It was a rainy day in early 2012, in Sion, south-west Switzerland. Few months had passed since my forced decision of abandoning my studies there with my cello teacher, Prof. Marcio Carneiro, shortly after completing my Bachelor of Music path. The Euro currency had dramatically fallen, and my parents had decided not to economically support my studies there any further, even if they certainly could have. I started to work as a cello and music theory teacher, and thanks to that I could afford trips every six months or so to keep having lessons with my professor.
On that evening, after the class, we went, just me and him, ”Chez Nando”, the colloquial way we had called the “Don Carlos” restaurant ever since I had first gone there. He had his ”petite salade melée” with ”spaghetti bolognese”, and I had my ”pizza tunisienne”. We talked at length about his first years as a young cellist in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and to how best organise a beginner cellist’s training. Sure, he was practicing about two hours per day already at 5 years of age, making him not the proper comparison with any of my students, yet the path was clear. He suggested that I use the solo studies by Dotzauer, one by one, not skipping even a single one, making my students practice them even a single line at a time if necessary. He told me stories of how his teacher, a wonderfully skilled woman who was also Antonio Meneses’ teacher, listened to him playing one study and, very often, took the pencil, circled the exercise number, and wrote: “Again!”
This was his message: practice something, no matter how easy, until it is absolutely perfect, until you feel that your teacher will not be able to say anything about it. Of course the teacher will always have something to say to make you improve, but only if you push your limits up to the boundary every day you can obtain real progress.
In my cellist’ youth, I had certainly practiced many of those studies, yet I was far from being able to put the “done” checkmark next to all of them. It was therefore my resolve to bring myself to practice all of them, bringing each one of them to concert level, possibly even by heart. It was a very long trip, but I eventually manage to do that a couple of years ago, and I cannot wait to be able to share all what I have learned in this magical, almost mystical trip. I learned to love Dotzauer’s music, his approach to teaching technique, and, most of all, his writing coherence.
My first edition dedicated to Dotzauer came out in 2019, and it was a book which used the scales found in the first volume of the Cello Tutor alongside my personal comments and instructions. Prof. Carneiro was crucial in helping me complete this edition, and it was an incredible experience to listen to him talking about basic technique, utterly destroying some pillars I had learned as a little one, and replacing them with much more solid ones.
As I have outlined in my March 2022 newsletter, the last two and a half years have been entirely devoted to researching material about Dotzauer, including reliable news on his life, works, and creations. Most of his works are scattered among German and Austrian libraries, with a few of them being stored in Israel, France, and Italy. Getting a scan of those works was not always easy and, most of all, it was not cheap. Most libraries demanded up to 3 EUR per page, which obliged me to carefully decide beforehand what I wanted to work on. The most disappointing—almost embarrassing—experience was with the Dresden Music Library as they put into the contract that all copies I requested, and paid for, would also be put online for free on their website for everyone to see and download, something that I did not like at all. Of course, those scores ended up on IMSLP a few days after I paid for them, and I sincerely hope they will take out that line from the contract. I am all for scores going on to IMSLP and being freely available to everyone, but only if the one who uploaded them decided on their own to do so, not if one paid for a private copy of a work which ended up on a public domain exchange website. Other libraries were incredibly helpful or, to put it better, their personnel was, as when they heard I could not afford the hefty price they demanded, they offered to scan it with their own mobile phone without involving the scanning department. This is what I call collaboration and openness of mind!
The next step was to make a catalogue of all Dotzauer’s pieces alongside a list of links on where they could be found, and whether I had them already in my collection. Two and a half years onward, and I can count 113 different works by Dotzauer in my collection, ready to be typeset, engraved, and published as modern critical editions! 113 … where have I already seen that number? Easter egg incoming?!
Finally, I could have started my publishing journey by making a cleaned up and modern edition of the solo cello studies (which will absolutely come, just not as first priority), yet that didn’t sound as a good choice. There are already so many editions of these studies that I would risk putting out a lot of work for a good chance of being entirely ignored (and with reason!). I decided, instead, to start from cello duets, and specifically those strictly pedagogical, as I think cello needs more well laid-out editions to be used in the classroom with pupil and teacher, as in the good old times.
The Twelve Pieces, Op. 58
Why Op. 58?
Why did I decide to publish Op. 58 first, when the oldest edition in this regard is Op. 52? I will try to explain, but if you fear getting lost, just skip ahead a few paragraphs!
I am currently half-way through copying all of Dotzauer’s more than 350 pedagogical duets, but before starting with the copying process, I needed to classify them. Furthermore, I created a Numbers spreadsheet (which I will gladly share when this project is complete) and set out to classify all his pieces following specific categories:
- It all started by looking at what duets included in Klingenberg’s collection labelled Cello Tutor could be found. Almost all of them found a home, while three of them are missing, and I have not (yet) found them in Romberg, Duport, and Gross’s works, but I am pretty sure they are not by Klingenberg’s hand.
