes (soprano and alto) with the right hand, and the tenor with the left, though the first case is the most common.26

When all four voices enter, Correa advises that each hand should play two voices “unless the two upper voices or the two lower voices are separated from each other by more than an octave. If that is the case, the three closest voices are to be played with one hand, with the distant voice played by the other hand.”27 He further clarifies that the inner voices can be redistributed to accommodate ornamentation in the outer voices:

If the soprano is freely ornamented, the three lower voices (which are alto, tenor, and bass) are to be played by the left hand, and only the soprano by the right. And if the bass is to be freely ornamented, this voice is to be given by the left hand, and the three upper voices (which are the tenor, alto, and soprano) by the right, for the reason mentioned in the last exception.28

Correa’s explanation makes clear that hand division was entirely flexible. Over the course of a performance, the inner voices could be exchanged between the hands multiple times. Correa’s guidance underscores the same principles espoused by Buchner and Paix: the parts should generally be divided evenly but can be regrouped to accommodate wide spacing and to isolate ornamented lines, whether in the highest or lowest voice.

26 Correa, Libro (1626), 16v; translated in Jon Burnett Holland, “Francisco Correa de Arauxo’s Faculltad Organica: A Translation and Study of Its Theoretical and Pedagogical Aspects” (PhD diss., University of Oregon, 1985), 225. 27 Correa, Libro (1626), 17; translated Holland, 226–27. 28 Correa, Libro (1626), 17v; translated Holland, 230. 18

Prescriptive Formats: Diruta’s Guidelines for Intavolatura

While Germany and Spain cultivated non-prescriptive score formats, keyboard music on two staves flourished in Italy. The earliest source is Faenza 117, a collection of intabulations compiled around 1420 with six lines per staff.29 From Antico’s first keyboard print of 1517 through the end of the seventeenth century, intabulations of vocal music and original keyboard compositions appeared frequently in intavolatura, sometimes called Italian keyboard tablature.30 This two-staff format looks much like modern keyboard notation, though it differs in subtle but significant ways that are outlined below. Its most visible distinguishing feature is its increased number of lines per staff— most often five or six in the upper staff and as many as eight in the lower staff—that allow the notes for each hand to remain on separate staves.31

Beginning in the 1570s, some keyboard music was printed in open score, particularly ricercars and other contrapuntal genres.32 This was the format used by Frescobaldi for all his keyboard works except for his two books of toccatas (1615 and 1627), for which he chose intavolatura. He emphasizes the value of the open score format in his preface to Fiori Musicali of 1635:

I have always shown the world, with my published editions of all kinds of Capricci and Inventions, in tablature (intavolatura) and in score (partitura), that I wish all who see and study my work to reap satisfaction and profit from it… I consider it of great importance that musicians should play from score, not only because I respect those who will take the trouble to study these compositions, but because it is a certain way of distinguishing between the true virtuoso and the ignorant player.33

The popularity of the open score format among composers can no doubt be credited to its polyphonic transparency, unencumbered by any directions for practical realization at the keyboard.

29 Alexander Silbiger, Italian Manuscript Sources of 17th Century Keyboard Music (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1976), 11. 30 Ian Pritchard, “Keyboard thinking: Intersections of notation, composition, improvisation, and intabulation in sixteenth-century Italy,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California, 2018), 3. 31 For a complete listing and description (including numbers of staff lines) of Italian keyboard prints from 1500 to 1700, see Judd, 2:1–209. 32 For a helpful table of Italian keyboard prints and their formats, see Judd, 88–93. 33 Girolamo Frescobaldi, Fiori musicali di diverse compositioni toccate, kirie, canzoni, capricci e recercari in partitura a quattro utili per sonatori…opera duodecima (Venice: Alessandro Vincenti, 1635), A2v; translated in Girolamo Frescobaldi, Fiori Musicali, ed. Philippe Lescat (Courlay: Éditions J. M. Fouzeau, 1994), 24. 19

The intavolatura format presented the opposite features: the notes of the two staves were explicitly assigned to the two hands at the expense of clarity in voice leading. As Ian Pritchard summarizes, the format’s “purpose was to be easily read by keyboardists, rather than to show polyphonic structure.”34

This loss of compositional transparency in intavolatura results from the intentional suppression of musical details deemed inessential to the practical realization of the notes at the keyboard. Girolamo Diruta outlines the governing principles that distinguish this format from modern keyboard notation in the second volume of Il Transilvano, the sole source to illustrate the procedure for transferring works from open score to intavolatura. Diruta recommends eliminating rests in individual lines if another voice is active in that staff, “lest they crowd the notes.” 35 Instead,

Diruta directs the transcriber to insert only short rests to signal entrances, symbols aptly labeled by

Alexander Silbiger as “fictitious rests.”36 Diruta also clarifies how to determine hand division, advising that the middle parts should be assigned to either hand according to their distance from the outer voices. He cautions, “Take care that if the tenor is over an octave above the bass, you intabulate it under the soprano on the five-line staff… The middle parts, namely the tenor and alto, are suited to either the eight- or the five-line staff, whichever is more convenient for playing diminutions.”37 Significantly, Diruta cites the same practical considerations as Buchner, Correa, and

Paix: avoiding wide spans and isolating parts with quick-moving notes.

Diruta provides his intabulation of a four-voice ricercar, putting these principles to work. As the voices enter, first bass then tenor, Diruta splits these voices between the hands, eventually

34 Pritchard, 65. 35 Girolamo Diruta, Seconda parte del Transilvano, dialogo divisi in quattro libri (Venice: Giacomo Vincenti, 1609), 4; translated in Girolamo Diruta, Il Transilvano, vol. 2, ed. and trans. Murray C. Bradshaw and Edward J. Soehnlein (Henryville: Institute of Medieval Music, 1984), 9. 36 Alexander Silbiger, “Is the Italian keyboard ‘intavolatura’ a tablature?” Recercare 3 (1991): 8. 37 Diruta, Seconda parte, 2; translated in Diruta, Il Transilvano, 5. 20 transferring the tenor to the left hand just as the alto enters in the right hand in m. 4 (Figure 1.8).

Diruta aims to divide the lines as evenly between the hands as possible, just as Buchner did in Quem terra pontus.

Figure 1.8: Diruta, Ricercar: mm. 1–438

The work’s final four measures show the fluid transfer of the alto and tenor lines between the hands. When the voices cross, Diruta does not require the hands to cross too. When the alto enters below the tenor in m. 73, Diruta reassigns the alto to the left hand and the tenor to the right

38 Diruta, Seconda parte, 5. This and the following transcriptions wer made with reference to both the first edition and the modern transcription by Bradshaw and Soehnlein. They adopt Bradshaw and Soehnlein’s updated method of notating ties. 21 hand (Figure 1.9). In other cases, three voices are consolidated into one hand, as happens in two distinct ways in m. 75: first, three voices in the left hand, then three voices in the right hand.

Figure 1.9: Diruta, Ricercar: mm. 73–7639

Diruta illustrates a final peculiarity of this notational style in m. 52 (Figure 1.10). Here the alto line sustains a C as the tenor leaps to meet in it on the second beat. Diruta’s intavolatura makes no indication that the alto voice continues in principle, yielding instead to the practical keyboard reality that the C must be restruck. The appearance on the score is that the number of voices is momentarily reduced from four to three. As Silbiger notes, in this method of notation, “no attempt was made to clarify the voice leading; the player is merely instructed when to press which keys.”40

39 Diruta, Seconda parte, 9. 40 Silbiger, “Is the Italian,” 83. 22

Figure 1.10: Diruta, Ricercar: m. 5241

Diruta makes clear the contrasting functions of the intavolatura and open score formats.

Intavolatura prioritizes the practical, prescribing hand division while subordinating polyphonic clarity.

Open score delivers ultimate compositional transparency but no practical guidance, including any indication of hand division. Remarkably, musicians using either format offer the same guidance in how notes should be divided between the hands at the keyboard: share the load evenly where possible, avoid wide spans, and isolate faster notes in one hand. These principles are evident in

Frescobaldi’s toccatas, notated in the prescriptive intavolatura format. In the opening of the third toccata, Frescobaldi gradually shifts the four-part texture from one voice in the right hand with three in the left to two voices in each hand to three voices in right hand and one in the left (Figure 1.11).

His flexible approach to hand division consolidates held notes in one hand, isolating the most active lines for greater freedom of movement.

41 Diruta, Seconda parte, 8. 23

Figure 1.11: Frescobaldi, Toccata No. 3: mm. 1–242

The intavolatura format also allowed composers to indicate unusual hand divisions that serve a technical purpose. Johann Jacob Froberger, a student of Frescobaldi’s from 1637 to 1641, adopted his mentor’s practice of notating polyphonic works in open score and toccatas in intavolatura, including both genres in a book prepared for Emperor Ferdinand III in 1649, now known as Libro

Secondo.43 In m. 18 of the Toccata in D Minor, the second piece of the Libro Secondo, the lower voice leaps up an octave and disappears from the bottom staff, switching briefly to the right hand (Figure

1.12a). Froberger’s instruction to take the higher G in the right hand allows the left hand extra time to move to its next position, but when the work first appeared in print over thirty years after

Froberger’s death, this nuance of hand division was eliminated (Figure 1.12b). Akira Ishii suggests that the change in note distribution “may have appeared because it was too bothersome for the…engraver to divide the three-note figure—two sixteenth notes and an eighth note—to place the notes in opposing staves.”44 Whether due to difficulties in printing or an attempt to clarify voice leading, the published distribution obscures a valuable insight into Froberger’s technical approach.

42 Girolamo Frescobaldi, Toccate e partite d'intavolatura di cimbalo…libro primo (Rome: Nicolo Borboni, 1615), 7. 43 Johann Jacob Froberger, Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke, ed. Siegbert Rampe, vol. 1, Clavier- und Orgelwerke autographer Überlieferung “Libro Secondo” (1649) (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2002), XXVI. 44 Akira Ishii, “The Toccatas and Contrapuntal Keyboards Works of Johann Jacob Froberger: A Study of the Principal Sources” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1999), 262. 24

Figure 1.12a: Froberger, Toccata in D Minor, FbWV 102: m. 18 (Libro Secondo, 1649)45

Figure 1.12b: Froberger, Toccata in D Minor, FbWV 102: m. 18 (Bourgeat, 1693)46

Two-Staff Notation in England and France

The diverse notational styles examined in this chapter persisted well into the seventeenth century, but they all eventually yielded to the system of two five-line staves still in use today. Unlike intavolatura, this two-staff keyboard score clearly delineates separate voices and often decouples the hands from their respective staves. Nevertheless, the intended distribution of the notes between the hands generally remains clear, as will be explored more fully in Chapter 2. The remainder of this chapter considers a few notational elements of the English and French repertoires that help account for the development of the keyboard score of the eighteenth century and beyond.

The first printed music for harpsichord in England appeared in 1613 in a collection entitled

Parthenia, featuring works by William Byrd, John Bull, and Orlando Gibbons. The collection is printed on two staves of six lines which were frequently enlarged still further by ledger lines, thus

45 Johann Jacob Froberger, Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Musiksammlung, Mus. Hs. 18706 (Froberger Autographs), ed. Robert Hill, 17th Century Keyboard Music 3/1 (New York: Garland, 1988), fol. 8. 46 Johann Jacob Froberger, Diverse Ingegnosissime, Rarissime & non maj piu viste Curiose Partite di Toccate, Canzone, Ricercate, Alemande, Correnti, Sarabande e Gigue (Mainz: Ludwig Bourgeat, 1693), 23. 25 indicating a fixed hand distribution as in intavolatura. In contrast to the Italian style, however, the periodic transfer of inner voices between the hands is carefully marked with a custos (or direct), the same symbol used at the end of each system to forecast the first pitch of the following line. In

Byrd’s Galiardo Mistress Marye Brownlo, the alto voice briefly travels from the upper staff to the lower staff in m. 9 (Figure 1.13). The custos appears in the upper staff on the second line (E) where the alto voice would have been, to account for its change of location.

Figure 1.13: Byrd, Galiardo Mistress Marye Brownlo: mm. 7–1247

The custos also appears frequently in the Bauyn manuscript, the largest source of seventeenth- century French harpsichord music. The manuscript was prepared by one scribe no earlier than 1676

(but more likely closer to 1690) and contains nearly 350 pieces, including many by Jacques

Champion de Chambonnières and Louis Couperin for which it is the only source.48 Figure 1.14a shows the custos used to mark the transfer of a middle voice from the lower to the upper staff in a gigue by Chambonnières. Does this change in staff imply that the voice passes from the left to the right hand? If the scribe were primarily concerned with showing hand division, it seems more likely

47 Parthenia or the Maydenhead of the first musicke that was ever printed for the Virginalls (London, 1613), V. 48 Davitt Moroney, ed. Manuscrit Bauyn, ca. 1690: Fac-similé du manuscript de la Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, Rés. Vm7 674-675 (Geneva: Éditions Minkoff, 1998), 7. 26 he would have transferred the middle voice to the right hand a note or two earlier to avoid the stretch of a ninth in the left hand, an extremely uncommon span in this era. This was the layout employed twenty years earlier when the same gigue appeared in Les Pièces de Clavecin of 1670, one of only two collections of Chambonnières’ works printed in his lifetime. The middle voice is notated on a ledger line beneath the upper staff in m. 12, implying it should be played by the right hand

(Figure 1.14b). In contrast, the layout of the middle voice in the Bauyn manuscript suggests that the scribe prioritized keeping the notes on the staff rather than prescribing the distribution of the notes between the hands.

Figure 1.14a: Chambonnières, Gigue in A Major: mm. 10–14 (Bauyn MS, fol. 31)49

Figure 1.14b: Chambonnières, Gigue in A Major: mm. 10–14 (1670)50

49 Moroney, 61. 50 Jacques Champion de Chambonnières, Les Pièces de Clavecin (Paris: Chez Jollain, 1670), 35. 27

Which method of notation was more common in French sources, the prescriptive format of

Les Pièces de Clavecin or the non-prescriptive layout of the Bauyn manuscript? French prints of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century suggest that Chambonnières’ use of ledger lines was common. The publications of Elisabeth Jacquet de le Guerre, François Couperin, and Jean Philippe

Rameau all employ them liberally. Sometimes one or two ledger lines extend over many beats, as in

Jacquet de la Guerre’s Allemande in D Minor (Figure 1.15), essentially recreating the larger staves of the Italian style. This frequent use of ledger lines argues against the prevailing notion that French keyboard notation generally does not show hand division.51

Figure 1.15: Jacquet de la Guerre, Allemande in D Minor: mm. 1–352

Other sources suggest that a variety of approaches coexisted. Jean Henry d’Anglebert demonstrates both notational methods in his Pièces de clavecin of 1689. Although ledger lines appear frequently throughout the publication, in the Gigue in G Major, hand division is not entirely determined by staff placement. In m. 2, the bottom staff is empty except for the custos, situated on

G, two ledger lines above the staff (Figure 1.16). The absence of any pitches or rests in the lower staff strongly suggests that the left hand should play the bottom voice of the upper staff, perhaps beginning after the tied G. Another tiny custos appears at the end of the measure in the first space of

51 Bull, 184; Froberger, Vienna, vii–viii. 52 Elisabeth Jacquet de la Guerre, Les Pièces de Clavecin (Paris: Auteur, de Baussen, 1687), 5. 28 the upper staff, signaling the return of the left hand to D in the bottom staff. The first custos indicates a change in hand distribution, whereas the second custos shows that a voice has changed staves without changing hands.

Figure 1.16: D’Anglebert, Gigue in G Major: mm. 1–353

A much earlier example of two-staff notation in which the hands are not bound to either staff is found in Froberger’s 1649 collection for Emperor Ferdinand III. In addition to toccatas, fantasias, and canzonas, Froberger included six suites notated on two five-line staves. The opening of the D-minor Allemande illustrates a flexible style of notation in which lines move between the staves and the distribution of the notes between the hands is unspecified (Figure 1.17). Robert Hill describes it as “French notation,” a style in which “it is quite unnecessary, and even undesirable, to tell the player which hand is to take which notes. In the notation, voices are allowed to migrate freely from one staff to the other, avoiding ledger lines as far as possible, and the player is free to choose how to divide the inner voices between the hands.”54

53 Jean Henry D’Anglebert, Pièces de Clavecin (Paris: Chez l’Auteur, 1689), 15. 54 Froberger, Vienna, viii. 29

Figure 1.17: Froberger, Allemande in D Minor: m. 1 (Libro Secondo, 1649)55

Hill’s comments aptly describe Froberger’s method of notation, but they can hardly be applied to the prints of Chambonnières or Jacquet de la Guerre or even much of the Bauyn manuscript. It is unclear what influences may have led Froberger to adopt this form of notation.

When Froberger penned these suites in 1649, he had not yet traveled to Paris. His extended visit to the French capital, in which he likely met Louis Couperin and Chambonnières as well as lutenists

François Dufaut and Denis Gaultier, did not begin until the following year.56 Regardless, there appears to be little, if any, extant French keyboard music that matches Froberger’s notational style at such an early date. Even well into the eighteenth century, François Couperin and Rameau seldom let the hands leave their respective staves.57 In contrast, notating the hands on either staff was already becoming common in Germany at the end of the seventeenth century, as seen from the opening measures of Johann Kuhnau’s Neuer Clavier-Übung of 1689, in which the left hand straddles both staves (Figure 1.18). Perhaps this style’s characterization as “French notation” should be reconsidered.

55 Froberger, Vienna, 87v. 56 Froberger, Neue Ausgabe, XXVII. 57 Couperin’s four books of Pièces de clavecin (1713, 1716, 1722, and 1730) rigidly maintain hand division by staff and use ledger lines extensively. With the publication of his Nouvelles Suites in 1727, Rameau adopted the freer style of notation across both staves, but his Premier Livre de Pièces de Clavecin of 1706 keeps each hand in its own staff. 30

Figure 1.18: Kuhnau, Praeludium: mm. 1–858

Though notated keyboard music appeared in vastly different formats over its first few centuries, the evidence from performers and composers alike shows that disunity of notational style did not override the practical realities of keyboard performance. Musicians from across Europe considered three main factors when determining the distribution of notes between the hands: equal sharing of the texture, avoiding wide stretches, and accommodating quick-moving parts, especially ornaments, by consolidating voices in the other hand. These principles of note distribution persisted into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as will be seen in subsequent chapters.

