-
The Evolution of the First Movement of Beethoven's 'Waldstein'
SonataAuthor(s): Barry CooperSource: Music & Letters, Vol. 58,
No. 2 (Apr., 1977), pp. 170-191Published by: Oxford University
PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/734475 .Accessed:
17/02/2014 19:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new
formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact [email protected].
.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Music&Letters.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
THE EVOLUTION OF THE FIRST MOVEMENT OF BEETHOVEN'S
'WALDSTEIN' SONATA BY BARRY COOPER
ANY examination of Beethoven's methods of composition is limited
by several considerations. Even in works where ample sketches
survive we never know what went on in the composer's head before he
started sketching and between each sketch, how long he spent on
each sketch, or in what precise order the sketches were written.
Nevertheless, where substantial sketches do survive for a work, a
detailed study of them can give considerable insight into how it
evolved, as has been shown by several recent writers.' Such an
investigation is most satisfactory where sketches survive from all
stages of composition up to the finished autograph, and where this,
too, has been preserved, providing a vital link between earlier
sketches and the printed edition. All this material survives for
the 'Waldstein' Sonata, unlike most of the earlier sonatas, where
the autographs are lost. The 'Waldstein' autograph has even been
published in facsimile,2 while what are apparently the complete
sketches for all three of the original movements are found on Pp.
I20-45 of the 'Eroica' sketchbook,3 though there are no extant
sketches for the 'Introduzione' that replaced the original second
movement, which was published separately as the 'Andante favori',
WoO 57.
The present study is concerned primarily with the first move-
ment, but reference will also be made to the other three movements
associated with it, where this helps to illuminate a specific
problem. The only previous study of the relevant sketches is in
Gustav Nottebohm's account of the 'Eroica' sketchbook ;4 but
Nottebohm concentrated on the 'Eroica' Symphony itself, devoting
only three pages to this sonata movement-and more than half of this
space consists of musical examples. Most other writers on the
movement, including some who have provided detailed analyses, do
not mention the sketches; those that do, refer not to the
sketchbook itself but to Nottebohm's account of it.
1 See, for example, Alan Tyson, 'Stages in the Composition of
Beethoven's Piano Trio Op. 70, No. I', Proceedings of the Royal
Musical Association, xcvii (I 970-7 I), I--I 9.
2 The autograph is in the Bodmer Collection, Beethovenhaus,
Bonn. The facsimile, in colour, was published by the Beethovenhaus
in I954. (Autographs survive for Opp. 26, 27 No. 2 and 28 of the
earlier sonatas; the first two of these have also been published in
facsimile.)
3 Kno\wn as 'Landsberg 6', this sketchbook has been missing
since 1945, but a copy survives on microfilm.
4 Ein Skizzenbucl. von Beethoven aus dem Ja/hre 1803, Leipzig,
I88o.
I70
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
It would be possible to consider each section or theme of the
movement in turn from its origin to its final version, but it is
more useful to consider the movement as a whole at each stage of
its evolution. Although it is not always certain whether the order
in which the sketches appear in the sketchbook is the order in
which they were written down, it seems possible to analyse
Beethoven's work on the movement into eight separate stages: (i)
preliminary work, sketch fragments and 'concept sketches' for all
three original movements; (ii) outline of the whole first movement,
followed by a gap in which Beethoven turns his attention to the
second and third movements; (iii) intensive work on the
development; (iv) a 'con- tinuity draft' for the development, with
alternatives for certain bars; (v) continuity draft for the
recapitulation; (vi) the same for the coda; (vii) a second attempt
at almost the complete coda; (viii) finished autograph. The
following table, showing where in the sketchbook each stage of the
sketching is found, will help to make this clear.
i. Preliminary sketches p. I 20, lines 9-I6; I 23/I-3, 6-I5,
I7
ii. Complete outline I23/I6-I7; I22; I24/I-I I iii. Work on
development I 26-7 iv. development I 28; I 29/I8 v. Continuity )
recapitulation I29/I-I4 vi. drafts coda (i) I 30/ I -9 vii. coda
(2) I30/I0-I8; I3I/I, i6-i8;
I 32/I -4 viii. Autograph
STAGE I (pp. I 20, I 23) The earliest possible signs of the
'Waldstein' Sonata in the sketch- book are certain scales and
keyboard exercises, mostly on two staves, to which Nottebohm has
drawn attention.5 Such exercises are common in Beethoven
sketchbooks, and the ones here (pp. 96 and I07) may be of no
significance. But as they are in I time and mostly in C major, with
one in E minor, they could be interpreted as evidence that
Beethoven was working towards some kind of piano piece in C major
in I time, with E as an important subsidiary key.
The first clear sketches for the sonata are on p. I 20. Staves
i-8 contain a sketch for the projected opera Vestas Feuer, at which
Beethoven had been working on the previous few pages, but staves
9-I6 are devoted to brief sketches for the first movement of the
sonata. The first6 shows Beethoven already concerned not so much
with the shape of the first subject as with the problem of how to
lead into it at the end of the development--a passage that was
to
5Ibid., P. 58. 6 Quoted ibid., p. 59 (Nottebohm's transcription
of bars 3 and 4 is conjectural).
I 7I
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
give a great deal of trouble. The other sketches on this page
are in E major and seem to be an attempt at a second subject (Ex.
i) and material to follow it, though there is little similarity
with the final version. The earliest sketches for the Andante (p. I
2 I /8-I 2) are also in E major; Beethoven soon changed this to F,
but clearly he had decided at a very early stage that E was to be
an important sub- sidiary key in the sonata.
Ex. 1
7u~~ ~~ --A t$ iP
Apart from the Sonata in G, Op. 3I No. i, where the second
subject starts in the mediant major but is mostly in the minor, the
only other sonata where the mediant major has such prominence iS
Op. 2 No. 3, which is also in C major, the slow movement being in
E. One ought also to compare the Leonore Overtures 2 and 3 (i
805-6), which are both in C with the second subject in E; and
another similar work is the Mass in C (I807), where the 'Christe'
section is in E major, using a block-chord theme not unlike that of
the 'Waldstein' Sonata. Beethoven seems to have had a special
interest in the relationship of E major to C major, and from the
start of his work on this sonata he was determined to exploit this
interest.
