Berlioz and the Slur

Author(s): Nicholas Temperley

Source: Music & Letters, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Jul., 1969), pp. 388-392
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/732432
Accessed: 24-08-2015 21:06 UTC

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 of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Music & Letters.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:06:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BERLIOZ AND THE SLUR

BY NICHOLASTEMPERLEY
THE nineteenth century is likely to be the last period in musical
history to pose problems of authentic style in performance. For the
twentieth century there will always be recordings to settle the issue.
We have an unbroken tradition of performance for most types of
nineteenth-century music; but this may be a snare. For we may
rely on intuition to guide us, in the belief that our intuition is the
same as a nineteenth-century performer's, whereas in fact the
tradition has altered considerably. Nothing illustrates this more
vividly than the use of the slur.
Hugh Macdonald's articlel is probably the first thorough
discussion of this problem in print. As such it is welcome and overdue,
and I only hope that it will be the beginning of a development which
will eventually lead to a full theory of the interpretation of nineteenthcentury music. Dr. Macdonald has brought to his subject a
performing experience that is almost as impressive as his knowledge
about Berlioz and his music. For this very reason he has been
of equating our
vulnerable to the danger I have mentioned-that
own musical sensibilities with those of Berlioz and his contemporaries.
It is very important, in what is really pioneering work on this subject,
not to make this assumption. One should proceed, with the greatest
caution, to set down what one really knows about Berlioz's meanings.
Anything beyond that is a matter of taste. Dr. Macdonald agrees
with this in his introductory remarks, but he then proceeds to make a
in
categorical statement about five meanings that the slur can bear
or
Berlioz. The fourth of these meanings is "the length of a phrase
the
group of notes", where (he says later) the slur "simply marks off
the
beginnings and ends of phrases, commonly made audible by
a
detaching of the last note from the next phrase by shortening or by
statement.
break in the music". No authority is given for this
Elsewhere, indeed, he says: "In general I would doubt that unelided
slurs imply a break. In fast music it is likely to be impracticable;
in slow music too much articulation may break the flow". Yet in
three examples (on p. 28) he interprets slurs in just this way.
This is all very confusing. In the first place, what does
1 'Two Peculiarities of Berlioz's Notation' (Music & Letters,January 1969). My own
American
paper 'Berlioz's Marks of Articulation and Use of the Slur' was read to the
Both
on
December
1968.
New
Connecticut,
27
at
Haven,
Society
Musicological
Macdonald's article and my paper were, to a certain extent, the fruit of a correspondence
between us during 1968. There was a considerable overlap between them but also some
different conclusions, which are explained in this article.

388

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:06:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Dr. Macdonald mean by 'phrase' in this context ? The word is often

used to mean a complete musical idea, regardless of whether the
notes in it are slurred, detached or separated by rests. A phrase in
this sense is often marked by a long slur in twentieth-century
notation. We even find this usage in hymn-books-one slur to every
line. I do not know when it became current, but there is no sign that
it was known in the first half of the nineteenth century.
Dr. Macdonald is evidently using 'phrase' in some other sensesomething like this, as far as I can judge: "A group of notes that,
though not necessarily forming a complete musical idea, are to be
connected and marked out as a group". Undoubtedly such groupings
are found, indicated by slurs, in Berlioz's music. The question is
by what means the grouping is to be realized in performance. On
most instruments it can be done entirely by expressive nuances of
volume, tone quality, timing or a combination of these, without any
detachment of the first and last notes under the slur from their
neighbours outside. But Dr. Macdonald discussesexpressivephrasing
under his fifth meaning of the slur. The fourth meaning is specifically
reservedfor "detaching the last note from the next phrase". I should
like to ask what evidence there is that Berlioz ever intended this by
his use of the slur.
Detachment of the last note is an important part of the meaning
of the slur today, and it has been strengthened by the revival of
Baroque music-particularly organ music-and the discovery of the
correct way to perform it, documented by the theorists of the time.
It cannot be doubted that Bach did use the slur in this sense. But
that is no reason to assume that Berlioz did. What evidence there is
seems to me, on the contrary, to indicate strongly that this was not a
normal use of the slur in the early nineteenth century. To begin
with, there is the evidence of the slur-elision itself. Though
Dr. Macdonald calls this "the central oddity of Berlioz's use of the
slur", it is only odd if you assume, as he does, that a slur implies
detachment. Moreover, overlapping slurs can be found in profusion
in most music of Berlioz's time. Dr. Macdonald cites Beethoven,
Schubert and Moussorgsky;there are certainly hundredsof examples
in Chopin and Wagner, and I have also found them in Spontini,
Brahms and several minor English composers. Berlioz's usage, then,
was not a 'peculiarity'. Dr. Macdonald claims that he used slurelisions with "unswerving consistency", but this is not borne out by
his discussion of the examples, to which he gives sometimes one
interpretation, sometimes another. There is no single meaning for
the slur-elision, or indeed for the slur itself, which can apply to all
cases. Therefore, if Berlioz was consistent, he was consistently
ambiguous.
The meaning of the slur which comes closest to consistency is
I must confess that my paper was also far from clear about the meaning of 'phrase',
as a questioner pointed out. I am trying to make amends here.

389

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:06:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

that of legato, Dr. Macdonald's third category. Whatever additional

meanings it may or may not bear, it always seems to have that one,
unless there is another mark to contradict it (such as staccato dots,
marcato dashes or rests-as in Dr. Macdonald's second example).
If that is agreed, it follows that where two slurs overlap one of them
cannot imply detachment of the last note under it, for that would
interfere with the legato indicated by the other. In this well-known
example from Beethoven's Op. i o the second quaver in each group
of three cannot be detached without making the larger slur
meaningless:
Allegretto ma non troppo

^5'=I

,S,.,r.