58 Johann Kuhnau, Neuer Clavier-Übung: Erster Theil (Leipzig, 1689), 1. 31

Chapter 2 The Eighteenth Century: Counterpoint and Crossings

The eighteenth century was an era of tremendous change in keyboard music. For the first time, keyboard composers across Europe employed the same notational format: a keyboard score of two five-line staves. Composers continued to write in traditional keyboard genres including dance movements, fantasias, and variations, but the repertoire expanded to include sonatas and concertos of increasing grandeur, representing a breadth of styles from “learned” to empfindsamer to galant. The instruments themselves changed too: the turn of the century coincided with the birth of the pianoforte, and by the century’s end, it had superseded its rivals as the dominant keyboard instrument. These evolutions of style and substance demanded corresponding changes in keyboard technique.

Midway through the century, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach outlined the principles of a modern keyboard technique in his influential Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen. Bach devotes his opening chapter to the foundational principles of fingering, famously warning that “more is lost through poor fingering than can be replaced by all conceivable artistry and good taste.”1 He keenly observes that the particular challenge of keyboard fingering lies in its multiplicity of options, “for at the keyboard almost anything can be expressed even with the wrong fingering, although with prodigious difficulty and awkwardness. In the case of other instruments, the slightest incorrectness of fingering is usually betrayed by the downright impossibility of performing the notes.”2

Bach perceived the difficulties as further compounded by changing musical styles that favored “melodic passages with their far more capricious fingering” and improvements in tuning

1 Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments, ed. and trans. William J. Mitchell (New York: W.W. Norton, 1949), 41. 2 C.P.E. Bach, Essay, 41. 32 that facilitated the use of all twenty-four keys.3 His solution is a new system of fingering characterized by more frequent use of the thumb, an innovation he credits to his father.4 His thorough discussion is accompanied by sixty-six fingered excerpts and six Probestücke, three- movement sonatas composed specifically to illustrate his principles applied in a variety of styles.5

As in most fingering treatises before and since, Bach focuses primarily on passages for each hand individually, but the relationship between the hands is not completely ignored. He broaches the subject by acknowledging that in polyphonic works the layout of pitches on the staff may mislead: “In three or more part compositions where each voice expresses an individual line there arise situations in which the hands must be interchanged in order to perform the notes correctly, even though one hand should play them according to the notation.”6 To prevent any confusion,

Bach explains that in writing the Probestücke he “seized every opportunity to indicate through the notes the hands assigned to them,” principally through stem direction, and in the special case of hand crossings, clef changes.7

This dichotomy between notation that is neutral (or even misleading) in indicating hand division and emerging strategies for clarifying the distribution of notes succinctly captures the range of approaches in eighteenth-century keyboard music. Chapter Two traces these separate tracks, using Bach’s examples as a starting point. First, I will explore the division of inner voices in polyphonic music through a fugue of J.S. Bach, comparing fingerings left by the composer himself with those of a later era. Second, I will examine C.P.E. Bach’s notational strategies in the Probestücke, focusing on how his notation of hand crossings compares with the approaches of other major composers of the period.

3 C.P.E. Bach, Essay, 42. 4 C.P.E. Bach, Essay, 42. 5 The Probestücke (“sample pieces”), H70–H75, are sometimes referred to as the Essay Sonatas. 6 C.P.E. Bach, Essay, 75. 7 C.P.E. Bach, Essay, 77. 33

“The Hands Must Be Interchanged”

After his extensive discussion of fingering principles for single-line passages, Bach turns his attention to the distribution of three or more musical lines between the two hands. He warns that for pieces in a polyphonic style, the staff layout is non-prescriptive. The notation may give no indication that a line should be transferred between the hands, though such a shift may be necessary in order to even reach the notes. Bach provides one example in which he carefully divides the inner voice between the hands, changing the stem direction of two sixteenth notes in the second beat to assign them to the left hand. Bach’s redistribution ensures that the longer notes in the outer voices can be sustained for their full value by eliminating excessive stretches in either hand (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: C.P.E. Bach, Versuch, Figure LXV8

In Bach’s example, only two non-successive notes of the middle line are transferred from the right hand to the left, demonstrating how limited a redistribution can be, but his single-measure excerpt merely scratches the surface of this crucial technical consideration.

As explored in Chapter 1, polyphonic keyboard works of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries frequently appeared in non-prescriptive formats such as open score, offering no indication of hand division, whereas prescriptive two-staff formats like intavolatura specified the distribution of

8 Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Exempel nebst achtzehn Probe-Stücken in Sech Sonaten zu Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs Versuche über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen (Berlin, 1753), tab. III. In the original publication of the Versuch, Bach’s notated examples were grouped together, appearing separately from the main text. Because the many previous examples required only one staff, notating this three-voice example on one staff was presumably the most practical option for Bach, though it is unrepresentative of how these voices would be notated in repertoire. 34 the notes between the hands at the expense of polyphonic transparency. The keyboard score of the eighteenth century represented polyphonic voice leading clearly on only two staves but permitted ambiguity in how the parts should be divided between the hands, especially in dense textures. The forty-eight fugues of J.S. Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier have endured as the prime examples of this eighteenth-century contrapuntal style and present numerous questions of hand division. Bach’s own fingerings survive in only a few works, one of which is an early version of the Fugue in C Major from the second book of the Well-Tempered Clavier, offering insight into Bach’s approach to hand division. Bach’s fingerings in mm. 11–13 of this three-voice fugue shows how frequently the middle voice may be exchanged between the hands (Figure 2.2).9

Figure 2.2: J.S. Bach, Fughetta in C Major, BWV 870a: mm. 10–13 (Bach’s fingering)10

In mm. 11–13, the middle voice switches hands five times. Bach transfers it to the left hand in the first half of m. 11 to facilitate the execution of the ornaments and accommodate the brief wide interval between the top two parts. The transfers continue in earnest in the succeeding measures, both to eliminate uncomfortable (or impossible) stretches and to divide passages in sixteenth notes between the hands. This ricocheting between left and right hand is more intense in

9 Two differences exist in the notation of this passage between the early version (BWV 870a) and the WTC II autograph held in the British Library. The WTC autograph reduces the number of beats per measure from 4 to 2 and eliminates all ornaments except the trill marked on the F-sharp dotted eighth note in m. 11. Consequently, the corresponding section of the final version is mm. 21–26. 10 Johann Sebastian Bach, Das Wohltemperierte Klavier II, BWV 870–893; Fünf Praeludien und Fughetten, BWV 870a, 899–902, ed. Alfred Dürr, Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke Series 5, vol. 6/2 (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1995), 312. 35 this passage than elsewhere in the fugue but similar passages exist throughout the Well-Tempered

Clavier.

Bach’s fingering suggests one way to perform the passage, but other possible executions have been proposed by later performers. Carl Czerny advised distributing the inner voice in the manner shown in Figure 2.3 in his 1837 edition for C.F. Peters. Czerny’s fingering differs in the hand assignment of only four pitches, but these small changes reveal different priorities characteristic of a later era and another instrument. In the preface to his edition, Czerny stresses that his fingerings are designed “to be able to make each voice heard independent of the others.”11 As

Czerny’s added dynamic markings indicate, he recommends differentiating the voices in volume to highlight their structural significance, an option afforded by performing the work on the piano.

Consequently, Czerny’s fingering transfers the inner voice back to the right hand on the second sixteenth note of m. 24, freeing the left hand for a strong, unencumbered entrance of the lowest voice. Unburdened by any dynamic considerations, Bach suggests waiting until the fifth sixteenth note, the latest practical point of transfer.

Figure 2.3: J.S. Bach, Fugue in the C Major, WTC II, BWV 870: mm. 19–26 (Czerny)12 (differences from Bach’s distribution shaded in gray)

11 Johann Sebastian Bach, Le Clavecin bien tempéré, ed. Charles Czerny (Leipzig: C.F. Peters, 1837), 1:3. Czerny’s original language: “Zweitens, jede einzelne Stimme von den Andern unabhängig, streng gebunden und folgerecht ausführen zu können.” 12 J.S. Bach, Le Clavecin, 2:4. 36

Czerny’s and Bach’s fingerings in the following measure demonstrate the same contrast in approach. Czerny favors taking the middle voice in the left hand on the second sixteenth note to allow the right hand a brief rest before delivering the fugue subject, thus ensuring a secure and forceful entrance. Bach again delays the transfer until the last moment by passing the inner line to the left hand on the third sixteenth note.

The subtle differences in Bach’s and Czerny’s fingerings illustrate how master keyboardists can arrive at unique solutions, depending on their musical intent, technical priorities, and instrument.

Both sets of fingerings are legitimate, and a third performer who approached this passage might combine elements of both or devise entirely new solutions. These many possibilities demonstrate what Johann Nepomuk Hummel aptly called the “licenses of fingering in the strict style,” for in this contrapuntal style, “all kinds of fingering may be said to take place.”13

Notational Strategies for Notating Hand Division

Like the non-prescriptive formats of previous centuries, J.S. Bach’s fugues represent one end of the spectrum in eighteenth-century keyboard notation: they are compositionally transparent, clearly delineating the trajectory of each voice, and neutral on questions of practical realization.

Because of the pedagogical nature of his project, C.P.E. Bach took a contrasting approach in notating the pieces that accompany his Versuch:

In certain cases where the performer might be in doubt or even err in choosing the hand assigned to the notes, I have turned the stems upward to indicate the right hand and downward to indicate the left. When, owing to the limitations of space, a few notes in the inner parts lack tails, their nature and length must be ascertained from the notes struck with them in other inner parts or the bass. Since I have tried throughout to lighten the beginner’s tasks and have seized every opportunity to indicate through the notes the hand assigned to them, no one should be dismayed to find the values of certain tones and the conduct of

13 Johann Nepomuk Hummel, A Complete Theoretical and Practical Course of Instructions on the Art of Playing the Piano Forte (London: T. Boosey, 1828), 2:297. 37

parts notated unconventionally at times. Despite this, the trained performer will have no difficulty in following the path of each voice and determining the note lengths.14

Bach acknowledges that the division of notes between the hands may be unclear in certain passages unless special care is taken in their notation. His chief tool in clarifying the manner of execution is stem direction, as seen in the opening of the fourth sonata from the Probestücke (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4: C.P.E. Bach, Sonata No. 4, H73: I. mm. 1–415

Beginning with the final eighth note of m. 1, the lower line of the top staff is to be played with the left hand, as indicated by the downward stems and the repeated use of the fifth finger for the lowest voice. After the E-sharp in m. 2, the remaining notes in the top staff are played with the right hand.

Bach’s approach is not always consistently applied, however, as seen in the opening of the next movement (Figure 2.5). All the pitches in the first measure’s top staff should be taken as dyads by the right hand, judging by the written fingerings, though their opposing stems might at first suggest otherwise. In the second measure, the first four notes with downward stems are ostensibly assigned to the left hand, but the repeated D5 must be played by the right hand due to the entrance of a voice in the bottom staff, though it is notated identically to the preceding note. Despite Bach’s considerable efforts, stem direction alone can still leave ambiguities in note distribution.

14 C.P.E. Bach, Essay, 77. I have modified Mitchell’s translation of the first phrase “In gewissen Fällen.” 15 C.P.E. Bach, Exempel, 10. This transcription was made with reference to both the first edition and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, “Probestücke,” “Leichte” and “Damen” Sonatas, ed. David Schulenberg, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach: The Complete Works 3/1 (Los Altos: Packard Humanities Institute, 2005), 15. 38

Figure 2.5: C.P.E. Bach, Sonata No. 4, H73: II. mm. 1–416

Bach reserves a special strategy, the changing of clefs, for notating the popular eighteenth- century technique of hand crossing.17 He wrote the first movement of the sixth sonata specifically

“to illustrate a natural use of this kind of juggling” in which one hand performs a mostly static figuration while the other leaps across it.18 Bach employs frequent clef changes in both staves to precisely indicate the relationship of the hands (Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6: C.P.E. Bach, Sonata No. 6, H75: I. mm. 1–619

Changing clefs to notate hand crossings neatly keeps each hand in its own staff, eliminating any ambiguity in the division of pitches, but this form of notation was not commonly used by other

16 C.P.E. Bach, Exempel, 11; C.P.E. Bach, “Probestücke,” 17. 17 For an exploration of the hand crossing in keyboard music in the early eighteenth century, see David Yearsley, “The Awkward Idiom: Hand-Crossing and the European Keyboard Scene around 1730,” Early Music 30, no. 2 (May 2002): 224–35. 18 C.P.E. Bach, Essay, 77. 19 C.P.E. Bach, Exempel, 17; C.P.E. Bach, “Probestücke,” 28. 39 eighteenth-century composers. The elder Bach occasionally used clef changes to indicate hand crossings, especially in pieces composed for instruments with two manuals like the Goldberg

Variations. In other works, including the Fantasia in C Minor and the Gigue from the Partita No. 1 in B-flat Major, he chose an alternative notational style that graphically illustrates one voice leaping above the other—a “staff change” rather than a clef change. In the Fantasia, Bach provides no special instructions to signal the hand crossings, relying instead on the sudden absence of notes or rests in the lower staff coinciding with the entrance of a voice at the top of the other staff (Figure

2.7). Bach relies on stem direction (and length) in the gigue to indicate that the right hand should play the leaping quarter notes (Figure 2.8).20

Figure 2.7: J.S. Bach, Fantasia in C Minor, BWV 906: mm. 9–1021

Figure 2.8: J.S. Bach, Partita No. 1 in B-flat Major, BWV 825: Giga, mm. 1–422

20 Incidentally, most performers reverse Bach’s hand distribution, playing the quarter notes with the left hand. Rudolf Steglich credits Carl Czerny’s edition for C.F. Peters of the 1830s as the genesis of this practice in Johann Sebastian Bach, Sechs Partiten BWV 825–830, ed. Rudolf Steglich (München: G. Henle Verlag, 1979), 117. 21 Johann Sebastian Bach, Fantasie und Fuge c-Moll, holograph manuscript (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden Digital Collections, Mus. 2405-T-52), 3. 22 Johann Sebastian Bach, Clavier Übung bestehend in Praeludien, Allemanden, Couranten, Sarabanden, Giguen, Menuetten, und andern Galantieren…Opus 1 (Leipzig, 1731), 9. 40

Domenico Scarlatti also used staff changes to notate hand crossings in his sonatas. To eliminate any ambiguity in hand distribution, he always carefully marked his hand crossings with D

(destra = right) and M (manca = left), as in the Sonata in F-sharp Minor, K. 25, one of the thirty sonatas published in Scarlatti’s lifetime (Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.9: D. Scarlatti, Sonata in F-sharp Minor, K. 25: mm. 12–1623

In the final quarter of the eighteenth century, hand crossings enjoyed a resurgence of popularity, appearing frequently in the music of Mozart and Beethoven. Like J.S. Bach, Mozart most frequently showed hand crossings through staff changes without the written indications scrupulously added by Scarlatti, as seen in the opening variations of his Sonata in A Major, K. 331 (Figure 2.10).

By this time, the convention was clearly established and needed no further explanation.

Figure 2.10: W.A. Mozart, Sonata in A Major, K. 331: I. mm. 73–7624

23 Domenico Scarlatti, Essercizi per Gravicembalo (London: B. Fourtier, 1738), 87. 24 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Trois Sonates pour le Clavecin ou Pianoforte (Vienna: Artaria, 1785), 17. 41

Mozart employed clef changes to indicate hand crossing only once, to accommodate the extreme distance between the hands in the finale of the Sonata in C Minor, K. 457, of 1784.

Abandoning the conventional relationship between the static and leaping hand, Mozart plunges the right hand into the lowest register of the keyboard as the left hand climbs upward, peaking at nearly four octaves of separation in m. 96 (Figure 2.11). Such a dramatic technical challenge evidently alarmed Mozart’s publisher because the first edition released by Artaria in 1785 reduces the distances between the hands somewhat.

Figure 2.11: W.A. Mozart, Sonata in C Minor, K. 457: III. mm. 90–10125

Beethoven’s notation for hand crossings evolved over the course of his output, but he generally preferred changes in clef. The early sonatas through Op. 10 reveal a mixture of approaches, but from Op. 13 on, Beethoven exclusively uses clef changes until the fugal finales of Opp. 106 and

110. In these later works, Beethoven combines staff changes with “m.d.” and “m.s.” markings for maximum clarity.

Beethoven’s shift to clef changes resolves any questions of hand division before they arise, but at least one passage from an early sonata left some performers wondering whether a hand

25 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Klaviersonaten, vol. 2, ed. Wolfgang Plath and Wolfgang Rehm, Neue Mozart Ausgabe IX/25 (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1986), 97. 42 crossing was in fact intended. Toward the end of the finale of the Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, no. 2,

Beethoven establishes the characteristic texture of passages with hand crossings: a repeated pattern in the middle register paired with a gesture that appears both above and below it (Figure 2.12).

Figure 2.12: Beethoven, Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, no. 2: IV. mm. 147–5326

The conventions established by J.S. Bach, Scarlatti, and Mozart would suggest that the right hand maintains the repeated chords while the left-hand flits through the quick arpeggios. Carl Czerny, himself a student of Beethoven’s and the specially selected piano teacher of Beethoven’s nephew, believed otherwise, writing in 1846 that the passage must be played “not by crossing the left hand, as might be imagined from the mode of notation,” but in the hand arrangement shown in Figure 2.13.27

Figure 2.13: Beethoven, Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, no. 2: IV. mm. 147–48 (Czerny)28

Could it be that the fingering advocated by Czerny was authorized or even intended by Beethoven?

Though its origin can never be definitively established, Czerny’s fingering proved influential.

26 Ludwig van Beethoven, Trois Sonates pour le Clavecin ou Piano-forte (Vienna: Artaria, 1796), 30. 27 Carl Czerny, The Art of Playing the Ancient and Modern Piano Forte Works (London: R. Cocks & Co., 1846), 36. 28 Czerny, Art, 36. 43

Succeeding editions of the sonata almost uniformly assign the E major arpeggio to the right hand— only Artur Schnabel recommends a hand crossing.29

Beethoven’s abandonment of staff changes for hand crossings may derive in part from confusion over passages like this. From the publication of the Pathétique in 1799 forward, he marks any unusual orientation of the hands through clefs or written instructions, foreshadowing the increased specificity of nineteenth-century piano notation.

Performer’s License

In just a few short paragraphs of his Versuch, C.P.E. Bach encapsulates the diverging trajectories of practical specificity in eighteenth-century keyboard notation. For polyphonic compositions, performers must look past the notation to determine the hand distribution that best articulates the counterpoint. In most other repertoire, hand division is generally clear. When composers desire a special configuration of the hands, they mark it through stem direction, clef changes, or written instructions.