Other apparently early sketches for the sonata appear on p. I23
of the sketchbook. Their fragmentary nature, together with the
primitive state of many of them, seems to indicate that at least
some of them were made before those on p. I22, which are much more
advanced and coherent. Some of the material on p. I 23 is not used
at all in later sketches or the autograph-including a very strange
sketch in i on stave 4 (Ex. 2), which might have been
Ex. 2
t [?] ,^^t ^#,_ .[?J wb I I mWr Ir r FE W I
intended as a possible theme for the Finale. The sketches with
ideas retained up to the autograph-those on staves 6-io and I7- are
all of sections that one might expect to cause difficulty: the
second subject sketched in the tonic (for the recapitulation); the
approach to, and first four bars of, the development; the end of
the development; and the extra material incorporated near the start
of the recapitulation (bars I67-73 in the final version). The
latter
172
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
passage is at this early stage an extended episode of some
sixteen bars that wanders into several keys and takes a long time
re- establishing the tonic.7 (The final version is remarkably neat
and concise by comparison.) As for the C major sketch for the
second subject, it shows a slightly different melodic outline from
the final version but is actually closer than the one in E major on
the opposite page (I22/3), which was evidently written later-this
is only four bars long and has the second phrase falling instead of
rising. Both versions were superseded by one in the bottom
right-hand corner of p. I23 that gives every indication of having
been added fairly hastily some time after all the other sketches on
these two pages. It is written in a large, bold hand, with
different ink from the other sketches, and it is placed at a
distance from them. It has the theme as in the final version of the
recapitulation-starting in A major and modulating via A minor to C
major. This sketch, unlike the others on p. I23, must belong to
Stage II or perhaps even later in the compositional process.
STAGE II (pp. I22, I23/I6-I7, I24/ I-' I) The sketches on pp.
I22 and I 24 give a broad survey of the whole movement-we find
drafts of extended sections from the exposition, development, coda
and, by implication, the recapitulation. Not all are set down in
the order in which they finally appeared, however: p. I22/I is a
sketch for bars 3I-34; I22/2 is of bars 78-82; I22/3 is of bars
35-38 (or possibly 39-42, the second half of the second subject);
and the end of stave 3 to stave 5 is an eleven-bar sketch
representing bars 66-77 inclusive. Only on stave 6 does Beethoven
begin a continuity draft for a substantial portion of the
exposition.
The apparently haphazard order of these lines raises several
queries. Did Beethoven write down these sketches in the order in
which they appear in the movement? This seems hardly likely, as he
would not have set them out so illogically. Did he set them down in
the same order that appears in the sketchbook? If so, he was
thinking through this part of the movement in an odd way. Was he
uncertain in what order the elements he had written down would
finally appear? This is also hard to believe: they could scarcely
appear in any order other than the one they do. A likely
explanation is that hewas thinking of the whole of the second half
of the exposi- tion at once and writing down any section-beginning,
middle or end-which crystallized in his mind. If this is so, then
we can see him working at this section from both ends, sketching
first the lead-in to the second subject, and the codetta, then the
second subject itself and the bars before the codetta, with a gap
in the middle which still had to be thought out. At this stage
there is no sign of either the triplet figuration of bars 42-57 or
the semiquavers of bars 58-65, and
I Quoted ibid., p. 6o.
'73
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Beethoven probably envisaged the missing section as being no
longer than about four or five bars.
Having obtained a rough idea of the second half of the
exposition, Beethoven is ready on stave 6 to begin a continuity
draft for the first half. Clearly he had given far more thought to
this than appears in the sketchbook, for he ran straight through 30
bars without stopping and almost without alteration. There are, of
course, several differences from the final version. The sketch
begins with a semiquaver pattern similar to that of bars I4-I5,
rather than with repeated quavers; bars 7-8 appear in the major
then in the minor, with the minor version of bar 7 deleted; the
figuration of bars 9-IO is less smooth than in the final version;
and bar 2I iS missing. But by and large this sketch of the first
half of the exposition is already not far from the final
version.
By contrast the development sketches that follow (p. I22/II-I4,
I5-I 8) are much less advanced; in fact, they are even more
primitive than the fragmentary sketches for the second half of the
exposition at the top of the page. The first sketch apparently
plunges into the middle of the development with a long
diminished-seventh arpeggio (Ex. 3) which, though not appearing in
the final version, anticipates a similar arpeggio in the Finale
(bars 46I-4). After this, triplet figuration is introduced-the
first appearance of any triplets in the sketches apart from two
bars on p. I23 apparently intended for the coda. But these triplets
are undeveloped and occupy only four bars before giving way to
semiquaver figuration representing the retransition.
Ex. 3
.7- IFFL19P - _ a i _ _ __ _ _ _etc. I . .
~~~~~~~~I 1 1 pir 6-LV The second development sketch (p. I22/I5
ff.) is an attempt at
a continuity draft for the whole development and on into the
recapitulation.8 The first few bars are almost as in the final
version, and the next few have a similar harmonic direction,
through G minor and C minor to F minor, over an identical time span
(I 4 bars). On reaching F (apparently major, though some flats may
have been omitted), Beethoven plunges straight into four bars of
triplets (Ex. 4); this is followed by a gap (stave I8) which may
imply that the four bars are to recur transposed to C. If so, the
next part of the sketch-two more bars of triplets and then repeated
g" quavers for the right hand-follows on neatly. At the end of the
line (D. I22/I8) is written 'Vi-', and the sketch continues at
'-le'
' Beethoven clearly regards the development as starting at bar
go rather than 86, for this is where the sketch starts and
spatially it begins significantly nearer the margin than any other
line on the page except the one for the start of the
exposition.
I74
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Ex. 4 ti ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[sicl
9 r,l , tstl
,_ O _^
P? ? ?
on p. I24/I (this confirms that most of p. I23 must have been
filled already with Stage I sketches). In this sketch for the
retransi- tion, unlike any others, Beethoven introduces more
development material immediately after the beginning of the
recapitulation:
Ex. 5
[1.21
1 1 I13
There are no more sketches for the recapitulation at this stage.
