Articulations for the Haydn Trumpet Concerto

by Donald Bullock
Having performed the Haydn Concerto for Trumpet on numer-
ous occasions, and having heard it performed by other soloists
countless times, I have been confused by the many interpretive
differences of editions and performances. For example, in the third
movement, should the sixteenth notes (m. 7) be slurred, articulated,
or slurred-two-tongued-two? Maurice Andre slurs-two-tongues-two
on Musical Heritage Society phonodisc No. 533, while on the
Melodiya/Angel recording No. SR40123, Timofei Dokshitzer slurs
in groups of four. The published editions do not clarify the issue. In
the Goeyens edition (Carl Fischer, Inc.) these sixteenth notes are
slurred in groups of four. The Ernest Hall edition (Boosey & Hawkes)
calls for all sixteenths to be articulated, and the arrangement for
trumpet and band by W. 1. Duthoit (Chappell & Co.) requires that
the passage be performed slur-two-tongue-two.
Lest the reader think that this discourse is based upon a few iso-
lated examples and minor differences in i nterpretati on, he need
only listen to a few recordings of his favorite t r umpet artists or com-
pare a mi ni mum number of the published editions of the music to
discover this is not the case. Maj or differences in the opening theme
of the first movement are apparent, the first two notes of which can
be found to be piano or forte, slurred, articulated, or accented. The
first theme of the last movement reveals similar disparities. Most
performers and editors present the theme in the t rumpet solo with
all notes separately articulated, but wi thout agreement as to
whether it should be soft or loud, yet there is agreement that the
same material in the accompani ment should be soft and slurred in
groups of two notes through the sixth measure of the theme (mvt .
IH, measures 45-49).
It has been a common misconception of musi ci ans that Viennese
Classical music requires the addition of slurs and other arti culati on
marks according to certain unwri tten rules of practice from the
period. "The scattered and very diverse pri nted scores of his
[Haydn' s] works are monumentally i naccurate . . .; perhaps it is
not quite so well realized that there are two dangers arising from
that that add to the confusion in a peculiarly insidious way. The
first is that some [musi ci ans], faced wi th what they know to be
inaccurate scores, are not above addi ng their own addi ti ons and
emendations to the already dubi ous text; and second and worse,
t hat there arises in time a completely false style of perform-
ance . .."'
The Haydn editor who at t empt s to indicate nuances in the musi c
encroaches upon the interpreter' s right to realize a performance
based upon his own training and musical taste. It is t rue t hat [in the
past ) many performers earned the reputati on of lacking the trai n-
ing necessary to perform from editions that are as sparsely marked
as the autograph score, but many serious performers exist today
who are determined to present authenti c readings of musi c from
previous centuries, and these over-edited versions of Haydn' s music
present the performer with the confusing task of distinguishing
between the editor's interpretive marki ngs and those originally
wri tten by the composer. It is granted that some editions adhere too
closely to the autograph score to be of real practical use to the
performer. The editor would be well-advised to use his knowledge of
the autograph score and other sources of his study to provide
clearly identified additions of articulation and dynami c marki ngs
based on marki ngs found in parallel passages. The performer is likely
to be less equipped to make these definitive decisions unless he has
an opportuni ty to work with the same authenti c sources as does the
editor. Most certainly, if an editor is to err in the edition he makes,
however, the performance will be better served by the lack of edi-
tori al emendati ons than by an over-abundance of them.
The methods of notation and especially the complete-
ness with which the average composer of that era
( 18t h century) transferred his thoughts to paper leave
much to be desired. As time passes certain traditions
become exti nct, and what must have seemed obvious
to any musician then . . . i s no longer obvious to us . . .