Bach’s conception of the relationship between notation and execution is complicated by a surprising comment buried within his discussion of hand crossings:

Compositions can be found in which the composer calls for needless crossing. The performer should not feel obliged to indulge in such imposturing but should seek instead a more natural execution. Nevertheless, the technique is not to be discarded for it helps to make the keyboard a more comprehensive instrument and opens up new possibilities of expression. However, the crossing must be so devised that the passage is either unplayable any other way or playable only with a difficulty that causes an ugly garbling or even a dismembering of the parts. For the rest, it is a vain tempest that can blind only the ignorant, for the initiated know clearly that, considered by itself, there is no challenge in it save its unusualness, and that is soon overcome. And yet, it is everyone’s experience that excellent and also difficult pieces have been written which employ crossed hands.30 (Italics added)

29 Ludwig van Beethoven, Complete Piano Sonatas in Two Volumes, ed. Artur Schnabel (1949; repr., Van Nuys: Alfred, 1985), 1:56. 30 C.P.E. Bach, Essay, 77–78. 44

As Bach warned at the beginning of his chapter, there are often many ways to perform a passage that vary greatly in feasibility and usefulness. At the chapter’s close, Bach vests the performer with the authority to “seek a more natural execution” when a composer’s suggested distribution is deemed “needless.” This rare elevation of the performer’s judgment in matters of practical realization seems ahead of its time, perhaps more characteristic of a nineteenth-century artist. Bach’s comments pull back the curtain ever so slightly on the licenses he and his contemporaries may have taken in their own performances.

45

Chapter 3 The Nineteenth Century I: How Chopin and Liszt Approached Hand Division as Composers and Teachers

By the second half of the nineteenth century, Chopin and Liszt had emerged as the dominant pianistic forces of the era. Together they dramatically expanded the parameters of piano technique, establishing benchmarks by which pianists are still judged today. This chapter explores how these two central figures approached hand division in both writing and teaching their own music. As composers, they were prescriptive. Being prodigious pianists, they incorporated in their pieces their own innovative techniques, and their notated hand divisions almost certainly represent the way they played these works. However, as teachers, Chopin and Liszt approached hand division flexibly. Written markings in students’ scores and recorded comments from lessons reveal that both composers occasionally advised redistributing notes between the hands in their own compositions.

This documentary evidence sheds light on the musical and technical situations in which Chopin and

Liszt recommended redistributions, suggesting that even the greatest pianist-composers of the nineteenth century were open to alternative fingerings and hand divisions.

Notating Hand Division

As outlined in Chapter 2, eighteenth-century composers often wrote for both hands across the two staves, using changes in stem direction and written instructions to clarify the division of the notes between the hands. Chopin employed this method of notation frequently, allowing the hands to freely migrate from one staff to the other, as in the opening measures of the Ballade in G Minor,

Op. 23 (Figure 3.1). This approach gives a strong visual impression of pitch contour as both hands begin low on the bottom staff and eventually ascend to the top staff. Hand division is implied through the presence of two distinctly beamed musical lines with opposing stem directions. 46

Figure 3.1: Chopin, Ballade No. 1 in G Minor, Op. 23: mm. 1–31

Chopin also uses stem direction to signal subtle changes in hand division, as in mm. 47–49 of the Ballade in A-flat Major, Op. 47 (Figure 3.2).2 Here he notates a shift from one hand to two hands and back to one hand by reversing the stem direction of the upper line in the bass staff. The initial E-flat octave is played with the left hand alone, but Chopin breaks the eighth-note beam in the upper voice after the tied E-flat, starting a new beam with an upward stem that assigns the line to the right hand. The single downward stem on the final A-flat octave directs the left hand to retake the top line.

Figure 3.2: Chopin, Ballade No. 3 in A-flat Major, Op. 47: mm. 47–493

The notational methods used by Chopin are also found in Liszt’s music, but the more diverse technical devices employed by Liszt required a greater variety of notational strategies. Two

1 Frédéric Chopin, Ballade pour le piano (Paris: Schlesinger, 1836), 2. 2 Chopin indicates hand division through written instructions only once, in mm. 99 to 105 of the Ballade in G Minor. The “mg.” marking assigns the lower octave of the doubled melody to the left hand. 3 Frédéric Chopin, Ballade pour le piano (Paris: Schlesinger, 1841), 4. 47 passages from the exposition of the Sonata in B Minor illustrate Liszt’s multiple methods of indicating hand division (Figures 3.3 and 3.4). In mm. 18–20, the hands are confined to their own staves: the carefully placed rests indicate that the sixteenth notes are passed between the hands, their single beam merely identifying them as one musical gesture. Just a few measures later, Liszt presents the same motive in a reimagined technical layout. The right hand descends to the lower staff at the end of m. 44 to manage the middle voice that moves between both staves in mm. 45–49. Beginning in m. 45, Liszt marks the notes in the upper staff “m.s.,” directing the left hand to cross over the right hand.

Figure 3.3: Liszt, Sonata in B Minor, S. 178: mm. 18–204

Figure 3.4: Liszt, Sonata in B Minor, S. 178: mm. 44–495

4 Franz Liszt, Sonate für das Pianoforte (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1854), 4. 5 Liszt, Sonate, 5. 48

Liszt sometimes changes notational approach by the measure, as in the tenth Transcendental

Etude (Figure 3.5a). In m. 13, he joins the hands in a martellato gesture, clarifying the hand distribution by dividing the notes between the staves. In the following measure, Liszt notates the dramatic sweep of the right-hand triplets from the bottom staff to the top staff, specifying hand division through stem direction. Figures 3.5b and 3.5c present two alternative ways of notating the passage. The first positions notes for either hand on either staff, clarifying hand distribution through stem direction. The second keeps each hand on its own staff, necessitating changes of clef.

Figure 3.5a: Liszt, Etudes d’éxécution transcendente, S. 139: X. mm. 13–156 (original notation)

Figure 3.5b: Liszt, Etudes d’éxécution transcendente, S. 139: X. mm. 13–15 (hand division shown through stem direction)

6 Franz Liszt, Etudes d’éxécution transcendente pour le piano (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1837), 27. 49

Figure 3.5c: Liszt, Etudes d’éxécution transcendente, S. 139: X. mm. 13–15 (hands remain on individual staves)

These examples demonstrate how precisely Chopin and Liszt indicated the division of notes between the hands, articulating their intentions through stem direction, clef changes, and written directions. Although their carefully notated scores most likely represent how they played their own pieces, Chopin and Liszt were willing to consider alternative distributions, as revealed through the accounts and documents of their pupils.

Chopin’s Teaching

In addition to performing and composing, Chopin and Liszt each devoted considerable energy to teaching piano. Chopin gave private lessons to affluent Parisians as a primary source of income from within a year of his arrival at the French capital in 1831 until 1848, at the onset of his final period of ill health.7 Liszt originated his famed master class method of group instruction during his Weimar years, continuing to teach up until the end of his life.8 Many insights into the interpretation of Chopin’s and Liszt’s own works—including alternative hand distributions—can be gleaned from the documented recollections of their students.

7 Alan Walker, Fryderyk Chopin: A Life and Times (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2018), 230–1, 604–5. 8 William Mason, Memories of a Musical Life (New York: The Century Co., 1901), 97–98; Alan Walker, Franz Liszt, vol. 2, The Weimar Years, 1848–1861 (London: Faber and Faber, 1989), 167–208; Alan Walker, Franz Liszt, vol. 3, The Final Years, 1861–1886 (New York: Knopf, 1996), 228–54. 50

The most detailed record available of how Chopin taught his own works is his markings preserved in his student’s scores, particularly those of Jane Stirling and Camille Dubois (née

O’Meara).9 Both women were among Chopin’s more advanced pupils, each studying many of the composer’s more challenging works with him. Chopin reportedly told Stirling, “One day you will play very, very well.”10 Antoine Marmontel, a professor of piano at the Paris conservatoire who heard Chopin play on numerous occasions, asserted Dubois was “one of [Chopin’s] favorite students, and is one of those whose talent has best preserved the characteristic traditions and methods of the master.”11

In addition to fingerings, dynamics, phrasings, and numerous other expressive markings, these scores contain eight indications of hand redistribution.12 Though no commentary survives giving Chopin’s explicit reasons for reassigning these notes, his pedagogical motivation can be discerned easily enough and falls into one of three categories: eliminating wide stretches, facilitating position shifts, and simplifying passages for one hand by dividing them between the hands.

Like piano teachers throughout history, Chopin taught students with a variety of hand sizes.

For those with small hands, he devised accommodations to assist their performance, ranging from simple alternative fingerings to even the deletion of notes where necessary.13 Jane Stirling’s copy of

Chopin’s preludes includes three redistributions, one of which also appears in Dubois’ score, that are designed to remove stretches that are uncomfortable for some hands and impossible for others.

In each case, the original notation assigns an interval of a tenth to the left hand, a span that keyboardists of earlier centuries also avoided through redistribution. Chopin drew curved lines in

9 See Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger, Chopin: Pianist and Teacher As Seen by His Pupils, trans. Naomi Shohet, ed. Roy Howat (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 164 (Dubois), 179–81 (Stirling), and Appendix II (198–243). 10 Edouard Ganche, Dans le souvenir de Frédéric Chopin, 6th ed. (Paris: Mecure de France, 1925), 135. 11 Antoine Marmontel, Les Pianistes celèbres (Paris: Heugel, 1878), 7. 12 For a full accounting of Chopin’s markings, see Eigeldinger, 198–243. 13See Eigeldinger, 198–241 (Appendix II). 51 pencil in Stirling’s scores to indicate that the upper note of each tenth may be played with the right hand, allowing both pitches to be struck simultaneously.

These redistributions are possible because the right hand is positioned within reach of the tenor note in each excerpt. In the B-flat-Major Prelude, the right hand is unoccupied on the third beat of m. 4 (and again in m. 12) and can easily play another note (Figure 3.6). Nearly as simple is m.

50 of the D-flat-Major Prelude, in which the right hand’s G-sharp is only a third away from the E it will adopt (Figure 3.7). M. 9 of the same prelude requires the greatest change to the right-hand line: the reach of an octave from F4 to F5 potentially disrupts the flow of the legato melody (Figure

3.8).14 Nevertheless, Chopin apparently believed this accommodation was advisable for both Dubois and Stirling, momentarily leaving the legato of the right-hand line to be accomplished by the pedal.

Figure 3.6: Chopin, Prelude in B-flat Major, Op. 28, No. 21: mm. 1–12 (Jane Stirling’s copy with Chopin’s pencil marks)15

14 The redistribution in m. 9 is also marked in Camille Dubois’ score. 15 Frédéric Chopin, 24 Preludes pour le piano, vol. 2 (Paris: Schlesinger, 1839), 19. Jane Stirling’s marked copy available at Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. VMA 241 (4,28,2). 52

Figure 3.7: Chopin, Prelude in D-flat Major, Op. 28, No. 15: mm. 48–52 (Jane Stirling’s copy with Chopin’s pencil marks)16

Figure 3.8: Chopin, Prelude in D-flat Major, Op. 28, No. 15: mm. 5–10 (Camille Dubois’ copy with Chopin’s pencil marks)17

Chopin also recommended alternative hand distributions to facilitate changes in hand position. As seen in Chapter 1, Froberger carefully planned the distribution of voices in his Toccata in D Minor, briefly switching the lower voice to the right hand to allow the left hand extra time to reach its next position. Chopin advises a similar technique in his Scherzo in B-flat Minor, Op. 31. In mm. 180–81, the right hand must leap over five octaves from E-flat-2 to F7 at the conclusion of the trill. Camille Dubois’ score reveals Chopin’s technical solution: he wrote “m.g.” and drew a curved bracket to indicate that the final two notes of the trill may be taken as left-hand octaves, allowing extra time for the right hand to travel across the keyboard (Figure 3.9).

16 Chopin, 24 Preludes, 6. 17 Frédéric Chopin, 24 Preludes pour le piano, vol. 2 (Paris: Schlesinger, 1839, 5. Camille Dubois-O’meara’s marked copy available at Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. F-980 (1,4). 53

Figure 3.9: Chopin, Scherzo No. 2 in B-flat Minor, Op. 31: mm. 170–86 (Camille Dubois’ copy with Chopin’s pencil marks)18

This huge leap would present a challenge to most players, but Chopin even devised a solution for a much less daunting shift in his Etude in C-sharp Minor, Op. 25, No. 7. He eliminates the left-hand octave leap in m. 45 entirely, reassigning the E to the right hand in Stirling’s copy

(Figure 3.10). Though the technical challenge posed by the original distribution is relatively modest, eliminating the octave leap offers several advantages: it reduces the risk of inaccuracy, lessens the delay of the melody note, and enables greater control of the sound. The E could then be sustained by the right hand, as the repeated fourths are within reach, or silently transferred to the left hand for the continuation of the line.

18 Frédéric Chopin, Scherzo pour piano (Paris: Schlesinger, 1837), 5. Camille Dubois-O’meara’s marked copy available at Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. F-980 (2,14). 54

Figure 3.10: Chopin, Etude in C-sharp Minor, Op. 25, No. 7: mm. 42–45 (Jane Stirling’s copy with Chopin’s pencil marks)19

In three other instances, Chopin advised splitting a passage notated for one hand between both hands. In Stirling’s copy of the Nocturne in C-sharp minor, Op. 27, No. 1, Chopin modified the wide arpeggios of mm. 27–28, drawing upward stems on the highest notes to assign them to the right hand (Figure 3.11). This distribution keeps each hand in a more compact position, avoiding extraneous finger crossings, which allows greater control of the sound quality.

Chopin also suggested dividing up a left-hand accompaniment in the Impromptu in F-sharp

Minor, Op. 36. During the right hand’s three beats of rest in m. 58, the left hand must repeatedly shift distances greater than octave (Figure 3.12). Although these leaps are not especially challenging at the work’s moderate tempo, Chopin drew upward stems on the final three D4s in both Stirling’s and Dubois’ score to indicate that they may be played by the right hand. These markings suggest a relaxed attitude toward fingering that favors an equal division of labor between the hands where possible, echoing the principles introduced by Buchner and Correa several centuries earlier.

19 Frédéric Chopin, Etudes pour piano: deuxième livre (Paris: Schlesinger, 1837), 28. Jane Stirling’s marked copy available at Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. VMA 241 (3,25). 55

Figure 3.11: Chopin, Nocturne in C-sharp Minor, Op. 27, No. 1: mm. 26–28 (Jane Stirling’s copy with Chopin’s pencil marks)20

Figure 3.12: Chopin, Impromptu No. 2 in F-sharp Major, Op. 36: mm. 55–58 (Camille Dubois’ copy with Chopin’s pencil marks)21

Instructions to divide another left-hand passage between the hands appear in Dubois’ copy of the Nocturne in C Minor, Op. 48, No. 1 (Figure 3.13). Chopin marked “les 2 mains” above the ascending octaves in the lower staff in the latter part of m. 48.22 Based on Dubois’ positive reputation, it is safe to assume Chopin’s recommendation is not based primarily on any technical insufficiency on Dubois’ part. Moreover, these left-hand octaves appear at the end of an extended passage of octaves in both hands. If she were unable to manage rapid octaves, this piece would be an inappropriate selection for study. Chopin may have recommended the redistribution to provide

20 Frédéric Chopin, Deux nocturnes pour le piano (Paris: Schlesinger, 1836), 3. Jane Stirling’s marked copy available at Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. VMA 241 (4,27). 21 Frédéric Chopin, Deuxième impromptu pour le piano (Paris: Schlesinger, 1840), 4. Camille Dubois-O’meara’s marked copy available at Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. F-980 (3,2). 22 The text is rather faint in this image provided by the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger has viewed the score in person and provides this reading of its text in Eigeldinger, 155. 56 greater control over the accelerando or simply to provide physical relief when octaves in both hands are no longer necessary.

Figure 3.13: Chopin, Nocturne in C Minor, Op. 48, No. 1: mm. 48–49 (Camille Dubois’ copy with Chopin’s pencil marks)23

These eight surviving redistributions illustrate Chopin’s openness to alternative hand arrangements within his own music. They suggest that Chopin’s original note distribution was not deemed essential to the work’s effect and demonstrate that adjustments to facilitate performance were not only acceptable to Chopin but even recommended by him in certain circumstances.

Liszt’s Teaching

Unlike Chopin, who worked privately with his students and made numerous markings in their scores, Liszt taught only in groups, addressing one student’s playing for the benefit of the class.

As a result, Liszt’s teaching legacy survives not in marked scores but in his comments on a wealth of repertoire preserved through the notes of those present at his master classes. The most detailed accounts available are found in the diaries of August Göllerich, who attended twenty-one of Liszt’s classes between May 1884 and June 1886. Göllerich records two instances of Liszt recommending

23 Frédéric Chopin, 13e. & 14e. Nocturnes pour piano (Paris: Schlesinger, 1841), 6. Camille Dubois-O’meara’s marked copy available at Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. F-980 (2,6,1). 57 alternative hand distributions in his own compositions, in each case suggesting to play a passage notated for one hand alone with two hands.

According to Göllerich’s diary, Augusta Fischer performed Liszt’s Concert Etude No. 3 in

D-flat Major (“Un sospiro”) for the class on 9 June 1884.24 Göllerich noted, “In bar 29, the master said one should make a fairly long octave whirlpool with both hands instead of with the right hand alone, as written” (Figure 3.14). Taking the octaves with both hands allows for increased speed and greater force, contributing to the “whirlpool” effect Liszt sought. Liszt’s direction implies that the aural effect achieved through using both hands trumps any visual flourish achieved by using only one.

Figure 3.14: Liszt, Trois Études de Concert, S. 144: III. m. 2925

Göllerich notes a similar recommendation to divide an octave passage between the hands on

23 February 1886. Liszt advised Ilona von Krivácy, who was performing Liszt’s Paraphrase de concert sur Rigoletto, to “play the octaves in bars 1–6 with two hands so that they come out really staccato”

(Figure 3.15).26 His comment identifies a musical problem—the articulation is unconvincing—and proposes a technical solution—performing the passage with two hands instead of one. Liszt again affirms that the desired quality of sound should dictate the manner of execution, even if that goes

24 August Göllerich, The Piano Master Classes of Franz Liszt, 1884–1886: Diary Notes of August Gollericḧ , ed. Wilhelm Jerger, trans. Richard Louis Zimdars (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), 31. 25 Franz Liszt, Trois Études de Concert (Leipzig: Kistner, 1849), 6. 26 Göllerich, 141. 58 against the hand division implied by the notation. In these two instances, the greatest technician of the age suggests that dividing octave passages between the hands, what some might construe as mere facilitation, can help achieve musical goals like maximizing power and ensuring crisp articulation. Liszt presents these alternative fingerings as valuable tools for artistry rather than cheap tricks or “cheats.”