Beethoven seems already to have decided that it would be perfectly
regular apart from the divergence in bars I67-73. The only other
problem would be the key of the second subject, which is sorted out
on p. I23/i6-I7, as has already been seen. The other sketches on p.
I24 are apparently all for the coda. The first two have little
cohesion or sense of direction and contain material soon discarded;
but the third, an alternative marked 'oder', shows Beethoven
already well on the way to the final version. This sketch is worth
quoting in full (Ex. 6). The coda here begins in A flat, an easy
key to reach from C since the modulation can be the same as that
from E to C in the first-time bars of the exposition. The word
'Cadenza' seems to indicate that there is a short episode probably
of bravura figuration, the details of which had still to be worked
out. Judging by the size of the rest of the coda, one would expect
this 'cadenza' to last about ten or twelve bars. The word also
betrays the influence of the concerto; this influence is continued
in the final bars, which have something of the feeling of a final
orchestral ritornello. Since the general shape of this coda sketch
is preserved in the final version, it seems legitimate to regard
this notion of a cadenza as having survived in bars 259-94 of the
sonata as we know it, particularly in
175
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Ex 6
'i 1 9 1 I nJ 1 IU FE FE M = _ P I. oder 6_ if
FL]. r .q: "[if NWi00b_
A9 i Fri *i_ Cadenza-
Isici
r.i ;i LJ In sc
the passage (barS 278 if.) that begins in classic concerto
fashion, with a I chord on the dominant.
By the time Beethoven had finished this sketch he had done a
rough outline of the whole movement. To judge by what we know of
his procedure in other cases," he would not have found it difficult
to make (or at least to begin) an autograph score from these con-
tinuity drafts, filling in the occasional gaps and elaborating the
figuration. Had he done this, the main difference between this
hypothetical score and the actual, autograph would be in length.
Making due allow-ancc for bars miissing in the sketches for one
reason or another, the length of the movement at this stage was
about 190 bars, made up of approximately 6i, 38, 63 and 28 bars
respectively for the four sections of the movement. In the final
version, however, this has been expanded to 30 2bars (89 +66 +93 +
54).
How do these lengths compare with those of Beethoven's earlier
sonatas? The shorter version of about 190o bars is similar to the
first movements of many of them (taking into account the varying
lengths of bars in different sonatas); it is slightly longer than
some, slightly shorter than others, but not sufficiently different
to draw attention to itself. But the final version is noticeably
longer than any
9 See Lewis Lockwood's discussions on the relationship between
Beethoven's sketchbooks and his autographs, in 'On Beethoven's
Sketches and Autographs: Some Problems of Defini- tion and
Interpretation', Acta Musicologica, xlii (I970), 32-47, and
'Beethoven's Unfinished Piano Concerto of I8I5: Sources and
Problems', The Musical Quarterly, lvi (I970), 624-46.
176
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
previous one, just as the 'Eroica' Symphony, sketched earlier in
the same sketchbook, is markedly longer than all earlier
symphonies, although the early sketches do not suggest that it will
be. In many of Beethoven's other works we also find early sketches
that suggest much shorter movements than eventually emerged, and it
seems to have been the material he was using that forced him to
expand movements as he worked on them. He may therefore have ended
up with movements much longer than originally planned, or he may
have expected such expansion to take place during the course of
composition. But either way, the 'Waldstein' Sonata is unusual in
that the sketches of Stage II are already of a movement of normal
length, even before they had undergone much expansion.
Beethoven seems to have been temporarily satisfied by the
sketches of Stage II, anyway, and on p. I25 of the sketchbook he
turned his attention to the Andante and Finale, writing 'Rondo' at
the head of the page.10 Staves i-6 have Finale sketches, 7-I2 have
Andante sketches, and I3-I8 are blank. The Andante is taking shape
well, but the Finale is at this stage in I and the theme11 is
totally unlike the eventual theme, which had clearly not occurred
to Beethoven at this stage.
STAGE III (pp. I26-7) Having had a rest from the first movement
on p. I25, Beethoven returned to it on the page-opening I26-7. The
movement as it was would have been perfectly adequate as an opening
sonata move- ment, but Beethoven was no longer satisfied with what
was merely adequate, and his apparent temporary satisfaction,
represented by the 'interval' on p. I25, now gives way to renewed
determination. He is principally concerned here with the
development section, though there are a few sketches for the coda,
the Andante and the Finale. The first sketch (staves I-3) is of the
start of the development (from bar go), and it was only at this
stage that Beethoven replaced the semiquaver figuration of the main
theme with repeated quavers
a change which he later carried back to the exposition. In this
sketch he reaches F minor after only ten bars, whereas in the
previous sketch and the final version this takes fourteen. Staves
5-6 contain an alternative to this sketch (from bar 94) up to bar
ioo, where Beethoven has reached C major or minor. Staves 7 and 9
show him trying to develop the motif 4 4n sequence, while on stave
8, marked 'oder', is another idea later discarded (Ex. 7). The
lower half of the page is rather fragmentary and is concerned
mainly with the coda. Most of the ideas were eventually rejected,
but the second attempt at the end of the coda (stave I7) comes
close to the final version (see Ex. 8).
10 Both the Andante and the Finale are in rondo form. 11 Quoted
in Nottebohm, op. cit., p. 63.
I77
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Ex. 7
Q oderF L Jletc.-
Ex. 8
Art I r - r v I
The top line of the opposite page (I 27) is also successful: for
the first time Beethoven sketches the left hand of bars I 7 I-3
exactly as it will appear in the final version, superseding the
long, rambling version we saw on p. I 23.12 Stave 2 has a long
scale figure (presum- ably an attempt at the right hand part of the
retransition), and on staves 3-7 are more Andante sketches. On
stave 8 intensive work begins on the development, the first 7 bars
of which are sketched almost as in the final version; the next few
bars (97-I03) are omitted, probably because Beethoven had already
decided roughly their shape, and sketching is resumed from the end
of bar I o3. Previously he had had difficulty in proceeding
satisfactorily on reaching F minor, but now he forges ahead
confidently, developing the material in a new rhythmic and harmonic
pattern as in the autograph.