[It] is not possible for us to take Haydn's autograph
and engrave the score from it, nor can we play a
Haydn autograph today without supplementary
explanations.2
In the past performers and editors have erroneously assumed that
the sparseness of the composer's arti culati on and dynami c mark-
ings meant that the musician was required to improvise his own as
was the tradition in baroque music. With the scholarly work of
H. C. Robbins Landon in the symphonies of Haydn, and through
his comparison of the autograph scores and the manuscri pt parts
prepared for the fi rst performances, it has been revealed that the
baroque tradition of extemporaneous invention of articulations and
dynami cs in the performance was not followed. He claims that
Haydn' s scores were prepared by the composer with the practicaf
and practicing musician in mind.3 He employed every possible
abbreviation in order to facilitate the rapid composition of a score,
some of which have come to be identified with Haydn' s own swift
pen. Abbreviated methods Haydn used to indicate articulation and
dynamics included:
1. Haydn's copyists were expected to fill i nto other parts, the
arti culati on and phrasing marks that were supplied, perhaps only in
one part. The fi rst violin is usually marked completely; next the
bass; then oboes and horns.
2. Haydn only marked the first few slurs and staccati in a series
in which he wished to have arti culated with the same effect
throughout. He marked the first time in order to suggest the desired
effect; copyists and performers were expected to exercise taste and
musical j udgment in carryi ng forth this effect. v
3. Staccati are often employed to prevent legato. Coming at
the end of a slurred group it may i nstruct the player not to allow
the final note to be sustained for its wri tten value, or it may be
added for the sake of making it easier to recognize which notes
belong under the slur.4
4. Haydn indicated staccato with wedges (') rather than with
dots ( ) The former not only shortened the note but it also made it
somewhat accented; in his later works he sometimes made a dif-
ference between the two types of staccato marki ng, but he was not
consistent.
5. Ties over the bar-line are understood in wind parts. The
sforzando marki ng was sometimes used to prevent the winds from
playing ties on repeated notes. Haydn rarely wrote ties for both
fi rst and second parts of like i nstruments, especially if they both
occurred on the same score. The second part was the one that was
usually marked with the tie.
6. Haydn' s notation of stems and carriages (German: Balken)
usually has a certain significance for phrasing. He was not always
logical and consistent, but attention should be paid because a lesson
may be derived from studying his autographs in this respect. When
possible, the editor should reproduce the Haydn stems as he wrote
them.5
7. It goes wi t hout saying that all appoggiatura are to be slurred
to the note to which they belong, regardless of what comes before
or afterwards; thus, the fi gure
is to be performed
8. A letter to an un- named' Aust r i an monastery with written
i nstructi ons as to how to reach a good performance of the Applausus
26
Cattata (1768) was sent by Haydn along with the autograph score
since he was not to be present to put the composition into rehear-
sal. One of his instructions was ' Forthly: that the fortes and pianos
are written correctly throughout . . . It should be noted, too, when
in the score the one or the other forte or piano is not marked
throughout all the parts, that the copyist should rectify this when
preparing the performance material.'7
9. Since the horns were written at the top of the page, dynamic
markings would appear in those parts more consistently than in the
rest of the instruments. Haydn would have expected his copyists
to apply the dynamics written at the top, or the bottom, of the
score to the other parts.
10. The oboes lack some forte markings, but are usually com-
plete with respect to softer dynamics.
11. B aroq ufe Classical
. JTTJ trn n
Haydn's mentality by instinct was Baroque, and by conviction,
Classical. Freq uent passages show this contradictory notation.
In general, until the middle of his life, Haydn relied more on the
older, baroq ue method, though even very late works show this
textual problem.8
12. Haydn wrote his recapitulations from memory. Sometimes
changes in markings were utilized to break the monot ony. Some-
times they were memory lapses. The editor and performer must
exercise care in interpreting the changes.