- The first column after this is “Opus/ex.number”, where I classify them according to where I found them. Using a computer to classify stuff obliges you to think like a computer, which means putting a
0in front of two-digit numbers if you want them to appear before three-digit ones. For example, to have Op. 58 appear before Op. 126 I had to write
- Next comes Key signature: there appears to be a clear pattern in the way Dotzauer organised his duets; it also seems he was fascinated by J. S. Bach masterpiece, The Well-Tempered Keyboard, as he seems to have followed a similar order. This kind of classification let me leverage the powerful filters inside Numbers, should I have ever needed to find a duet in a specific key. Dotzauer order is almost always starting with C major and A minor, then onwards until 6 sharps are reached (F-sharp major and D-sharp minor), then from 1 flat (F major and D minor) to 5 flats (D-flat major and B-flat minor). This leaves out G-flat major, E-flat minor, C-sharp major, and A-sharp minor, though occasionally, they appear. There is one exercise at the end of the second book of the Cello Tutor, where Klingenberg decided to have a piece originally written in D-sharp minor spelled out as E-flat minor. It kind of doesn’t change the whole picture, but I wonder why he preferred going in this direction. The most important thing here, though, is that Dotzauer uses all key signatures in his duets, no one is spared!
- In the next column would come the Time Signature: in his 350 duets, Dotzauer uses a total of eleven different time signatures. Letting aside the six basic ones (2/4, 3/4, 4/4, and 6/8, 9/8, 12/8) we encounter: 2/2, 3/2, 3/8, 6/4, and 5/4 (this last one is very peculiar in music of this time, and it makes me think of Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 6, Second Movement). There is only one duet in 5/4, yet it is worth a special mention for sure.
- Now the most important column, which has governed the general ordering, that is the Hardest Position Used: to create a well-organised collection of duets, they need to be ordered in crescent difficulty, something that the composer couldn’t always do. This means that, while I am first publishing the Urtext versions, I will in the end create collections of duets grouped by left-hand positions, so that teachers will be able to choose only what they need. They will contain preparatory exercises and suggested improvements over the original material, when deemed necessary. From the analysis of Dotzauer’s works a clear pattern emerges, and one that, I hope, will correct what the Suzuki method has attempted to destroy simply because it followed the violin books. Start from the first position, study its variations (extended forward, extended backwards), then immediately go to the fourth position. Why so? Because it allows to play two-octaves scales in many keys, while the second and third positions are much harder to master for little ones. After this, proceed with the third position, and only then with the second position. This last position contains almost ninety (90!) duets using all the first four positions! An incredible richness of material for the classroom!
- The last category covers the smallest rhythm used. This is a bit controversial because it is not automatic that a piece with shorter notes will be harder to play than one with longer notes. Nevertheless, at least 32nd notes are introduced quite later to students, so it made sense to have pieces with longer rhythms to come before shorter ones. When my personalised editions will come out, however, this last parameter will mostly be ignored in favour of a more absolute analysis of how hard a piece is, compared to the previous and to the following one.
At this point, I set the sorting parameters as I wanted them to appear, and started to copy the material into separate Sibelius documents. It simply happened that the first collection to have all its pieces copied was op. 58, so there you have it, the quite-too-long explanation of why I started there.
As stated in the introduction to my edition of Op. 58, the concept of “dedicated to beginners” is quite peculiar, in my honest opinion. Granted, none of these pieces go beyond the fourth position, but if I had to define which of these duets could be appropriate for beginners (which, I think, are those who have been practicing the instrument for 1-3 years), these would be my advices:
- No. 1: the theme and the first two variations are quite accessible, but if the goal of a “theme and variation” piece is to be played with the same tactus from beginning to end, then Variation 3 is quite harder. Variation 4 is practically all in double stops, so it could prove quite a challenge. It reminds me of the 15 Studies Op. 76a by David Popper, which are all but easy to my eyes.
- No. 2: this is a fugue and, if taken slow (or moderately) enough, it is approachable, even if its counterpoint nature makes going together quite a challenge from a beginner’s perspective.
- No. 3: this should be tackled later, as the second part mixes 32-notes with quite uncomfortable double-stops, not really what a beginner could have mastered by the 3rd year of studies, or at least not at this level.
- No. 4: this theme and variations is perfectly fine for a beginner, but when you get to Variation 4 you must make a choice: either slow it down or slow down everything to the point where coherence is recovered. Some articulations in this fourth variations are pretty nasty for the left hand and are better practiced very slowly to begin with. It is marked Allegretto and I suggest a goal speed of around 92 bpm.
- No. 5: this one is finally perfectly suitable for beginner (1 out of 5 so far!). It is not without its challenges, but it is absolutely doable.
- No. 6: this Scherzo with Trio could be tackled after No. 5. The first part only has one double stop episode and, if not rushed, can prove a nice material for progressing one’s technique. The Trio is in the uncomfortable key of E major, and it either demands the student to already be comfortable with the extended fourth position, or it requires the teacher to spend a considerable amount of time practicing the relaxed position of the raised left arm and of the left thumb. Still, I would mark this as 2 out of 6!