This takes Beethoven through to bar iii, where the triplet
figuration begins. He had already used triplets at this poin:t, in
Stage II, but there it was only for about ten bars, which will
clearly no longer suffice. The triplet sketches on p. I 27 (staves
io, i i and I5, the last apparently a continuation from stave 9)
are still confused, however, and do not link together. At this
stage, then, Beethoven had decided he wanted an extended triplet
section-much longer than he had previously had-but had not sorted
out the details of figuration or harmonic progression and how it
would all fit together. The triplets are essentially non-thematic:
although analysts might say they develop the 'theme' found
immediately after the second subject (bar 50 of the expQsition),
Beethoven had not sketched this 'theme' at this stage of his work
on the triplets in the development. He must therefore have regarded
them not in melodic terms but as a rhythmic contrast to the
preceding semiquavers, and as a decoration to harmonic progressions
that span several bars and might modulate to remote keys. We should
be wary of trying to pick out themes from the triplets, either by
dividing them into groups or by placing special emphasis on the
first of each three or six.
On D. I27/Iq-I4 are two interesting sketches. The first (Ex. 9),
12 See note 7 above.
178
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
,. - _, fi _ I -- - - rf. i tr-
I = .X-%11* I I a
marked 'finis' and intended for the coda, is a very beautiful
one, and it is a pity there was no room for it in the final
version; but this does contain a development of the idea (bar 26I).
The other sketch (Ex. Io), very much on its own in the bottom
right-hand corner, is strikingly similar to the theme of the
Finale, although it is in I time and seems to belong to the first
movement. This raises several interesting questions. Had Beethoven
thought of the Finale theme at this stage? Did he notice the
similarity, and how close is it? Was this idea incorporated into
the first movement? And if so, should one give it special emphasis
in performance?
Ex. 10 l
The answer to the first question is that the Finale theme first
appears on the page opposite this sketch (p. I26). It is also in
the bottom right-hand corner and rather isolated; indeed, both
sketches give the impression that they may have been added after
the rest of these two pages. They are in a similar kind of graphic
style and could well have been written down at about the same time.
This suggests that Beethoven did notice their similarity. Even if
they were written at different times, both would have been clearly
visible at the same time, being on facing pages, and it would have
been perfectly natural to look across to the sketch on the
correspond- ing part of the opposite page.
Ex. I I shows the Finale sketch. The differences are obvious--in
length, pitch, rhythm and range. Yet there are many similarities,
especially if the last two bars of Ex. IO are ignored: both
passages consist of an eight-beat phrase which is repeated; both
have a low first note, a high G on the second beat, and then
descend in a type of arpeggio to the lower G on the sixth beat
before rising to C on the seventh. The similarity of Ex. io to the
final version of the Finale
Ex. 11
'79
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
theme, where the third and fourth notes are G and E, and an
extra E is added on the eighth beat, is even greater: not only are
four of the seven notes the same pitch (apart from octave
transposition), but both themes move in exactly the same
direction-up-down-down- down-up-up. It is hard to believe that
Beethoven could have overlooked such a close similarity, especially
as he was working on both ideas at the same time.
The Finale sketch could easily evolve into its final version,
but what happened to the other sketch? On p. I28 it appears again,
this time in the middle of a continuity draft for the second half
of the development of the first movement, situated just before the
return to semiquavers. In the final version of the sonata these six
bars become the left-hand part of bars I36-4I; the first two notes
are decorated, the e' is replaced by an f'# and the last two bars
are slightly different, but it is easily recognisable as the same
theme, still moving up-down-down-cown-up-up. If this theme has the
importance suggested earlier, it is tempting to give the left hand
special emphasis in bars I36-9 while keeping the right hand soft.
And the autograph provides evidence to support this interpretation
(see Plate I): in bar I 36 Beethoven writes 'f ' beside both"
right-hand and left-hand staves at the beginning of the bar, but
only one 'p? later in the bar; this is for the right-hand stave,
thus implying that the left hand remains loud. Bar I 38 has similar
markings. This is a detail that editors of the sonata have in
general overlooked. Most editions have just one 'f' at the
beginning of the bar and one 'p' between the staves at the end. We
can now see from the sketches of Stages III-IV that the leading
melody at this point is actually in the left hand, and, from the
autograph, that Beethoven wanted this emphasized.
STAGE IV (p. I28)
Stage IV is concerned with continuity drafts for the second half
of the development, starting at the triplets of bar i i2. This was
the part that still had not been fully worked out in Stage III. The
first sketch (p. I28/I-2, 4-6) traces the section right through to
bar I42, first with the triplet figuration written out and then,
from bar I24, with just the harmonic progressions outlined.
Although some of the details of figuration and melodic outline were
to be altered sub- stantially in later versions, this sketch is
exactly the same length as the passage in the final version, and
moreover every bar is essentially the same harmonically. We find
here for the first time harmonic progressions such as the one to E
flat minor and the enharmonic change to B minor. Nevertheless the
latter part of this sketch (from bar I23) is deleted in favour of a
substitute on staves I0-I3, which has a slightly different melodic
pattern for the left hand while keeping the same harmonies.
This second sketch carries on into the retransition and thence
to
I8o
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
..........u ~ . 'V~~~~~~~~~.
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
the start of the recapitulation (bar I56). It shows that
Beethoven wanted to build, on a dominant pedal, a right-hand part
that would rise to high f"', hover there briefly and plunge down
rapidly, without pause, into the recapitulation. The details of
this needed to be worked out very carefully, however; Beethoven had
already sketched the end of the retransition several times at
earlier stages (on pp. I20, I22, I23, I24 and twice on I27), which
shows that he was particularly concerned about it, that he was
aware that it was giving difficulty, and that although he had
decided on the left hand motif from the outset (p. I 20) and the
rising and plunging shape of the right hand from soon after, he
still had no clear vision of the length or rhythmic details of the
retransition. At the present stage he was working on the link
between bar I42, where his development sketches had now reached,
and his previous sketches for the last two or three bars of the
retransition.
