CHASE

This is a good example of David’s supplementary markings. We see that he changed his mind twice. The printed copy suggests performance in 1st position, but, apparently for the sake of string colour and portamento, David changed it to 3rd position from the upbeat to bar 5 for two notes then returned to 1st position; subsequently he rubbed out the 1st finger on 5ii, which can still be faintly seen, and indicated a harmonic, evidently to be taken with a fourth finger extension, with an o on 5iii, returning to 1st position with a 2-2 slide followed by an open A string in the next bar. The same changes (including the deleted 1) are made when the passage returns in the recapitulation.

Here and in many other places David used his blue crayon to emphasise printed markings. The frequency with which he duplicated printed fingerings and bowings in this way suggests, perhaps, that his eyesight deteriorated in later life.

This is the first of many instances where David revised his dynamic scheme. In this instance replacing an exact repetition of the phrase with an echo effect. The same change occurs in the recapitulation.

This note should be b'. In view of the many markings in the part, it seems odd that David did not correct this. He can hardly have played g', which makes the first half of the bar an implausible unison.

Here, where a page turn is necessary, David wrote the first bar of the next page as a reminder. See next image for a close up.

This cres. marking, with f 2 bars later, followed by p in the next bar, adds greater subtlety to the dynamic scheme.

This passage was originally left in 1st position; the added fingering here, with an expressive portament 4th-finger shift in the first bar, a change to 5th position on the D-string several notes later and the performance of the following bars on the G string with 3 bows on the sustained g', gives it a very different character.

The pencil bowing marks, bar numbers and other pencilled annotations in this movement are undoubtedly in the hand of a late 20th/early 21st century pupil of Uppingham School.

David's bowing is clearly meant to be executed with a series of short, martelé style, up-bows beginning near the point of the bow. This style of bowing, which is essentially alien to modern (2013) mainstream performing practice in such contexts, was generally replaced by an off-string bowing in the lower half of the bow during the course of the 20th century (as already suggested by Schnirlin's bowing in the Neue Weg). It is the springing style of bowing that is suggested by the school pupil's pencil bowing signs.

This long up-bow will have been performed with the minimum amount of bow possible, so that the second bar is still executed near the middle of the bow. David's intention to keep the bow in the upper half is demonstrated by his alteration to the bowing in the third bar of the next stave, which is intended to bring the bow nearer to the heel in preparation for the forte two bars later.

This use of a succession of conjunct notes played with the same finger is very typical for David and other mid 19th-century violinists. It is noteworthy that in this case he originally intended it to continue for two more repetitions of the figure, arriving at the new position required for the following bar, but that he later changed his mind and remained in 5th position until the return of the theme.

David's division of his long printed bowings here and elsewhere may suggest that such long bows were often regarded as impractical and that very long bows (for instance in David's edition of Beethoven's Violin Sonata Op.12, No. 3, 6 bars from the end of the Adagio con molt' espressione, and earlier in that movement), were often divided in performance.

This pencilled p and several other pencil markings towards the end of the piece are certainly David's, representing a second phase of revision, since they sometimes cross out the blue crayon markings.

This was clearly intended to be played with a festes Staccato beginning right at the point of the bow.

Although David only used blue crayon to emphasise the first and last 1, it seems clear, since he did not indicate a 2 on the b flat, that he used his printed fingering with successive 1st fingers on all four notes.

This and the similar figures that follow, were also undoubtedly intended to be played with a festes Staccato near the point of the bow.

The fingering here strongly suggests an expressive portamento.

The crayon changes are intended to enable a same finger portamento.

Here David has cancelled the 4-4 fingering that he appears to have retained on the earlier appearance of this figure.

Here David appears to have changed his mind several times about the dynamic scheme. In the end he seems to have wanted the coda pp but not tranquillo.

Pencil markings in this movement evidently followed a phase of blue crayon markings.

David sketched a short cadenza here, which was later copied onto a stave of manuscript paper and pasted over the original. He also sketched an ornamental ending to the trill in the margin next to the bar with the fermatas (at the end of the third stave from the foot of the page).

The bowing appears once more to indicate that the passage is played towards the point of the bow. In Mozart's original all David's quavers followed by rests in the theme are crotchets, with staccato marks on all four beats.

David’s crayon dynamics on p.12 s.1 elicit a more sharply characterised delivery than the printed ones. His bowing change ensures that the weight is laid on the 2nd and 4th beats with the notes on the metrically strong beats being delivered lightly at the point of the bow.

David marked a ritardando for the repeat of this section (2t[es] mal rit).

David preferred the security of intonation facilitated by remaining in position here, even though it meant altering Mozart's notation.

David evidently considered using a succession of up-bows here, undoubtedly in the upper half of the bow, but later rejected it. He pursued the idea, however in the following bars, bringing the bow to the heel for the final forte chords.

Pencil markings here and elsewhere in the movement were evidently added by a pupil at Uppingham School.

This NB, clearly in David's hand, and another at the repetition of this passage later in the movement, probably reflects the likelihood that the 3rd beat will be slightly delay because of the violin's leap from a high note at the end of its eight 1/16ths on the first two beats of the bar to its low sf 1/4 on the 3rd beat.

David's alteration to the rhythmic pattern in these bars (later deleted) is just visible. He changed the repeated notes into a syncopated pattern. In the first bar he marked separate 1/8th stems on the 1st and 6th 1/8ths, and deleted the 2nd and 4th 1/8ths, converting the 3rd and 5th into 1/4s. In the second bar he tied the 1st 1/8th to the last one of the preceding bar, deleted the 2nd, converted the 3rd to a 1/4 then slurred the 4th and 5th.

David added this to facilitate the page turn.

bleiben (remain in position).

See the note on the NB on the previous page.

As in the first occurrence of this material in the exposition, David converted the repeated notes into a syncopated pattern, but this was then erased. See the earlier passage for a more detailed note.

Once again David shows that he is perfectly happy to modify Mozart's notation for what he considered a better effect.

This alternative pizzicato version of the Andante, in David's autograph, has been pasted over Mozart's original. It is probably connected with the Gewandhaus performance in November 1870 in which David apparently played the viola part.

2 mall rit. (2nd time rit.)

Pencil markings by a 20th/21st-century Uppingham School pupil.