{"id":2265,"date":"2014-07-07T08:00:58","date_gmt":"2014-07-07T06:00:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=2265"},"modified":"2015-05-29T12:04:49","modified_gmt":"2015-05-29T10:04:49","slug":"where-does-the-keyclef-go-about-a-problematic-passage-in-schumann%e2%80%99s-f-major-string-quartet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2014\/07\/07\/where-does-the-keyclef-go-about-a-problematic-passage-in-schumann%e2%80%99s-f-major-string-quartet\/","title":{"rendered":"Where does the key\/clef go? About a problematic passage in Schumann\u2019s F-major string quartet"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Fig.<\/a>

Fig. 1, from: Wilhelm Busch, "Eine kalte Geschichte" (1878)<\/p><\/div>\n

Fans of the humourist Wilhelm Busch will certainly be reminded of the story of Mas\u00adter Zwiel who, upon returning from a tav\u00adern on a cold winter\u2019s night, stands at his front door with key already in hand and vain\u00adly seeks the keyhole.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The story ends tragically: Master Zwiel loses the key and falls while searching for it into a water barrel where he finally freez\u00ades to death.<\/p>\n

The finale of Robert Schumann\u2019s string quar\u00adtet in F major<\/em>, Op. 41 No. 2, is not, in fact, quite so dangerous for violists, but there is a connection with Master Zwiel. For the musician also has in hand a key, as it were, but has to search for the matching keyhole \u2013 that is, the correct position for the key. [Translator\u2019s note: The German word Schl\u00fcssel means both \u2018key\u2019 (as used in music notation and as well as in a lock) and \u2018clef\u2019, making sense here of the pun.]<\/p>\n

Specifically, it is a matter of measure 182 in the finale movement\u2019s recapitulation. Schu\u00admann notated in the autograph the change to the treble clef for the viola in measure 179 (and once again expressly repeated this change after the line break in measure 180), but then forgot to indicate the return to the alto clef:<\/p>\n

\"Fig.<\/a>

Fig. 2: Autograph score, movement IV: Allegro molto vivace, mm. 180\u2013183<\/p><\/div>\n

Measure 183 is unquestionably to be read in the alto clef, thus the interval e<\/em>1<\/sup>\/b<\/em>\u266d1<\/sup> \u2013 har\u00admo\u00adni\u00adcal\u00adly excluding any other reading. But what then about its upbeat eighth note? Is the missing alto clef to be added beforehand or afterwards? Is the eighth note to be played as c<\/em> (alto clef) or as b<\/em>\u266d (treble clef)? At first glance the situation appears clear enough: The F-ma\u00adjor triad intoned by the other instruments suggests the fifth, c<\/em>. So, without com\u00adment, several editions have added the missing clef before the upbeat eighth note.<\/p>\n

\"Fig.<\/a>

Fig. 3: First edition of the parts (1843), viola, movement IV: Allegro molto vivace, measures 179\u2013183<\/p><\/div>\n

This position conflicts, though, with the prints that Schumann himself proofread:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Fig.<\/a>

Fig. 4: First edition of the score (1849), movement IV: Allegro molto vivace, measures 179\u2013182<\/p><\/div>\n

Of course, we cannot rule out that an en\u00adgrav\u00ader\u2019s error was overlooked in the edition of the parts and \u2013 since the engraved score was based on the parts e\u00addi\u00adti\u00adon \u2013 later ar\u00adriv\u00aded at the score unnoticed. But would such a striking mistake have actually escaped Schu\u00admann twice?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It would have been indicated in the copy of parts checked through by the composer that he had had made from his autograph score for all three string quartets and that served as model for rehearsals and performances as well as also for the printing of the parts e\u00addi\u00adti\u00adon. There, the copyist Carl Br\u00fcckner must have added the clef or else at least referred to the missing clef that may even have been added by Schumann himself. Alas, only the copy for the first quartet in A minor is extant \u2013 lacking to date is any trace of Br\u00fcckner\u2019s copies of the quartets in F major and A major.<\/p>\n

Remaining as a further clarifying possibility is a look at the parallel passage in the exposition (measure 40):<\/p>\n

\"Fig.<\/a>

Fig. 5: Movement IV: Allegro molto vivace, measures 40\u201341<\/p><\/div>\n

There are indeed no clef problems here, since the viola stays in the alto clef. Nevertheless, occurring over and above the tonal relocation (C-major ex\u00adpo\u00adsi\u00adti\u00adon; F-major recapitulation) are small variants in the structure that make direct comparison difficult. In fact, the viola\u2019s upbeat eighth note in measure 40 is, on the one hand, at an interval of a fifth from that of the cello (cello c<\/em>, viola g<\/em>), suggesting the reading c<\/em> in measure 178 (cello F<\/em>\/c<\/em>, viola c<\/em>), but on the other hand, lost with this reading is the viola\u2019s octave leap (g<\/em>–g<\/em>1<\/sup> in measure 40 f., b<\/em>\u266d1<\/sup> in measure 182 f.), con\u00adsti\u00adtut\u00ading a striking motivic element of this movement. But what if, though, the b flat in measure 182 were not an unusually harsh dis\u00adso\u00adnance against the F-ma\u00adjor triad? It can be countered that there are dis\u00adso\u00adnant seconds in measure 41 (cello f1, viola g1) as well as also in measure 183 (lower pitches, cello f<\/em>, viola e<\/em>1<\/sup>). It could also be entirely possible that in the recapitulation Schumann still wanted very deliberately to accentuate the har\u00admo\u00adnic tension already appearing in the exposition through the violin\u2019s sustained notes. Cer\u00adtain\u00adly, looking at the parallel passage does not lead to any clear conclusion.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

So, the editor of our about-to-appear new edition of the three Schumann string quartets (Urtext HN 873<\/a>, study edition HN 9873<\/a>) has decided to give preference to the reading of the first edition, indicating in a footnote, however, the comments referring to the source situation and parallel passage:<\/p>\n