In the last post, I made some pretty controversial statements.
Par for the course, when it comes to cadences. As mentioned in the earlier discussion, these 2-, 3-, sometimes even 4- and 5-note runs inspire a great deal of passion!
I have actually heard of judges attempting to correct performers who have won Clasps and Gold Medals regarding how to play a cadence in a given piece. The competitor quite rightly said something to the effect of, “I know what you are saying, but I’ve been playing for a very long time and just find the style I played is more musical for me than what you are describing.” (Good for the competitor! Too bad they have to be a champion to get away with it. And too bad the judge felt compelled to offer a correction.)
Now, I asserted that the held-E cadence has been abused, and therefore also abuses the melody of the tune. I stand by that statement.
In this post, however, I will not be making aesthetic judgements, so much as citing empirical evidence regarding the differences between the manuscripts and scores, and what is played today (and over the last 50-70 years or so, according to the sources we have).
This is simple empiricism. Not hypothesis.
Here is the oldest staff notation we have of Gille Chriost, aka Glengarry’s March (PS 170):
There are two things to note:
- The themal notes in the first three bars according to the score are: G-B-A-B, G-B-G-D, G-B-E-A
- However, the E in the middle of the third bar (at the beginning of the second line, in fact) is a held-E cadence.. How do we know? It does not appear anywhere else in the rest of the score (which you can download and view here).
This suggests that the transcriber was capturing a performance in which appoggiatura cadences were played, but relatively rarely. This would make the themal notes dominate the performance. This, in turn, would make the held-E cadence become an exceptional element in the tune.
Just to drive the point home, here is the end of this motion, where the held-E cadence clearly breaks the time signature, but the transcriber doesn’t care:
This score makes it into Donald MacDonald’s book (with a bit of clean up, and some editorial additions) relatively intact:
Empirically, here we see evidence of a style of cadence performance that shows far less of the presence of the appoggiatura cadence. When it does appear, it is clearly captured in the score. Which is, by all empirical accounts, very infrequently.
Is this less musical? It depends on your point of view. One could argue “less is more”, for example. Or, you can say that this is not how it was handed down, and that as such it did not withstand the test of time and taste.
But, regardless of how one feels, it is certainly different. And while it is certainly the case that different does not always equal better, it just as certain that different does not always equal worse. We often dismiss something that is different, and do so far too quickly without giving it a chance.
By allowing for difference, by empirically recognizing that difference existed and can exist, we are not diminishing the present: we are enhancing the future.
More to follow…