- No. 7: it looks like we are improving. This cute dance in 6/8 time is perfectly suitable for a beginner, with only the second part needing some care with left-hand articulation. If a proper speed is chosen, let’s say around 50 to 55 bpm (that 150 to 165 to the 8th note), the student will have no problem practicing, and later performing this one. 3 out of 7!
- No. 8: this theme and variation is for beginners as much as an 8th-grader is a graduated nuclear scientist. Thank goodness it is marked as Andante, yet I would not go above 8th-note = 80 bpm. The reason for this becomes clear very soon when Variation 1 attacks with 16th-notes, Variation 2 goes even further with 32nd-notes, and Variation 3 completes the marathon with 16th-note triplets. Once all the material has been thoroughly practiced, we could raise overall speed to 4er-note = 60 bpm, yet not an inch further!
- No. 9: we gladly get back into friendly territory, with a first part focused on a single bow stroke, and a second, more lyrical part. 4 out of 9!
- No. 10: the first part of this Andantino in A major is a good exercise for cantabile playing; the second part introduces some double stops, but I think that, at this point, the student may be comfortable enough to try them out. One could always separate the two voices during practice, and then collate them together at a later stage. 5 out of 10 (with reserve)!
- No. 11: this is the most difficult piece of the collection, with the last variation being fiendishly difficult, not only for beginners! It certainly makes a great show in the concert hall, but the player needs to be a young virtuoso to be able to make it shine. The theme is not hard at all, as it is the same in the other theme and variation pieces before, and could very well be played alone. Variation 1 is all in 16th-note triplets, with many awkward bowings that require careful and patience practicing. Variation 2 is an accompaniment line, not too hard compared to the other two, while Variation 3, almost entirely in 32nd-notes, is the climax of the collection. It is indeed a beautiful piece, but it is very long and tiring for the left hand. If a student wants to tackle this, they need to do so with the utmost patience, and calmness. I would suggest a goal speed of 4er-note = 60-69 maximum.
- No. 12: this Romanze concludes the collection and is a nice piece to practice one’s sonority and to take one’s first careful steps in the world of vibrato. With this, we are at 6 out of 10!
At this point, I am going to recommend my ideal practicing order: 5-6-7-9-10-12-2-1-3-4-8-11. Your mileage may vary, but following this order will ensure that the pupil’s technique is not shocked by what it finds before.
To conclude this section, the only aspect of these pieces that may make them “for beginners” is that they never use tenor clef, not even once. This may reflect a point of view of the time, but a more profound research would be needed in this field.
Why is this edition important?
The edition used as source bears plate number 5290 from the German (then Saxon) publisher Breitkopf und Härtel, the oldest continuously operating music publisher in the world, with a nearly 400-year history. B&H’s plate number style usually follows a chronological order so, while I didn’t find the exact correspondence in their list, numbers around it suggest a publication in either 1831 or 1832. This is interesting as Dotzauer’s Op. 63 Pieces for two cellos, bearing plate number 3581, were already published in 1822. I have not found a proper manuscript of Op. 58, so the first edition has become the nearest source available; should I find it, I will thoroughly check it for inconsistencies and issue an update to my current edition.
A modern edition created after Dotzauer’s death was published by Henry Litolff’s Verlag around 1890 (once more, looking at previous and following plate and collection numbers). This was a collection of 57 little duets for two cellos by Dotzauer, curated by the omnipresent Johannes Klingenberg (1852–1905) (original title: 57 kleine Duette (Petits Duos – Little Duets) für 2 Violoncelli von J. J. F. Dotzauer. Op. 52, 58, 63, 156, 159). This collection is divided into two books (1-28 and 29-57), and all the Op. 58 pieces can be found in it, though with a surprising order: 4-5-7-1-8-9-2-12-11-3-6-10, respectively in position 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 23, 25, 27, 28, 35, 37, and 38. It is certainly surprising to see n° 4 open the dances, when I would put it as third to last in the series.
We will now look at what Klingenberg has changed in the roughly 60 years spanned between the first appearance of the pieces and this new adaptation.
The Theme from “God Save the King” is gladly left untouched, safe for the F (forte) suggestion at the beginning, seven bow division suggestions, and nine extra fingering suggestions, none of which alters the original intent, all the while being unnecessary. In his production, Dotzauer (D) wrote dynamics, but certainly, he did not overuse them. In the original D uses Arab numerals to indicate variation numbers, while Klingenberg (K) changes it to Roman numerals: the result is the same, but is this only fashion?
Variation 1 adds three dynamic markings (piano in bar 15, crescendo in b. 21, and forte in b. 25) not present in the original, twelve bow division suggestions, and a tenuto mark on the last note.
Variation 2 adds staccato dots on every single note not covered by a slur, an upbow marking on the first note, a tenuto dash on the last note (again), a bow division marking (middle) and a “forte marcato” dynamic at the beginning. Does any of these provide extra useful information for the final user? I believe not, as it is far too easy to play too harsh just because the eye saw a staccato dot, that it is better to leave detached notes alone.