Figure 3.15: Liszt, Paraphrase de concert sur Rigoletto, S.434: mm. 1–627

Taken together, these documented occurrences of Chopin and Liszt recommending hand redistributions in their own music suggest that such alternatives were uncontroversial, perhaps even routine in the nineteenth century. They employed redistributions to solve the same technical problems that have guided decisions about keyboard hand division since the sixteenth century including avoiding wide stretches, eliminating or facilitating leaps, and dividing passages more evenly between the hands. In addition, they proposed alternative distributions to enhance musical expression through improved control of sound and articulation. As will be shown in the following

27 Franz Liszt, Rigoletto de Verdi: Paraphrase de Concert (Leipzig: J. Schuberth, 1860), 4. 59 chapter, this important feature of nineteenth-century pianism only grew in prominence in succeeding generations, but its roots were already embedded deep in the performance practice of the century’s two greatest pianist-composers.

60

Chapter 4 The Nineteenth Century II: The History of Redistribution in Beethoven’s Sonatas

Prior to the mid-nineteenth century, alternative hand distributions were an element of piano technique relegated to the private pedagogy of the music studio. Chapter 1 explored how sixteenth- and seventeenth-century musicians determined their own distributions when playing from non- prescriptive score formats. Chapter 2 demonstrated the widely accepted use of redistribution in eighteenth-century polyphony as articulated by C.P.E. Bach.1 Chapter 3 revealed instructions for redistribution in the personal accounts and documents of Chopin’s and Liszt’s pupils. In each case the determination or changing of hand division was made privately by performers for their personal use. In the latter half of the nineteenth-century, a shift occurred as publishers began to release heavily edited versions of historical repertoire in which notable pianists provided numerous technical and interpretative instructions. These editions reveal much about the performance practices of the era, including the widespread use of redistribution.

Of all the piano repertoire published in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,

Beethoven’s piano sonatas were certainly among the most frequently printed and reprinted. William

Newman has catalogued 110 collections of Beethoven’s sonatas published between 1850 and 1950, ranging widely in editorial approach from essentially “clean” copies to practical editions littered with extra markings and commentary, and everything in between.2 Most relevant to this study are the

1 Hummel and Czerny also address the importance in fugue playing of carefully distributing inner voices between the hands. See Hummel, 2:297–309, and Carl Czerny, Complete Theoretical and Practical Piano Forte School, trans. J.A. Hamilton (London: R. Cocks & Co., 1839), 3:89–96. 2 See William S. Newman, “A Chronological Checklist of Collected Editions of Beethoven’s Solo Piano Sonatas Since His Own Day,” Notes 33, no. 3 (March 1977): 503–30. Newman defines “collection” as a publication of six or more sonatas with “a common overall title or editorship, even though they may have been published and sold only separately, as often happened in the nineteenth century” (505).

61 heavily edited versions by notable pianists of the era, for they provide numerous recommendations for alternative hand distributions in this revered repertoire. This chapter traces the tradition of redistribution in Beethoven’s sonatas through the editions of six pianists of the late nineteenth and earliest twentieth centuries: Sigmund Lebert (1821–1884), Hans von Bülow (1830–1894), Karl

Klindworth (1830–1916), Moritz Moszkowski (1854–1925), Alfredo Casella (1883–1947), and Artur

Schnabel (1882–1951). These volumes demonstrate the historical trajectory of the practice’s popularity, at least as far as the printed record can show. The 1871 joint edition of Lebert and Bülow was the first of its kind, introducing numerous alternative hand distributions, and Klindworth’s publication of 1884 continued in the same vein. The editions of Moszkowski and Casella in the

1910s demonstrate the most extreme and pervasive uses of redistribution. Finally, Schnabel’s edition, first released in installments in the 1920s, significantly moderated the approach of his predecessors while still recommending the practice on over forty occasions.

Though the frequency of redistribution varies by edition, each editor employs it for the same reasons as Chopin and Liszt—avoiding wide stretches, eliminating or facilitating position shifts, and dividing passages more evenly between the hands—but in a wider variety of contexts. In addition, the editors introduce new applications of redistribution, including avoiding extreme reaches across the body and improving legato, and revive the sixteenth-century practice of redividing the texture to facilitate ornaments. After tracing the history of these editions, the chapter explores uses of redistribution common to each, establishing a consensus tradition for alternative hand distributions in Beethoven’s sonatas.

The Age of the “Instructive” Edition

The popularity of instructive or practical editions in the nineteenth century’s final third was anticipated by the preceding decades’ growing demand for fingerings in printed music. As early as 62

1839, Carl Gotthelf Siegmund Böhme, manager of the venerable Peters firm, argued that “no one wants the old editions without fingerings anymore,” in response to criticism of Czerny’s editing of

Bach’s keyboard works.3 Throughout the middle decades of the century, publishers enlisted famous pianists, including Czerny and Liszt, to oversee editions of Beethoven’s sonatas, but their contributions were generally limited to traditional fingerings.4 An 1858 edition by Ignaz Moscheles for Hallberger went further, providing a few paragraphs of theoretical and practical commentary at the end of each sonata.5 But a full-fledged “instructive” edition of the Beethoven sonatas did not appear until Cotta’s publication of 1871 .

A landmark for understanding nineteenth-century performance practice, the Instruktive

Ausgabe klassischer Klavierwerke (Instructive Edition of Classical Piano Works) was published by J.G.

Cotta in the early 1870s. This extensive collection devoted volumes to Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven,

Weber, and Schubert, and was generally overseen by Sigmund Lebert, a well-respected professor of piano and founder of the Stuttgart Music School. As Lebert emphasized in his preface, the edition sought to provide “the utmost possible guidance and facility for an artistic technical execution, as also for a correct intellectual understanding and corresponding delivery.”6 The series was well- received internationally: Britain’s Atheneaum hailed it as “one of the most interesting and valuable editions of pianoforte works ever issued from the musical press.”7 The Monthly Musical Record compared the series to annotated editions of Greek and Latin literature that illuminate difficult or unfamiliar concepts:

3 Karen Lehmann, Die Anfänge einer Bach-Gesamtausgabe 1801–1865 (Hildesheim: Olms, 2004), 387. 4 See William S. Newman, “Liszt’s Interpreting of Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas,” Musical Quarterly 58, no. 2 (April 1972): 185–209. 5 Ludwig van Beethoven, Sämmtliche Sonaten für das Pianoforte; mit Bezeichnung des Zeitmasses und Fingersatzes von J. Moscheles, 4 vols. (Stuttgart: Hallberge, 1858). 6 Ludwig van Beethoven, Sonaten und andere Werke für das Pianoforte, ed. Immanuel von Faisst and Sigmund Lebert, Instruktive Ausgabe klassischer Klavierwerke 3/1 (Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta, 1891), 1:VII. Translation adapted from J.H. Cornell’s in the 1891 reprint for Edward Schuberth & Co. 7 “Music: Beethoven’s Sonatas,” Athenaeum 2440 (1 August 1874): 154. 63

It is somewhat singular that it should not long ago have occurred to some clever musician to do for the ‘classics’ of Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven, what so many have done for the ancient authors; yet, so far as we are aware, this has not been previously done—or at least not to more than a very limited extent.8

The edition’s reputation was enhanced by the involvement of two star pianists: Franz Liszt and Hans von Bülow. The works of Haydn, Mozart, and half of those of Beethoven (up to Op. 51) were edited by Lebert, the later works of Beethoven (from Op. 53 on) by Bülow, and the volumes of

Weber and Schubert by Liszt. Lebert gave his colleagues free reign to “conduct the editorship of the musical works (Tonschöpfungen) concerned altogether according to their own, independent judgment.”9 A sharp contrast between the early and later works of Beethoven appears in the edition as a result. While Lebert’s portion of the sonatas contains frequent explanatory footnotes, these editorial comments are dwarfed by Bülow’s lengthy paragraphs of interpretive instructions, especially in the late sonatas. Both editors include comprehensive fingerings, but Bülow provides technical instructions not previously seen in printed editions. The Monthly Musical Record praised the edition for its many practical insights:

Of what Bülow has done for the mechanical, or technical, mastery of these works it is difficult to speak too highly. Not merely is the fingering most admirable, and sometimes brilliantly original, but we find the most excellent suggestions as to the facilitation of difficult passages by a different disposition of them between the two hands, always without altering the text of the composer, which will enable the student to surmount many a crabbed bit with comparative ease.10

Bülow’s edition includes nearly fifty changes in hand distribution from Beethoven’s original notation, as detailed in Appendix B. Bülow often presents these redistributions in footnotes, but sometimes he integrates them into the main text, as in the extended series of imitative entrances signaling the recapitulation of the Hammerklavier’s first movement, noting, “With this new presentation of the wholly unaltered original text, the Editor thinks that he has succeeded both in

8 “The New ‘Cotta’ Edition of the Pianoforte Classics,” Monthly Musical Record (1 June 1873): 70. 9 Lebert, 1:XIII. All subsequent short citations of the various Beethoven editions list their editor only. 10 “The New ‘Cotta’ Edition of the Pianoforte Classics,” Monthly Musical Record (1 September 1873): 114. 64 making the succession of the imitations clearer, and in showing a far more convenient mode of execution.”11 Beethoven’s notation offers no clear distribution of the lines between the hands

(Figure 4.1a), but Bülow’s approach favors the consistent alternation of the hands for each statement of the motive (Figure 4.1b).

This abundant technical advice—combined with extensive commentary on tempo, ornamentation, and many other interpretive issues—proved popular, as indicated by the edition’s numerous reprintings by Cotta and various international publishers, including Chappell (London),

Jurgenson (Moscow), and Schirmer (New York).12 Its success was no doubt bolstered by Bülow’s reputation as Liszt’s protégé and as an eminent performer and conductor in his own right. Liszt also promoted the edition, making frequent use of it in his classes, as Amy Fay noted in 1873:

He always teaches Beethoven with notes, which shows how scrupulous he is about him, for, of course, he knows all the sonatas by heart. He has Bülow’s edition, which he opens and lays on the end of the grand piano. Then as he walks up and down he can stop and refer to it and point out passages, as they are being played, to the rest of the class. Bülow probably got many of his ideas from Liszt.13

Indeed, Bülow’s opening inscription in the Cotta publication ties his work directly to the influence of his mentor: “This attempt at interpretation is dedicated to the Master Franz Liszt as the fruit of his teaching by his grateful student Hans von Bülow.”14

11 Ludwig van Beethoven, Beethoven’s Werke für Pianoforte solo von Op. 53 an, ed. Hans von Bülow, Instruktive Ausgabe klassischer Klavierwerke 3/4 (Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta, 1896), 2:30. 12 Newman, “Checklist,” 516. G. Schirmer’s 1894 reprint replaces Lebert’s version of five early sonatas—Opp. 13, 26, 27/1, 27/2, and 31/3—with versions prepared separately by Bülow. For a complete list of publications edited by Bülow, see Richard Louis Zimdars, ed., The Piano Master Classes of Hans von Bülow: Two Participants’ Accounts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 164–66. 13 In a letter from 24 July 1873 in Amy Fay, Music Study in Germany in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Dover Publications, 1965), 238. Liszt also endorsed the edition in a letter to Otto Lessmann on 20 September 1882: “One must read his commentary on the pianoforte works of Beethoven (Cotta’s edition), and hear his interpretations of them,” La Mara, ed., ed. Letters of Franz Liszt, vol. 2, From Rome to the End, trans. Constance Bache (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1894), 411–12. 14 Translated in Alan Walker, Hans von Bülow: A Life and Times (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 175. 65

Figure 4.1a: Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: I. mm. 213–2015

Figure 4.1b: Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: I. mm. 210–21 (Bülow)16

15 Ludwig van Beethoven, Grande Sonate pour le Piano-Forte (Vienna: Artaria, 1819), 9–10. 16 Bülow (Cotta), 2:30. 66

The success of the Cotta series inspired similar editions of the Beethoven sonatas by other notable pianists, including one by Bülow’s close friend and fellow Liszt pupil Karl Klindworth, published by Bote & Bock in 1884. Klindworth was a veteran editor, having overseen Jurgensen’s publication of the complete works of Chopin in the 1870s, heralded by Liszt as “the best edition which has yet appeared” and by Bülow as “the only masterly edition.”17 Bülow praised Klindworth’s

Beethoven edition as well, even recommending it to his students over his own:

Study these late sonatas in the edition of Professor Klindworth in Berlin, which I influenced. My edition indeed had the merit of being the first to take it seriously, but now others do it better; therefore, I recommend Klindworth to you, whose edition is similar to mine, but does not include as much chatter.18

As Bülow suggests, Klindworth’s commentary is more succinct, but his edition makes even greater use of alternative distributions, including 115 across all thirty-two sonatas. These are often displayed in small print directly above the main text, as in m. 9 of the minuet from the Sonata in B- flat Major, Op. 22, where Klindworth replaces Beethoven’s double trill with Lisztian alternating chords (Figure 4.2). In Opp. 53 to 111, the twelve sonatas edited by both pianists, Klindworth repeats thirty of Bülow’s redistributions, omitting eighteen and adding another twenty-four of his own. Klindworth thus deepens the tradition of redistribution in many passages while elsewhere presenting new alternatives.

17 C. Fred Kenyon, “Karl Klindworth,” Musical Standard (June 11, 1898): 517; “Karl Klindworth,” Musical Times (August 1, 1898): 375. 18 Zimdars, 40. I altered Zimdars’ translation of Geschwätz from “babble” to “chatter,” as in Walker, Hans von Bülow, 351. 67

Figure 4.2: Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 22: III. m. 9 (Klindworth)19

In the early twentieth century, redistributions remained an important element of performance practice as demonstrated in the editions of Moritz Moszkowski and Alfredo Casella.

Moszkowski studied piano with Theodor Kullak, a pupil of Czerny’s, at the Neue Akademie der

Tonkunst in Berlin in the early 1870s and joined him on the faculty immediately upon his graduation. After gaining fame as a performer and composer, he later settled in Paris in 1897. It was there that he prepared the Beethoven sonatas for the Société Française d’édition published in 1916, and reprinted by Heugel in the 1920s.20 Though the edition was not as widely circulated as the others mentioned in this chapter, it does represent the practice of one of the era’s master pianists, and proved influential to Casella, who refers to this “excellent” publication on multiple occasions in his own edition.21 Moszkowski recommends nearly 160 redistributions in the sonatas, often incorporating them into the main text. His many new ideas include numerous fingerings designed to avoid stretches, as in m. 20 of the Tempest’s slow movement, where he advises silently transferring the lower notes of the top staff to the left hand to allow a more compact position in the right hand

(Figure 4.3).

19 Ludwig van Beethoven, Sonates pour Piano, ed. Charles Klindworth (Berlin: Bote & Bock, 1884), 1:206. 20 I have been unable to locate the precise date of the reprint by Heugel, but according to a representative for Wise Music (which acquired Heugel in 1980), “Heugel acquired the acquired the catalog of the Société Française d’édition probably in 1921.” 21 Casella, 3:129. 68

Figure 4.3: Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: II. mm. 19–21 (Moszkowski)22

Italian pianist and composer Alfredo Casella completed his Beethoven edition for Ricordi in

1919. A pupil of Louis Diémer (who also taught Alfred Cortot and Robert Casadesus) at the Paris

Conservatory at the turn of the century, Casella went on to become an influential teacher in Rome.

In his preface to the sonatas, he credits his fingering ideas to personal experience and to “long and numerous experiments made on pupils of all kinds.”23 Casella includes over 180 alternative hand distributions, the most of any edition before or after. The Musical Times took note, praising Casella’s fingerings as “full of interest and suggestion” and describing the frequent redistributions as a “good practical point…done to an extent that is probably without precedent.”24 Casella cites the unique challenges of Beethoven’s piano writing to justify his approach:

It is very difficult to finger Beethoven, because he “thought badly” for the keyboard. In a well-prepared edition, therefore, there will be many unusual and apparently experimental fingerings imposed by the exceptional demands of the musical accent. With Chopin, the musical conceptions are in some measure dependent upon, and inseparable from, the marvelous “manual” possibilities of their composer; Beethoven’s music, on the contrary, literally tyrannizes over the performer’s fingers, often demanding of them cruel and unnatural efforts. I shall make myself better understood by saying that if, in Chopin, the mechanism of the keyboard always guides the inspiration in accordance with the hand, in Beethoven, the music disdainfully dictates its superhuman will to the humble fingers. One has to meet such extraordinary demands by abnormal means. Hence the necessity of fingering Beethoven sometimes in a rather “barbaric” manner… Certain awkward passages have been divided between the two hands in order to facilitate the execution. Superfluous

22 Ludwig van Beethoven. Sonates, ed. M. Moszkowski (Paris: Heugel, n.d.), 2:69. 23 Ludwig van Beethoven, Sonate per pianoforte, ed. Alfredo Casella (Milan: Ricordi, 1920), 1:13. 24 H.G., “A New Edition of Beethoven’s Sonatas,” The Musical Times (1 February 1926): 136. 69

difficulties—indeed even perilous for the finished interpretation—must be removed without the smallest scruple, when it is a question of works like the Sonatas of Beethoven.”25

Guided by this philosophy, Casella splits passages written for one hand between both hands twice as often as Moszkowski. He also uses redistribution to achieve a variety of musical goals including improving voicing, as in m. 44 of the Allegro from the Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 31, No.

3 (Figure 4.4). Casella transfers the A from the left hand to the right hand to allow a uniform approach to the succeeding Fs: “It certainly seems to me that the f (or rather sf)… should apply to the F alone and not the A. The impossibility of obtaining different degrees of intensity with one hand alone makes me advise the following execution.”26 Casella’s edition offers a trove of similarly creative fingering ideas, representing a full embrace of the practice of alternative hand distribution.

