Abstract
Phrasing is a particular segmentation of the musical fabric. Articulation is the factor of expression, according to whose laws the individual parts of a phrase are combined or separated. The views of H. Riemann and H. Keller on the difference between articulation and phrasing. Articulatory slurs: legato slurs, slurs of phrasing and structural slurs. Articulatory purpose (I. Braudo).
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
In a general sense articulation is understood as the combining or separation of sounds. Since phrasing is also defined by reference to the same actions, the question arises, what is the difference between these actions? Hugo Riemann states that articulation is “something purely technical, mechanical,” whilst phrasing is “something ideal, perceptionable (perceptionelles).”Footnote 1
Phrasing is understood as a particular segmentation of the musical fabric. Just as in written language, individual sentences are separated by punctuation marks, so in musical language the beginning and end of a phrase must be clearly recognisable. This must be registered by appropriate signs and heard in the process of performance. Articulation is the factor of expression, according to whose laws the individual parts of a phrase, that is, the tones themselves, are combined or separated.
Phrasing is good when the musical idea, though composed of equally or distinctly articulated parts, is perceived as a closed, concentrated unity. Articulation is good when the idea is declared in a way appropriate to its content and each tone is matched by a certain combining or separating attack (manner of touch), as is necessary only for the occasion. “Just as phrasing establishes the course of ideas, articulation determines the ways of expressing the melody through the use of legato and staccato.”Footnote 2
One should be aware that there is no phrasing without articulation. In fact, intonation gives birth to phrasing, and this, in turn, generates its own articulation. First comes understanding, then expression—this is a further example of binary character.
For the purpose of phrasing, articulatory slurs are very important. There are three types:
-
1.
legato slurs indicate the general nature of the connectivity of performance, without marking the contours of the phrases;
-
2.
slurs of phrasing embrace and denote a phrase as a particular unit of the whole, whether or not the phrase contains pauses;
-
3.
structural slurs emphasise a certain segmentation of the tones, a periodical quality, which can be attributed to melodic and rhythmic factors.
Articulatory techniques are to be used with particular sensitivity and precision. One needs to use the tongue when playing wind instruments and when articulating consonants and vowels in vocal music; and one needs to regulate the dynamics of the movement of the bow when playing string instruments, and the nature of the touché (from the French, toucher, to touch) when playing the piano. The slightest deviation from the articulatory stroke dictated by the intonation obscures the desired meaningfulness of expression. The famous “barely,” which is so important in all arts, very clearly demonstrates its importance in musical articulation. An understanding of its rules helps to inject the idea into the acts of sound expression.
If, starting from the very first, seemingly only technical, acts, the ability to seek and find meaning in them is developed through training, this skill will accompany the musician throughout their life. But if the performer is accustomed to ignoring meaning in the first acts of playing, it will not be easy for them to penetrate the meaning of those tasks which they will encounter at the next stages of their training. What would a work mean outside vibrant rhythm, outside dynamics, outside colour? Alas, how often do we hear playing devoid of any articulatory purpose, senseless and clumsy in its very foundation, that is, in the seizing and letting go of the tone.Footnote 3
Notes
- 1.
Hugo Riemann, Musik-Lexikon (Leipzig: Max Hesse Verlag, 1894), see ‘articulation’, p. 48; Hugo Riemann, Dictionary of Music, tr. John S. Shedlock (London: Augener, 1908), see ‘articulation’, p. 37.
- 2.
Hermann Keller, Die Kunst des Orgelspiels (Leipzig: Peters, 1941), 70.
- 3.
Braudo, Артикуляция [Articulation], 196–197.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rimas, J., Rimas Jr, J. (2024). The Difference Between Articulation and Phrasing. In: Etudes on the Philosophy of Music. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63965-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63965-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-63964-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-63965-4
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)