Variation 3 continues with the practice of adding staccato dots on every single detached notes. It is still valid the notion that, if you add something everywhere, it is the same as not adding it at all. Dynamic-wise, we have a piano in b. 43, a crescendo hairpin in b. 48, a forte in b. 49, a diminuendo in b. 53, a piano with sudden crescendo in the last bar. All these suggestions are perfectly valid, yet they are extremely personal and run the risk of making the end user think this is the proper way D wanted this to be played. We will never know the truth, but a lack of markings—beside being normal at the start of the XIX century—leaves a lot more freedom to the user. K suggests this variation to be mostly played in the upper half and final third of the bow, which I mildly disagree with. Once more, the tenuto on the last note with a “full-bow” similar to a “full-whack!” marking is omnipresent. Luckily, no extra fingering is added.
Variation 4 adds plenty of fingerings when D marked none of them (maybe because they are all obvious and in first position?). Furthermore, a forte in the first bar, a “forte sempre” in b. 64, and a “pesante” on the last two notes of b. 69 are sincerely unnecessary.
Only a “forte” is added at the start of the Theme.
Variation 1 sees more edit: “piano” in b. 15, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 21, “forte” in b. 25. Finger
3 replaces finger
1 in the third note of b. 18.
Variation 2 only has a “forte” under the first note, otherwise is unchanged.
Variation 3: the last two notes of bb. 47 & 55 have an extra staccato dot and an encompassing slur. Extra dynamics: “piano” in the beginning, “forte” in b. 49, “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 54, “piano” under last note. K opts for second position for the last three notes of b. 53, while D stays in first position.
Variation 4: few edits here, but relevant. Upper third position is chosen for b. 60. Forced down-bow in b. 61, staccato dots and slur over the last two notes of b. 69, with the addition of a “pesante” marking below (!). Dynamic is “forte” and “forte sempre” here.
D writes “forte” at the start, yet he neither writes “forte marcato” at the beginning of the Allegro, nor suggests the upper half of the bow for the first two notes. In the initial Largo, K adds staccato dots and ties together the quarter notes, and adds a breath mark before the Allegro. Plenty of extra fingerings dot the first 15 bars of the piece, some good, other less so, and changes the
1 by D on the first note of b. 16 with a
2 on the C-natural in b. 19 is replaced by a
1 (understandable but, still, personal). Above b. 25 he adds a rehearsal mark through the letter A, a letter B above b. 41, and a letter C above b. 70. In b. 51 I have recommended an upbow on the last note, but K goes way beyond, adding a tenuto mark on the second to last note, a staccato dot on the last note, and a slur between them. The following bar has a “poco rall.” suggestion as well, accompanied by an “a tempo” in b. 54 which are not present in the original. The last bar has an added fermata above, while b. 80 has a “pesante” marking and three accents on the second to fourth notes. Plenty of fingerings are added throughout the piece, which may be followed at your discretion, yet they are not necessary.
The Largo gets the same treatment, with staccato dots and slurs on quarter notes. B. 26 has a forced down-bow on the last note, and adds two staccato dots and a slur over b. 29 to compensate. I have opted to insist for a natural up-bow in b. 26. In b. 34 I suggested a retake over the E-flat, while K adds a slur and two staccato dots over notes 2-3, with the same being added to the last two notes of b. 36. Dynamics are the same as in the first cello.
Fingerings get a few changes: in b. 19 K opts for third position, with a
4-1-2 sequence on the first three notes. B. 28, last note, has a
3 (upper third position) instead of a
1 (half position). Finally, in b. 77, K uses a
4 for the low E instead of a
3 (he will change the position afterwards, so this is expected).
For once, both D & K agree on staccato dots with slur on the first two notes. Klingenberg adds “piano” to the written “dolce” (though, how often have you encountered a “forte dolce”? In this kind of music? Never!) and a recommendation to use the whole bow, which, I think, could be corrected to use 2/3 of it, but let’s not enter this kind of technicalities. The second part sees a “piano crescendo” in b. 8b, a “mezzoforte” under the F in b. 12, a “diminuendo” in b. 15, and a “piano” in b. 16a being added from the original. D states the “forte” dynamic for the G minor part, but no staccato dot can be found in his version, while K punctuates every single detached note. D’s general lack of bowing suggestions made me add some in brackets, which are the same as K added to make this second part have sense.
K substitutes “dolce” with “piano” at start. He adds staccato dots in b. 8a & b. 16a. Slur in b. 12 is changed from 4+4 to 5+3. His bowing for the second part do not work, exactly as D’s one do not, I have suggested how to work around this. Every detached note is marked with a staccato dot. Extra dynamics reflect the first cello’s ones.
D write staccato dots on the first four Gs of the piece, but not on b. 3 & 11. You can guess alone what K did. No less than fourteen bow division suggestion dot the Theme in K’s version, alongside a “piano” in b. 1, a “crescendo-diminuendo” in bb. 5-6, a “pianissimo” in b. 7, a “piano crescendo” in bb. 9-10, and a diminuendo in bb. 11-12.