H. C. Robbins Landon has made great inroads toward the
understanding of Haydn' s intentions for written articulations in his
scholarly editions of all known symphonies and numerous diverti-
menti, notturni, and cassations by this composer. His careful colla-
tion of autograph scores, manuscript parts, original copies, and first
printings of Haydn' s music has produced excellent editions which
represent the truest picture of the music from which the performers
were required to work in creating the first performance.9
Let us t ur n our attentions to Haydn' s Concerto. Lacking an
urtext edition of the trumpet concerto prepared by a Haydn
scholar, but armed with a microfilm copy of the composer's auto-
graph-score obtained from The Friends of Music Library in Vienna,
and having devoted numerous hours of study of urtext editions of
the composer's symphonies, divertiment, notturni, and cassations,
1 have drawn some conclusions about the solo part of this concer-
to which I feel req uire consideration. For the most part these con-
clusions have been developed from and are defended by the princi-
ples of abbreviation enumerated (1-12) above. Measures are num-
bered consecutively from the beginning of each respective move-
ment. The Eulenberg pocket score No. 798 is recommended for
checking markings to which I refer in the orchestral accompani-
ment, because this edition comes closer than any other to the
original markings found in the composer's autograph-score,
although it, too, contains numerous errors and inappropriate addi-
tions and emendations.
In measures 37, 93, and 125, I have marked the dynamic as
piano and have slurred the first two notes of the theme. The reason
for this emendation is that it follows the same markings provided
by Haydn in the orchestral exposition at measure 1. Also, the fact
that the accompaniment is marked piano and slurred at measures
37, 93, and 125, is worthy of consideration. The transition in the
orchestra which leads to the recapitulation is marked by Haydn
to be played softly, making the entry by the soloist out of the
character of the music if played forte and strongly articulated.
The element of contrast between strong declarations and soft
responses is established right away in the orchestral exposition. I
believe that the trumpet is cast in the role of providing the piano
responses to the forte orchestral statements once it has entered its
exposition at measure 37, thus explaining why the dynamic mark-
ings I have provided are mostly soft. In every case these markings
match the dynamics marked by Haydn in the orchestral parts. The
markings are structural and do not prevent the performer from
providing expressive contrasts within and between phrases, how-
ever. To perform sempre piano throughout would simply divest the
music of its character.
I have marked several passages and figurations between measures
45-83 with slurs which I have found to be either articulated or
marked with great inconsistency as slur-groupings in published edi-
tions. These passages are found in measures 46, 52, 54, 55-56, 57-
58, 66-67, 68-70. In each case the decision to slur is based upon an
identical passage in the string parts which either coincides with the
solo part or precedes it by one measure. Perhaps the most difficult
passage to accept slurred is measure 76, since many t rumpet ers have
traditionally played this passage with a strong articulation and dyna-
mic. The slui matches a similar passage which the composer slurred
, in measure 23. Also, the same material is slurred in the strings at
measure 76. When played softly and slurred as I have marked it,
there is a natural tendency to phrase-off from beat three of measure,
76 to the down-beat of measure 77, setting up an effective oppor-
tunity for bold contrast in the orchestral entry which follows. The
same rationale was used in marking the slurs in measure 160.
The slurs in measures 97, 99, and 101 merely imitate the Violin I
material in each respective preceding measure, which Haydn care-
fully marked with slurs. The following measures, 102-103 and 105-
106, also req uire consulting Haydn' s autograph-score, since pub-
lished editions and recorded performances offer a choice between
no slurs and slurs connecting the two sixteenth-notes to the eighth-
note which follows them. Haydn indicates in the first and second
violin parts that he wishes the sixteenths to be slurred, but not con-
nected to the eighth note. Since the solo trumpet part uses identical
material in duet with Violin II and in counterpoint with Violin I, it
is apparent that the slurs should match as I have marked. The deci-
sion to slur the eighth-notes in measures 105-106 is based on the
slur marked by Haydn over the final three eighth-notes for Violin I
in measure 106. He did not mark a slur over those same three notes
in measure 105, because there are no slurs marked in that measure
for the sixteenth-notes, whereas in preceding measures he did so
mark them. I have deduced that in his haste in the compositional
process he overlooked that measure when marki ng articulations. It
is obvious that measure 105 and 106 should be played the same, and
no similar deduction can be made that the slur Haydn marked in
measure 106 is an error.