Figure 4.4a: Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 31, no. 3: I. mm. 43–4527

Figure 4.4b: Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 31, no. 3: I. mm. 43–45 (Casella)28

25 Casella, 1:13. 26 Casella, 2:126. 27 Ludwig van Beethoven, Deux Sonates pour le Piano Forte (Zurich: Nägeli, 1804), 20. 28 Casella, 2:126. 70

Artur Schnabel’s edition, released just a few years after Casella’s, marked the end of an era, the last major Beethoven set dominated by a celebrity editor. First published as single issues between

1924 and 1927 for Ullstein in Berlin, it was reprinted many times, first by Simon and Schuster in

1935 and later with corrections by Curci in 1949. Schnabel’s extensive commentary rivals Bülow’s in length, but its content is more proscriptive than any of his predecessors, spilling much ink in correcting the errors of past editions. As the reviewer for the New York Times noted, Schnabel

“reverts in every matter of dispute to the original manuscripts for which he has an almost fanatical veneration,” forecasting changing attitudes in performance practice.29

The conflict between transmitting Beethoven’s unaltered conception and providing interpretive and practical guidance to the performer permeates the edition and extends to his views on redistribution. Schnabel recommends alternative distributions on over forty occasions, mostly concentrated in the earlier sonatas, usually providing them in footnotes with short comments such as “easier,” “more agreeable,” or even “highly recommended.”30 Like his fingerings in general, which are designed to “secure—or at least encourage—the musical expression of the passage in question,”

Schnabel’s redistributions often assist in achieving legato, as in the Pastoral sonata’s second movement, in which Schnabel advises that the tenor voice be shared between the hands to ensure an unbroken line (Figure 4.5).31

29 N.S., “Beethoven’s 32 Sonatas,” New York Times, 22 December 1935: 10 x. 30 Ludwig van Beethoven, Complete Piano Sonatas in Two Volumes, ed. Artur Schnabel (1949; repr., Van Nuys: Alfred, 1985), 1:65, 1:308, 1:101. 31 Schnabel, 1:4. 71

Figure 4.5: Beethoven, Sonata in D Major, Op. 28: II. Mm. 11–14 (Schnabel)32

In the later sonatas, however, Schnabel’s view on the practice seems to sour. “It is mandatory to comply with Beethoven’s manner of distributing the notes between the two hands,” he scolds, in the finale of the Sonata in A-flat Major, Op. 110.33 Later in the same piece, he warns,

“this distribution is by Beethoven and must not be replaced by another one.”34 A clue to understanding Schnabel’s apparent change of opinion comes in a lengthy footnote to m. 70 of the opening movement of Op. 110:

The manner in which these figures are apportioned to both hands is prescribed by Beethoven and for that reason alone it should not be substituted by another one. But even if one were not fond of every one of Beethoven’s indications and were not considering them as binding, it would be difficult to find a motive for rejecting the authentic version just here, for this distribution is the best imaginable. Nevertheless, widely circulated editions “had” to replace it by something “new”—and only because of that the editor wanted to say a few words about this perspicuous case.35

Only one previous edition alters Beethoven’s distribution in this measure: Hans von Bülow’s.36

Schnabel is speaking specifically of his famous predecessor, a detail not lost on the reviewer for the

New York Times: “It is interesting to note that although Mr. Schnabel never mentions Hans von

Bülow by name, he constantly objects to that musician’s editing of the sonatas. He cancels most of

32 Schnabel, 1:355. 33 Schnabel, 2:423. 34 Schnabel, 2:428. 35 Schnabel, 2:404. 36 Bülow (Cotta), 2:102. 72

Bülow’s corrections and additions, finding them largely unwarranted.”37 Bülow’s edition had clearly wielded a wide influence that Schnabel wanted to counter. Because Bülow edited only the later sonatas, it is no surprise that Schnabel’s approach to redistribution becomes more restrictive in these works to stand in contrast to Bülow’s license.

Despite their many differences, these five editions of Beethoven’s sonatas all recommend numerous alternative hand distributions to address both musical and technical challenges. This considerable published record of redistribution demonstrates the prevalence of the practice in this era and argues for its use perhaps long before.

Traditions of Redistribution in Beethoven’s Sonatas

Taken together, the editions of Lebert/Bülow, Klindworth, Moszkowski, Casella, and

Schnabel present over 270 redistributions across Beethoven’s thirty-two sonatas.38 About 40% of these are unique to just one edition, but fifty examples, nearly 20% of the total, appear in four or five editions, representing a strong consensus in the tradition. Within this tradition, the editors’ reasons for redistribution can be grouped into five main categories:

• Facilitating or eliminating position shifts

• Minimizing extreme reaches across the body

• Improving legato connection

• Avoiding stretched hand positions

• Isolating material in one hand to allow optimal fingering

These categories occasionally overlap, and particular redistributions may accomplish multiple goals.

Nevertheless, the categories offer a useful framework for understanding why these great pianists

37 N.S., “Beethoven’s 32 Sonatas,” New York Times (22 December 1935): 10 x. 38 The complete list of redistributions appears in Appendix A. Only two sonatas feature no suggestions for redistribution: Op. 49, No. 2, and Op. 90. 73 suggested alternative hand distributions. The remainder of this chapter considers examples from each category in detail, concluding with a comparison of each editor’s approach to a highly controversial passage from the Tempest Sonata.

Facilitating or Eliminating Position Shifts

As illustrated in examples by Froberger and Chopin in Chapters 1 and 3, redistributing notes between the hands can allow extra time to move across the keyboard or even eliminate the need to shift at all. In passages with quick leaps from one position to another, the editors frequently reassign the last note(s) in the old position or the first note(s) in the new position, lengthening the period during which the hand can move. An instance of the first approach appears in m. 65 of the

Hammerklavier fugue (Figure 4.6a). Rather than have the right hand dart nearly two octaves after the final sixteenth note before beat three, Bülow, Moszkowski, and Casella advise transferring the B- natural to the left hand to give the right hand an early start (Figure 4.6b).39 Klindworth’s solution begins one sixteenth note earlier, taking the B-flat and D in the left hand as well.40

Figure 4.6a: Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: IV. mm. 64–66 (Beethoven’s fingering)41

39 Bülow (Cotta), 2:59; Moszkowski, 3:134; Casella, 3:130. 40 Klindworth, 3:554. 41 Beethoven (1819), 43. 74

Figure 4.6b: Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: IV. mm. 64–66 (Casella)42

The editors take the opposite approach in the finale of the Pastoral sonata, shown in Figure 4.7 with

Lebert’s fingering. The right-hand leap between the first and second eighth notes of m. 87 is removed by taking the first three notes of the middle line with the left hand.43 Three later editions follow Lebert: Moszkowski duplicates him exactly, whereas Klindworth and Casella take only F and

D-sharp in the left hand.44

Figure 4.7: Beethoven, Sonata in D Major, Op. 28: IV. mm. 85–89 (Lebert)45

Occasionally, the editors even advise reversing the parts of each hand to eliminate leaps.

Bülow suggested this solution in m. 134 of the opening movement of the Sonata in F Major, Op. 54, transferring the trill from the right hand to the left to ensure no delay between the final grace notes

42 Casella, 3:130. 43 Lebert, 2:20. 44 Moszkowski, 2:70; Klindworth, 2:284; Casella, 2:59. 45 Lebert, 2:20. 75 of m. 133 and the beginning of the lower trill (Figure 4.8).46 This alternative was later adopted by

Klindworth, Moszkowski, and Casella.47

Figure 4.8a: Beethoven, Sonata in F Major, Op. 54: I. mm. 132–3548

Figure 4.8b: Beethoven, Sonata in F Major, Op. 54: I. mm. 132–35 (Bülow)49

In passages where both hands must change positions, the editors sometimes redistribute notes to stagger the shifts, lessening the difficulty by allowing one hand to move earlier. In the final measures of the Allegro from the Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 31, No. 3, Bülow, Klindworth,

Moszkowski, and Casella all recommend taking the last E-flat as a right-hand octave, which frees the left hand to proceed to its next position early (Figure 4.9).50

46 Bülow (Cotta), 1:45. 47 Klindworth, 2:413; Moszkowski, 2:203; Casella, 2:220. Other notable hand reversals by Klindworth and Casella are found in the second movement of Op. 31, no. 2 (Klindworth, 2:322–23; Casella, 2:107–9) and finale of Op. 31, no. 3 (Klindworth, 2:359–60; Casella, 2:152). 48 Ludwig van Beethoven, LIme Sonate pour le Pianoforte (Vienna: Bureau des arts et d'industrie, 1806), 3. 49 Bülow (Cotta), 1:45. 50 Ludwig van Beethoven, Sonatas for Piano, ed. Hans von Bülow and Sigmund Lebert (New York: G. Schirmer, 1894), 2:351; Klindworth, 2:345; Moszkowski, 2:129; Casella, 2:125. 76

Figure 4.9: Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 31, No. 3: I. mm. 249–53 (Moszkowski)51

The editors also devise alternative fingerings to avoid finger crossings that may be treacherous, uncomfortable, or simply unnecessary. One such case—the bristling broken-octave triplets from the Allegro vivace of the Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2—has the longest history of any redistribution in Beethoven’s sonatas, predating Bülow’s edition by several decades. Importantly,

Beethoven himself provided right-hand fingerings for this passage that appeared in Artaria’s first edition (Figure 4.10a). Nevertheless, an alternative fingering first suggested by Carl Czerny in 1846 has been almost universally recommended by subsequent editors. In his Art of Playing the Ancient and

Modern Piano Forte Works, Czerny highlights this passage, describing it as “so difficult, that, for small hands, we advise the following mode of performance [Figure 4.10b]… By thus dividing the passage between both hands it becomes more convenient and certain without in the least altering the composition.”52 Lebert, Klindworth, Moszkowski, Casella, and Schnabel concur with Czerny.53

51 Moszkowski, 2:129. 52 Carl Czerny, The Art of Playing the Ancient and Modern Piano Forte Works (London: R. Cocks & Co., 1846), 34. 53 Lebert, 1:22; Klindworth, 1:22; Moszkowski, 1:21; Casella, 1:24–25; Schnabel, 1:31. In mm. 88–89, Lebert, Klindworth, Moszkowski, and Casella suggest taking the first triplet with the left hand rather than the last. Schnabel reverts to Czerny’s suggestion. 77

Figure 4.10a: Beethoven, Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2: I. mm. 84–91 (Beethoven’s fingering)54

Figure 4.10b: Beethoven, Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2: I. mm. 84–91 (Czerny)55

54 Ludwig van Beethoven, Trois Sonates pour le Clavecin ou Piano-forte (Vienna: Artaria, 1796), 17. 55 Czerny, Art, 34. 78

Even in passages of far lesser difficulty, the editors sometimes prefer to eliminate finger crossings as a matter of convenience. In the hushed arpeggios of the Tempest Sonata’s development,

Beethoven divides the sixteenth notes unevenly between the hands. All the editors from Lebert to

Schnabel have advised a more equal distribution that favors crossing the hands rather than individual fingers (Figure 4.11).56

Figure 4.11a: Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 93–9857

Figure 4.11b: Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 93–98 (Casella)58

Minimizing Reaches Across the Body

The editors use alternative distributions to minimize ergonomically stressful positions in which one hand must reach far across the body’s center. In the opening movement of the Sonata in

F Major, Op. 54, Beethoven notates several right-hand triplets that cross from the top to the bottom staff directly into the register where the left hand is already positioned. The editors unanimously

56 Lebert, 1:125; Klindworth, 2:318; Moszkowski, 2:103–4; Casella, 2:100; Schnabel, 1:415 57 Ludwig van Beethoven, Deux Sonates pour le Piano Forte (Zurich: Nägeli, 1803), 33. 58 Casella, 2:100. 79 suggest (or permit, “if need be,” in Schnabel’s case) that the lower notes be played by the left hand

(Figure 4.12).59

Figure 4.12a: Beethoven, Sonata in F Major, Op. 54: I. mm. 53–5660

Figure 4.12b: Beethoven, Sonata in F Major, Op. 54: I. mm. 53–56 (Casella)61

A similar passage appears in the slow introduction to the Hammerklavier’s fugue. Beethoven presents a series of ascending As, assigning all but the lowest two to the right hand (Figure 4.13a).

Bülow and Klindworth suggest taking two additional notes in the left hand, allowing the right hand to enter closer to the center of the keyboard.62 Moszkowski and Casella devise an even more convenient solution in which the left hand plays the first five triplets, eliminating a position shift in the right hand (Figure 4.13b).63

59 Bülow, 1:41; Klindworth, 2:409–10; Moszkowski, 2:193; Casella, 2:215; Schnabel, 1:119–20. 60 Beethoven (1806), 3. 61 Casella, 2:215. 62 Bülow, 2:56; Klindworth, 3:551. 63 Moszkowski, 3:132; Casella, 3:126. 80

Figure 4.13a: Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: IV. m. 964

Figure 4.13b: Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: IV. m. 9 (Moszkowski)65

Reaches to extreme registers across the body are more challenging when involving the thumb, the shortest digit. In the finale of the Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 27, No. 1, the three-note chords assigned to the right hand in m. 26 require the thumb to play a black key in a low register, exacerbating the awkwardness of an already extended position (Figure 4.14a). Klindworth,

Moszkowski, Casella, and Schnabel sensibly reassign the B-flats to the left hand (Figure 4.14b).66

Figure 4.14a: Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 27, No. 1: IV. mm. 24–2667

64 Beethoven (1819), 40. 65 Moszkowski, 3:132. 66 Klindworth, 2, 242; Moszkowski, 2, 30; Casella, 2, 10; Schnabel, 1, 308 67 Ludwig van Beethoven, Sonata quasi una fantasia per il Clavicembalo o Piano-Forte (Vienna: Cappi, 1802), 8. 81

Figure 4.14b: Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 27, No. 1: IV. mm. 24–26 (Klindworth)68

The editors recommend avoiding a similar reach in the sweeping fortissimo arpeggios toward the end of the Appassionata’s first movement. Though their views diverge greatly on whether and how to share the notes with the left hand in general, they unanimously advise that the lowest few notes be taken by the left hand, at least in the B-flat minor arpeggio of mm. 227–28 (Figure 4.15).69

Figure 4.15a: Beethoven, Sonata in F Minor, Op. 57: I. mm. 227–2870

Figure 4.15b: Beethoven, Sonata in F Minor, Op. 57: I. mm. 227–28 (Schnabel)71

68 Klindworth, 2:242. 69 Bülow (Cotta), 1:70; Klindworth, 2:434; Moszkowski, 3:13; Casella, 2:244; Schnabel, 2:155. 70 Ludwig van Beethoven, LIVme Sonate pour le Pianoforte (Vienna: Bureau des arts et d'industrie, 1807), 11–12. 71 Schnabel, 2:155. 82

Improving Legato Connection

Redistributions designed to facilitate smooth legato without the aid of the pedal are also frequently suggested by the editors. In m. 25 of the Sonata in A-flat Major, Op. 110, Beethoven writes three parallel lines, the bottom two grouped as left-hand octaves. Bülow, Klindworth,

Moszkowski, and Casella recommend reassigning the middle line’s E-flat to the right hand, permitting a seamless connection without the aid of the pedal (Figure 4.16).72

Figure 4.16a: Beethoven, Sonata in A-flat Major, Op. 110: III. mm. 24–2673

Figure 4.16b: Beethoven, Sonata in A-flat Major, Op. 110: III. mm. 24–26 (Bülow)74

The editors similarly prioritize legato in the cantabile melody of the Pathétique’s Adagio, a task complicated by managing both the top and inner voices in the right hand. Though Beethoven’s original notation leaves the hand division of the inner voice ambiguous, Czerny’s view was unequivocal: “The inner accompaniment is to be played by the right hand, without exception.”75

72 Bülow, 2:109; Klindworth, 3:598; Moszkowski, 3:177; Casella, 3:184. 73 Ludwig van Beethoven, Sonate pour le Piano Forté (Paris: Schlesinger, 1822), 14. 74 Bülow, 2:109. 75 Czerny, Art, 43. 83

Beginning with Bülow, later editors take a more flexible approach to better facilitate smooth connection in the melody. In m. 6, the top voice must descend from E-flat to A, a nearly impossible stretch for adjacent fingers. Nevertheless, if the inner voice is to be played entirely by the right hand, the fourth finger must play the A. By taking two notes of the inner voice in the left hand (as suggested by Bülow, Klindworth, Moszkowski, and Casella), the right hand may connect the melody with the fifth and third fingers before substituting the fourth finger so that it may retake the inner voice at the end of the measure (Figure 4.17).76

Figure 4.17a: Beethoven, Sonata in C Minor, Op. 13: II. mm. 6–777

Figure 4.17b: Beethoven, Sonata in C Minor, Op. 13: II. mm. 6–7 (Bülow)78

76 Bülow (G. Schirmer), 1:148; Klindworth, 1:152; Moszkowski, 1:153; Casella, 1:181 77 Ludwig van Beethoven, Grande Sonate pathétique pour le Clavecin ou le Piano Forte (Vienna: Joseph Eder, 1799), 10. 78 Bülow (G. Schirmer), 1:148. 84

This example from the Pathétique underscores a simple principle: playing legato without the aid of the pedal depends on the ability to reach the notes comfortably. This fact blurs the boundaries with the next category of redistributions recommended by the editors.

Avoiding Stretched Hand Positions

Redistributing notes to relieve the hands of uncomfortable (or, for some, impossible) stretches is among the most widely accepted applications of the practice, dating back to the sixteenth century. As detailed in Chapter 3, the desire to eliminate wide stretches motivated three of Chopin’s eight surviving redistributions. In each case, Chopin reassigned the upper note of a tenth, intended to be struck by the left hand alone, to the right hand. This isolated reassignment of one note in a wide interval occurs occasionally in Beethoven’s sonatas (the opening of Abwesenheit from Les Adieux is divided in this manner by Moszkowski and Casella), but more often, uncomfortable stretches arise when two independent lines must be played by one hand.79

The Sonata in G Major, Op. 31, No. 1, presents a challenge like this in mm. 93–95 of its opening movement (Figure 4.18a). The right hand must manage two imitative voices in a descending sequence. As the alto line dips to its chromatic lower neighbor, the distance between the voices grows to as wide as an octave. To honor Beethoven’s slur, the lower line demands a connected fingering of 1-2-1, but the stretch required to perform this fingering while holding the top line is possible for only the largest of hands. Playing the inner voice with the fingering 1-1-1 lessens the stretch but involves awkward shifting between black and white keys, quite difficult at a fast tempo.

Klindworth was the first to suggest the ingenious solution shown in Figure 4.18b, in which the left

79 Moszkowski, 3:58; Casella, 3:85. 85 hand grabs two notes of the inner voice as it hops into the middle register.80 Moszkowski, Casella, and Schnabel later recommended the same approach.81

Figure 4.18a: Beethoven, Sonata in G Major, Op. 31, No. 1: I. mm. 93–9582

Figure 4.18b: Beethoven, Sonata in G Major, Op. 31, No. 1: I. mm. 93–95 (Klindworth)83

A similar situation arises in the first movement of the Sonata in C Major, Op. 2, No. 3.

While sustaining a low G in m. 129, the left hand must perform a quick sixteenth-note motive an octave higher (Figure 4.19a). Beethoven apparently viewed the stretch of a ninth on the third beat as impractical because he carefully assigned the A to the right hand by breaking its beam with the following F-sharp and turning their stems in opposing directions. For many hands, the four sixteenth notes of beat two are also uncomfortable while sustaining the bass note. Moszkowski,

80 Klindworth, 2:291. 81 Moszkowski, 2:77; Casella, 2:67; Schnabel, 1:376 82 Beethoven (1803), 4. 83 Klindworth, 2:291. 86

Casella, and Schnabel recommend playing them with the otherwise unoccupied right hand, eliminating the awkward stretch (Figure 4.19b).84

Figure 4.19a: Beethoven, Sonata in C Major, Op. 2, No. 3: I. mm. 129–3085

Figure 4.19b: Beethoven, Sonata in C Major, Op. 2, No. 3: I. mm. 129–30 (Casella)86

Uncomfortable stretches can also occur in contexts where no holding is required, as in the passage shown in Figure 4.20a from the first movement of the Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 31, No.