Variation 1: if you expected K’s version to have staccato dots, you would now be disappointed. He simply added one on the last note of the variation (why?!) and plenty of dynamics once more, which mirror the ones found in the theme, so I will spare you.
Variation 2 adds staccato dots on every detached 8th note in bb. 25-28, in b. 33 (first note), b. 34 (fifth note), and b. 35 (first and sixth note). Extra dynamics abound: b. 25 “piano crescendo-diminuendo”, b. 26 “pianissimo”, b. 27 “crescendo”, b. 29 “mezzoforte diminuendo”, b. 30 “piano crescendo-diminuendo”, b. 33 “crescendo-diminuendo”, b. 34 “diminuendo (in words), and a “pianissimo” on the last note.
Variation 3 adds a staccato dot on the last note of the first part and on the last note of the second part as well. The whole first part is stated in “mezzoforte”, while the second has: “crescendo-diminuendo” in bb. 41 & 42, “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 43, “piano” in b. 45, “crescendo” in b. 46, “mezzoforte” in b. 47, “crescendo to forte” in b. 48. In bb. 43-4, I have interpreted the two long accents on the top notes as, well, accents, while K wrote two short diminuendo hairpins. You may use either of them, yet from the music it was obvious to me.
Variation 4: both D & K write staccato dots on the detached 16th-notes of the first part, with K continuing for the entire variation, which, I agree, is what any modern editor would have done. The first part is given in “forte” dynamic, while the second is more turbulent: “crescendo-diminuendo” in bb. 53-4, “piano” in b. 55, “crescendo” in b. 58, and “forte” in b. 59. In the second ending of the second part, K adds a slur on the last two 16ths and a “poco rall.” suggestion.
The Theme shows added dynamics: “piano” in b. 1, “crescendo-diminuendo” in bb. 5-6, “pianissimo” in b. 7, “piano” in b. 9, “crescendo” in bb. 9-10, and “diminuendo” in bb. 11-12.
Variation 1: plenty of changes here as well, including dynamics that mirror the theme. Changed fingerings: b. 13, note 4,
2 instead of
4, b. 14, note 4,
3 instead of
4. Added staccato dots and slur over last two notes of b. 18.
Variation 2: every detached note apart from the last one gets a staccato dot, the appoggiatura in b. 32 is written out in full and plenty of extra dynamics are added. “piano messa di voce” in b. 25, “pianissimo” in b. 26, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 27, “mezzoforte diminuendo” in b. 29, “piano messa di voce” in b. 30, “crescendo-diminuendo” in b. 33, “diminuendo (in words) in b. 34, and “pianissimo” on the last note.
Variation 3: K adds staccato dots and slur over the last two notes of b. 39 & 47, while I suggested taking the second C of that bar up-bow. Extra dynamics: “mezzoforte” in b. 37, “messa di voce” in bb. 41 & 42, “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 43, “piano” in b. 45, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 46, and “mezzoforte” in b. 47.
Variation 4: only dynamics were added here, “forte” in b. 49, “crescendo-diminuendo” in b. 53-4, “piano” in b. 55, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 58, “forte” in b. 59. A “poco rall.” has been added in the last bar.
This first part has plenty of original fingerings from K’s hands, alongside quite a few extra dynamics: “piano dolce & crescendo” in b. 1, “diminuendo” in b. 2, “crescendo-diminuendo” in bb. 5-6, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 9, “mezzoforte” in b. 13 followed by a four-bar diminuendo. The second part writes out the appoggiatura in b. 18, no wonder why modern students have no idea how to read them if all editors take them out. Now, drumrolls, K doesn’t include the staccato dot on the first note of b. 23, yet he makes up for it by adding three tenuto marks in b. 27. Dynamic-wise we have: “piano” in b. 17, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 21, “mezzoforte” in b. 23, a “diminuendo” in b. 24a and a “crescendo” in b. 24b. B. 25 starts out with “forte” and only a “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 31 can bring us back to the initial “piano”. Once more, I am uncertain if I would follow all K’s fingerings, as they somehow alter the character of the piece in many places. Fingerings by D changed by K include only a
4 instead of
2 on the C in b. 26.
Luckily, just a few changes/additions: staccato dots added on first note of b. 24b, and on first note of b. 32a. Dynamics abound: “p dolce” in b. 2, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 10, “mezzoforte” in b. 13, “diminuendo” in bb. 13-16; “piano” in b. 17, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 21, “mezzoforte” in b. 23, “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 24a, “crescendo” in b. 24b, “forte in b. 25, “diminuendo” in b. 31, “crescendo” in b. 32a, and “diminuendo” in b. 32b. Added fingerings are all K’s doing.