Measures 107-108 present a special problem in interpretation, as
do measures 152-153, their counterpart in the recapitulation. No
case can be made for interpreting these passages in a certain way
based on identical material elsewhere in the movement. Similar
material can be found in measures 27-30, presented both with no
slurs and slurs in groups of four notes. No case based on the auto-
graph-score can be made for slur-two-tongue-two. I was forced to
rely on conclusions which I had drawn about Haydn' s articulation
practices based on a study of his symphonies10, namely that the
composer marked passages as he wished them to be performed un-
less there were clearly identical preceding passages which had been
marked with the understanding that the same markings would be
carried over to the later similar passages. I concluded that the six-
teenth notes in the measures in q uestion should remain as written
by Haydn, without slurs. Upon reflection, this solution is satisfying
in that the separately articulated notes provide an essential ingre-
dient of excitement at these points in the movement. The articu-
lated t rumpet notes lead q uite naturally to the same material in
the first violins at measure 154-155, which Haydn left unslurred.
A final passage in the first movement which req uires mention is
the new trill which I have placed in measure 136.1 believe that the
faint marking which appears above the second note of the trumpet
27
part is a trill sign. All of the notes in the solo line are rather faded,
probably due to the ink supply running short in Haydn's pen.
There is no doubt in my mind that the mark above the written e
was made by the same dry quill, but it is open to interpretation and
I subsequently decided to place the marking in editorial brackets.
Little need be said concerning the second movement, except that
the articulation marks in the solo part are identical to those found
in the orchestral parts of the autograph score. Attention is drawn to
the forzato marks in measures 10-11, and the absence of the slur to
the main beats of these measures which is found in most editions.
The performer must bear in mind the piano dynamic level which
governs the forzato attacks. Careful attention to the first violin as it
is played in measures 2-3, with a down-bow on the forzato and a
lifting up-bow on the note of resolution, will help the soloist to
formulate a proper concept.
The only other markings which deserve mention in the Andante
are the slurs in measures 16, 40, and 46. To articulate these notes,
as one often hears or finds notated in certain editions, is to destroy
the feeling for the dotted quarter-note beat unit which Haydn has so
carefully established in the preceding measures. His marking of three
notes under one slur in the string melody in measure 8 makes his
intentions very clear in this case. When the music does diverge from
the dotted-quarter unit, such as in measures 10-12, 21, 34-36, and
43-44, the effect is most refreshing.
The third movement requires consideration of articulation mark-
ings which are not included in any of the published editions nor in
any recorded examples investigated by this writer, yet the composer
left very explicit directions in the autograph score. Measures 45-49
require slurs in two-note groups just as the composer has indicated
for this thematic material in measures 1-5. Likewise the sixteenth-
note passages in measures 51, 55, 63, and 67 must be slurred in
order to match the slurs Haydn wrote in parallel passages in mea-
sures 7 and 11-12. The slurs in measures 81 and 83 reflect the com-
poser's markings in measures 28, 30, and 32.
Most articulation .markings in the remainder of the third move-
ment follow those established in the opening thematic material since
most passages are either exact repetitions of or developments from
those figures. Although there is no parallel passage in the orchestral
accompaniment to serve as a model for slurring the mordents in
measures 86, 88, 90, and 92 and the appoggiaturas in measures 106
and 107, they should be performed with slurs as was the common
practice for these ornaments.
The dynamics also follow the model established in the orchestral
exposition. These include the piano dynamic for the main theme,
the forzato markings at measures 80 and 200, and the echo at mea-
sures 82 and 202. The forzato markings at measures 204-208 match
the markings in the woodwind and horn parts in those same mea-
sures. Likewise, the pianissimo at measure 282 and the crescendo at
measures 290 follow the orchestral markings there. Haydn marked
the piano and forte in the solo part in measures 289 and 292,
assumedly because they differ from the orchestral dynamics in those
measures.
Several dynamic markings are editorial and are shown in brackets.