The third note, on the other hand, is to be detached; and the fact
that Beethoven marked it with a dot shows that the larger slur also
did not in itself imply detachment. Berlioz often marks detachment
quite precisely by means of a "rest of articulation". In this passage
from the 'Symphonie Fantastique':
ndagio

it could hardly be clearer that the slurs do not imply detachment.

Where Berlioz wants it, in the second flute part, he uses rests. Where
he does not use rests, therefore (in the first flute part), he does not
want it. In a great deal of piano music, particularly in Chopin,
examples can be found where a break between slurs is covered by the
pedal, so that detachment is impossible. In one passage in the
autograph of Prelude No. 15 in Db major Chopin has actually
altered a continuous slur to introduce a break, while retaining the
pedal over the break:
Originalslurs:
Revised slurs:"

<bar 24

Irf
'

SJL

rIfIrrrrf
F
r rrr r rcrfrr
*52&i.

?*5?u *a

This is a clear case. The slurs here must mean something beyond
legato, for otherwise a single slur would have served. They cannot
imply detachment because of the pedal. Consequently they must be
390

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:06:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

intended to show expressive nuance.

External evidence about slurs in this period is hard to find. Most
writers preferred to be vague on the subject. However, Mendelssohn
provides help. In a letter to G. A. Macfarren, dated October 1845,
he complains of the Handel Society's use of slurs to show word
underlay in his edition of 'Israel in Egypt':
I am sure that slurs are used in such cases (in ancient, particularly
in Bach's and Handel's, music) as a characteristic sign for the
expression, much as we would use this sign:

If such a pause [i.e. break in legato]is notmeant, they do not place the
slur over the notes because it is quite unnecessary,the manner of
uniting

the

quavers

and

semiquavers

instead of

PP[P indicating clearly enough that they are to be sung to the

same syllable.3
Evidently Mendelssohn's contemporaries required a staccato dot as
well as a slur to show detachment-a
fact which is also shown by
editorial markings in nineteenth-century editions of classical music.
I see nothing in any of Dr. Macdonald's examples to show that
Berlioz ever intended the slur to indicate detachment. The only
exceptions that I know of are found in his organ parts. On the organ,
detachment is the only practical way to group notes together, for the
swell pedal is too clumsy to help except in very slow tempo. Now
Berlioz had little use for the organ, and the organists of his day had
little use for phrasing; as far as I can gather, their usual mode of
playing was an impenetrable legato. All the same, it is interesting to
study Berlioz's organ parts from this point of view. Where other parts
have dynamic marks and expressive slurs, the organ part has
registration directions, slurs (presumably to show legato only) and
rests of articulation:'
Allegretto un poco maestoso

Upperwind

;t

Lower wind,
brass,
string basses

.l
b.' V

Organ tMan]

..

-".

'

(upper stringsand
chorus omitted)

con Trombone
e Bombardone

94-ffi--'

'2

Ped.r

1 ^
r^

aLetter quoted (in the original English) in K. Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, 'Goethe and

Mendelssohn', trans. M. E. von Glehn (London, I874), p. 177.
This and the following example are both from the 'Te Deum'.

391

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:06:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

On the other hand, sometimes there are slurs which would serve
little purpose unless they were for grouping:

Man.
Flauti

(.h)\,'t

MJ 11

;Qp

$ --

In practice the grouping of notes here could be transmitted to the

audience only by detaching the last note under each slur. Strictly
speaking, this last example is an exception to my theory. But the
evidence on the other side is so strong that I still think the theory
holds. I feel that Berlioz accepted detachment on the organ faute
de mieux-the best that could be done on that 'unmusical' instrument
to interpret slurs that he would really prefer to be played expressively.
More generally, I doubt very much whether Berlioz's markings
were nearly as 'idiosyncratic' as Dr. Macdonald believes. To his
question, "Did he hit upon slur-elision or the short diminuendo
hairpin as innovations of real value, as the instinctive realizations of
his pyschological needs?" I would answer a confident 'No'. Neither
usage was an innovation; neither was adopted with consistent or
unambiguous meaning by Berlioz.
The last word on the meaning of Berlioz's marks must await a
more complete investigation of early nineteenth-century notation in
general. It seems most unlikely that certainty will ever be achieved.
Meanwhile, I would respectfully propose to revise Dr. Macdonald's
guide to Berlioz's use of the slur as follows: (I) The tie needs no
discussion, except to point out, as Dr. Macdonald does, that it may
in some cases bear an additional meaning as an expressive slur.
(2) A slur, whatever additional meanings it may bear, always implies
legato between the notes under it, unless another mark (dot, rest or
dash) shows the contrary. (3) In addition, some slurs may show
grouping, which is carried out where possible by expressive nuances.
And that is all. The slur over triplets, etc. is merely a legato slur,
covered by (2). Of course, this leaves out two very difficult questions:
how to distinguish the expressive slur from the simple legato, and how
to realize it in performance. I do not believe that either of these
questions can be authoritatively settled at this time. Dr. Macdonald's
article provides many insights, and we can hardly do better than
accept his guidance on all matters where Berlioz does not provide
any. His interpretations seem to me highly illuminating and convincing, but I must always remember that both of us are applying
criteria based on performance styles of a hundred years after Berlioz's
time. Before accepting an interpretation that 'sounds right' to us we
must take pains to search for evidence that perhaps it did not sound
right at all to our nineteenth-century forebears.
392

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:06:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions