#32: Bowing, unevenness, and ensemble
Section 4: Antonin Dvořák – String Quartet Op.96, iv. Vivace, ma non troppo
The inner parts are not consistently synchronised in the opening paragraph of this movement, despite what looks like an obvious ‘binding’ in the notation. One should see this in the context of their embracing physical instability in the bow (#31), which may have been a strategy for creating extra energy: it gives the impression of acceleration, but without actually getting faster. In terms of ensemble, it is also significant that the two players perform this stroke in exactly the same way, but not always at the same time. In this kind of ‘togetherness’, then, the players’ creative impulses are operating intensely collectively – to the extent that the two are almost ‘fused’ in their manner – and yet this could always be quite independent, in principle, from strict ‘between-player synchronisation’. In part because of the physical behaviour of the bow here – the sense of being constantly on the edge of losing the balance of the stroke – the effect is a curious combination of fragility, poise, and conviction. It is certainly anything but routine. This also gives a sense of how far specificity is inherent to a style that embraces unevenness (or ‘inégale’). The experiment suggested that we cannot explain this aspect of their playing by asserting that they were ‘less concerned with evenness’ than modern performers. Not only are they very rhythmically consistent in many situations – witness b.146-156 – that diagnosis is once again conceptualised in terms of an absence, and so will neglect the qualitative and metaphorical dimensions of their search for specificity. To speak in terms of absences or deficiencies is an easier method of retrospective categorisation, but it is practically meaningless to a performer, because it does not reflect what making music is like, whether in the present or the past.