The substitute sketch (staves I2-I 3) is very close to the final
version but three bars shorter--eleven instead of fourteen (bars
I42-55)---with the right hand rising to a top f"' quite rapidly
(Ex. I2). On stave I 4 is an even shorter version of only ten bars.
On staves i6-i8, still not satisfied, Beethoven tries something
quite different: on reaching the dominant at bar I42, instead of
retaining it he interpolates some further development of the
rhythmic figures of bars 3 and 4, moving into D minor then
gradually back to a G chord which becomes the dominant seventh as
in previous sketches (a total of 24 bars). In the end none of these
three versions was adopted; there are no sketches coinciding with
the final version. Beethoven had produced several reasonably
satisfactory versions of the basic shape of the retransition,
ranging from about ten to twenty bars, and it is precisely because
of this that he spends so long in deciding which to adopt. He seems
to be hunting for some- thing neat and concise, yet sufficiently
long and weighty to serve as a preparation for the recapitulation.
The 24-bar version is too long, while the ten-bar one is too short
and square, and brings in the seventh of the chord too early. Only
when Beethoven comes to write the autograph does he find exactly
the right balance between the two extremes. Ex. 12
r n ~ !i r -,J - 1 . , ,, I jP 1 1 F
4w i . F, 1 JF
l-'J~ ~~~ -I q- 1 :
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
STAGE V (p. I29/I-14) Having more or' less worked oiut the
development, Beethoven turns his atten'tion to a continuity draft
for the recapitulation on p. 129. This can be sketched quite
quickly since it is largely regular and since a continuity draft
already' existed for much of the exposition. This is followed quite
closely, with the interpolation at bars I67-73 now fitting in
perfectly easily. Strangely, Beethoven does not detail the
divergence from the exposition that takes place at bars I8I-3 but
just writes three blank bars, as if he knows roughly how he is
going to consolidate the modulation to A'minor. The preparation for
the second subject is sketched in fully, but the actual four-bar
lead-in differs from the final version in being much squarer and
rhythmically more obvious (Ex. 13). The final version of these four
bars is, of course, very ingenious in the way it effectively
disguises the four-square outline by means of overlapping and
irregular phrase-lengths.
Ea. 13_r ti^ _
_ . u _ wr _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 70 -__ ___
The second subject is sketched complete but the triplet elabora-
tion of it is represented largely by blank bars- Beethoven need not
write out what is really a very simple decoration of a theme he has
just written down. The triplet patterns of bars 2 I -I8 now appear
in their diatonic form for the first time. As noted already, in the
short version of the' movement (Stage II, p. I22) there were no
triplets in the exposition and only a few in the development. But
subsequent' work on the development resulted in an extended triplet
section; now Beethoven, working backwards as it were, inserts
triplets into the recapitulation (and by implication into the
exposition too). Much of the remainder of this continuity draft is
not derived from previous sketches, but it proceeds without any
'Vi-de' markings and almost without alteration'up to the end of the
recapitulation (bar 248), which is reached on stave I4.
STAGE VI (p I 30/1-9) Beethoven clearly regards the coda (bars
249-302) as a separate stage of composition, for he begins a
continuity draft for this on a new page rather than continuing on
p. I 29 beneath the recapitula- tion. This coda sketch begins in D
flat, as in the autograph (the previous coda sketch had begun in A
flat). Its general outlines are similar to those of the final
version but there are several important differences. As this sketch
seems to show the sort of coda Beethoven
I82
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
might have written had he felt unable to use notes above f"t',13
and for purposes of comparison with the final version, it is quoted
in full (Ex. 14).
Ex. 14
I I
f @ Wf lgr > IrffX prlErf>
[t?]= rXt:XrE:ftWniiD:b;:LFriLWJ
rBr:S2vlJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_ gol a el rECffFt
[W] C r Cl o Il S; 1[>]? Laft :rS g
[ '2:' 2 l4> > lr f - Ir $ r $ If $ -~~~~~~~~~
13 This is the first sonata to take account of the extended
compass (to c"") of the Erard piano sent to Beethoven in the summer
of I803.
I83
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
STAGE VII (pp. I30-32) Underneath this coda sketch, on p. I 30/
I 0-I 4, and also on p. I 3 I / I, are further short ideas for the
coda. The one on p. I3I, which contains an idea eventually rejected
(Ex. I5), is notable as it includes a high g"'. Below this sketch
are some Andante sketches (p. I3 /2-I 5), and after Beethoven had
made these he filled in the bottom four lines of p. I 30 and the
bottom three of p. I 3 I (continuing overleaf to p. I32/I) with a
second continuity draft for the coda, deleting all but the first
three bars of the previous coda draft. This second draft also
contains high notes-a top a"' followed by top g"' (p. I 3 I / I 6;
see bar 276 of the final version).
Ex. 15
~~~~~~~~O PF; I ,D 1A
I e./
lThe appearance of these high notes is of considerable interest.
Before Stage VII there are no clear examples of any notes abovef"'.
One note on p. I22/I looks like anf '", but it could be a d "'p,
which would make equal musical sense. There is also a section in
the recapitulation sketch (bars 229-34) where higher notes are
implied, and are indeed used in the autograph, but this, too,
proves nothing, for there are many such implications in sketches
for earlier sonatas, where the printed edition avoids them
somehow-often rather uncomfortably. Thus evidence that Beethoven
might have envisaged occasionally using higher notes is flimsy, and
against it must be set these facts: (a) up to p. I30 there has not
been a single high g "', though this would be an obvious note for a
C major sonata (it often appears in Finale sketches after p. 131);
(b) high f"' frequently occurs, which might imply that this was the
highest note on the keyboard and that Beethoven had devised a
sonata that would fit the compass exactly; (c) certain figurations
that might naturally have used the higher notes, for example the
diminished seventh arpeggio of Ex. 3, turn back on themselves as if
restricted by the compass of the keyboard. Thus the evidence
strongly supports the hypothesis that Beethoven did not initially
intend to use notes above f"', and it was only at Stage VII, when
he came to revise the coda sketch, that he at last admitted
them.