As stated in my Editorial Notes for the new edition, K adds an Allegro for the Scherzo and a Più tranquillo for the Trio, which is, once more, fine, if we take it as a personal addition. As this piece is quite longer than the others, let’s face it, one layer at a time:
- Dynamics: in the Scherzo the initial “forte” is shared, a “diminuendo & piano” are added to the “dolce” of b. 17; a “crescendo” is added in the last note of b. 20. In the Trio D writes nothing at all, while K adds: a “crescendo (in words)” in b. 40, a “mezzoforte & crescendo” in bb. 44-5, a “forte” on the third beat of b. 48, two accents on the top C-naturals of bb. 51 & 55 and on the top G-naturals of bb. 72 & 74, a “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 75, a “piano” in b. 78 third beat, a “crescendo (in words)” in b. 86, a “mezzoforte” in b. 90, a “forte” in b. 94, a “diminuendo” in b. 96, and a “piano” under the last note. Quite many additions, right?
- Articulations: in the Scherzo, every detached 8th & 16th note gets a staccato dot, while D only adds one on the fourth note of b. 19. In the Trio D writes more, so I will highlight only the differences: b. 47, staccato dot on last note, bb. 64 & 66, staccato dots; K doesn’t suggest a bow reprise in b. 48 & 78 as I did, while he adds a down-bow on the second note of b. 73 & 94. Both are fine and, in any case, none was D’s doing.
- Fingerings: in the Scherzo, K proposes the fourth position for bb. 5-7 and bb. 25-6. In the Trio, K adds numerous personal suggestions but really goes against D only in b. 70-1, where he recommends the third position for the B and D-sharp.
K also adds three rehearsal marks: letter A in b. 17, letter B in b. 45, and letter C in b. 75.
Almost every detached note in both Scherzo and Trio are plagued with staccato dots. In b. 28, K suggests fourth position instead of first. In the Trio K adds quite a few accents: b. 51, 55, 72, 74 (always on the first note).
When compiling this collection, I practiced all these pieces on the cello and, while this one was quite “messy” regarding bowing suggestions, it didn’t require the heavy editing K tortured it with. So far, this seems the most distant one from the original. Let’s divide it again into categories, lest we get lost.
- Dynamics: nothing apart from the initial “dolce” by D, so anything by K is extra. “Piano crescendo” in b. 9, “forte” in b. 13, “diminuendo” in b. 15, ending this part in “piano”. The second part starts “forte”, with a “diminuendo & piano” in b. 20, a “crescendo (in words)” in b. 23, a “forte” in b. 25, a “diminuendo” in b. 27, a “piano” under the upbeat to b. 29, and a “crescendo-diminuendo” in b. 30.
- Articulations: here we have a true mess, as already in b. 1 K slurs together the first two Bs, adding a tenuto dash on the first one and a staccato dot on the second one. Additionally, he slurs notes 4 to 6. Same treatment for b. 3. Each couple of notes in bb. 9 & 11 gets a tenuto dash, a staccato dot, and a slur. The last two notes of b. 13 & 14 get a slur and a staccato dot on the B. The first 16th note of each group of six in b. 17, 18, 21, and 22 gets a free accent, while b. 18’s last two notes get an extra tenuto dash and staccato dot (same for b. 25 & 27). The last three notes of b. 24 get an extra slur, all b. 26 & 28 are flooded with staccato dots and, horror, b. 30’s big slur is divided into two.
- Fingerings: D wrote seven fingerings in total, yet K, with his abundance, manages to change the ones in b. 31 for something quite worse (
2on B becomes a
3and an upper third position takes the place of the half position).
I suggest teachers to find their personal solutions for this piece only when they see that what Dotzauer wrote is not good for their students’ needs.
The same heavy make-up treatment is given to the second cello, where all 4er-note plus 8th-note group has been marked with a tenuto dash, a staccato dot, and a slur. The last two notes of b. 12 get a slur and an extra staccato dot, a dot being also donated to the first note of b. 23.
Dynamics are similar to the first cello, with just the addition of a “messa di voce” in b. 30.
In the Theme we see the usual abundance in extra staccato dots, plus a tenuto dash on the first notes of bb. 4, 5, and 7. K also writes “piano” in the beginning.
Variation 1: for the first two notes, we already have a big change, where K decides to remove the original slur. We can understand this change when looking at the upbeat of b. 21, yet the original is very clear here. Other than that, in this first part we only have a “piano” dynamic with a “pianissimo” suggested for the repetition. The second part starts with a “mezzoforte”, a “crescendo-diminuendo” in b. 18, a “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 19, and a “piano” under the upbeat to b. 21.
Variation 2: all the signs that I have interpreted as accents were marked as local small diminuendos by K, a certainly possible solution. K makes the choice of adding staccato dots on every 16th note, plus abundant dynamics as always: “forte” in the beginning, with a “seconda volta piano” recommendation, a “forte” in b. 29, a sudden “piano” in b. 31, a “crescendo (in words)” in b. 33, and a final “forte” in b. 35.
Variation 3: the only notable change here is the choice of finger
1 instead of finger
2 for the third-to last note of b. 42. Extra dynamics: “piano (seconda volta pianissimo)” at the start, “crescendo poco a poco” for bb. 41-4, and “forte” for the rest.
