An interpretative choice.

As I was studying Schubert’s Fifth Symphony for a concert last spring, I came across this decrescendo on the First Movement:

To say the least, it was puzzling. The Symphony is rather Mozartian, and at first I assumed that the marking was by the composer and that it was meant to make this closing statement ‘kinder’ and more ‘polite’ (actually, I think that anything by Mozart or ‘Mozartian’ shouldn’t be so as it is commonly believed ! After reading his letters, one thinks differently, realizing he was not at all the kind and ‘amabile’ gentleman we have painted him to be in our imagination). The placement of the decrescendo was also problematic: it is in the closing section of the Exposition, a place where composers want to state something very clearly (the tonality of the second thematic group, and the feeling of ‘ending of a section’). It is also followed by three tutti chords that again, state the tonality impetuously. A decrescendo written on rising broken arpeggios (by the Vl. sections) like this followed by three tutti block chords is also nonsensical, particularly preceded by 4 bars of a clear restatement of the tonality of the second theme group. A rising arpeggiated figure like this must have the same aim as its preceding bars since it is in the same segment - here, it contradicts the aim of the previous bar and of the segment itself - . Another inconsistency is that it was very unusual in early romantic Music to write a decrescendo on a passage with ascending notes. Baroque treatises of counterpoint always state that successions of ascending and descending notes imply a crescendo and a decrescendo; these rules have stuck for most of Music history and even in Romantic and Post - Romantic Music where they still are the norm, even if sometimes there are deviations, particularly in Wagner and Berlioz.

Following the initial confusion caused by this marking, I tried to find solace by listening to some recordings, which confused me even more; some recordings had the decrescendo, others omitted it.

I then decided to look at the digitized scores of famous conductors on the New York Philarmonic’s Leon Levy archive (have a look, it’s amazing and has notated scores by Bernstein, Mitropoulos and Mehta, as well as orchestral parts of many works https://nyphil.org/explore/archives) and found a clue !

Here is what Bernstein wrote:

As you can see, dear reader, the decrescendo is removed and replaced by a crescendo, along with an explanation in form of a sentence: ‘Thank you Felix Weingartner ! (Austrian conductor, composer, pianist)’

The plot deepens.

Finally, I decided to look at an urtext score. I must say that I should have done so much before, when starting to study the piece -give it to me being a conductor in the beginning of his career ! - .

Ah, no decrescendo. And even an accent in the beginning !

Of course, the urtext is pretty reliable and I should have taken it as the final word on this matter. However, this wasn’t enough, as I wanted to know EXACTLY why this decrescendo did not exist. Thankfully, I didn’t spend too long looking for a reason, because I had already done my analysis.

So, long story short, here is my reason for removing the decrescendo, in the form of a thought pattern:

The formal conventions of the Classical Sonata clearly state that a secondary theme group must evade perfect cadences until the arrival of a final, strong perfect cadence which closes the Exposition section. This closing introduces a new theme / motif / figure that seeks to establish the main tonality of the secondary theme group (STG). However, during the entire STG, after the first theme in the right tonality, the harmony had become very uncertain with modulatory passages, leaving one left wondering if the STG really starts where it does. This uncertainty creates an imbalance. The whole point of a Sonata is to create contrasts / imbalances and to fix them. This imbalance is finally fixed with the closing motif on F Dur that follows the clear cut perfect cadence (the Essential Expositional Closure) 4 bars before the decrescendo. Then, suddenly, 4 bars later, there is a decrescendo marked on a rising arpeggio that consists of a diminished seventh chord (of F Dur, the main tonality of the STG) over a tonic pedal in the basses. DOMİNANTS CAN NOT LOSE TENSİON. A decrescendo loses tension. Besides, with the 4 bars that precede it, this rising arpeggio can not have a have a contradicting aim (weakening the stability of F Dur) because of the aforementioned conventions of a classical sonata.

THEREFORE,

the crescendo

must

be

omitted.

So that’s what I ended up doing when conducting it, and even added a crescendo to the figuration to amplify the success of its task in the segment.

What do you think about this decision ? Would you have done the same ? Let me know.

Let’s conclude: this is a clear instance of an ‘Interpretative choice’. How to choose, however, must not be aleatory for a professional musician armed with a strong theoretical knowledge that will go to places where his talent and instincts simply cannot (please read my second post where I ramble about this for quite a while).

///

Edit, six months later:

Lo and behold, as I’ve found a counter argument.

Since the three last tutti chords state the tonality impetuously, the previous decrescendo could be a mirror of the tonal uncertainty of the themes of the STG. This means, in this new thought pattern, that the tutti chords single handedly aim to fix this imbalance. So all my initial argument could be trash ! Isn’t analysis great ?! I suppose this is why one always restudies a piece when interpreting it for a second time. Now I will have to choose which approach to use when I conduct the Symphony again… Most likely, I will try to judge if only three tutti chords are enough to fix this imbalance (instead of the removal of the decrescendo replaced by the addition of a crescendo + the three chords) or not. When I think a bit more deeply, I realize that it is also true that Schubert liked uncertainties in much of his Music, be it emotional, tonal, etc.. at least on what I have interpreted and studied so far (some impromptus, the posthumous a minor sonata, one of the quartets). This is becoming a tough nut to crack. It will be a hard choice !

Let’s quote Rachmaninov:

‘Music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for Music’.

DOE