These include the crescendos at 78-79, 210-214, and 249-256, the
echo at 90, the forte and piano markings at 155-163 and 225-227,
and the descrescendo at 179-180. These editorial suggestions are
made in order to carry through some of the ideas which are already
prescribed by the composer in the rest of the movement. The echo
idea is established in measure 31 on repeated figurations and the
editorial echoes are an attempt to extend this idea throughout the
movement. The crescendo and decrescendo markings are for the
purpose of making a natural transition from the existing dynamic
level to the next level marked by Haydn. This is also the case in the
editorial crescendo in measure 79 of the first movement.
I hope that the ideas here are not rejected without a hearing.
The proof is in the proverbial "pudding," which in this case is the
musical sound. A copy of the solo part is provided so that trumpet
soloists can live with these ideas in the practice room and the per-
formance arena. Hopefully trumpeters can prove Peter Pirie incor-
rect in his statement, which I quoted in paragraph three of this
article, namely that in spite of the traditions we have come to know
as the "correct" style of performance in the Trumpet Concerto by
Haydn, we are willing to re-examine these traditions in order to
come to a more accurate presentation of the music as the composer
intended it to be performed.
Notes
1 Pirie, Peter J., "Reviews," The Haydn Yearbook (1963-64).
Bryn Mawr, PA, 1964, pp. 94-95.
2 Landon, H.C. Robbins, The Symphonies of Joseph Haydn.
New York, 1956, p. 74.
3 Ibid.,p. 77.
4 Haydn, Joseph, Divertimenti fur Baryton, Viola, und bass,
Odenburg, c. 1767. Edited by Waldemar Woehl (Hbrtus
Musicus), Kassel, 1939, "Vorwort," Sect. 4.
5 Landon, H. C. Robbins, op. cit., p. 85.
6 Ibid., p. 138.
7 Landon, H. C. Robbins, Collected Correspondence and Lon-
don Notebooks of Joseph Haydn. New Jersey, 1959, p. 9.
8 Landon, H. C. Robbins, The Symphonies of Joseph Haydn.
New York, 1956, p. 82.
9 Paragraphs 4-6 were taken from Bullock, Donald, "Joseph
Haydn: A Study of Articulations," NACWPI Journal, Vol.
XX, No. 2, Kirksville, MO, 1972, pp. 11-13.
10 Bullock, Donald, op. cit., p. 18.
(Donald Bullock, Dept. of Music, Western Michigan University, Kala-
mazoo, MI 49008)
Tribute to CRI's 25th Anniversary
(Continued from Page 25)
violin; John Garvey, viola; William Parsons, xylophone;
Eileen Hanson, glockenspiel; Donald Lake, snare drum;
James Stuttsman, tambourine; George Marsh, castanets;
John Schoenberger, cymbals; Charles Braugham, tabor; Fred
Fairchild, maracas; Virgil Baumgartner, tam-tam; Alan Davis,
bass drum; Jack McKenzie, conductor.
Husa, Karel (b. 1921)
Landscapes for Brass Quintet (1977): Northern Woods, North-
ern Lakes, Voyageurs (AMP) CRI SD 192(78)
Western Brass Quintet: Donald Bullock, Stephen Jones,
trumpets; Connie Klausmeier, horn; Russell Brown, trom-
bone; Robert Whaley, tuba.
Lazarof, Henri (b. 1932)
Spectrum for Solo Trumpet, Orchestra and Tape (1973) (Pres-
ser) CRI SD 373
Thomas Stevens, trumpet/flugelhorn; Utah Symphony, Henri
Lazarof, conductor (4-channel tape of pre-recorded trumpets
prepared by Thomas Stevens)
MacDougall, Robert (b. 1941)
Anacotuthon: A Confluence (1972) (MS) CRI SD 323
Contemporary Music Ensemble: Paul Dunkel, flute; Allen
Blustine, Donald Palma, clarinets; George Haas, oboe; Allan
Dean, trumpet; Christopher Finkel, violin; Eric Wilson,
viola;Timothy Eddy, cello; Arthur Weisberg, conductor.
Mayer, William (b. 1925)
Brass Quintet (1972): Poco presto, Lento, Con moto, Poco
28