3. Navigating the shift from the octave E-flat to the subsequent turn figure may require taking extra time, an undesirable staccato release of the octave, or introducing the pedal to cover the position shift. Bülow, Klindworth, Moszkowski, and Casella solve the problem by transferring the lower E- flat to the left hand as shown in Figure 4.20b.87

84 Moszkowski, 1:46; Casella, 1:53; Schnabel, 1:65. 85 Beethoven (1796), 35. 86 Casella, 1:53. 87 Bülow (Cotta), 2:348; Klindworth, 2:343; Moszkowski, 2:127; Casella, 2:131. 87

Figure 4.20a: Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 31, No. 3: I. mm. 160–6188

Figure 4.20b: Beethoven, Sonata in E-flat Major, Op. 31, No. 3: I. mm. 160–61 (Moszkowski)89

Isolating Material in One Hand to Allow Optimal Fingering

A final use of redistribution common to all five editors is consolidating voices in one hand in order to isolate melodies—especially those with ornaments—in the other, thereby granting greater freedom of fingering for the isolated material. As seen in Chapter 1, this practice was widely recommended in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by musicians from across the continent, including Paix, Diruta, and Correa. Beethoven’s sonatas are filled with trills and ornaments, offering many opportunities to apply this technique. These quick movements are most easily performed by stronger fingers in compact hand positions, but the performer’s choice of fingering and position may be limited when additional voices must be played in the same hand as the trill, as illustrated in the Largo appassionato from the Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2 (Figure 4.21a). The editors from

Lebert to Schnabel unanimously recommend transferring the alto line to the left hand in m. 9,

88 Beethoven (1804), 23. 89 Moszkowski, 2:127. 88 liberating the right hand for the trill on beat three.90 The editors imagine two options for facilitating the trill in m. 11, as shown in Figure 4.21b and 4.21c.

Figure 4.21a: Beethoven: Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2: II. mm. 8–1291

Figure 4.21b: Beethoven: Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2: II. mm. 8–12 (Moszkowski)92

Figure 4.21c: Beethoven: Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2: II. mm. 8–12 (Schnabel)93

Some of the editors even suggest redistributions to isolate trills in contexts where the hands are further apart. In the Menuetto of the Sonata in D Major, Op. 10, No. 3, Beethoven introduces a

90 Lebert, 1:28; Klindworth, 1:28; Moszkowski, 1:27; Casella, 1:33; Schnabel, 1:39. 91 Beethoven (1796), 22. 92 Lebert, 1:28. 93 Schnabel, 1:39. 89 three-part texture in which the top line trills, the lowest line sustains long notes, and the middle line passes from the right hand to the left (Figure 4.22a). Klindworth, Moszkowski, Casella, and

Schnabel suggest playing the middle voice entirely in the left hand, leaving the right-hand trill unencumbered by additional notes.94 Because the distance between the lower and middle lines is attainable only by the largest of hands, Klindworth introduces the pedal to sustain the lower third

(Figure 4.22b).

Figure 4.22a: Beethoven, Sonata in D Major, Op. 10, No. 3: III. mm. 23–2695

Figure 4.22b: Beethoven, Sonata in D Major, Op. 10, No. 3: III. mm. 23–26 (Klindworth)96

The strategy of isolating quick moving parts in one hand also extends to passages without trills or other ornaments. The opening of the Sonata in C Major, Op. 2, No. 3, features a four-voice texture in which the bass plays the theme in mm. 9–10 (Figure 4.23a). The editors recommend

94 Klindworth, 1:136; Moszkowski, 1:138; Casella, 1:161; Schnabel, 1:177. 95 Ludwig van Beethoven, Trois Sonates pour le Clavecin ou Piano Forte (Vienna: Joseph Eder, 1798), 40. 96 Klindworth, 1:136. 90 taking the tenor voice in the right hand to allow the use of stronger fingers on the bass melody

(Figure 4.23b).97

Figure 4.23a: Beethoven, Sonata in C Major, Op. 2, No. 3: I. mm. 8–1098

Figure 4.23b: Beethoven, Sonata in C Major, Op. 2, No. 3: I. mm. 8–10 (Schnabel)99

Alternative distributions that isolate material in one hand may create new difficulties for the other hand. Nevertheless, the editors may judge these as preferable to the challenges of the original hand arrangement. In m. 57 of the Hammerklavier’s fugue, the right hand must manage two lines, the higher of which is a quick ascending scale (Figure 4.24a). The presence of the lower voice precludes most comfortable fingerings for the upper line. Bülow, Klindworth, Moszkowski, and Casella suggest that the left hand play the final note of the middle voice, allowing a smoother right-hand

97 Lebert, 1:32; Klindworth, 1:43; Moszkowski, 1:41; Casella, 1:48; Schnabel, 1:59. 98 Beethoven (1796), 32. 99 Schnabel, 1:59. 91 fingering for the scale (Figure 4.24b).100 This redistribution creates two new leaps in the left hand, but the editors apparently consider the freedom gained in the upper line worth the increased effort.

Figure 4.24a: Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: IV. mm. 57–58101

Figure 4.24b: Beethoven, Sonata in B-flat Major, Op. 106: IV. mm. 57–58 (Casella)102

A Tradition of Disagreement: The Tempest Sonata

The examples explored in the preceding pages represent the five general applications of redistribution by Lebert, Bülow, Klindworth, Moszkowski, Casella, and Schnabel. They demonstrate strong consensus on the circumstances in which the practice may be used to aid performers technically and musically. In addition to this core repertoire of alternative distributions established in the mainstream of the tradition, each editor offers many unique suggestions, sometimes in direct contradiction to another editor’s advice. No passage is more contested than mm. 21–40 of the

Tempest Sonata’s first movement (Figure 4.25).

100 Bülow, 2:59; Klindworth, 3:553; Moszkowski:3, 124; Casella, 3:129. 101 Beethoven (1819), 43. 102 Casella, 3:129. 92

Figure 4.25: Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 21–40103

Disagreements over the best manner of executing the passage likely stem from its three-part texture in which a repetitive figure in the middle register is surrounded by melodic material, alternately above and below. As mentioned in Chapter 2, this texture was frequently employed by eighteenth-century composers to signal the use of hand crossings. The texture of this passage differs from those with unambiguous hand crossings in one crucial aspect: the bass line sustains during the top-staff melody rather than resting to allow the left hand to reach across the right hand.

103 Beethoven (1803), 30–31. 93

Consequently, the passage cannot be performed in the manner of a simple hand crossing without losing the sustained bass note. The triplet figuration must be transferred from the right hand to the left hand with a precarious leap in m. 22. The rate of transfer accelerates beginning in m. 29, the triplets switching from right to left (and from the top to the bottom staff) with every measure. The pattern breaks at the fortissimo climax in mm. 38–40: the triplets remain in the upper staff. Does this imply they are assigned to the right hand? Which hand will play the sforzando As?

Each of the five editors approach this passage differently.104 To best understand their contrasting recommendations, it is helpful to consider the passage in three distinct segments: mm.

21–28, 29–37, and 38–40. In the first segment, only Schnabel follows Beethoven’s distribution exactly. Lebert treats it as a traditional hand crossing, leaving the triplets in the right hand at all times while the left hand crosses over it. He marks a long pedal through mm. 22–24 and mm. 26–28, ensuring the bass sustains but incurring a potentially unacceptable blurring of chromatic neighbor tones in the melody. Moszkowski also favors a hand crossing in this segment, but he directs the right hand to play the long bass note in addition to the triplets beginning in m. 22, allowing it to sustain without the blur of the pedal (Figure 4.26a). Klindworth and Casella mostly maintain

Beethoven’s distribution, but delay the transfer of the middle voice by one triplet to make the left- hand leap more secure (Figure 4.26b).

Figure 4.26a: Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 21–24 (Moszkowski)105

104 Lebert, 2:123; Klindworth, 2:315–16; Moszkowski, 2:101–2; Casella, 2:97; Schnabel, 1:412–13. 105 Moszkowski, 2:101. 94

Figure 4.26b: Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 21–24 (Klindworth)106

In mm. 29–37, both Moszkowski and Schnabel maintain Beethoven’s original distribution, transferring the triplets between the hands every measure. Klindworth continues the technique he employed in m. 22, postponing the transfer of the middle voice by one triplet in mm. 30, 32, 34, and

36. Lebert and Casella recommend keeping the triplets entirely in the right hand and crossing over with the left hand for the treble-staff sforzandos. Their approaches diverge in one key detail: Lebert meticulously reproduces the original notes of the middle voice, which include repeated notes where the figure was intended to change hands (Figure 4.27a). Casella, however, revises the inner voice to eliminate any repeated notes at the expense of fidelity to Beethoven’s score (Figure 4.27b).

Figure 4.27a: Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 31–34 (Lebert)107

Figure 4.27b: Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 31–34 (Casella)108

106 Klindworth, 2:315. 107 Lebert, 2:123. 108 Casella, 2:97. 95

In the final segment, even Schnabel rejects Beethoven’s original distribution. He joins with

Lebert, Moszkowski, and Casella in recommending crossing the left hand over the right to play the sforzando As while holding the pedal to sustain the notes of the lower staff (Figure 4.28a). Only

Klindworth suggests playing the As with the right hand while transferring just one pitch of the middle voice to the left hand (Figure 4.28b). A comparison of the five editors’ varying approaches appears in Table 1.

Figure 4.28a: Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 38–40 (Schnabel)109

Figure 4.28b: Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 38–40 (Klindworth)110

The many contrasting approaches to this passage illustrate how widely views on fingering and redistribution may vary among pianists. Performers must choose for themselves the approach that best suits their hands while always prioritizing the faithful realization of Beethoven’s musical intent.

109 Schnabel, 2:413. 110 Klindworth, 2:316. 96

Table 1: Comparison of Fingering Approaches in Beethoven, Sonata in D Minor, Op. 31, No. 2: I. mm. 21–40

Segment 1: Segment 2: Segment 3: Editor Mm. 21–28 Mm. 29–37 Mm. 38–40

LH crosses over, LH crosses over, LH crosses over, Lebert pedal sustains bass pedal sustains bass pedal sustains bass

original distribution with original distribution with original distribution except shift delayed by one eighth shift delayed by one eighth Klindworth 7th eighth note played by LH note note

LH crosses over, LH crosses over, original distribution Moszkowski RH sustains bass pedal sustains bass

original distribution with LH crosses over, LH crosses over, shift delayed by one eighth pedal sustains bass, revises Casella pedal sustains bass note notes

LH crosses over, original distribution original distribution Schnabel pedal sustains bass

97

Conclusion

This thesis has traced the history of how notes are divided between the hands in keyboard music from the perspectives of both composers and performers. Central to this task has been tracking how methods of notating hand division have evolved over time. In the early centuries of keyboard music, polyphonic repertoire appeared in non-prescriptive notational formats. Other works appeared in a prescriptive, two-staff format in which a note’s placement on either staff indicated which hand should play it. By the eighteenth century, composers began to treat the keyboard score more freely, with music for either hand able to appear on either staff. Composers writing in a polyphonic style generally made no indication of hand division, though voices must often be passed between the hands in performance. In most other repertoire, note distribution was clarified through stem direction and written instructions.

Early keyboard performers reading non-prescriptive notational formats decided hand division for themselves. They considered how to share the work equally between the hands, avoid wide spans, and facilitate fast-moving parts when determining which hand played what. In later centuries, note distribution was more clearly and consistently notated by composers. Nevertheless, the same principles of hand division that guided keyboard performers from the beginning drove them to devise alternative distributions where necessary. Let us consider the trajectory of each principle in turn.

The general tendency to divide the notes evenly between the hands is already present in

Buchner’s Fundamentum, the first known example of keyboard fingering. Each time the three-voice texture is reduced to only two voices, Buchner splits them between the hands for greater ease and control. A century later, Diruta illustrates the same procedure in Il Transilvano, just as J.S. Bach does in his fingerings for the Fughetta in C Major, BWV 870a, a century after that. This principle motivated Chopin to advise his students to divide left-hand accompaniments between the hands 98 when the right hand was otherwise unoccupied. This may have been simply a matter of convenience or possibly to provide better control of the sound. Liszt recommended the same technique of splitting material notated for one hand between both hands, but for expressive reasons: to produce a more powerful sound and more precise articulation. The principle of sharing the work between the hands persisted through the centuries with new generations applying it in new ways demanded by changing instruments and musical styles.

The need to avoid very large intervals in one hand so that all the notes may be reached, ideally without strain, dates back to the early centuries of keyboard music. Correa and Diruta advised distributing the parts between the hands in such a way that one hand never reached beyond an octave. In the mid-eighteenth century, C.P.E. Bach similarly illustrated how the two hands can share the middle voice of a three-part composition when adjacent parts drift too far apart. By the nineteenth century, composers more frequently composed intervals as large as tenths, even as piano builders slightly widened each key. The increased distances required many performers to arpeggiate widely spaced chords, but in some cases, chords could be redistributed, as Chopin recommended in two preludes. Avoiding stretched positions remained a main concern for editors of Beethoven’s sonatas, but they applied this principle in new contexts specific to the aesthetic priorities and technical challenges of the era. More often than simply eliminating isolated wide intervals, the editors devised alternative distributions to facilitate legato in complex textures where Beethoven’s notated distribution may make it difficult to connect the notes of multiple lines in one hand. As the compass of the piano keyboard continued to expand over the first half of the nineteenth century, composers more frequently wrote in extreme registers that may require stretching across the body.

The editors frequently redistributed notes to avoid these extended positions. Whether stretches occur when one hand attempts the legato execution of two lines or when the right arm reaches to 99 the lowest keys, redistributions to avoid these strained positions stem from the same fundamental principle.

The strategy of consolidating voices in one hand in order to free the other for added diminutions and ornamentation was first advocated by Paix, whose recommendation was echoed in succeeding generations by Diruta and Correa. The editors of Beethoven’s sonatas revived this practice, frequently redistributing notes to liberate one hand for greater ease in trills and quick- moving lines. Beyond improving facility in ornaments and passagework, consolidating accompanimental lines in one hand permits unfettered melodic projection in the other, an application particular to the piano. This desire to clarify voicing differentiates Czerny’s approach to

Bach’s Fugue in C Major from the composer’s own. Wherever possible, Czerny isolates important thematic material in one hand to highlight it dynamically while consolidating background lines in the other hand, a performance strategy not available on Bach’s harpsichord. For nineteenth-century pianists, isolation and consolidation became tools in projecting interpretation.

The use of redistribution to facilitate position shifts did not derive directly from an early principle of note distribution, but it was foreshadowed by Froberger’s careful attention to leaps in his toccatas. In the Toccata in D Minor, he anticipated the challenge of a left-hand leap and lessened it by switching the last note before the shift to the right hand. Chopin employs this same strategy in his Scherzo in B-flat Minor, releasing the right hand from the low trill early enough to dash over five octaves up the keyboard. As seen in practical editions of Beethoven’s sonatas, pianists continued to apply this approach to facilitate or eliminate leaps. They also used redistribution to avoid smaller shifts in position including extraneous finger crossings. Often a redistribution draws on multiple principles to accomplish several goals. In the slow movement of Beethoven’s Sonata in A Major,

Op. 2, No. 2, the left hand must manage two legato lines in m. 25 (Figure 5.1). Moszkowski recommends taking the two highest notes of the inner voice in the right hand, a redistribution that 100 eliminates a position shift in the left hand, divides the work more evenly between the hands, avoids a stretched position, and ensures legato with no need for the pedal.

Figure 5.1: Beethoven, Sonata in A Major, Op. 2, No. 2: II. mm. 25–26 (Moszkowski)1

The applications of redistribution examined in this thesis place the practice in the mainstream of keyboard technique across history. The redistributions of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are the direct descendants of the technical principles that guided keyboard performers from the beginning. And the applications of these principles only expand in twentieth- and twenty-first-century repertoire. Two final examples will suffice to demonstrate the continued usefulness of the practice.

The dense textures of many twentieth-century compositions pose technical challenges that may be alleviated through redistribution. The second theme of Béla Bartók’s 1926 Piano Sonata presents a crowded texture in which the hands repeatedly overlap (Figure 5.2a). On each downbeat, the left hand ascends as the right hand reaches for a grace note below it. When the grace note is a black key, as on the downbeats of mm. 103 and 104, the right hand remains perched far enough above the left to negotiate the crowding. When the right thumb must play a white key on the downbeats of mm. 105 and 106, however, the awkwardness of the intertwined hands imperils accurate execution. A possible alternative is to play the F-flat grace note with the left hand’s fifth

1 Ludwig van Beethoven. Sonates, ed. M. Moszkowski (Paris: Heugel, n.d.), 1:27. 101 finger, as shown Figure 5.2b. This solution recalls the frequent crossing of inner voices in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century polyphony in which performers simply traded voices between the hands rather than require the hands to interlock.

Figure 5.2a: Bartók, Piano Sonata (1926): I. mm. 103–62

Figure 5.2b: Bartók, Piano Sonata (1926): I. mm. 103–6 (Clark)

The ending of Samuel Barber’s Nocturne, Op. 33, illustrates how redistribution can facilitate clearer pedaling (Figure 5.3a). Barber’s original note distribution and pedal marking prevents the tenor F-flat from connecting to the following E-flat. If the right-hand plays the tenor line as shown in Figure 5.3b, it can sustain the F-flat through the pedal change on the low A-flat before resolving it to the E-flat. This requires an extra pedal change on the final E-flat while keeping all tied notes depressed to clear the sound of the F-flat only.

2 Béla Bartók, Sonata for Piano Solo, rev. ed., ed. Peter Bartók (London: Boosey and Hawkes, 1992), 7. 102

Figure 5.3a: Barber, Nocturne, Op. 33: m. 45 (Barber’s fingering)3

Figure 5.3b: Barber, Nocturne, Op. 33: m. 45 (Clark)

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to piano technique because all performers possess unique physical mechanisms and musical instincts. Pianists must decide for themselves whether and how to employ redistribution to satisfy their own technical needs and expressive aims in performance. They should do so secure in the knowledge that the practice has been a valuable tool used by keyboard performers for centuries.

3 Samuel Barber, Complete Piano Music (New York: G. Schirmer, 1993), 100. 103

Appendix A Annotated List of Resources Addressing Redistribution

The following list includes articles and books discussing the practical applications of redistribution.

Banowetz, Joseph. The Performing Pianist’s Guide to Fingering. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2021.

Banowetz devotes a full chapter to the “pros and cons” of redistribution with numerous examples. The book includes an appendix by Philip Fowke featuring facsimiles of Benno Moiseiwitsch’s personal copies of four concertos, marked with his fingerings and redistributions.

