Appogiaturas versus accaciaturas

[Derek]

I'm trying to understand once and for all the difference between appogiaturas and accaciaturas. I think I finally get now that appogiaturas happen ON the note that they are applied to, even though visually they seem to make you think you should play them BEFORE the note they are applied to. I now understand that playing it ON the beat makes it an appogiatura, BEFORE the beat makes it an accaciatura. I also understand, I believe, that accaciaturas have a little dash through them, appogiaturas do not. I also understand that traditionally appogiaturas take about half the note value of the note they are applied to.

Therefore..

These appogiaturas in Haydn's sonata no 19 in D major make sense:


These, a little later in the same piece, also make sense to me:


But what about this from Haydn's 6th sonata in G major? There's a little sixteenth note written before a run of 4 32nd notes. Those 4 32nd notes should take up the space of an 8th note, right? So do I play that appogiatura as a 64th note, as well as the first of the four 32nd notes, as a 64th note, ON the beat? Or, because this one is "crowded out" by the four 32nd notes, do I interpret this as an accaciatura and play it before the beat?


I could listen to my John McCabe cycle of these sonatas I suppose, but, I haven't posted here in a century or so, so I thought it'd be fun. I've suddenly come back to reading and playing classical pieces with a vengeance, with a much more humble attitude about it than I had before.

[michael_c]

Rather than listening to a recording, which will give you one possible interpretation of these indications, spend time reading historical treatises. The first one all pianists should read is C. P. E. Bach's Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments, recognised at the time (second half of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th) to be the definitive work on keyboard playing. Haydn, in particular, swore by it. Leopold Mozart's book is also worth reading. Pianists can skip the parts on violin technique, but much of it pertains to general interpretation and is applicable to any instrument. Quantz also makes very interesting reading, and slightly later the books by Türk, Dussek, Clementi and Hummel all have useful information.

There's a lot to digest there, particularly since you will find that authors from the same epoch do not necessarily agree. Here is something important to know:

In the seventeenth century, almost all grace notes were simply indicated by a small eighth note. There are certainly places where the grace note should be short and others where it should be long, but it was up to the performer to decide which, using their knowledge of style and good taste. It was also completely normal for the performer to add grace notes that were not expressly indicated by the composer.

Slowly, throughout the 18th century, certain composers started indicating grace notes more precisely, using not only eighth notes but also quarters, sixteenths or other lengths to indicate the correct length of an "on the beat" appogiatura. In this case a very fast grace note would probably be notated as a sixteenth note, but the performer must decide: is it an exact sixteenth or faster? and does it start on the beat or before it?

The practice of writing a very short grace note, or acciacatura, with a diagonal dash through the stem of an eighth note, started some time in the 19th century. You may find some in 19th or early 20th century editions of Haydn or Mozart, but these have been added by the editor and only represent his personal interpretation of what the composer wrote.

Here are my recommendations for the three cases you indicate:

1. 32nd notes on the beat.

2. Faster than 16th notes on the beat. This is an example where scholars may disagree with each other. In the end it's a matter of interpretation: do you want it to sound more playful or more espressivo?

3. Very fast note before the beat.

[louispodesta]

I hate to burst everybody's bubble here, but it certainly would not be the first time I weighed in, accordingly.

Therefore:   Supposedly, appogiaturas and accaciaturas are embellishments/ornamentations which are rendered to a specific piece.  Historically, this emanated from a vocal heritage which was incorporated by pre-baroque composers into keyboard and orchestral music.

So, if you study a so-called Urtext score (the "Autograph" of the original composer), you, in my opinion, have been told less than the actual truth by the publisher of said score.  Every applied musicologist knows that the common custom at the time was to allow the performer to lend there own voice to a particular work, regardless of the score.

Here it comes:  With this logic in mind, there is no difference, per a particular score (in terms of original performance practice), between an appogiatura or an accaciatura.

