Notes that are tied to staccato

[mswaller]

Recently I've encountered a couple of spots in my music where a note is tied to a staccato.  Specifically in Bach's Two Part Invention #6 (m.39-40),and in Bartok's Mikrokosmos 140 (m.34).  How would I play this??  Do I just get off the note a little quicker?  Or would I play the staccato note?  When I listen to the recording of the invention, I did not hear the performer strike the note  again.  Please help. 

[faulty_damper]

It's not a tie.  You play the staccato note.

Listening to recordings is one way to familiarize yourself to music but there are many instances when a performer performs certain parts incorrectly.  This can include notes, rhythms, articulation, expression, etc.  The performer could also have learned the piece from an edition that differs from yours hence the discrepancies.

Do not value a recording as gospel regardless of the preacher.

[slobone]

In the Bartok, I disagree -- I don't think you play the chord again. If he'd wanted you to do that, there are better ways to notate it. I think you lift your left hand and right hands off the keys at exactly the same time. Of course there's no pedal in this piece, that I can see, so it's not clear how much sound will still be emanating from those strings at that point.

I don't have the Bach here, but -- wait a minute -- are there staccatos in Bach?

[mswaller]

   The Bach is Alfred's edition.....I know, you don't have to say it.  The staccato is an editorial marking.  I haven't heard anyone re-strike the staccato note.

In regards to the Bartok, you're right, the sound is primarily gone by the time you get to the end.  In my opinion it sounds strange to re-strike the written staccato.  However, in the edition I have, there is also a breath mark right before the written staccato, which leads me to believe that he wanted the staccato played.

I've asked around, and also done a little research,  and still can't find a definitive answer on how to deal with notes that are tied to staccato.

Does anyone know if there is a black and white answer to this, or if it should be looked at on a case by case basis?

 

[faulty_damper]

In ALL cases, when there is a staccato note connected with a slur, it is NOT a tie.

In Bartok, there is clearly a staccato above the C.  It should be played.  This gives it an abruptness that leads to the new material.

In the Bach, the editorial tie to a staccato is mis-articulated.  There should obviously not be  a staccato.  According to the Barenreiter edition, the C# is indeed tied over.

If you examine the Alfred edition, you'll note that the articulation for several bars is slur over staccato.  The editor clearly wanted to keep the uniformity of articulation at the expense of making notational sense.  Certain uninformed editors use this kind of uniformity rationale because it looks right on paper.  However, this has led even publishers such as Henle to re-engrave plates and re-issue "revised editions".

[faulty_damper]

  However, in the edition I have, there is also a breath mark right before the written staccato, which leads me to believe that he wanted the staccato played.

It's not a breath mark, it's a comma between p and sempre leggero.  This avoids "p e sempre leggero".

[slobone]

In ALL cases, when there is a staccato note connected with a slur, it is NOT a tie.

In Bartok, there is clearly a staccato above the C.  It should be played.  This gives it an abruptness that leads to the new material.

Then what does the slur mean? If you're supposed to re-sound the C# and the C, why did Bartok continue the slur into the last measure? He should have ended it in the previous measure.

[faulty_damper]

It's to indicate the phrase connection.  It must be played.  It doesn't make as much sense if it is not played.

[mswaller]

Thought the mark after the piano might have been a comma , particularly since the mark at the end of measure 12 is considerably bigger.  Started second guessing myself.

Thanks so much for your help!!

[Bob]

Bach didn't write articulation like that did he?

Generally (without any style) I would think it could be a phrase mark.  Or possibly meant to soften the staccato a bit -- ie Play it twice as long maybe, like a 'long staccato' if there is such a thing. 

Any lines could be phrase marks if they're that long, slurs, ties, or some way of showing that a group of notes is one idea.  They can be kind of vague. 

[slobone]

It's to indicate the phrase connection.  It must be played.  It doesn't make as much sense if it is not played.

So right up until the last measure, it's a tie. But then Bartok suddenly changes his mind and decides it should be a phrase indicator instead?

[faulty_damper]

There wouldn't even be a need to notate that staccato C# - C if he didn't want it performed but it's there.  That would make less sense.

Another thing to consider is the composers notational style.  Every composer has their own notational idiosyncrasies that takes many observations to grasp.  I interpret that tie as a slur because there is no other reasonable interpretation.