Bar-Niv, Rami. The Art of Piano Fingering: Traditional, Advanced, and Innovative. 2nd edition. Ra’anana: AndreA 1060, 2012.

Bar-Niv provides a comprehensive exploration of fingering with an openness to non- traditional approaches. He devotes a small section to redistribution (129–35).

Brandwein, Dorothy Woster. "Divisi Fingering in Selected Passages from Ravel's Solo Piano Works." DMA diss., University of Missouri–Kansas City, 1981.

Brandwein considers redistribution (what she terms “divisi fingering”) in the works of Maurice Ravel. She provides historical accounts of Ravel’s pianism and his compositional and notational values in his piano works. She identifies many technical and musical goals that can be achieved through redistribution including avoiding stretches (11), facilitating ornamentation (18), increased volume and brilliance (19), conserving energy (20), improving voicing (57), and improving legato (60).

Brown, William. Menahem Pressler: Artistry in Piano Teaching. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009.

Brown records Pressler’s specific fingerings and redistributions for numerous standard works, evidence of a permissive and practical view of the topic.

Bryant, Celia Mae. “Becoming a Well-Tempered Musician.” Clavier 11, no. 11 (November 1972): 27– 30.

Bryant provides a fully fingered score of J.S. Bach’s Prelude in B-flat Major from the first book of the Well-Tempered Clavier that includes numerous redistributions.

Clarke, Eric, Richard Parncutt, Matti Raekallio, and John Sloboda. “Talking fingers: an interview study of pianists’ views on fingering.” Musicae Scientiaie 1, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 87–107.

Clarke et al. interviewed seven pianists about their approaches to fingering in Mozart’s Sonata in B-flat Major, K. 333. Several expressed openness to fingering redistribution (94– 95). 104

Deahl, Lora, and Brenda Wristen. Adaptive Strategies for Small-Handed Pianists. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Deahl and Wristen assert that redistribution “can resolve or even eliminate many obstacles to small-handedness” (83), devoting an entire chapter to the practice (83–105). They explore how redistribution can assist in a number of areas including eliminating stretches, maintaining more neutral hand positions, facilitating leaps, and maintaining legato.

Eger, Patricia R. “A Study of the Problems Encountered by the Pianist with Small Hands and a Compendium of Practical Solutions.” DMA diss., Ball State University, 1982.

Eger considers the applications of redistribution for pianists with small hands. Chapter 12, “Redivisions: Redistributions, Rearrangements of Notes Between the Hands to Reduce Stretch Requirements,” provides numerous examples of redistribution.

Fleischmann, Tilly. Tradition and Craft in Piano Playing. Edited by Ruth Fleischmann and John Buckley. Dublin: Carysfort Press, 2014.

Fleischmann was student of Liszt pupils Bernhard Stevenhagen and Berthold Kellermann in Munich in the early years of the twentieth century. She describes redistribution as an important component of fingering in the Liszt tradition and provides several examples.

Horowitz, Joseph. Arrau on Music and Performance. Mineola, NY: Dover, 1992.

Horowitz quotes Arrau’s disapproval of redistribution in a passage from Brahms’ Piano Sonata No. 2 which Arrau contends that people rearrange “without exception” (152). He asserts that “such facilitation is wrong. Physical difficulty has itself an expressive value. When something sounds easy, its meaning changes completely” (153).

Musafia, Julien. The Art of Fingering in Piano Playing. New York: MCA Music, 1971.

Musafia offers a full-throated endorsement of redistribution, devoting a full chapter and a large portion of another to examples of the practice. He asserts that “any division of the music between the two hands, however unorthodox, is justified if it makes playing easier and more efficient” (4). He refers to the “ten-finger playing apparatus” available to the pianist at all times.

Neuhaus, Heinrich. The Art of Piano Playing. Translated by K. A. Leibovitch. London: Kahn and Averill, 1993.

Neuhaus devotes one chapter to fingering. He addresses redistribution in one anecdote about the Tempest Sonata. In a live performance he resorted to a redistribution in the repeat to assist in playing a passage he struggled through the first time. Curiously, he notes that “the result was excellent” but only appropriate because he was recovering from injury (147). “A healthy pianist must always play only as written by Beethoven,” he says.

Newman, William S. The Pianist’s Problems: A Modern Approach to Efficient Practice and Musicianly Performance. 4th ed. New York: Da Capo Press, 1984. 105

Newman offers a brief positive assessment of redistribution in his discussion of fingering: “Strength and speed in runs can be increased by dividing the run between the hands…” (183).

Packard, Dorothy. “Making Light of Difficulties: Some Performance Insights from Stefan Bardas.” Clavier 11, no. 2 (February 1972): 15–20.

This article presents the complete score of Beethoven’s Sonata in C Minor, Op. 13 (“Pathétique”) with extensive fingerings, redistributions, and annotations by Stefan Bardas.

Roux, Robert Joseph. “A Methodology for Piano Fingering.” DMA diss., University of Texas at Austin, 1980.

Roux presents a general approach to piano fingering considering the structure of the hand and topography of the keyboard. He includes a chapter weighing the advantages of fingerings based on physical or mental convenience. The final chapter, “Concerning Facilitations,” considers redistributions. For Roux, good facilitations allow pianists “to better convey the musical essence of the passage in question” (60) and poor facilitations increase difficulty or “violate the musical essence of the passage” (61).

Rothchild, Edward. “Ruth Slenczynska: On Playing the Chopin Etudes, An Interview.” Clavier 15, no. 2 (February 1976): 14–21.

This interview includes musical examples of Slenczynska’s redistributions in the Chopin etudes.

Taylor, Kendall. Principles of Piano Technique and Interpretation. Borough Green, UK: Novello, 1981.

Taylor offers a brief, negative view of rearranging the notes between the hands: “It is a very prevalent habit to attempt to facilitate certain passages by playing them in ways which the composer did not intend, sometimes rearranging differently between the hands…Such rearrangements abound and in general should be strongly discouraged. Exceptionally, minor rearrangements may be justified, perhaps in helping a small hand with an awkward stretch; but it should be a cardinal principle that notes should be played with the hand and in the manner that the composer intended. If, for reasons of stretch, there is no alternative but to rearrange the passage, the player should conscientiously imagine what the effect would be if played as the composer intended and should aim to reproduce this exact effect. (Those addicted to altering and rearranging hands may be accused of practicing ‘Swindle- technique’!)” (46–47).

Tran, Eric. “How to Cheat at Piano: The History and Ethics of Redistribution, Along with a Practical Guide.” DMA diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2020.

Tran considers the tradition of fingering redistribution in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He draws on the remarks and printed works (including edited musical scores) of important pianists including Chopin, Czerny, and Liszt, in arguing for widespread acceptance of redistribution in the nineteenth centuries. He presents two schools of thought among twentieth century pianists: the “moralists” (8) who suggest fingering redistribution violates the composer’s intentions and the “pragmatists” (13) who assert that these redistributions 106

are acceptable and can in fact help the performer best realize the composer’s musical intentions. The remainder of the document is devoted to suggested redistributions “organized with respect to the potential controversy caused” (25). Tran’s concluding remarks briefly suggest categories of technical problems that might be addressed through redistributions.

Verbalis, Jon. Natural Fingering: A Topographical Approach to Pianism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Verbalis presents a fingering approach centered in the basic principle that finger four should play a black key and finger one should play a white key. Verbalis draws extensively on Chopin and E. Robert Schmitz. He positively assesses redistribution: “Passages as notated may be redistributed between the hands for ease, clarity and tonal control…And it should be in accord with the composer’s intent…handled judiciously and with great skill, with care and attention to the sound that results” (142–43).

Wirth, Paul. “Ten Precepts of Good Fingering.” Keyboard Companion 18, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 26–33.

Wirth’s fifth precept of good fingering is “as long as the musical integrity is maintained, redistribute where needed” (29). He offers several examples from Mozart and Chopin.

107

Appendix B Table of Redistributions in Beethoven’s Sonatas

This table lists 269 unique instances of redistribution that appear in the editions of Beethoven’s piano sonatas discussed in Chapter 4. In general, if a redistribution appears in both the exposition and recapitulation of a sonata-form movement, I only included the measure numbers of the exposition. Lebert and Bülow each oversaw part of Cotta’s 1871 edition, but I have listed them in separate columns to distinguish their editorial approaches. Cells shaded in gray represent the sonatas they did not edit. Bülow’s separate editions of five earlier sonatas—Opp. 13, 26, 27/1, 27/2, and 31/3—are included in this table.

Klind- Moszk- Op. Mvt. Mm. Lebert Bülow Casella Schnabel Total Reason worth owski 2/1 II 13, 36, 44 1 1 stretch, legato 2/1 II 24 1 1 2 isolate 2/1 II 48 1 1 1 3 isolate 2/1 II 52 1 1 legato 2/1 II 57 1 1 legato 2/2 I 33–34 1 1 2 divide 2/2 I 44–46 1 1 2 legato 84–85, 2/2 I 1 1 1 1 1 5 divide 88–89 2/2 II 7 1 1 1 3 legato 2/2 II 9 1 1 1 1 1 5 isolate 2/2 II 11 1 1 1 1 4 isolate 2/2 II 12 1 1 1 3 legato 2/2 II 25 1 1 2 stretch 2/2 II 74–75 1 1 legato 2/2 IV 1 1 1 1 3 reduce shifts 2/2 IV 9–10 1 1 1 3 legato 2/2 IV 41 1 1 1 3 reduce shifts 2/2 IV 100 1 1 divide 2/2 IV 108–9 1 1 1 1 1 5 reduce shifts 2/2 IV 148–53 1 1 1 1 4 ergonomic 2/3 I 3 1 1 stretch 2/3 I 9–10 1 1 1 1 1 5 isolate 2/3 I 88 1 1 2 ergonomic 2/3 I 129 1 1 1 1 4 stretch 2/3 III 102 1 1 2 divide 2/3 IV 55 1 1 legato 2/3 IV 63 1 1 1 3 crowding 108

Klind- Moszk- Op. Mvt. Mm. Lebert Bülow Casella Schnabel Total Reason worth owski 2/3 IV 134 1 1 reduce shifts 2/3 IV 256 1 1 2 leap 2/3 IV 273–8 1 1 2 divide 7 I 39–40 1 1 2 isolate 7 I 290–91 1 1 leap 7 II 19 1 1 2 reduce shifts 7 II 45–46 1 1 1 3 reduce shifts 7 IV 4 1 1 2 stretch 7 IV 36–38 1 1 reverse hands 7 IV 88 1 1 ergonomic 10/1 I 46 1 1 1 3 legato 10/1 II 8 1 1 2 isolate 10/1 II 17, 19, 21 1 1 2 divide 10/1 III 3 1 1 divide 10/1 III 46 1 1 1 3 divide 10/1 III 56 1 1 2 reduce shifts 10/2 III 9 1 1 1 3 reduce shifts 10/2 III 45 1 1 divide 10/2 III 54 1 1 2 leap 10/3 I 288 1 1 legato 10/3 III 25 1 1 1 1 4 isolate 10/3 III 44 1 1 2 reduce shifts 13 II 6 1 1 1 1 4 legato 13 II 33 1 1 2 legato 13 II 34 1 1 1 3 legato 13 II 55 1 1 2 divide 13 II 56 1 1 1 1 4 legato 13 II 63 1 1 2 divide 13 II 64 1 1 1 1 4 legato 13 II 71 1 1 legato 14/1 I 33 1 1 2 legato 14/1 I 123 1 1 legato 14/1 III 14 1 1 divide 14/2 I 200 1 1 legato 14/2 II 24 1 1 1 1 4 stretch, legato 14/2 III 21 1 1 reduce shifts 22 I 51 1 1 2 ergonomic 109

Klind- Moszk- Op. Mvt. Mm. Lebert Bülow Casella Schnabel Total Reason worth owski 22 II 19 1 1 1 1 4 stretch 22 II 21 1 1 1 3 legato 22 II 27 1 1 1 3 leap 22 II 41 1 1 1 3 stretch, legato 22 II 44 1 1 1 3 stretch, legato 22 II 45 1 1 2 legato 22 III 34 1 1 2 divide 22 III 9, 12 1 1 divide 22 IV 85 1 1 1 3 divide 26 I 31–32 1 1 2 legato 26 I 49 1 1 stretch 26 I 198 1 1 stretch 26 I 147, 158 1 1 legato 27/1 IV 26 1 1 1 1 4 ergonomic 27/1 IV 228 1 1 divide 27/2 III 10 1 1 1 3 stretch 28 I 6–7 1 1 legato 28 I 181–82 1 1 reduce shifts 26 I 31–32 1 1 reduce shifts 28 II 10 1 1 legato 28 II 62 1 1 legato 28 II 77 1 1 1 3 ergonomic 28 II 83 1 1 reduce shifts 28 III 1–4 1 1 stagger shifts 28 III 17–20 1 1 1 2 stagger shifts 28 IV 29 1 1 1 1 4 divide 28 IV 30 1 1 stagger shifts 28 IV 71 1 1 stagger shifts 28 IV 74 1 1 leap 28 IV 87 1 1 1 1 4 leap 28 IV 111 1 1 ergonomic 28 IV 209 1 1 reduce shifts 31/1 I 93–95 1 1 1 1 4 stretch 31/1 II 41 1 1 1 1 4 stagger shifts 31/1 II 43 1 1 stagger shifts 31/1 II 49 1 1 1 1 4 stagger shifts 31/1 II 53 1 1 legato 110

Klind- Moszk- Op. Mvt. Mm. Lebert Bülow Casella Schnabel Total Reason worth owski 31/1 II 64 1 1 stretch 31/1 III 210 1 1 1 3 leap 31/1 III 262–65 1 1 1 3 divide 31/2 I 13 1 1 2 divide 31/2 I 21 1 1 1 1 4 reduce shifts 31/2 I 29 1 1 1 3 reduce shifts 31/2 I 38 1 1 1 1 1 5 reduce shifts 31/2 I 73 1 1 leap 31/2 I 93–98 1 1 1 1 1 5 reduce shifts 31/2 I 120 1 1 leap 31/2 I 161 1 1 2 divide 31/2 I 165 1 1 1 1 4 divide 31/2 I 169 1 1 2 divide 31/2 II 12–13 1 1 2 legato 31/2 II 20 1 1 isolate 31/2 II 23-26 1 1 2 reverse hands 31/2 II 37 1 1 1 3 legato 31/2 II 51–55 1 1 2 reverse hands 31/2 III 37 1 1 reduce shifts 31/2 III 163–66 1 1 2 reduce shifts 31/2 III 201–7 1 1 isolate 31/2 III 381 1 1 2 leap 31/3 I 44 1 1 1 3 isolate 31/3 I 53 1 1 divide 31/3 I 73 1 1 divide 31/3 I 75 1 1 leap 31/3 I 124–6 1 1 divide 31/3 I 126 1 1 1 3 leap 31/3 I 161 1 1 1 1 4 stretch 31/3 I 242 1 1 leap 31/3 I 242–3 1 1 divide 31/3 I 252 1 1 1 1 4 stagger shifts 31/3 II 19 1 1 2 reduce shifts 31/3 III 7 1 1 1 3 divide 31/3 III 10 1 1 legato 31/3 III 15 1 1 legato 149–51, 31/3 IV 1 1 divide 157–59 111

Klind- Moszk- Op. Mvt. Mm. Lebert Bülow Casella Schnabel Total Reason worth owski 31/3 IV 154 1 1 leap 31/3 IV 278–300 1 1 2 reverse hands 31/3 IV 298–99 1 1 leap, reverse hands 31/3 IV 299 1 2 leap 31/3 IV 307 1 1 choreography 49/1 I 1 1 1 legato 53 I 124–37 1 1 divide 53 I 204–5 1 1 legato 53 I 234 1 1 1 3 leap, reverse hands 53 II 12 1 1 isolate 53 II 28 1 1 reduce shifts 53 III 24–25 1 1 divide 53 III 401–2 1 1 divide 53 III 435 1 1 legato 53 III 463 1 1 1 1 1 5 divide 53 III 513–14 1 1 1 1 1 5 divide 54 I 38, 54, 56 1 1 1 1 1 5 ergonomic 54 I 62 1 1 1 1 4 divide 54 I 72 1 1 stretch 54 I 112 1 1 2 stretch 54 I 113 1 1 divide 54 I 134 1 1 1 1 4 leap, reverse hands 54 II 76 1 1 reduce shifts 54 II 97 1 1 reduce shifts 54 II 138 1 1 leap, ergonomic 57 I 14–15 1 1 1 1 4 divide 20, 22, 57 I 155, 157, 1 1 1 3 stagger shifts 159, 161 57 I 21 1 1 isolate 57 I 45 1 1 1 3 leap 57 I 50 1 1 divide 57 I 60 1 1 1 3 reduce shifts 57 I 71, 73, 76 1 1 isolate 57 I 123 1 1 divide 57 I 228–29 1 1 1 1 1 5 divide, ergonomic 57 I 230–34 1 1 1 1 4 divide, ergonomic 57 I 259 1 1 leap 112

Klind- Moszk- Op. Mvt. Mm. Lebert Bülow Casella Schnabel Total Reason worth owski 57 II 6 1 1 legato 57 II 13 1 1 leap 57 II 15 1 1 2 legato 57 II 64 1 1 ergonomic 57 II 70 1 1 ergonomic 57 II 72 1 1 reduce shifts 57 II 93 1 1 leap 57 II 94 1 1 legato 57 II 97 1 1 2 divide 57 III 135–37 1 1 divide 57 III 184 1 1 reduce shifts 57 III 220 1 1 leap 78 I 102 1 1 ergonomic 78 II 152–53 1 1 legato 79 III 24–27 1 1 divide 81 II 1–2 1 1 2 stretch 81 III 104 1 1 reduce shifts 101 I 91 1 1 stretch 101 I 91 1 1 1 3 reduce shifts 101 II 5 1 1 legato 101 III 20 1 1 2 reduce shifts 101 IV 88 1 1 reduce shifts 101 IV 99–100 1 1 reduce shifts 101 IV 137–41 1 1 1 3 divide 101 IV 145 1 1 divide 101 IV 167 1 1 2 reduce shifts 101 IV 170 1 1 reduce shifts 101 IV 173 1 1 reduce shifts 101 IV 176 1 1 1 3 reduce shifts 101 IV 194 1 1 1 1 1 5 divide 101 IV 289 1 1 1 3 reduce shifts 101 IV 331 1 1 reduce shifts 101 IV 337 1 1 1 1 4 isolate 101 IV 338 1 1 2 reduce shifts 101 IV 340 1 1 1 1 4 leap 106 I 1, 3 1 1 1 1 4 leap 106 I 54 1 1 crowding 113

