The Short

EMBELLISHMENT, ORNAMENTATION, IMPROVISATION 439
commentary and partly passed over in silence. Since Spohr had heard the concerto performed by its composer in 1804
and had, by his own admission, striven to perform it as much like Rode as he was able, it is tempting to believe that
Spohr's text furnishes a hint as to the manner in which Rode himself might have played it at that time; but it is
probably more representative of Spohr's own manner, and, in any case, Rode himself almost certainly varied his
performance considerably with the passage of time. In fact, another version of the concerto, edited by Spohr's pupil
Ferdinand David, includes the note: ‘The markings and ornaments are precisely those which the composer was wont
to employ in performance of this concerto, and the editor thanks his late friend Eduard Rietz, one of Rode's most
prominent pupils, for the information.’ 832 David's version is quite different from Spohr's with respect both to notes and
to bowing, though much of the fingering is similar; in so far as it approaches what Rode might have played, it
presumably represents the version of his later years, when Rietz studied with him. Spohr's and David's versions of the
first movement of the concerto are compared with the text of the original edition in Ex. 12.10. Spohr marked four
types of vibrato with different forms of wavy line, indicating fast (b.3), slow (not included in Ex. 12.10,) accelerating
(b.5), and decelerating (b.37). The following aspects of performance are indicated by notational changes or added
instructions in Spohr's and David's texts:
1. Rhythmic modifiation/agogic accent/tempo rubato. Spohr: bars 16–19, 25, 28, and 30 (Spohr's commentary (p.
185) reads: ‘The second half of the 28th and 30th bar must be so played as slightly to augment the duration of
the first notes beyond their exact value, compensating for the time thus lost, by a quicker performance of the
following notes. (This style of playing is called tempo rubato). But this acceleration of the time must be gradual,
and correspond with the decrease of power’), 31–4, 58, and 60 (Spohr's commentary (p. 187) reads: ‘In the 58th
and 60th bar, the ninth note (G natural) should be dwelt upon a little, and the lost time regained by increasing
the rapidity of the following notes’), 66, 71, 81, and 83 (Spohr's commentary (p. 189) reads: ‘The last two
quavers of the 81st and 83rd bar are to be slightly prolonged, yet so as not to occasion any marked difference in
the time’). David: bars 4,12,16,17, 31, 33, 80–2, 83–5.
2. Accent. Spohr: bars 10,11,15, 22, 26, 42, 44, 51, 66, 67, 69, 77. David: bars 14, 22, 42, 44, 60, 80–5, 90, 91.
3. Articulation. Spohr: bars 5,13, 31–4, 80, 82. David: bars 5,13, 85.
4. Embellishment (added notes). Spohr: bars 40 and 48 (‘leaping grace’), 69, 77, 92. David: bars 3, 7, 25, 50, 69, 74,
75.
5. Realization of Rode's small notes as appoggiaturas or grace-notes (where different from Rode's notation or
from each other). Appoggiaturas: Spohr: bars
832 Concert-Studien für die Violine, no. 7.