The Theme only has an extra “piano” in the beginning, and staccato dots added to bb. 1-2 & 9-10.
Variation 1 only has extra dynamics: “piano (seconda volta pianissimo)” at start, “mezzoforte” in b. 17, “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 19, “piano” in b. 21.
Variation 2 gets the same treatment: “forte (seconda volta piano)” at start, “forte” in b. 29, “piano” in b. 31, “crescendo (in words)2 in b. 33, and “forte” in b. 36.
Same story for Variation 3: “piano (seconda volta pianissimo)” at start, “crescendo poco a poco” in bb. 41-44, “forte” in b. 45.
In this piece D uses an abbreviated notation when there are three consecutive equally pitched 8th-notes in the same beat, with K writes them out in full, possibly to profit from adding staccato dots on all of them! The only true difference is in the last part where he lengthens the slur in b. 59 so that b. 61 is taken down-bow, plus staccato dots in b. 60. Assuming this could have been intentional from D’s part, I have set b. 49 to start up-bow, and its reprice (61) to come down-bow.
- Dynamics: “p leggiero” in b. 1, “crescendo (in words) in b. 5, “forte” in b. 9, “diminuendo (in words) in b. 11, “piano” in b. 13, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 17, “forte” in b. 25, “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 33, “piano” in b. 37, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 41, “forte” in b. 48. The second part has “forte” in the beginning, “piano” in b. 61, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 65, “forte” in b. 71. D has nothing throughout.
- Fingerings: K adds plenty of fingerings, gladly none of them contradicts what D stated.
In b. 13 K suggests upbow, which would come naturally, while D states nothing. I am not too fond, nor have found in the repertoire, any example of this bowing sequence (three slurred, three detached) starting upbow, and thus I have proposed a bow retake. He, instead, suggests a retake in b. 49, which I have not. You are free to choose what seems best for your playing style.
K adds two rehearsal marks: letter A at b. 13, and letter B at b. 25.
- Articulations: staccato dots added in b. 12, 24, and 59.
- Dynamics: “piano” at start, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 5, “forte” in b. 9, “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 11, “piano” in b. 13, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 17, “forte” in b. 25, “diminuendo (in words) in b. 33, “piano” in b. 37, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 42, “forte” in b. 48. The second part starts with a “forte”, a sudden “piano” is added in b. 61, a “crescendo (in words)” in b. 65, and a “forte” in b. 71.
Quite a few notable changes here:
- Articulations: in bb. 2 & 4 K decided to slur the whole bar together, while D slurred the first half only. Appoggiaturas are written out in full, which I vote against. In the second part, b. 30, I have suggested continuing up-bow in the last beat, as the first edition clearly showed b. 32 as being all slurred together. K takes a different approach, which I cannot say to be bad: last beat of b. 30 down-bow, and b. 32 slurred 1+3 quarter notes. The final result is the same at b. 33, but it is worth trying both proposed solutions.
- Dynamics: “piano” added at the start, “messa di voce” under first note of b. 3, “crescendo-diminuendo” in b. 7, “piano crescendo (in words)” in b. 9, “forte diminuendo (in words)” in b. 13, “piano” in second half of b. 15. D wrote all the necessary dynamics for the second part, and K dutifully complied, adding only a “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 37.
- Fingerings: in the first part, K changes the last note of b. 13 to bear a
1instead of a
2(which just delays the position change by one note—I prefer D’s solution—). No change in the second part.
There is a single letter A rehearsal mark added in b. 25.
K slurs together all b. 4, adds “crescendo-diminuendo” in b. 6, a “piano crescendo” in b. 9, a “forte diminuendo” in b. 13, a “piano” in the second half of b. 15. Extra staccato dots are added on every detached 8th-note of the second part, the last two beats of b. 20 & 36 are unslurred. A single changed fingerings: b. 16, note 2, finger
2 instead of
Let’s analyse one part at a time, as this is a long one.
In the Theme K decided to change the appoggiaturas in bb. 2, 6, 18, and 22 into acciaccaturas. These are radically different musically, and I strongly disagree with this change. Luckily, not too much more damage has been done to this text. Dynamic is set to “piano” throughout, with “crescendo-diminuendo” in bb. 1-2, 5-6, 17-18, and 21-22. Original fingerings are respected.
Variation 1: notation-wise, K changes the beaming to connect the triplets by beat (2+2), whereas I have followed the original. Both work, yet the original is easier to read in my opinion. D write many staccato dots, yet not on every detached notes, whereas K adds them mercilessly. Dynamics added by K: “piano” in the beginning, “crescendo to mezzoforte” in b. 28, “piano” in the middle of b. 34, “crescendo (in words) in the middle of b. 44, “mezzoforte diminuendo” in b. 46, and “piano” on the last note. Original fingerings are respected.