Klind- Moszk- Op. Mvt. Mm. Lebert Bülow Casella Schnabel Total Reason worth owski 106 I 58 1 1 crowding 106 I 59 1 1 2 crowding 106 I 85, 87, 89 1 1 2 reduce shifts 106 I 97, 99 1 1 2 reduce shifts 106 I 147–48 1 1 2 reduce shifts 106 I 149 1 1 reduce shifts 106 I 214–18 1 1 1 1 4 reduce shifts 106 I 236 1 1 reduce shifts 106 I 239–40 1 1 2 reduce shifts 106 III 10–11 1 1 2 divide 106 IV 1 1 1 2 divide 106 IV 9 1 1 1 1 4 reduce shifts 106 IV 48, 50 1 1 2 reduce shifts 106 IV 57 1 1 1 1 4 isolate 106 IV 59 1 1 1 3 reduce shifts 106 IV 65 1 1 1 1 4 leap 106 IV 69 1 1 1 1 4 isolate 106 IV 85 1 1 divide 106 IV 118 1 1 1 1 1 5 leap 106 IV 125 1 1 2 isolate 106 IV 127 1 1 1 1 4 isolate 106 IV 134 1 1 1 1 4 divide 106 IV 135 1 1 1 1 4 reduce shifts 106 IV 161–62 1 1 1 1 4 isolate 106 IV 190 1 1 1 3 divide 106 IV 192 1 1 1 3 reduce shifts 106 IV 195 1 1 2 divide 106 IV 214 1 1 2 reduce shifts 106 IV 218 1 1 1 1 4 divide 106 IV 314–16 1 1 2 divide 106 IV 357 1 1 crowding 106 IV 389 1 1 reduce shifts 109 I 66 1 1 divide 109 I 9–10 1 1 reduce shifts 109 II 127 1 1 leap 109 II 167 1 1 reduce shifts 109 III 44 1 1 stretch 114

Klind- Moszk- Op. Mvt. Mm. Lebert Bülow Casella Schnabel Total Reason worth owski 110 I 12–16 1 1 2 divide 110 I 70 1 1 divide 110 III 4 1 1 finger pedal 110 III 25 1 1 1 1 4 legato 110 III 45 1 1 1 1 4 divide 110 III 154 1 1 1 3 legato 110 III 169 1 1 2 divide 110 III 209–11 1 1 divide 111 I 1 1 1 2 leap 111 I 29 1 1 1 3 leap 111 I 30 1 1 stretch 111 I 80 1 1 1 1 4 legato 111 I 81 1 1 1 3 isolate 111 I 113 1 1 2 reduce shifts 111 I 119 1 1 1 3 stretch 111 II 23 1 1 stretch 111 II 33 1 1 2 legato 111 II 45–46 1 1 stretch, legato 111 II 46 1 1 stretch, legato 111 II 49–50 1 1 1 3 leap 111 II 122 1 1 isolate

Klind- Moszk- Lebert Bülow1 Casella Schnabel worth owski Totals 17 61 115 160 182 43

1 Bülow’s total of 61 redistribution includes 48 from the 1871 Cotta edition (Opp. 53–111) and 13 from separate editions of Opp. 13, 26, 27/1, 27/2, and 31/3. 115

Bibliography Scores

First Editions

Ammerbach, Elias Nikolaus. Orgel oder Instrument Tabulatur. Leipzig, 1571.

D’Anglebert, Jean Henry. Pièces de Clavecin. Paris: Chez l’Auteur, 1689.

Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel. Exempel nebst achtzehn Probe-Stücken in Sech Sonaten zu Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs Versuche über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen. Berlin, 1753.

Bach, Johann Sebastian. Clavier Übung bestehend in Praeludien, Allemanden, Couranten, Sarabanden, Giguen, Menuetten, und andern Galantieren…Opus 1. Leipzig, 1731.

Beethoven, Ludwig van. LIme Sonate pour le Pianoforte. Vienna: Bureau des arts et d’industrie, 1806.

———. LIVme Sonate pour le Pianoforte. Vienna: Bureau des arts et d’industrie, 1807.

———. Deux Sonates pour le Piano Forte. Zurich: Nägeli, 1804.

———. Grande Sonate pour le Piano-Forte. Vienna: Artaria, 1819.

———. Grande Sonate pathétique pour le Clavecin ou le Piano Forte. Vienna: Joseph Eder, 1799.

———. Sonate pour le Piano Forté. Paris: Schlesinger, 1822.

———. Sonata quasi una fantasia per il Clavicembalo o Piano-Forte. Vienna: Cappi, 1802.

———. Trois Sonates pour le Clavecin ou Piano-forte. Vienna: Artaria, 1796

Chambonnières, Jacques Champion de. Les Pièces de Clavecin. Paris: Chez Jollain, 1670.

Chopin, Frédéric. Ballade pour le piano. Paris: Schlesinger, 1836.

———. Ballade pour le piano. Paris: Schlesinger, 1841

Frescobaldi, Girolamo. Fiori musicali di diverse compositioni toccate, kirie, canzoni, capricci e recercari in partitura a quattro utili per sonatori…opera duodecima. Venice: Alessandro Vincenti, 1635.

———. Toccate e partite d'intavolatura di cimbalo…libro primo. Rome: Nicolo Borboni, 1615.

Froberger, Johann Jacob. Diverse Ingegnosissime, Rarissime & non maj piu viste Curiose Partite di Toccate, Canzone, Ricercate, Alemande, Correnti, Sarabande e Gigue. Mainz: Ludwig Bourgeat, 1693.

Jacquet de la Guerre, Elisabeth. Les Pièces de Clavecin. Paris: Auteur, de Baussen, 1687.

Kuhnau, Johann. Neuer Clavier-Übung: Erster Theil. Leipzig, 1689. 116

Liszt, Franz. Etudes d’éxécution transcendente pour le piano. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1837

———. Rigoletto de Verdi: Paraphrase de Concert. Leipzig: J. Schuberth, 1860.

———. Sonate für das Pianoforte. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1854.

———. Trois Études de Concert. Leipzig: Kistner, 1849.

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. Trois Sonates pour le Clavecin ou Pianoforte. Vienna: Artaria, 1785.

Paix, Jacob. Ein Schön Nutz unnd Gereüchlich Orgel Tabulaturbuch. Lauingen, 1583.

Parthenia or the Maydenhead of the first musicke that was ever printed for the Virginalls. London, 1613.

Scarlatti, Domenico. Essercizi per Gravicembalo. London: B. Fourtier, 1738.

Manuscripts, Manuscript Facsimiles, and Annotated Copies

Bach, Johann Sebastian. Fantasie und Fuge c-Moll. Holograph manuscript. Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden Digital Collections, Mus. 2405-T-52.

Chopin, Frédéric. Deux nocturnes pour le piano (Paris: Schlesinger, 1836). Jane Stirling’s marked copy. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. VMA 241 (4,27).

———. Deuxième impromptu pour le piano (Paris: Schlesinger, 1840). Camille Dubois-O’meara’s marked copy. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. F-980 (3,2).

———. Etudes pour piano: deuxième livre (Paris: Schlesinger, 1837). Jane Stirling’s marked copy. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. VMA 241 (3,25).

———. Scherzo pour piano (Paris: Schlesinger, 1837). Camille Dubois-O’meara’s marked copy. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. F-980 (2,14).

———. 13e. & 14e. Nocturnes pour piano (Paris: Schlesinger, 1841). Camille Dubois-O’meara’s marked copy. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. F-980 (2,6,1).

———. 24 Preludes pour le piano, vol. 2 (Paris: Schlesinger, 1839). Camille Dubois-O’meara’s marked copy. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. F-980 (1,4).

———. 24 Preludes pour le piano, vol. 2 (Paris: Schlesinger, 1839). Jane Stirling’s marked copy. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. VMA 241 (4,28,2).

Diruta, Girolamo. Il Transilvano. Vol. 2. Edited and translated by Murray C. Bradshaw and Edward J. Soehnlein. Henryville: Institute of Medieval Music, 1984.

Froberger, Johann Jacob. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Musiksammlung, Mus. Hs. 18706 (Froberger Autographs). Edited by Robert Hill. 17th Century Keyboard Music 3/1. New York: Garland, 1988. 117

Moroney, Davitt, ed. Manuscrit Bauyn, ca. 1690: Fac-similé du manuscript de la Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, Rés. Vm7 674-675. Geneva: Éditions Minkoff, 1998.

Modern Editions

Ammerbach, Elias Nikolaus. Orgel oder Instrument Tabulaturbuch (1571/1583). Edited by Charles Jacobs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.

Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel. “Probestücke,” “Leichte” and “Damen” Sonatas. Edited by David Schulenberg. Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach: The Complete Works 3/1. Los Altos: Packard Humanities Institute, 2005.

Bach, Johann Sebastian. Das Wohltemperierte Klavier II, BWV 870–893; Fünf Praeludien und Fughetten, BWV 870a, 899–902. Edited by Alfred Dürr. Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke Series 5, vol. 6/2. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1995.

———. Sechs Partiten BWV 825–830. Edited by Rudolf Steglich. München: G. Henle Verlag, 1979.

Barber, Samuel. Complete Piano Music. New York: G. Schirmer, 1993.

Bartók, Béla. Sonata for Piano Solo. Revised edition. Edited by Peter Bartók. London: Boosey and Hawkes, 1992.

Buchner, Hans. Sämtliche Orgelwerke. Vol. 1, Fundamentum und Kompositionen der Handschrift Basel FI8a. Edited by Jost Harro Schmidt. Das Erbe Deutscher Musik 54. Frankfurt: Henry Litolf, 1974.

Correa de Arauxo, Francisco. Libro de Tientios y Discurso de Musica Practica (1626). Vol. 1. Transcribed and edited by Santiago Kastner. Boca Raton: Master’s Music Publications, 1993.

Faber, Nancy and Randall. Piano Adventures, Primer Level: Performance Book. 2nd edition. Ann Arbor: Dovetree Productions Inc., 2011.

Frescobaldi, Girolamo. Fiori Musicali. Edited by Philippe Lescat. Courlay: Éditions J. M. Fouzeau, 1994.

Froberger, Johann Jacob. Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke. Edited by Siegbert Rampe. Vol. 1, Clavier- und Orgelwerke autographer Überlieferung “Libro Secondo” (1649). Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2002.

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. Klaviersonaten. Vol. 2. Edited by Wolfgang Plath and Wolfgang Rehm. Neue Mozart Ausgabe IX/25. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1986.

Practical Editions

Bach, Johann Sebastian. Le Clavecin bien tempéré. Edited by Charles Czerny. 2 vols. Leipzig: C.F. Peters, 1837.

Beethoven, Ludwig van. Beethoven’s Werke für Pianoforte solo von Op. 53 an. Edited by Hans von Bülow. 2 vols. Instruktive Ausgabe klassischer Klavierwerke 3/4–5. Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta, 1896. 118

———. Complete Piano Sonatas in Two Volumes. Edited by Artur Schnabel. 2 vols. 1949. Reprint, Van Nuys: Alfred, 1985.

———. Sämmtliche Sonaten für das Pianoforte; mit Bezeichnung des Zeitmasses und Fingersatzes von J. Moscheles. 4 vols. Stuttgart: Hallberger, 1858.

———. Sonatas for Piano. Edited Hans von Bülow and Sigmund Lebert. Translated by Theodore Baker. 2 vols. New York: G. Schirmer, 1894.

———. Sonate per pianoforte. Edited by Alfredo Casella. 3 vols. Milan: Ricordi, 1920.

———. Sonaten und andere Werke für das Pianoforte. Edited by Immanuel von Faisst and Sigmund Lebert. 3 vols. Instruktive Ausgabe klassischer Klavierwerke 3/1–3. Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta, 1891.

——— Sonates. Edited by. M. Moszkowski. 3 vols. Paris: Heugel, n.d.

———. Sonates pour Piano. Edited by Charles Klindworth. 3 vols. Berlin: Bote & Bock, 1884.

Primary Sources

Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel. Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments. Translated and Edited by William J. Mitchell. New York: W.W. Norton, 1949.

Bermudo, Fray Juan. Declaración de instrumentos musicales. Seville: Juan de Leon, 1546.

Correa de Arauxo, Francisco. Libro de tientos y discursos de musica practica, y theorica de organo intitulado facultad orqanica. Alcala de Henares: Antonio Arnao, 1626.

Czerny, Carl. The Art of Playing the Ancient and Modern Piano Forte Works. London: R. Cocks & Co., 1846.

———. Complete Theoretical and Practical Piano Forte School. Translated by J.A. Hamilton. 3 vols. London: R. Cocks & Co., 1839.

Diruta, Girolamo. Seconda parte del Transilvano, dialogo divisi in quattro libri. Venice: Giacomo Vincenti, 1609.

Fay, Amy. Music Study in Germany in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Dover Publications, 1965.

Ganche, Edouard. Dans le souvenir de Frédéric Chopin. 6th ed. Paris: Mecure de France, 1925.

Göllerich, August. The Piano Master Classes of Franz Liszt, 1884–1886: Diary Notes of August Göllerich. Edited by Wilhelm Jerger. Translated by Richard Louis Zimdars. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996.

Hummel, Johann Nepomuk. A Complete Theoretical and Practical Course of Instructions on the Art of Playing the Piano Forte. 3 vols. London: T. Boosey, 1828. 119

La Mara [Marie Lipsius], ed. Letters of Franz Liszt. Vol. 2, From Rome to the End. Translated by Constance Bache. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1894.

Marmontel, Antoine. Les Pianistes celèbres. Paris: Heugel, 1878.

Mason, William. Memories of a Musical Life. New York: The Century Co., 1901.

Venegas de Henestrosa, Luys. Libro de cifra nveva para tecla, harpa y vihvela, en el qual se ensena breuemente cantar canto llano, y canto de organo, y algunos auisos para contrapunto. Alcala de Henares: Joan de Brocar, 1557.

Reviews and Historical Articles

H.G. “A New Edition of Beethoven’s Sonatas.” The Musical Times (1 February 1926): 135–6.

Kenyon, C. Fred. “Karl Klindworth.” Musical Standard (11 June 1898): 375–6.

“Karl Klindworth.” Musical Times (1 August 1898): 513–19.

“Music: Beethoven’s Sonatas.” Athenaeum 2440 (1 August 1874): 154–55.

N.S. “Beethoven’s 32 Sonatas.” New York Times (22 December 1935): 10 x.

“The New ‘Cotta’ Edition of the Pianoforte Classics.” Monthly Musical Record (1 June 1873): 69–70

“The New ‘Cotta’ Edition of the Pianoforte Classics.” Monthly Musical Record (1 September 1873): 113–16.

Secondary Sources

Apel, Willi. The History of Keyboard Music to 1700. Translated and revised by Hans Tischler. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972.

———. The Notation of Polyphonic Music: 900–1600. 5th ed. Cambridge, MA: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1953.

Butt, John. “Germany.” In Silbiger, Keyboard Music, 147–234.

Daalen, Maria van, and Frank Harrison. “Two Keyboard Intabulations of the Late Fourteenth Century on a Manuscript Leaf Now in the Netherlands.” Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeshiedenis 34, no. 2 (1984): 97–108.

Deahl, Lora, and Brenda Wristen. Adaptive Strategies for Small-Handed Pianists. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Eigeldinger, Jean-Jacques. Chopin: Pianist and Teacher As Seen by His Pupils. Translated by Naomi Shohet. Edited by Roy Howat. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. 120

Holland, Jon Burnett. “Francisco Correa de Arauxo’s Faculltad Organica: A Translation and Study of Its Theoretical and Pedagogical Aspects.” PhD diss., University of Oregon, 1985.

Horowitz, Joseph. Arrau on Music and Performance. Mineola, NY: Dover, 1992.

Ishii, Akira. “The Toccatas and Contrapuntal Keyboards Works of Johann Jacob Froberger: A Study of the Principal Sources.” Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1999.

Johnson, Cleveland. Vocal Compositions in German Organ Tablatures 1550–1650: A Catalogue and Commentary. New York: Garland, 1989.

Judd, Robert Floyd. “The use of notational formats at the keyboard: A study of printed sources of keyboard music in Spain and Italy c. 1500- 1700, selected manuscript sources including music by Claudio Merulo, and contemporary writings concerning notations.” 2 vols. PhD diss., The University of Oxford, 1988.

Lehmann, Karen. Die Anfänge einer Bach-Gesamtausgabe 1801–1865. Hildesheim: Olms, 2004.

Musafia, Julien. The Art of Fingering in Piano Playing. New York: MCA Music, 1971.

Neuhaus, Heinrich. The Art of Piano Playing. Translated by K. A. Leibovitch. London: Kahn and Averill, 1993.

Newman, William S. “A Chronological Checklist of Collected Editions of Beethoven’s Solo Piano Sonatas Since His Own Day.” Notes 33, no. 3 (March 1977): 503–30.

———. “Liszt’s Interpreting of Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas.” Musical Quarterly 58, no. 2 (April 1972): 185–209.

Pritchard, Ian. “Keyboard thinking: Intersections of notation, composition, improvisation, and intabulation in sixteenth-century Italy.” Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California, 2018.

Roux, Robert Joseph. “A Methodology for Piano Fingering.” DMA diss., University of Texas at Austin, 1980.

Seckler, Sherry Rudolph. “The Jakob Paix Tablature Ein Schön Nutz unnd Gereüchlich Orgel Tabulaturbuch Translated and Transcribed.” PhD diss., University of Iowa, 1990.

Silbiger, Alexander. “Introduction: The First Centuries of Keyboard Music.” In Silbiger, Keyboard Music, 1–22.

———. “Is the Italian keyboard ‘intavolatura’ a tablature?” Recercare 3 (1991): 8.

———. Italian Manuscript Sources of 17th Century Keyboard Music. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1976.

———, ed. Keyboard Music Before 1700. Routledge Studies in Musical Genres. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2003. 121

Tran, Eric. “How to Cheat at Piano: The History and Ethics of Redistribution, Along with a Practical Guide.” DMA diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2020.

Walker, Alan. Franz Liszt. Vol. 2, The Weimar Years, 1848–1861. London: Faber and Faber, 1989.

———. Franz Liszt. Vol. 3, The Final Years, 1861–1886. New York: Knopf, 1996.

———. Fryderyk Chopin: A Life and Times. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2018.

———. Hans von Bülow: A Life and Times. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Wirth, Paul. “Ten Precepts of Good Fingering.” Keyboard Companion 18, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 26–33.

Yearsley, David. “The Awkward Idiom: Hand-Crossing and the European Keyboard Scene around 1730.” Early Music 30, no. 2 (May 2002): 224–35.

Zimdars, Richard Louis, ed. The Piano Master Classes of Hans von Bülow: Two Participants’ Accounts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.