Mozart #3: dots and daggers
In the first movement of the Barenreiter urtext version of Mozart #3, there are both dots and daggers on notes to be played by the soloist (as well as in the tutti parts). Just looking at the solo part for now, the first dots appear in bar 40 while the first dagger appears in bar 41. There are many more dots and daggers throughout the movement. In looking at the Schirmer edition, I don’t see daggers but instead see staccato-like lines instead and I also see dots, but the dots and lines don’t necessarily match up to where the dots and daggers appear in the Barenreiter version, so I am focussing on the Barenreiter urtext version for this discussion. My question is how did Mozart intend the notes with dots and daggers to be played. I recently heard a teacher in an online webinar say that in Mozart violin concertos the dots are not spiccato marks but rather mean don’t play legato, while the daggers mean play spiccato, but I am wondering if the teacher’s comments are viewed by others in the know (I confess that I am not in the know ) as being correct. I look forward to finding out how one should play Mozart’s dots and daggers!
In the 18th Century there is no difference between the dot and the dagger. Staccatissmo came in the 19th Century.
If you talked about Martele stroke to Mozart, he probably would have no idea what you were talking about (along with Detache). This is the technique of the French Revolution School at the turn of the 19th Century (Kreutzer, Rode, Baillot etc).
OP 'I recently heard a teacher in an online webinar say that in Mozart violin concertos the dots are not spiccato marks but rather mean don’t play legato, while the daggers mean play spiccato, but I am wondering if the teacher’s comments are viewed by others in the know (I confess that I am not in the know ) as being correct'.
Rosand talks about about mozart 5 concerto and the markings in this YouTube video
My kids were taught (Vamos school of playing) that the dots are as mentioned above, not legato. What you call daggers and we call wedges or strokes have almost a slight accent to them, perhaps call it an emphasis, often followed by a separation with a lifting feeling.
Agree with James W. One would need to look at the calligraphy style in the original manuscript. The goose quill pen or the italic point metal pen does not make a fine dot, only a dash mark the width of the pen point. It makes thin or thick lines and beautiful flags on the eighth notes. It the 19th cent. most people switched to the flexible fine point copperplate style pen. For ur-text editions of older music I consider the dashes as the same as dots.
It is true that there has been an awful lot of literature (mostly by HIP people) on this wedge / dot question. There is however a temptation to overthink these things. As James pointed out the difference may be unintended by the composer (or the copyist) and just be a consequence of writing with a pen (maybe in a hurry--Mozart often was in a hurry).
I am with Albrecht on this. The version I have of Mozart #3, edited by my teacher, Rene Benedetti, has some dots, but they are clearly staccato markings. My view is that you should do what makes the piece work for you musically. Playing Mozart #3, or any other piece, is not like putting on a Beckett play where if you deviate the slightest bit from the script, the Beckett estate comes and shuts you down. So, play the piece in a way that you enjoy and makes the music meaningful to you.
If you want an example of where it seems very obviously intentional, take a look at Symphony #25. My daughter was given the first two mvmts of this in orchestra, in an edition that was edited to make it a bit more accessible for young players. The edition replaced all the wedges with dots throughout. We compared it with the Urtext and the dots and wedges really have obviously different meanings. Compare mm. 59-73, which have dots in the urtext, to mm. 109-114, which have wedges. Those are very different articulations, and if you don't understand about the wedge and just play them short, you don't get the same effect.
An excellent starting point besides Susan's useful recommendation of Neumann's article is Clive Brown's red book:
This discussion reminds me of an unfortunate event that happened near where I live some years ago:
You are right, Susan. What I meant with consistency though is that the same music, when it is repeated, has the same articulation markings. I checked for this symphony and the markings are indeed exactly identical when your first passage re-occurs in the reprise. In fact I noticed a detail I had never before observed (I too played the piece once): The bass line in quarter notes has dots in the first four measures and no dots in the second four and so on through the entire passage and the repetition at the end. Apparently a contrast between those 4-measure sections is intended though that is not obvious from the melody. I don't think I ever heard such a contrast in performances. (It would still be interesting though to look at the autograph to see how clearly distinct the signs actually are there and how much the editor's idea of the music influenced his interpretation of the markings. You might suspect that the pattern is almost too consistent).
Consistency in articulation markings;-- I know from my own experience in doing old-tech manual copying, arranging, that you get tired of writing all the dots in repeated sections, so you just stop, write "simile", expecting musicians to understand that. I am sure that Mozart and many others would write faster than me.
Thank you all for your informative and interesting responses!
I suspect that many of the staccato (or wedge) marks under slurs also referred to flying spiccato. Not quite like post-Tourte Mendelssohn, perhaps, but still a flashier effect than some normally associate with Mozart, et al.
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.