Variation 2: most of the changes here are regarding articulations, as staccato dots are added everywhere a detached 16th-note can be found. Dynamics are set to “piano” at start, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 56, “forte” in b. 60, “diminuendo (in words)” from the second half of b. 62, and “piano” from b. 65.
Variation 3: this is possibly the most beautiful, funny, and difficult piece of the collection. K adds staccato dots to every detached 16th-note, which, I believe, is a wrong call. D wrote staccato dots on every detached 32nd-note already and, I believe, purposefully left those 16th-notes out. I encourage you to try this out by yourself, both with and without staccato dots, the effect will be wholly different. Dynamics are, of course, added beyond the initial “forte” suggested by D: a “piano” in the upbeat to b. 77, a “crescendo (in words) in b. 82, a “forte” in b. 84. A “rall.” is added on the last three notes, not necessary in my opinion at this speed. Many extra fingerings are added, some of which are quite interesting, while the few (five!) added by D are left untouched. Two rehearsal marks are added: letter A in b. 84, and letter B in b. 92.
Theme: staccato dots and slurs are added in b. 2, 6, and in the last two notes of b. 7; added dynamics include “piano crescendo-diminuendo” in bb. 1-2, “crescendo-diminuendo” in bb. 5-6, 17-8, and 21-2.
Variation 1: I suggested an up-bow start, while K forced a down-bow, adding a slur and two staccato dots on the last two notes of b. 25. A “piano” dynamic is added in the second half of b. 34, a “crescendo (in words)” from b. 44, a “mezzoforte diminuendo” in b. 46, and a “piano” on the last note.
Variation 2: appoggiaturas are converted to acciaccaturas here as well, a true pity. Slurs and dots are added over bb. 57 & 59. For the rest we have only extra dynamics: “piano” in the beginning, “crescendo (in words)” in b. 56, “forte” in b. 60, “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 62, and “piano” under the accented C of b. 64.
Variation 3: extra staccato dots are added in the upbeat three notes, and in b. 75, 77-8, on the first note of b. 84, and in bb. 96-7. A new articulation—slur over two notes plus dot on the second one— in added in bb. 73-4. As with the first cello, he adds extra dynamics.
Lastly, we have another almost complete rewrite, as we had for No. 7. Most bars have added bowings and articulations. I will try to keep it simple:
- Articulations: every time there is a 4er-note followed by an 8th-note, K adds a tenuto dash on the 4er-note and a staccato dot on the 8th-note, then he slurs them together. In bb. 3, 13, 15, and 23 he slurs the second beat together. Looking at who K’s teacher was (Friedrich W. Grützmacher) we cannot be surprised by this kind of edits, and they certainly make sense for a certain style of playing, yet I would have preferred to get the choice. To add insult to injury, K adds the word Andante at the beginning of the piece, which is simply marked “Romanze” in the original. There is also an extra tenuto dash on the last note, and the position of the fermata in bar 20 is moved to the second part of the note.
- Dynamics: D wrote “dolce” in the beginning, and “mezzoforte” in b. 9, nothing else. K adds “piano” in the beginning, a “crescendo” in the upbeat to b. 9 (?!), another “crescendo (in words)” in b. 11, a “forte” in the upbeat to b. 13, a “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 17, a “piano” in b. 21, a “diminuendo (in words)” in b. 31, and a “pianissimo” on the last note.
- Tempo: apart from the Andante addition, there is a “poco ritard.” in b. 19, an “a tempo” in b. 21, and a “rall.” from b. 31, none of which exist in the original.
- Fingerings: in b. 7 D suggests a
1on the acciaccatura, yet K doesn’t bring it to his version. He also changes the
4on the F in b. 12 with a
Curiously, K omits the “dolce” from D and adds a “piano” in the beginning. Plenty of staccato dots are added: bb. 2-5, 21-27. The last note of the piece is slurred to the previous six but with an added tenuto dash, quite odd. Dynamics reflect those of the first cello, while fingerings bear some differences: in b. 5 & 25 K chooses the fourth position with a
4-2-3 sequence instead of D’s
2-1-1. In b. 18, K adds a harmonic to the top D, non-necessary here at all.
After this thorough analysis, I hope you can see why this edition is important, as it gives you the freedom of choice needed to deliver an informed performance to your audience, or a coherent lesson to your students.
You can find this edition at this link, and all my other editions & products here.
Thank you for reading today’s massive article.
If you have any question or suggestion, please leave a comment below or contact me using the dedicated contact form. Assuming you do not already do so, please subscribe to my newsletter on Gumroad, to receive exclusive discounts and free products.
I hope you found this article helpful, if you did, please like it and share it with your friends and peers. Don’t forget to follow me on this blog and to let me know what you think.
If you are interested in my music engraving services and publications don’t forget to visit my Facebook page and the pages where I publish my scores (Gumroad, SheetMusicPlus, ScoreExchange and on Apple Books).
You can also support me by buying Paul Hudson’s Swift programming books from this Affiliate Link or BigMountainStudio’s books from this Affiliate Link.
Thank you so much for reading!
Until the next one, this is Michele, the Music Designer.