Historically Informed Performance
As mentioned earlier, it must be stressed that timpani (including the heads) have gone through an evolutionary process, as have all musical instruments, so it is impractical to try and define a period sound that fits all 16th through 19th century stylistic periods (see Evolution of Timpani Pitch). Since the actual performance sound of early timpani is open to speculation, even modern replicas are only an approximation and may not be appropriate for all situations if you are truly wanting to create a specific or regional period sound. The term Baroque timpani is often misused today when describing modern replicas that have T-handles, let alone a chain or belt driven tuning system equipped with modern natural skin heads.
With that in mind, how does one begin to approach HIP? Do you need drums that employ Schalltrichter? What size of Schalltrichter is appropriate? What type of heads are appropriate? What sticks should one use? Where does one draw the line with HIP? Wherever one feels comfortable, both financially and musically. Period instruments (including true replicas) are very expensive so finding alternative solutions is usually the name of the game. It is all about the interpretation, the sound(s), and the effect(s) a timpanist (or in some cases, the conductor) want to create. First and foremost, the player needs to have a clear mental and aural concept of the sound that they want to create. The true artist then adjusts the instruments, sticks, technique, and their interpretation to fit the acoustics of the environment and the stylistic approach of the conductor in order to realize that sound. One may be able to simply pull a set of ornate wooden sticks out of their bag, and the conductor will be satisfied with your HIP interpretation, but the true artist digs deeper.
Having an understanding of how to stylistically interpret the music (which does influence the sound) is just as important as the concept of the sound (and look) that you want to create. Case in point, slashed note stems (indicating a specific rhythmic subdivision of the beat) and tremolo markings are often found in the same piece in much of the 16th-19th century timpani literature. A classic example of this can be found in the last measure of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. Is there any real difference between the sound of the two indications? Deletions and revisions in the manuscript seem to indicate Beethoven’s indecisiveness regarding how to notate the timpani part. What did Beethoven intend? What sound was he looking for?
Final measure of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5
This notation makes no sense to the modern timpanist when playing on modern timpani, but when this work was first performed in 1808, the size and power of the orchestra was much smaller as were the sizes of the timpani. The drums of Beethoven’s era were also equipped with much thicker heads, which produced less resonance and sustain; a much different sound envelope as it were. A note with a tremolo marking would often be interpreted as a multiple bounce roll (i.e., a buzz or press roll rather than the modern hand-to-hand interpretation), which was accepted as an appropriate interpretation for the time. This seems antithetical to the technical and interpretative standards for modern timpani performance, especially when using modern instruments.
How to interpret this notation continues to be a point of contention among world-class timpanists today. Some believe that it should be one continuous hand-to-hand roll in order to sustain the sound just as the other instruments are doing. Others believe that it should be two rolls; a slower hand-to-hand roll followed immediately by a hand-to-hand roll as fast as possible. Still others feel that should be a different type of the “two rolls” interpretation; a fast hand-to-hand roll “wurbel” followed by a multiple bounce or double stroke roll to sustain the sound. Yet another interpretation is to a fast hand-to-hand roll with an subito FF accent on the half note with the trill (see the Harnoncourt interpretation below) All interpretations will work, but is one better than the other? Instruments, acoustics, and performance practice preferences often dictate the situation.
One would think looking at critical or “Urtext editions” of this symphony would solve the problem. An urtext edition of a work of classical music is a printed version intended to reproduce the original intention of the composer as exactly as possible, without any added or changed material, free of editorial interpretations or interpolations.
However, two recent urtext editions by renowned Beethoven scholars have conflicting interpretations of what is on the manuscript. Jonathan Del Mar’s urtext edition (published by Barenreiter) has it simply as a whole note trill.
Clive Brown’s urtext edition (published by Breitkopf and Hartel) has followed the traditional notation of a slashed stemmed half note and a trilled half note. Can they both be correct? There are no rules, only opinions and conjecture, consequently, a scholarly approach is always encouraged when when pursuing HIP practices. However, when even the best scholars don’t agree, the timpanist must make his/her own decision. (see Urtext Myths 3- You’re seeing exactly what the composer wrote: By Kenneth Woods)
No matter how you decide to interpret the measure, there is no right or wrong way. This author rather enjoys the Nikolaus Harnoncourt rendition below. However, when the author performs this symphony, they prefer to do a simple roll as in the Jonathan Del Mar edition, no matter what is written in the part.
Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 5 in C minor Op. 67/Nikolaus Harnoncourt
Concentus Musicus Wien dir. Nikolaus Harnoncourt