Can we deduce from this that the Erard piano arrived when
Beethoven had completed Stage VI, and induced him to revise the
coda to take advantage of the higher notes? Here we must turn to
external evidence. It is known fromtn the archives of the Erard
firm that Beethoven was sent one of tiheir pianos on 6 August
i803.14
14 See Thayer's Life of Beethoven, ed. Elliot Forbes, Princeton,
I964, i. 335.
184
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
To date the sketches, however, it is necessary to consider where
they stand in relation to sketches for other works composed about
the same time. Work on the sonata as a whole occupies pp. 120-145
of the sketchbook; practically nothing else is found on these
pages. Scattered over pp. 96-I20 (only) are sketches for part of
Vestas Feuer; and from p. I46 onwards are the first sketches for
Leonore. Since the sonata fits so exactly into the pages between
these two works, with neither any gap nor any overlap (indeed the
sketches for Vestas Feuer stop on p. 12o/8 and those for the sonata
begin on p. I 20/9), it is highly probable that the sonata was not
begun until about the time Beethoven abandoned Vestas Feuer, and
that it was fully sketched by about the time he began work on
Leonore.
Beethoven undertook to write Vestas Feuer in the spring of I803,
but he made a slow start, for we read in a letter dated 2 November
I803, 'I am only now beginning to work at my opera'.15 He never
really got beyond the 'beginning' stage, but the implication is
that he would not have reached p. I 20 at the date of the letter.
By the end of the year, however, he had returned the libretto to
Schikaneder (its author), and in a letter dated 4 January I804 he
writes: 'I have quickly had an old French libretto adapted and am
now beginning to work on it'.16
If the 'Waldstein' Sonata was sketched in its entirety between
the time Beethoven abandoned Vestas Feuer and the time he began
Leonore, the outer date limits must be 2 November I 803 and
4January I 804. He therefore had the upper notes of the Erard piano
available throughout the time of sketching the sonata, and yet did
two com- plete sketches of the first movement, plus several short
sketches for the last two, without using these notes. But one must
remember that Beethoven was not writing purely for instruments in
his own possession, nor was his piano the only one in Vienna with
the larger compass. Such pianos, some actually made in Vienna, were
gradually becoming more and more common at the time,17 and so
Beethoven would have been bound to decide at some point that they
were now sufficiently plentiful for him to risk using the extra
notes that he wanted. He seems to have made this decision, as we
now see, when he reached pp. I30-3I of the sketchbook, by which
time he had almost finished sketching the first movement of this
sonata.
This second draft of the coda on p. I 30 differs in many ways
from the first. The first was one bar longer than the final
version, but this sketch is longer still, having bars 249-52
repeated in E flat minor (going to B flat minor) before proceeding
with material correspond- ing to bars 253 if. This time the right
hand is sketched for bars 255-8, and this fits with the previous
draft (which showed the left hand),
15 The Letters of Beethoven, trans. and ed. Emily Anderson,
London, I96I, i. ioo. 16 Ibid., i. I05-6. 17 See William Newman,
'Beethoven's Pianos versus his Piano Ideals', Journal of the
American Musicological Society, xxiii (0970), 492.
I85
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
though both differ slightly from the final version. Thereafter
there are two main sections that differ from the previous coda
sketch: one is the' passage bars 271-82, which is now better
organised and has a clearer sense of direction; the other is the
cadence at bars 288-95, which is altered and extended by four
bars."'
STAGE VIiI (Autograph) Beethoven was now ready to write out the
autograph without, apparently, making any more sketches for the
movement, and it would have been possible to work directly from the
sketchbook drafts, incorporating any alterations he had decided on
mentally since making the sketches. The autograph of the first
imovement has very few deletions, showing that Beethoven had a
clear 'idea of almost all the details before writing it out. By
contrast the 'Intro- duzione' which replaced the original second
movement has numer- ous alterations, deletions and 'Vi-de' marks.
No sketches survive for it, as we have already observed. Did
Beethoven write it without any preliminary sketching?
The autograph of the exposition has, in addition to many minor
differences from the only continuity draft for it-differences such
as the addition of grace-notes in bar 4 and so on-several
alterations of fundamental ideas. These include the substitution of
repeated quavers for a semiquaver tremolo in bars J-2 and a more
continuous semiquaver figuration in bar i i. Many of the
alterations, however, including these two, can be found as early as
the continuity draft for the recapitulation, and so we must deduce
that, when writing out the autograph of the exposition, Beethove n
worked not from exposition sketches but from the sketch for the
recapitulation. This would have caused no problem as the
recapitulation is almost entirely regular.
The first half of the development (bars 90-iII) follows the
sketches closely too; a few of the right-hand motifs are a third
higher or transposed up or down an octave, but there are no other
significant differences. In the second half of the development
Beethoven had harmonically speaking reached the final version of
bars i I2-42 at Stage IV, as'we have seen, so when he wrote the
autograph he had merely to work out the details of the triplet
figuration, which he presumably considered relati7vely unimportant.
We have also seen that he draws attention to the left-hand part of
bars 136-9, and that he had made numerous unsuccessful attempts at
the retransition (bars 142-55). In the autograph bars i42-6 follow
one of the sketches (p. I 28), but bars 147-5 I differ considerably
from anything in the sketchbook. Beethoven may have sketched these
bars separ- ately on some scrap of paper, now' lost, immediately
before writing out the autograph. This supposition is perhaps
strengthened by a
18 Quoted in Nottebohm, op.cit., p. 6o.
i86
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
pencil sign at the end of bar 146 of the autograph, which might
be a reminder to switch from one sketch to another at this point.
Bars 152-5 show only minor differences from the sketches.