If your ear tells you to turn a particular figure into sixteenth notes, or to play it on or off the beat, it has nothing to do with what your supposedly genuine Urtext score stipulates.

[gustaaavo]

Louis, what you wrote is certainly true for baroque composers. On the other hand, it certainly isn't true for Beethoven. Now, I'm not sure where Haydn would fit here but i'd bet it's more towards Beethoven's side (i.e. don't you dare to improvise upon the score...).

[michael_c]

So, if you study a so-called Urtext score (the "Autograph" of the original composer), you, in my opinion, have been told less than the actual truth by the publisher of said score.

An Urtext edition strives to reproduce, as exactly as possible, what the composer actually wrote. Of course the bare bones of the notation are not enough: the musician also needs a thorough knowledge of the stylistic conventions of the epoch. It is clear that the edition itself cannot provide a complete study of these conventions, but most Urtext editions will at least give indications as to how (in the editor's opinion) certain grace notes and other ornaments should best be played, either simply as footnotes, or better in a detailed critical commentary.

Every applied musicologist knows that the common custom at the time was to allow the performer to lend there own voice to a particular work, regardless of the score.

At what time? If we are talking about Haydn, things had already changed since the 17th century and were continuing to change. At this time composers such as Haydn and Mozart, frustrated with performers who added "tasteless" ornamentation, strived more and more to indicate precisely what they wanted in their scores.

A study of Haydn's notation will show that he tended to follow the advice given in C. P. E. Bach's treatise: to give the performer more information by writing a grace note with the intended length, not simply writing every grace note as an eighth note. This takes care of most of the long grace notes, but Haydn did not have a notational convention for writing an acciaccatura. As I already said above, the habit of indicating the "unchangeable short grace note", now known as acciaccatura, by an eighth note with a slash through its tail, started in the 19th century. Deciding where such a short grace note is appropriate in Haydn's music is indeed a matter of taste, but the texts of C. P.. E. Bach and L. Mozart offer some very useful pointers as to when or when not to play a very short grace note.

[louispodesta]

Thank you for your post, however, there is not, absent HRH Roy Howat, any current applied musicologist who gives any credence to the Urtext philosophy.

Robert Weiner of UCLA uses the term "bogus Urtext."  The late Earl Wild quotes Jorge Bolet using the term:  "Urtext mob."

Therefore, as previously stated, performance ornamentation/embellishment at this time was Bel Canto in nature.  So, when someone writes a cites a suggested rendering it is nothing more than a suggestion, whenever or whoever wrote it.

[Derek]

Thanks for the replies. I actually do own a copy of CPE Bach's Essay. That's where I got the notion of an appogiatura taking up approximately half of the value of the note it is applied to. Maybe I'll re-read the chapter on ornaments and see if I can glean any more from it. Of course I treat these things as suggestions, but I'm much more dilligent than I used to be and want to understand as much as I can. Thanks again.

[michael_c]

Thanks for the replies. I actually do own a copy of CPE Bach's Essay. That's where I got the notion of an appogiatura taking up approximately half of the value of the note it is applied to.

Bach doesn't use the terms appogiatura and acciaccatura. For him, they are all Vorschläge, notated in the same manner, it being up to the performer to decide which type of Vorschlag to use. Bach speaks first of the long or variable type, which we would call appogiatura. This usually takes up half the value of a note in duple meters or two thirds of the value in triple meters. He then talks of the short, invariable type, known to us as acciaccatura, giving examples where he considers this type of ornament to be appropriate.

But don't stop at Bach: read some others as well (Mozart, Quantz...). See where they agree and where they don't (notably about whether to play the short Vorschlag on or before the beat).

[hardy_practice]

A study of Haydn's notation will show that he tended to follow the advice given in C. P. E. Bach's treatise:

More than that - he sites CPE as his only teacher (the treatise that is). 

Haydn called it “the school of schools.”  https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carl-Philipp-Emanuel-Bach