Author: brycon
Date: 2016-02-12 23:10
Quote:
brycon- I agree that you can see the first 4 bars as harmonically static. But that doesn't give me any reason to emphasize the first bar more than the second, does it? Another aspect to think about is the ascending contour of the melody. I cannot imagine any singer not putting some emphasis on the second bar. Right now (Feb 2016) I'd be inclined to agree with Tony that it's not necessary to make any hierarchy between the first 2 bars. Maybe in 20 years I'll think differently? :-)
Well, the opening phrase of the concerto is sentential, so there's a mini-phrase beginning in m. 1 and another in m. 3. I think one of the elements of classical era phrasing is that phrase beginnings are stronger than endings (but, of course, that style of phrasing can be executed with varying degrees of nuance). Those things might lead me to emphasize m. 1 and 3 vs 2 and 4. But that phrase structure is going to happen regardless of what we as performers do, so we don't have to do anything special to highlight it. And in that regard, I like what Tony recommends.
At any rate, I find placing the emphasis on m. 2 and 4 less musically convincing. For fun, I recomposed the opening phrase a couple of ways--firstly, having the second bar as all dominant and secondly, shifting the dominant to beat 3 of the first measure resolving to a tonic on beat 1 of the second measure. Both those versions work well (harmonically speaking) with some sort of emphasis on measure 2. But, as the piece is written, I don't find any need to increase the intensity on the dominant or on the suspension, and I though the line rises, I can also imagine a singer floating the upper notes.
I would, however, love to hear you play it! I'm sure there's a lot your doing with you sound/phrasing that makes the emphasis on m. 2 work.
|
|