The recapitulation is almost entirely predictable, if we bear in
mind that it would more or less match the exposition except in the
few places that the sketches indicate it will not. The coda (bars
249-302), however, shows several new ideas. There had been two
continuity drafts for it, one of which was crossed out, but the
autograph coda is something of an amalgam, drawing sometimes on
one, sometimes the other, sometimes both (where they coincide) and
sometimes neither. Bars 249-54 follow the earlier draft, but bars
255-8 differ slightly from both drafts. Bars 259 and 26I-70 follow
both, while bar 260 follows just the later one; bars 27 i-6
approximate to the later sketch but are very different from the
earlier one; bars 27 7-83 are considerably different from either
draft, though much closer to the later; bars 284-9 follow both
sketches; bars 2go-6 follow the earlier but are very different from
the later; and bars 297-302 more or less coincide with both
versions. Thus it would not have been strictly necessary for
Beethoven to write out a draft matching the final version of the
coda, for he had written down almost all the material already. But
he must have thought hard about the overall shape of it, and
considered mentally the various options available, before deciding
exactly which com- bination of ideas to adopt in the autograph.
All that remains to be considered now is the alterations to the
autograph itself. They can be grouped into three basic types. In
the first type there is no change of actual concept: either
Beethoven writes down something he does not intend, through
carelessness, or else because of some notational difficulty he
realises that what he has written or is writing is not entirely
clear. A surprisingly large number of alterations come into this
category, and in general all alterations should first be considered
for this possibility, before they are regarded as compositional
adjustments."' An example of carelessness is the first left-hand
note of bar I 72, where Beethoven writes an ab and has to alter it
tof, which had already been decided on in the sketchbook. The
greatest notational problems come in the left-hand parts of bars
II4 and iI8, where although the idea is simple the notation has to
be quite complex; both these bars are crossed out and rewritten,
though by the time the figure reappears in bar I22 the difficulty
has been overcome. It is not always abso- lutely certain whefher a
correction is of this first type or not, but
For example, the alterations in Op. 26 to which Lewis Lockwood
has devoted so much attention (see 'On Beethoven's Sketches and
Autographs', p. 32) are probably of this type. It would have been
easy for Beethoven to alter what Lockwood calls 'A I' to 'A 2'
simply by adding an upward crotchet tail to the Ab and filling in
the bass; but by the time Beethoven got as far as he did with 'A I'
he probably realised that adding an upwAard tail would look
confusing when followed by the next bar, where he wanted a downward
tail to the Ab Which would be tied to the previous Ab. Thus rather
than allow this he preferred to write out the bar again with the
tails pointing in the opposite direction.
i87
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
there seem to be at least ten examples in the movement-in bars
46, 73, 90, I 04, I I 4, I I 8, I 30, I 66, I 72 and 288 (first
alteration).
The second type is the simple change of mind, without any direct
link with the sketchbook. The change may be made immediately or it
may be made much later-conceivably even some weeks after the
autograph has been finished. The alteration to bar 42, for ex-
ample, must have been made immediately, for the earlier version,
which had a different triplet pattern, is deleted and the whole bar
is written out immediately afterwards, before bar 43. The change in
the left hand in bar 27, however, where the notes B-e-g-b are
replaced by a#-b-g-e, must have been made somewhat later, for the
earlier version is still found in the recapitulation and is
similarly altered. Other alterations that can be classed as 'simple
changes' are those in bars i8, 96, two in 229 (both right hand) and
246. The latter is interesting: Beethoven initially wrote a
first-time bar and a repeat of the entire development and
recapitulation, but there is no sign of this intention in the
sketches.
The third type, perhaps the most interesting, is where the
earlier version coincides with the continuity draft in the
sketchbook. In these cases Beethoven could either have deliberately
copied the sketch and then decided to make an alteration, or have
decided on a new version but temporarily forgotten about it while
copying from the sketchbook. This type of alteration is rare-there
are only three in the whole movement. The first is in bar 25, where
in the right hand Beethoven initially writes a crotchet b" tied to
a semiquaver, as in bar 23. This version appears in the sketches
for both the exposi- tion (p. I 22/9) and the recapitulation (p.
I29/4); only after this is copied into the autograph does he decide
that it is better to let the music run on with continuous
semiquavers in the right hand. The amendment must have been made
fairly promptly, for the earlier version does not appear in the
autograph of the recapitulation. The second case is in the left
hand of bars 228-30, where in the earlier version the quaver
passage is begun on a g (Ex. I 6). This is as in the
Ex. 16
sketchbook (p. I 29/ I I), though this version had not been used
in the exposition and presumably would not have been intended in
the recapitulation. Probably Beethoven copied the passage directly
from the sketchbook before realising he had wanted a slightly lower
version. The other example of an alteration in this third type is
the substitution of a'4 for a't in bar 239. In the sketch, bars
235-8 were in the major and 239-42 in the minor; in the autograph
235-8 are in the minor and Beethoven begins the next four bars
in
i 88
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
the minor, either deliberately or through following the
sketchbook too closely, before altering it to major. The a'Q's in
bar 240 are clearly marked and are not altered from flats.
These three alterations of the third type show how closely the
final continuity draft is related to the autograph. In all
probability Beethoven had the sketchbook open in front of him when
writing out the autograph. The only real alteration from still
later was the substitution ofJ for j in the left hand in bar I05;
this happened after the music had been engraved, at the proof
stage, as is clear from marks at this point in the original
edition.20
It seems reasonable to assume that the most important features
of the movement were generally those Beethoven conceived first, and
that towards the end of his work he was concerned mainly with
sorting out minor details. Two principal features of the movement
are therefore the contrast between the key areas of C and E, and
the nature of the retransition, which is most unusual in building
up toff and then plunging without pause straight into a pp
recapitulation. Both features are present from the very start; the
basic outline of the retransition is present in all the sketches
for it, and it is just the precise details, and the length, that
took so long to work out. A similar order of priorities is visible
in other parts of the movement-- for example, the melodic shape of
the development triplets is less important than the fact that this
is a rhythmic contrast to the first half of the development.
But although Beethoven begins by working on basic fragments, and
later fills in details of figuration, he can also be seen to work
through the movement in four sections, from exposition to coda. The
analysis of sonata movements into four sections is so funda- mental
that composers are more or less obliged to work at four independent
compositional problems. Thus in this movement pp. I20 and I23 are
mainly fragments; p. I22 is mainly on the exposition and
development; p. I24 consists of more fragments (mainly links); pp.
I26-8 are devoted mainly to the development; p. I29 contains the
recapitulation and pp. I 30-32 have coda sketches. Once a section
is sketched more or less complete it is usually abandoned until the
autograph; we find no exposition sketches after p. I22, very few
development sketches after p. I28 and no recapitulation sketches
after p. I29. The development comes nearest to upsetting this
scheme, for parts of it needed several sketches. It was clearly the
most difficult part to compose not surprisingly since, unlike the
exposition, there was no set plan for the composer to follow.
Beethoven also worked through the three movements roughly in order;
he did not simply allocate a different
20 See Dagmar Weise, 'Zum Faksimiledruck von Beethovens
Waldsteinsonate', Beethoven- Jahrbuch, ii (1955-6), 102-I I.
I 89
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
part of the sketchbook to each, for there are a few sketches for
the last two movements mixed up with the main work on the
first.
Several other points have emerged from this study. For the
performer the most significant is probably the discovery that in
bars I36-9 the left hand has the tune and should be played forte
throughout. For the analyst there is the likelihood that these bars
are directly related to the Finale theme, even if the exact nature
of the relationship is uncertain. (A possible interpretation, for
example, is that Beethoven's work on these bars, moving away from
his original idea, affected his work on the Finale theme, which
develops towards the shape of this sketch. Details rejected in one
movement can be successfully adapted in another.) The analyst
should also consider the influence of the concerto on this
movement. Several writers have commented on the concerto-like style
of some sections--for example the second subject, which is stated
in a quasi-orchestral version and repeated with pianistic
decorations-- and the movement could almost be analysed on
ritornello principles. To these features can now be added the
cadenza actually labelled in the sketchbook. Another analytical
point is that the contrast between bars i and I 4 is essentially
one of register, not of figuration; Beethoven originally sketched
the opening as a semiquaver tremolo and only altered it halfway
through the sketches--presumably because such rapid figuration at
such a low pitch would lack clarity.
The first movement is considerably longer than in any previous
piano sonata, yet this was not conceived as a primary feature, for
continuity drafts on pp. I22-4 clearly represent a much shorter
movement. Indeed Beethoven seems to have been temporarily satisfied
with this, for he turned his attention to the second and third
movements on p. I 25. When he returned to the first movement on p.
I 26 it was primarily to the development, which had previously been
the least satisfactory part of the movement, and this was the
section to which most attention was given in the sketches as a
whole. Beethoven found the main themes of the movement fairly
easily but had trouble over the non-thematic parts, which include
most of the development; he was well rewarded, however, for the
development is a magnificent piece of expansive writing in which
the material slowly unfolds over a relentless rhythmic drive that
allows not a single proper breathing space throughout. And it seems
to have been the expansion of the development that really deter-
mined the eventual size of the movement as a whole; its long
triplet section demanded balancing sections in the exposition and
recapitulation. Beethoven's preliminary work on the other two
movements--especially the Andante--on pp. I2 i and I 25, may also
have influenced the size of the first movement. As well as
increased length there is the increased keyboard compass required,
the highest note being a"' (not until the 'Appassionata', Op. 57,
did he
I 90
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
require a top c""). But as we have seen, this cannot be directly
related to his Erard piano since this probably arrived several
months before the earliest sketches, which do not use the higher
notes.
Many of the conclusions reached contain an element of conjec-
ture; far more must have taken place in Beethoven's mind than is
written down on paper. Yet however skeletal the sketches and even
the autograph are from this point of view, they show certain
definite features from which reasonable deductions may be made
about their most probable interpretation.21
21 I should like to acknowledge the generous assistance given by
ProfessorJoseph Kerman and Dr. Alan Tyson in the preparation of
this article.
I () I
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014
19:10:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Article Contentsp. 170p. 171p. 172p. 173p. 174p. 175p. 176p.
177p. 178p. 179p. 180[unnumbered]p. 181p. 182p. 183p. 184p. 185p.
186p. 187p. 188p. 189p. 190p. 191
Issue Table of ContentsMusic & Letters, Vol. 58, No. 2
(Apr., 1977), pp. 127-268Front MatterThe First Version of
Beethoven's G Major String Quartet, Op. 18 No. 2 [pp.
127-152]Antonie Brentano and Beethoven [pp. 153-169]The Evolution
of the First Movement of Beethoven's 'Waldstein' Sonata [pp.
170-191]Yet Another 'Leonore' Overture? [pp. 192-203]Notes on the
Sources of Beethoven's Opus 111 [pp. 204-215]Reviews of
BooksReview: untitled [pp. 216]Review: untitled [pp.
217-218]Review: untitled [pp. 218-219]Review: untitled [pp.
219-222]Review: untitled [pp. 223-224]Review: untitled [pp.
225-226]Review: untitled [pp. 226-227]Review: untitled [pp.
227-228]Review: untitled [pp. 228-229]Review: untitled [pp.
229-230]Review: untitled [pp. 230-232]Review: untitled [pp.
232-234]Review: untitled [pp. 234-235]
Reviews of MusicReview: untitled [pp. 236-240]Review: untitled
[pp. 240]Review: untitled [pp. 241-242]Review: untitled [pp.
242-244]Review: untitled [pp. 244-245]Review: untitled [pp.
246]Review: untitled [pp. 247]Review: untitled [pp. 247-249]Review:
untitled [pp. 249-250]Review: untitled [pp. 250-251]Review:
untitled [pp. 251]Trio Sonatas [pp. 252]Review: untitled [pp.
252-253]Review: untitled [pp. 253-254]Review: untitled [pp.
254]Review: untitled [pp. 255]Review: untitled [pp. 255-256]Review:
untitled [pp. 256-257]Living British Composers: Central Music
Library Scheme [pp. 257]
CorrespondenceMahler: 'Smtliche Werke', Bd. III[pp. 258]Burney's
Correspondence [pp. 258]The Easter Sepulchre Drama [pp. 259]Alkan
Society [pp. 259]The Rsler-Rosetti Problem[pp. 259]
Books Received [pp. 260-261]Music Received [pp. 261-268]Back
Matter